Clinical and angiographic outcomes with an everolimus‐eluting stent in large coronary arteries: The SPIRIT III 4.0 mm registry

Objective : This study evaluates the safety and efficacy of the XIENCE V® 4.0 mm stent for the treatment of de novo native coronary artery lesions. Background : In the SPIRIT III trial, the XIENCE V® everolimus‐eluting stent (EES), compared with the TAXUS EXPRESS² paclitaxel‐eluting stent (PES) in 2.5–3.75 mm diameter coronary arteries, resulted in reduced angiographic late loss (LL), noninferior rates of target vessel failure (TVF), and fewer major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Methods : The SPIRIT III 4.0 mm registry was a concurrent arm of the SPIRIT III trial consisting of 69 nonrandomized patients with lesions ≤28 mm in length and reference vessel diameter 3.75–4.25 mm treated with a 4.0 mm EES. The primary endpoint was 8‐month in‐segment LL compared with the randomized PES arm. Results : In‐segment LL was 0.17 ± 0.38 mm in the 4.0 mm EES registry compared with 0.28 ± 0.48 mm in the PES arm (P < 0.0001 for noninferiority). The 1‐year rates of ischemia‐driven TVF (cardiac death, myocardial infarction [MI], or target vessel revascularization) and MACE (cardiac death, MI, or target lesion revascularization [TLR]) were numerically, but not statistically, lower in the 4.0 mm EES patients compared with the randomized PES patients (5.9 vs. 11.3%, P = 0.27 and 5.9 vs. 10.3%, P = 0.36, respectively). There was no difference in 8‐month LL or 1‐year TVF or MACE between the 4.0 mm EES and randomized EES patients. Conclusions : In large coronary arteries, the 4.0 mm EES results in low rates of LL at 8 months and adverse clinical events at 1 year. © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Four‐year clinical follow‐up of the XIENCE V everolimus‐eluting coronary stent system in the treatment of patients with de novo coronary artery lesions: The SPIRIT II trial

This report describes the 4‐year clinical outcomes of the SPIRIT II study, which randomized 300 patients to treatment with the XIENCE V everolimus‐eluting stent (EES), or the TAXUS paclitaxel‐eluting stent. At 4‐year clinical follow‐up, which was available in 256 (85.3%) patients, treatment with EES lead to a trend for lower rates of ischemia‐driven major adverse cardiovascular events, a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and ischemia‐driven target lesion revascularization (EES 7.7% vs. paclitaxel‐eluting stent 16.4%, P = 0.056). Treatment with EES also resulted in a trend toward lower rates of cardiac death and numerically lower rates of myocardial infarction, ischemia‐driven target lesion revascularization, and stent thrombosis. Overall, this study reports numerically fewer clinical events in patients treated with EES at 4‐year follow‐up, which is consistent with results from earlier follow‐up. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Two‐year outcomes after deployment of XIENCE V everolimus‐eluting stents in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention of bifurcation lesions: A report from the SPIRIT V single arm study

The aim of this analysis was to analyze outcomes of patients undergoing Xience V EES treatment of bifurcation lesions, a subset in which treatment is particularly challenging. The SPIRIT V Study provided an evaluation of the Xience V everolimus eluting stent (EES) performance in complex patient and lesion population. The SPIRIT V Single Arm Study enrolled 2700 patients with de novo coronary artery lesions suitable to be optimally treated with a maximum of four planned Xience V EES. Lesion evaluation was by visual assessment. The outcomes of the 492 patients undergoing Xience V EES stenting of ≥1 bifurcation lesion were compared to those with no bifurcation lesion treated. Compared to those without bifurcation treatment, patients with bifurcation treatment were more likely to have multi‐vessel disease (49% vs 40%), left main treatment (3.1% vs 0.9%), more lesions treated (1.5 vs 1.3), calcification (36.4% vs 27.5%), and ostial (17.1% vs 8.2%) and angulated lesions (29.3% vs 21.1%), all P < 0.001. The 30‐day composite rate of death, myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularization (TVR) was 4.3% in patients with bifurcation PCI and 2.2% in those with non‐bifurcation PCI (P = 0.017). At 2 years, this composite event rate was 11.3% and 10.0% in these two groups, respectively (P = 0.403). Rates of cardiac death, MI, target lesion revascularization (TLR), TVR, and ARC defined definite or probable stent thrombosis (0.4% vs 0.9%, P = 0.402) were not significantly different between the two groups. Despite greater patient and lesion complexity, treatment of patients with bifurcation lesions using the Xience V EES in the SPIRIT V prospective Single Arm Study was safe and effective, with low overall event rates that were similar to those without bifurcation lesion treatment. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Comparison of in vivo acute stent recoil between the bioresorbable everolimus‐eluting coronary scaffolds (revision 1.0 and 1.1) and the metallic everolimus‐eluting stent

Objectives : The ABSORB cohort A trial using the bioresorbable everolimus‐eluting scaffold (BVS revision 1.0, Abbott Vascular) demonstrated a slightly higher acute recoil with BVS than with metallic stents. To reinforce the mechanical strength of the scaffold, the new BVS scaffold (revision 1.1) with modified strut design was developed and tested in the ABSORB cohort B trial. This study sought to evaluate and compare the in vivo acute scaffold recoil of the BVS revision 1.0 in ABSORB cohort A and the BVS revision 1.1 in ABSORB cohort B with the historical recoil of the XIENCE V® everolimus‐eluting metal stent (EES, SPIRIT I and II). Methods : In the ABSORB cohort B trial, 101 patients with one or two de‐novo lesions were enrolled at 10 sites. In ABSORB cohort A, 27 patients treated with a BVS 1.0 were analyzed and compared with EES. Acute absolute recoil, assessed by quantitative coronary angiography, was defined as the difference between mean diameter of the last inflated balloon at the highest pressure (X) and mean lumen diameter of the stent immediately after the last balloon deflation (Y). Acute percent recoil was defined as (X ‐ Y)/X and expressed as a percentage. Results : Out of 101 patients enrolled in the ABSORB cohort B trial, 88 patients are available for complete analysis of acute recoil. Absolute recoil of BVS 1.1 (0.19 ± 0.18 mm) was numerically higher than metallic EES (vs. 0.13 ± 0.21 mm) and similar to BVS 1.0 (0.20 ± 0.21 mm) but the differences did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.40). The acute percent recoil demonstrated the same trend (EES: 4.3% ± 7.1%, BVS 1.0: 6.9% ± 7.0%, BVS 1.1: 6.7% ± 6.4%, P = 0.22). In the multivariate regression model, high balloon/artery ratio (>1.1) (OR 1.91 [1.34–2.71]) was the predictive for high absolute recoil (>0.27 mm) while (larger) preprocedural MLD was protective (OR 0.84 [0.72–0.99]). The stent/scaffold type was not a predictor of acute recoil. Conclusions : The average in vivo acute scaffold recoil of the BVS 1.1 is slightly higher than the metallic EES. However, the scaffold/stent type was not predictive of high acute recoil, while implantation in undersized vessels or usage of oversized devices might confound the results. © 2011 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Five‐year clinical outcomes of sirolimus‐eluting versus paclitaxel‐eluting stents in high‐risk patients

Objectives and Background : First generation drug‐eluting stents have shown differential efficacy in high‐risk patient subsets at one year. It is unclear whether these differences endure over the medium‐ to long‐term. We compared the five‐year clinical efficacy and safety of sirolimus‐eluting stents (SES) and paclitaxel‐eluting stents (PES) in a population of high‐risk patients. Methods : The patient cohorts of the ISAR‐DESIRE, ISAR‐DIABETES, and ISAR‐SMART‐3 randomized trials were followed up for five years and data were pooled. The primary efficacy endpoint of the analysis was the need for target lesion revascularization (TLR) during a five‐year follow‐up period. The primary safety endpoint was the combination of death or myocardial infarction (MI) after five years. Results : A total of 810 patients (405 patients in the SES group and 405 patients in the PES group) was included. Over five years TLR was reduced by 39% with SES compared with PES stent (hazard ratio [HR] 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.44–0.85; P = 0.004). No difference was observed according to death or MI rates between the two groups (HR 1.10; 95% CI 0.80–1.50; P = 0.57). Definite stent thrombosis occurred in 0.2% (n = 1) in the SES group and in 1.6% (n = 6) in the PES group (HR 0.16; 95% CI 0.02–1.34; P = 0.12). Conclusions : In high‐risk patient subsets the lower rate of 12‐month TLR observed with SES in comparison PES is maintained out to five years. In terms of safety, although there was no difference in the overall incidence of death or MI, there was a trend towards more frequent stent thromboses with PES. © 2011 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Sirolimus‐ versus paclitaxel‐eluting stents for coronary bifurcations intervention

Backgrounds : Relative efficacy and safety of sirolimus‐eluting stents (SES) compared with paclitaxel‐eluting stents (PES) remains controversial. It is unknown whether there are different effect and safety in coronary bifurcation treatment between SES and PES. Objectives : The meta‐analysis was performed to compare the clinical outcomes of SES and PES in coronary bifurcation intervention. Methods : Five head‐to‐head clinical trials of SES versus PES in coronary bifurcation intervention were included. A total of 2,567 patients were involved in the meta‐analysis. Mean follow‐up period ranged from 6 to 35 months. The primary end points were the need for target lesion revascularization (TLR) and main‐branch restenosis. Secondary end points were target vessel revascularization (TVR), cardiac death, major adverse cardiac events (MACE), and stent thrombosis. Results : Compared with PES, SES significantly reduced the risk of TLR (5.3% vs. 10.6%, odds ratio (OR) 0.52; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.38–0.70, P < 0.001), main‐branch restenosis (4.59% vs. 12.59%, OR 0.31; 95% CI = 0.18–0.55, P < 0.001) and TVR (7.05% vs. 12.57%, OR 0.58; 95% CI = 0.42–0.81, P = 0.001) in coronary bifurcation intervention. In addition, SES group also had a significantly lower incidence of MACE (8.20% vs. 14.13%, OR 0.58; 95% CI = 0.40–0.84, P = 0.004) than PES group. However, there were no statistical difference with respect to the incidence of cardiac death (1.64% vs. 1.09%, P = 0.19) and stent thrombosis (0.84% vs. 1.08%, P = 0.64) between SES and PES groups. Conclusions : Compared with PES, SES reduced the incidence of TLR, main‐branch restenosis and MACE in coronary bifurcation intervention, while the risk of stent thrombosis was similar between SES and PES groups. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Performance of everolimus-eluting versus paclitaxel-eluting coronary stents in small vessels: results from the SPIRIT III and SPIRIT IV clinical trials

Background: Higher rates of adverse cardiac events have been observed in patients with small vessel disease. Therefore, we compared an everolimus‐eluting stent (EES) to a paclitaxel‐eluting stent (PES) for treatment of small (reference vessel diameter: RVD <2.5 mm) and larger vessels (≥2.5 mm) in a pooled analysis from the SPIRIT III (n = 1,002) and SPIRIT IV (n = 3,687) trials (randomized 2:1, EES vs. PES). Methods: Data of 4,689 total patients were pooled for a patient level analysis. Lesion length, RVD, and percent diabetics were matched between stent types. EES versus PES performance was evaluated at 1 year in patients with small (n = 1,019) and larger vessels (n = 2,586) who had a single lesion treated. Results: Mean RVD assessed by quantitative coronary angiography in patients with small vessels was 2.24 ± 0.19 and 2.25 ± 0.20 mm in the EES and PES groups, respectively. At 1 year, EES compared to PES in small vessel patients significantly reduced major adverse cardiac events (4.5% vs. 7.9%, P = 0.04), target lesion failure (4.4% vs. 7.9%, P = 0.03), target lesion revascularization (2.4% vs. 5.5%, P = 0.02), and stent thrombosis (0.2% vs. 1.2%, P = 0.04). Relative benefits of EES versus PES were comparable in small and larger vessels (P interaction > 0.05), although the absolute benefits were greater in patients with small vessel disease. Conclusion: In high‐risk patients requiring percutaneous coronary intervention in small coronary arteries, EES results in significantly improved 1‐year rates of event‐free survival compared to PES, with evidence present for both enhanced safety and efficacy. (J Interven Cardiol 2011;24:505–513)     

Comparison of a polymer‐free rapamycin‐eluting stent (YUKON) with a polymer‐based paclitaxel‐eluting stent (TAXUS) in real‐world coronary artery lesions

Background : In selected patient cohorts the polymer‐free rapamycin‐eluting YUKON stent (A) has demonstrated noninferiority compared with the polymer‐based paclitaxel‐eluting TAXUS stent (B). To test for equivalency in unselected real‐world patients with coronary lesions of various complexities, we retrospectively compared both stent designs. Methods : A total of 410 patients with symptomatic CAD were successfully treated with A (n = 205) or with B (n = 205). Baseline clinical characteristics, coronary lesion location, lesion length, and the number of stents implanted per lesion were equally distributed between the treatment groups. All patients underwent QCA‐analysis at baseline. Clinical follow‐up with assessment of MACE and noncardiac deaths was obtained at 30 days and 6 months. Results : Nominal stent diameter was 2.96 ± 0.38 mm in Group A vs. 3.05 ± 0.42 mm in Group B (P = 0.2); nominal length of stented segmentwas 22.97 ±13.0 mm vs. 23.63 ± 10.0 (P = 0.56). Analysis of MACE after 6 months resulted in one angiographically documented stent thrombosis causing MI in B (0.2%) vs. none in A. No other MI or cardiac deaths occurred in either group, while two noncardiac deaths in A (1.0%) were reported. Fifteen target lesion revascularizations (7.3%) were performed in A vs. 7 (3.4%) in B. Differences in study endpoints at 6 months did not reach statistical significance (P > 0.05). Conclusions : Up to 6 months after PCI of real‐world coronary lesions, there were no statistically significant differences in MACE between patients treated with the polymer‐free rapamycin‐eluting YUKON stent and the polymer‐based paclitaxel‐eluting TAXUS stent. © 2008 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Comparison of zotarolimus‐ versus everolimus‐eluting stents in the treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions

Objectives : To compare zotarolimus‐eluting stent (Endeavor Sprint®; ZES‐S) and the everolimus‐eluting stent (Xience V®; EES) in the treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions Background : Both these stents have demonstrated good outcomes in the treatment of coronary lesions. However, the outcomes with respect to treatment of bifurcation lesions have yet to be conclusively demonstrated. Methods : In this single centered, nonrandomized, open label study, we treated, between August 2006 and December 2008, 110 bifurcations with ZES‐S and, in a second stage of the study, 129 bifurcations with EES. The primary end point was to compare the rate of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (death, myocardial infarction, and new target lesion revascularization) in‐hospital and at 12 months of follow‐up. Provisional T stenting was the strategy used in the majority of cases. Angiographic follow‐up was performed only in patients who presented signs or symptoms suggestive of angina or ischemia. Results : There were no significant differences in in‐hospital MACE between the groups (ZES‐S: 8.1%; EES: 6.2%; P = 0.5). At 12 months, the ZES‐S group had significantly more MACE than the EES group (23.1% vs. 4.5%; P < 0.001) and an elevated index of new revascularization of the bifurcation (17.5% vs. 3.2%; P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in mortality (four patients in ZES‐S vs. one in EES; P = 0.14). Conclusion : The treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions using everolimus‐eluting stents results in better outcomes at 12 months of follow‐up than zotarolimus‐eluting stents. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Comparison of 2‐year outcomes between zotarolimus‐eluting and everolimus‐eluting new‐generation cobalt–chromium alloy stents in real‐world diabetic patients

Background : To date, it remains unknown whether different types of new‐generation drug‐eluting stents have a differential impact on long‐term outcomes in diabetic patients. Methods and Results : In this historical cohort study (two Italian centers), we analyzed 400 diabetic patients with 553 coronary lesions treated with new‐generation CoCr zotarolimus‐eluting stents (R‐ZES: 136 patients, 196 lesions) or everolimus‐eluting stents (EES: 264 patients, 357 lesions) between October 2006 and August 2012. Primary endpoint was the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) over a 2‐year follow‐up period. MACE was defined as all‐cause mortality, any myocardial infarction (MI) and/or target lesion revascularization (TLR). Multivessel revascularization, intervention for restenotic lesion and use of intravascular ultrasound were significantly higher in the R‐ZES group, whereas small stent (≤2.5 mm) deployment was significantly higher in the EES group. At 2‐year follow‐up, there was no significant difference in occurrence of MACE (R‐ZES vs EES: 22.8% vs 18.9%, P = 0.39). Similarly, no significant differences were observed in the composite endpoint of all‐cause mortality/MI (10.0% vs 10.3%, P = 0.86) or TLR (12.4% vs 7.4%, P = 0.11). Adjustment for confounders and baseline propensity‐score matching did not alter the aforementioned associations. Conclusion : After 2 years of follow up similar outcomes (MACE, all‐cause mortality/MI, TLR) were observed in real‐world diabetic patients, including those with complex lesions and patient characteristics, treated with R‐ZES and EES. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Everolimus‐Eluting Stents Versus Sirolimus‐ or Paclitaxel‐Eluting Stents: Two‐Year Results from the Guthrie Health Off‐Label Stent (GHOST) Registry

Objectives

We sought to compare the safety and effectiveness of everolimus‐eluting stents (EES) versus first generation drug‐eluting stents (FG‐DES; sirolimus‐eluting stent [SES] or paclitaxel‐eluting stent [PES]).

Methods

In 2,126 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), we compared the 2‐year incidence of stent thrombosis (ST) and target vessel revascularization (TVR) between the EES versus FG‐DES groups. Secondary end‐points included all‐cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), death or MI, and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE, including death, MI, ST, or TVR). Further, we evaluated these end‐points in 2 propensity‐matched subgroups: EES versus SES; EES versus PES.

Results

Complete 2‐year follow‐up was available in 1,911 (90%) patients. Compared to FG‐DES, implantation of EES was associated with trends towards lower ST (0.9% vs. 2.8%, P = 0.068) and TVR (3.8% vs. 7.2%, P = 0.052), which persisted after adjustment for baseline differences (for ST, adjusted hazard ratio, HR 0.32; 95% confidence interval, 95% CI 0.10–1.02, P = 0.053; for TVR, HR 0.40; 95% CI 0.22–0.75, P = 0.004). Compared to SES, EES implantation was associated with lower TVR and a trend towards lower ST. Compared to PES, EES implantation was associated with less ST and TVR and trends towards lower death/MI and MACE. In the EES group, no ST was seen after the first 3 months.

Conclusions

The use of EES compared to FG‐DES appears to be associated with reductions in ST and TVR at 2‐year follow‐up. Improved outcomes with EES are observed in comparison with SES as well as PES. (J Interven Cardiol 2013;26:153–162)

     

Efficacy of everolimus eluting stent implantation in patients with calcified coronary culprit lesions: Two‐year angiographic and three‐year clinical results from the SPIRIT II study

Background : Little is known about the impact of treatment with drug‐eluting stents (DES) on calcified coronary lesions. This analysis sought to assess the safety and efficacy of the XIENCE V everolimus‐eluting stent (EES) in patients with calcified or noncalcified culprit lesions. Methods : The study population consisted of 212 patients with 247 lesions, who were treated with EES alone. Target lesions were angiographically classified as none/mild, moderate, or severe grades of calcification. The population was divided into two groups: those with at least one target lesion moderately or severely calcified (the calcified group: 68 patients with 75 calcified lesions) and those with all target lesions having mild or no calcification (the noncalcified group: 144 patients). Six‐month and 2‐year angiographic follow‐up and clinical follow‐up up to 3 years were completed. Results : The baseline characteristics were not significantly different between both groups. When compared with the noncalcified group, the calcified group had significantly higher rates of 6‐month in‐stent angiographic binary restenosis (ABR, 4.3% vs. 0%, P = 0.03) and ischemia‐driven target lesion revascularization (ID‐TLR, 5.9% vs. 0%, P = 0.01), resulting in numerically higher major cardiac adverse events (MACE, 5.9% vs. 1.4%, P = 0.09). At 2 years, when compared with the noncalcified group, the calcified group presented higher in‐stent ABR (7.4% vs. 0%, P = 0.08) and ID‐TLR (7.8% vs. 1.5%, P = 0.03), resulting in numerically higher MACE (10.9% vs. 4.4%, P = 0.12). At 3 years, ID‐TLR tended to be higher in the calcified group than in the noncalcified group (8.6% vs. 2.4%, P = 0.11), resulting in numerically higher MACE (12.1% vs. 4.7%, P = 0.12). Conclusions: The MACE rates in patients treated with EES for calcified lesions were higher than in those for noncalcified lesions, but remained lower than the results of previously reported stent studies. EES implantation in patients with calcified culprit lesions was safe and associated with favorable reduction of restenosis and repeat revascularization. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Sustained Low Clinical Event Rates in Real‐World Patients Receiving Everolimus‐Eluting Coronary Stent System from a Large,Prospective, Condition of Approval Study: 2‐Year Clinical Outcomes from the XIENCE V® USA Study

Objectives: This 2‐year follow‐up of the XIENCE V^® USA study examines both the long‐term safety and effectiveness of the everolimus‐eluting coronary stent system (EECSS) in real‐world patients. Background: The safety and effectiveness of EECSS at 1 year in real‐world clinical settings have been demonstrated in XIENCE V^® USA trial with low rates of target lesion revascularization (TLR), cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), and stent thrombosis (ST). Data on whether efficacy is maintained after 1 year and the event rate of very late stent thrombosis (VLST) between 1 and 2 years have not yet been reported. Methods: XIENCE V^® USA is a prospective, multicenter, single‐arm, FDA required condition of approval study designed to examine the safety and effectiveness of EECSS in an all‐inclusive, consecutively enrolled population from real‐world clinical settings. Clinical end‐point events, including ST, cardiac death, MI, and revascularization were adjudicated by an independent Clinical Events Committee. Results: Four thousand eight hundred and seventy‐three (96.4%) out of 5,054 participants (1,875 standard‐risk; 3,059 extended‐risk) reached 2‐year follow‐up. The 2‐year rate of Academic Research Consortium (ARC)‐defined definite and probable ST was 0.96% (95% CI 0.70–1.28) in the overall population and 0.34% (95% CI 0.12–0.74) and 1.33% (95% CI 0.95–1.81) in the standard‐risk and extended‐risk cohorts, respectively. The rate of VLST was 0.06% in the overall population, 0.0% in the standard‐risk, and 0.10% in the extended‐risk cohorts. The 2‐year composite rate of cardiac death and ARC‐defined MI was 8.9% (95% CI 8.08–9.70) in the overall population and 5.6% (95% CI 4.61–6.78) and 10.8% (95% CI 9.71–11.94) in the standard‐risk and extended‐risk cohorts, respectively. Conclusion: Low event rates observed at 1 year were maintained through 2 years. Despite the increased number of patients who discontinued dual antiplatelet therapy by 2 years, the ST rate remained consistently low, and <1% at 2 years due to low VLST occurrence. These results demonstrate continued safety and effectiveness of the XIENCE V^® everolimus‐eluting stent in a highly complex, real‐world patient population through 2 years. (J Interven Cardiol 2012;25:565–575)     

Comparison of clinical outcomes of coronary artery stent implantation in patients with end‐stage chronic kidney disease including hemodialysis for three everolimus eluting (EES) stent designs: Bioresorbable polymer‐EES,platinum chromium‐EES,and cobalt chrome‐EES

Backgrounds

New‐generation bioresorbable polymer‐everolimus eluting stents (BP‐EES) are available. This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes for BP‐EES compared to more established stent designs, namely the platinum chromium‐EES (PtCr‐EES) and cobalt chrome‐EES(CoCr‐EES) in patients with the end‐stage chronic kidney disease (CKD) including hemodialysis (HD).

Methods

One‐hundred‐forty‐one consecutive stents (BP‐EES [n = 44], PtCr‐EES [n = 45], and CoCr‐EES [n = 52]) were implanted in 104 patients with CKD. All patients underwent a follow‐up coronary angiography at 12 months after implantation. End‐stage CKD was defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <30 mL/min/1.73 m², or the need for HD. The following outcome variables were compared among the three stent groups after implantation and the 12‐month follow‐up: target lesion revascularization (TLR), stent thrombosis (ST), and major adverse cardiac event (MACE). Minimal stent diameter (MSD) and %diameter‐stenosis (%DS) were measured using quantitative coronary angiography.

Results

The overall rate of TLR and MACE was 14.6% and 30.8%, respectively, with no incidence of ST. Immediately after implantation, the MSD (P = 0.22) and %DS (P = 0.42) were equivalent among the three groups. However, at the 12‐month follow‐up, a tendency towards higher TLR was observed for the BP‐EES group (22.7%) compared with the PtCr‐EES (8.8%) and CoCr‐EES (9.6%) groups (P = 0.07). Late loss in lumen diameter was also significantly greater for the BP‐EES (0.51 ± 0.64 mm) group than either the PtCr‐EES (0.20 ± 0.61 mm) and CoCr‐EES (0.25 ± 0.70 mm) groups (P = 0.03).

Conclusions

BP‐EES might increase the risk of in‐stent restenosis in patients with end‐stage of CKD or the need for HD.     

Three-year results of safety and efficacy of the everolimus-eluting coronary stent in women (from the SPIRIT III randomized clinical trial)

Women treated with the XIENCE V have improved 1-year clinical outcomes compared to women treated with TAXUS; whether benefits in women are sustained at 3 years is unknown. Three-year follow-up of the SPIRIT III trial revealed improved clinical outcomes of the XIENCE V everolimus-eluting stent compared to the TAXUS paclitaxel-eluting stent. One thousand two patients with coronary artery lesions ≤28 mm in length in 2.5- to 3.75-mm diameter vessels were prospectively randomized to receive XIENCE V or TAXUS stents. A post hoc gender subset analysis was performed. Six hundred sixty-nine patients (30% women) received XIENCE V and 332 patients (34% women) received TAXUS. In the overall population, women had higher 3-year rates of major adverse cardiac events (16.0% vs 10.0%, p = 0.01) and target lesion revascularization (10.2% vs 5.3%, p = 0.008) compared to men. In women, those with XIENCE V continued to have lower major adverse cardiac event rates than those with TAXUS at 2 years (9.5% vs 18.3%, p = 0.03) and 3 years (12.2% vs 22.6%, p = 0.03). Although 1-year target vessel failure rates were similar, at 2- and 3-year follow-up women treated with XIENCE V had approximately 40% relative decreases in target vessel failure rates compared to those treated with TAXUS (12.7% vs 22.0%, p = 0.05; 16.0% vs 26.4%, p = 0.03, respectively). Stent thrombosis and bleeding complication rates were similar between treatment arms in the gender subgroups through 3 years. In conclusion, women in the SPIRIT III trial have sustained clinical benefits from XIENCE V implantation compared to TAXUS without increases in long-term complications.     

The XIENCE nano™ everolimus eluting coronary stent system for the treatment of small coronary arteries: The SPIRIT small vessel trial

Objectives : The SPIRIT Small Vessel (SV) was designed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the 2.25‐mm XIENCE V everolimus eluting coronary stent system (EECSS), known as the XIENCE nano EECSS, in subjects with SVs and ischemic heart disease. Background : The core sizes of XIENCE V EECSS are associated with low rates of restenosis and thrombosis in the general population, but the XIENCE nano EECSS has not been tested in the United States. Methods : This prospective, single‐arm, open‐label study was conducted at 33 centers and in 150 patients in the United States. The primary endpoint was the target lesion failure (TLF) rate at 1 year, required to meet the prespecified performance goal (PG) of 20.4%, derived from historical data. Results : The mean patient age was 63 years, 38% were women, 39.2% were diabetic, 49.3% had multivessel disease, and the reference vessel diameter was 2.13 ± 0.23 mm. The 1‐year TLF rate was 8.1% in with an upper limit of the one‐sided 95% confidence interval of 13.0%, which met the PG of 20.4% (P < 0.0001). At 1 year, the rate of cardiac death was 1.5%, the target vessel myocardial infarction rate was 1.5%, and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization rate was 5.1%. The 8‐month angiographic in‐stent late loss was 0.2 ± 0.4 mm, respectively. The 1‐year academic research consortium defined definite/probable stent thrombosis rate was 1.5%. Conclusions : Based on the 1‐year clinical and 8‐month angiographic SPIRIT SV data, the XIENCE nano EECSS is considered safe and effective in the treatment of SVs. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Long-term (three-year) safety and efficacy of everolimus-eluting stents compared to paclitaxel-eluting stents (from the SPIRIT III Trial)

The safety and efficacy of the XIENCE V everolimus-eluting stent (EES) compared to the Taxus Express(2) paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) has been demonstrated through 2 years in the SPIRIT II and III randomized clinical trials, but limited longer-term data have been reported. In the SPIRIT III trial, 1,002 patients with up to 2 lesions in 2 coronary arteries were randomized 2:1 to EESs versus PESs at 65 United States sites. At completion of 3-year follow-up, treatment with EES compared to PES resulted in a significant 30% decrease in the primary clinical end point of target vessel failure (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or ischemic-driven target vessel revascularization, 13.5% vs 19.2%, hazard ratio 0.70, 95% confidence interval 0.50 to 0.96, p = 0.03) and a 43% decrease in major adverse cardiovascular events, cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or ischemic-driven target lesion revascularization (9.1% vs 15.7%, hazard ratio 0.57, 95% confidence interval 0.39 to 0.83, p = 0.003). In a landmark analysis, major adverse cardiovascular events were decreased to a similar extent with EES compared to PES 0 through 1 year and 1 year through 3 years (hazard ratio 0.56, 95% confidence interval 0.35 to 0.90; hazard ratio 0.59, 95% confidence interval 0.31 to 1.11, respectively). In conclusion, patients treated with EES rather than PES in the SPIRIT III trial had significantly improved event-free survival at 3 years. From 1 year to 3 years hazard curves continued to diverge in favor of EES, consistent with an improving long-term safety and efficacy profile of EES compared to PES, with no evidence of late catchup.     

Difference of neointimal growth patterns in bifurcation lesions among four kinds of drug‐eluting stents

Aim: Neointimal proliferation of bifurcation lesions after implantation of drug‐eluting stents (DES) has not been well evaluated. Thus, we compared neointimal proliferation of bifurcation lesions among four DES using optical coherence tomography (OCT). Methods: 8‐month follow‐up OCT was performed in 68 bifurcation lesions treated by 15 sirolimus‐eluting stents (SES) and 17 paclitaxel‐eluting stents (PES) as first‐generation DES, and by 17 zotarolimus‐eluting stents (ZES) and 19 everolimus‐eluting stents (EES) as second‐generation DES. Cross‐sectional images of the bifurcation lesion using OCT were analyzed every 450 µm. All images were divided into three areas: inner wall of the bifurcation (IB), outer wall of the bifurcation (OB), and ostium of the side branch (SB). We compared the incidence of uncovered struts (IUS) among three areas and the averaged neointimal thickness (NIH) between IB and OB in each stent and also compared these OCT parameters among all DES. Results: There were no significant differences of IUS between IB and OB in second‐generation DES, while in first‐generation DES, IUS of IB and OB showed significant differences. The IUS of SES in both areas was significantly higher than in the other DES (all P < 0.001). PES had a significantly higher IUS in SB than the others (all P < 0.001). NIH of OB was significantly higher than that of IB in PES, ZES, and EES, but in SES the NIH was similar in the two areas. Conclusions: OCT revealed different neointimal growth patterns among SES, PES, ZES, and EES in bifurcation lesions. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Comparison of three‐year clinical outcomes between sirolimus‐versus paclitaxel‐eluting stents in diabetic patients: Prospective randomized multicenter trial

Background : Three‐year follow‐up of major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) (death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization) and the predictors of MACEs in diabetic patients after sirolimus‐eluting stent (SES) or paclitaxel‐eluting stent (PES) implantation have not been reported. Methods : Diabetic patients with de novo coronary lesions (169 patients with 190 lesions) were randomly assigned prospectively to either SES or PES. Results : Baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. The rates of MACEs [5.9% (n = 5) in the SES vs. 9.5% (n = 8) in the PES Group, P = 0.374] and definite stent thrombosis [1.2% (n = 1) in the SES vs. 3.6% (n = 3) in the PES Group, P = 0.368] were similar in the two groups during the three‐year follow‐up. Multivariate logistic analysis showed that insulin treatment was the only independent predictor of MACE [odds ratio (OR) 8.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.25–22.76, P < 0.001] and target vessel revascularization (TVR) (OR 9.50, 95% CI 3.07–29.44, P < 0.001) during the three‐year follow‐up. Conclusions : The rates of MACEs, TVR, and stent thrombosis during the three‐year follow‐up were similar in the SES and PES Groups. Insulin treatment was a main predictor of MACEs and TVR during the three‐year follow‐up after either SES or PES implantation. © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Decreased risk of stent fracture‐related restenosis between paclitaxel‐eluting stents and sirolimus eluting stents: Results of long‐term follow‐up

Objective: To compare the outcomes between paclitaxel‐eluting stents (PES) and sirolimus‐eluting stents (SES) for the treatment of drug‐eluting stent (DES) fracture. Background: DES fracture is considered as an important predictor of in‐stent restenosis (ISR). However, little data are available evaluating the optimal treatment for this complication of coronary stenting. Methods: From January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2008, patients with DES ISR treated with a second DES were identified and evaluated for stent fracture. Stent fracture was defined by the presence of strut separation in multiple angiographic projections, assessed by two independent reviewers. Target lesion revascularization (TLR) at 6 and 12 months were the primary end points. Results: Of 131 lesions with DES ISR treated with a second DES, we found 24 patients (24 lesions, 18.2%) with angiographically confirmed stent fracture. Of these, 20 patients (20 lesions) treated with either PES (n = 11/55%) or SES (n = 9/45%) were included in the study. TLR at 6 months occurred in 9% of patients treated with PES and 22% of those treated with SES (P = 0.41). After 12 months, TLR was 9% and 55.5%, respectively (P = 0.024). Conclusions: This study demonstrates a high incidence of stent fracture in patients presenting with DES ISR in need of further treatment with another DES. The suggested association between treatment of stent fracture‐associated DES ISR with PES as compared with SES, and better long‐term outcomes, is in need of confirmation by larger prospective registries and randomized trials. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.