Angiographic outcomes with biodegradable polymer and permanent polymer drug‐eluting stents

Background : In the Intracoronary Stenting and Angiographic Results: Test Efficacy of 3 Limus‐Eluting Stents (ISAR‐TEST‐4) trial, we demonstrated the noninferiority of biodegradable polymer (BP) sirolimus‐eluting stent to permanent polymer (PP) sirolimus/everolimus‐eluting stent (Cypher/Xience‐V) on the basis of clinical outcomes. In this study, we compare the antirestenotic efficacy of these stents in ISAR‐TEST‐4 patients with paired angiographic studies. Methods : Patients with de novo coronary lesions in native vessels (excluding left main lesions) were randomly assigned to receive a BP stent or a PP stent. Endpoints of interest of this study were in‐stent late lumen loss, in‐segment binary restenosis, and restenosis morphology at 6–8‐month follow‐up angiogram. Results : Of the 2,603 patients (3,372 lesions) enrolled in ISAR TEST‐4 trial, 2,016 patients (2,637 lesions) underwent repeat angiographic examination 6–8 months after randomization: 1,006 patients (1,323 lesions) treated with BP stents and 1,010 patients (1,314 lesions) treated with PP stents. No difference was observed between BP and PP stents in in‐stent late lumen loss (0.24 ± 0.6 vs. 0.26 ± 0.5 mm, respectively, P = 0.49) or in in‐segment binary restenosis (11.6% [153 lesions] vs. 11.8% [155 lesions], P = 0.85). Focal pattern of restenosis was observed in the majority of patients receiving either BP or PP stents. The diffuse pattern of restenosis was observed in 26.8% of patients treated with BP stent and 26.5% of patients treated with PP stent (P = 0.79). Conclusion : Angiographic characteristics of restenosis after BP‐based limus‐eluting stents are similar to those of PP‐based limus‐eluting stents. © 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.     

Drug‐eluting versus bare‐metal stents for saphenous vein graft lesions

A best evidence topic was written addressing the question ‘in patients with saphenous vein graft lesions requiring percutaneous coronary intervention, do long‐term clinical outcomes differ between drug‐eluting and bare‐metal stents?’ Altogether 1466 papers were found, of which seven represented the best evidence. Although one major recent randomised trial was neutral, the weight of earlier evidence supports drug‐eluting stents as standard of care. Bare‐metal stents may represent a reasonable, efficacious, and less expensive alternative to drug‐eluting stents in well selected patient groups.     

Polymer‐free drug‐eluting stents for coronary artery disease

Polymer‐free drug‐eluting stents (PF‐DES) were designed with the expectation of avoiding late restenosis and thrombosis related to the polymer used in traditional DES platforms. Furthermore, due to similarities with bare metal stents after drug elution, PF‐DES has been considered as particularly suitable for patients at high bleeding risk. A variety of PF‐DES platforms have been clinically tested. Despite their theoretical advantages, PF platforms showed comparable clinical outcomes with modern permanent‐ or biodegradable polymer‐based DES up to 5 years after implantation. Use of more biocompatible polymers on the modern DES platforms is one of the reasons therefore. Their improved safety profile allows already less intensive antithrombotic regimes after DES. Hence, nowadays PF‐DES platforms can be considered as one of many DES options for percutaneous treatment of coronary artery disease.

     

Four‐year clinical outcome of sirolimus‐ and paclitaxel‐eluting stents compared to bare‐metal stents for the percutaneous treatment of stable coronary artery disease

Background : There are limited data on the long‐term safety and efficacy profile of coronary stent implantation in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Objective : We aimed to assess the 4‐year clinical outcome in patients who received a bare‐metal stent (BMS), sirolimus‐eluting stent (SES), or a paclitaxel‐eluting stent (PES) for the percutaneous treatment of stable angina in our center during 2000–2005. Methods : In the study period, a total of 2,449 consecutive patients (BMS = 1,005; SES = 373; and PES = 1071) underwent a PCI as part of three historical PCI‐cohorts for stable angina and were routinely followed for the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Results : At 4 years follow‐up, 264 BMS patients (26.8%) had a MACE, compared to 75 SES patients (20.9%) and 199 PES patients (23.9%). Multivariate analysis showed that SES and PES were superior to BMS with respect to MACE [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.62, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.47–0.81; HR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.55–0.82, respectively]. The occurrence of MACE was significantly lower in the SES and PES population, primarily due to less target‐vessel revascularization (TVR) procedures (HR = 0.53, 95% CI: 0.37–0.75; HR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.62–0.81, respectively). The occurrence of early, late, and very late stent thrombosis was equally rare with each stent type. There were no significant differences between SES and PES on death, myocardial infarction, TVR, and MACE. Conclusion : These findings suggest that SES and PES result in decreased TVR procedures and MACE compared to BMS at 4 years follow‐up. SES or PES implantation should be the preferred choice over BMS for patients with stable CAD undergoing PCI. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Comparison of long‐term outcomes of drug‐eluting stents and bare metal stents for saphenous vein graft stenosis

Objective : Our aim was to compare the long‐term outcomes between drug‐eluting stents and bare‐metal stents for saphenous vein graft stenosis. Background : The ideal type of stent to treat saphenous vein graft stenosis has not been clearly established. Short‐term randomized controlled trial results comparing drug‐eluting stents with bare‐metal stents for saphenous vein graft stenosis are conflicting, intermediate‐term retrospective studies and meta‐analyses at two years suggest no difference in outcomes, and there are no long term follow‐up studies. The need for long term follow‐up data has become emerged with concern over late stent thrombosis. Methods : 246 saphenous vein graft patients undergoing stenting from August 2002–December 2008 were studied. Overall survival and event‐free survival were compared by Kaplan‐Meier method. Hazard ratios (HR) were calculated by Cox‐proportional hazards models. Results : We treated 133 patients with DES (median follow‐up four years) and 113 patients with BMS (median follow‐up four years) for SVG stenosis. Overall survival (77.0% ± 3.9% vs. 70.6% ± 4.6%, log‐rank P = 0.60) and MACE‐free survival (57.5% ± 4.6% vs. 56.8% ± 4.9, log‐rank P = 0.70) were not significantly different between the DES and BMS groups. Although BMS was associated with increased risk of target lesion revascularization (TLR) (freedom from TLR 85.2% ± 3.5% vs. 90.0% ± 3.0%, HR 2.07, 95% CI 0.97–4.42, log‐rank P = 0.05), there was no significant difference in the freedom from myocardial infarction (86.7% ± 3.3% vs. 88.7% ± 3.2%, log‐rank P = 0.39) or target vessel revascularization (77.1% ± 4.2% vs. 76.1% ± 4.2%, log‐rank P = 0.33) between the two groups. Conclusions : Although mortality is not statistically different between DES and BMS for SVG stenosis, BMS is associated with increased risk of revascularization, thus suggesting the superiority of DES over BMS in the long term. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Impact of renal insufficiency on safety and efficacy of drug‐eluting stents compared to bare‐metal stents at 6 years

Background : There is few information on the long‐term efficacy and safety of sirolimus‐eluting stents (SES) and paclitaxel‐eluting stents (PES) compared to bare metal stents (BMS) in all‐comer percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)—patients complicated by renal insufficiency (RI). Objective : Our aim was to assess the 6‐year clinical outcome of PCI‐patients with RI treated exclusively with BMS, SES, or PES in our academic hospital. Methods: A total of 1382 patients, included in three cohorts of consecutive PCI‐patients (BMS = 392; SES = 498; PES = 492), were categorized by creatinine clearance calculated by the Cockroft–Gault formula (normal kidney function ≥ 90; mild RI = 60–89; moderate RI < 60) and systematically followed for the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Results : Mortality rates were significantly higher for patients with moderate RI compared to mild RI and normal kidney function at 6 years (Kaplan–Meier estimate: moderate RI (34%) vs. mild RI (12%), P < 0.001; moderate RI (34%) vs. normal kidney function (8%), P < 0.001). After multivariate Cox‐regression analysis, SES and PES decreased the occurrence of target‐vessel revascularization (TVR) and MACE at 6 years in patients with a normal creatinine clearance compared to BMS [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) = 0.48, 95% CI: 0.28–0.84; aHR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.57–0.97, respectively] with no significant effect on mortality. Safety‐ and efficacy end points were comparable for the three stent types in patients with mild‐ and moderate renal function. Conclusion : Patients with a normal creatinine clearance had significant improvement in TVR and MACE rates after SES‐ or PES implantation compared to BMS at 6 years. However, there was no superiority of both drug‐eluting stents over BMS in safety and efficacy end points for patients with impaired renal function. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.