Comparison of sirolimus‐eluting stent and paclitaxel‐eluting stent for long‐term cardiac adverse events in diabetic patients: The Korean multicenter angioplasty team (KOMATE) registry

Background: There is some controversy on long‐term cardiac outcomes between sirolimus‐eluting stents (SES) and paclitaxel‐eluting stents (PES) in diabetes mellitus (DM). We compared cardiac adverse events after SES and PES implantation in patients with DM over a period of 3 year. Methods: A total of 634 patients with DM treated with SES (n = 428) or PES (n = 206) were consecutively enrolled in the KOMATE registry from 2003 to 2004. We assessed major adverse cardiac events (MACEs, cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, ischemia driven target vessel revascularization) and stent thrombosis (ST) according to the definitions set by the Academic Research Consortium. Results: Propensity score (PS) analysis was performed to adjust different baseline characteristics. The mean follow‐up duration was 38 ± 8 month (at least 36 month and up to 53 month). The 3‐year MACE rate did not show a significant difference between the two groups [52 (12.1%) in SES vs. 29 (14.1%) in PES, P = 0.496]. The definite and probable ST at 3 year were similar in both SES and PES [12 (2.8%) in SES vs. 7 (3.4%) in PES, P = 0.681]. There were no differences in hazard ratio for MACE and ST between two stents [MACE, crude: 0.844 (0.536–1.330) and adjusted for PS: 0.858 (0.530–1.389); ST, crude: 0.820 (0.323–2.083) and adjusted for PS: 0.960 (0.357–2.587)]. Conclusions: The present study demonstrated that long‐tem cardiac outcomes including ST were not significantly different between SES and PES in patients with DM. © 2008 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.     

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.     

Prospective randomized comparison of sirolimus‐ versus paclitaxel‐eluting stents for the treatment of acute ST‐elevation myocardial infarction

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare effectiveness of the Sirolimus‐ (SES) and Paclitaxel‐eluting stent (PES) in primary angioplasty for acute ST‐elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Background: It has been reported that SES and PES have been more effective than bare‐metal stents in reducing restenosis and cardiac events in a broad range of patients with coronary artery disease. However, it is unknown whether there may be differences between these two drug‐eluting stents in terms of efficacy in the setting of acute STEMI. Methods: Acute STEMI patients (n = 308) undergoing primary angioplasty were randomly assigned to SES (n = 154) or PES (n = 154) deployment. The routine angiographic follow‐up was performed at 6 months and clinical follow‐up data was obtained at 12 months. The primary end point was major adverse cardiac events (MACE) including death, reinfarction, stent thrombosis, and target lesion revascularization (TLR) at 12 months. Results: The baseline clinical, angiographic, and procedural characteristics were similar between the 2 groups. Two patients (all from the PES group) experienced stent thrombosis (1 acute and 1 subacute). The SES group revealed lower in‐segment restenosis (5.9% vs. 14.8%, P = 0.03) and in‐segment late loss (0.09 ± 0.45 vs. 0.33 ± 0.68 mm, P = 0.002) than PES group on follow‐up angiography. Twelve‐month TLR rates (2.6% vs. 6.5%, P = 0.17) were similar between two groups. MACE rates were lower in the SES group than in the PES group, but it did not reach statistical significance (5.8% vs. 11.7%, P = 0.07). Conclusion: In the setting of primary angioplasty for STEMI, there were no statistically significant differences between the SES and the PES in terms of 12‐month MACE. However, binary angiographic in‐segment restenosis and in‐segment late loss were significantly lower in the SES group. © 2008 Wiley‐Liss, 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)

     

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.     

Comparison of 2‐year clinical outcomes with sirolimus and paclitaxel‐eluting stents for patients with diabetes: Results of the Registro Regionale AngiopLastiche Emilia‐Romagna Registry

Background: Long‐term outcomes of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) with sirolimus‐eluting stents (SES) compared to paclitaxel‐eluting‐stents (PES) in unselected diabetics in routine practice is still debated. Objective: This study compared the 2‐year incidence of MACE (all‐cause mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction and target vessel revascularization) of SES and PES in a real‐world setting of patients with diabetes. Design: Observational, multicenter, nonrandomized study. Setting: Prospective web‐based registry (REAL Registry; study period, 2002–2005) comprising all 13 hospitals performing PCI. Patients: Among the 945 eligible patients treated with either SES alone (n = 606) or PES alone (n = 339), 29% were insulin‐requiring, 72% had multivessel coronary disease, 26% had prior myocardial infarction and 10% had poor left ventricular function. Measurements: Unadjusted and propensity score‐adjusted 2‐year clinical outcome. Results: After propensity score adjustment, 2‐year MACE incidence in the SES and PES groups was equivalent (23.3% vs. 23.7%, HR 1.01, 95%CI 0.72–1.42, P = 0.96). Adjusted 2‐year angiographic stent thrombosis occurred in 1.1% of the SES patients versus 2.6% of the PES patients (P = 0.15). In this large, real‐world, diabetic population treated with DES, there was no difference in outcome between SES and PES. Further studies are needed to demonstrate the long‐term safety of different types of DES in patients with diabetes. © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Comparison between sirolimus‐ and paclitaxel‐eluting stents in complex patient and lesions subsets

Background : Sirolimus‐eluting stents (SES) and paclitaxel‐eluting stents (PES) both significantly reduce the need for repeat intervention compared to bare metal stents. Studies comparing the clinical outcomes of these stents in noncomplex subsets of patients and lesions demonstrate a similar safety and efficacy profile. The data for more complex subsets of patients and lesions remains conflicting. This study aimed to compare SES with PES in a selected population with a broad range of complex features. Methods and Results : The patient population consisted of 1,591 consecutive patients with complex features undergoing drug‐eluting stent (DES) implantation. In the SES group there were 1,095 patients (1,653 lesions) and in the PES group 496 patients (802 lesions). In‐hospital, 30‐day, and 12‐month clinical outcomes were compared between groups. No discernable difference in major adverse cardiac events (MACE) between SES and PES was detected at intermediate and longer‐term follow‐up (SES 22.4% vs. PES 20.5% at 12 months; P = 0.407). A trend toward increased angiographically documented stent thrombosis was observed in the SES group at both 3 and 12 months (SES 2.2% vs. PES 0.8% at 12 months; P = 0.051). When adopting the more inclusive definition of probable stent thrombosis, this trend was no longer seen. After adjusting for baseline differences between the two groups, there still remained no difference in MACE between SES and PES (HR 1.051 [CI 0.826–1.339] P = 0.685). The trend toward increased angiographically documented stent thrombosis in the SES group remained after adjustment for baseline differences (HR 2.836 [CI 0.968–8.311] P = 0.057). Conclusions : In a selected population with complex disease the rate of MACE was comparable between SES and PES, with higher overall rates of thrombosis and MACE compared to a noncomplex population. Thus, the focus should be directed to prevent late complications in this complex subset regardless of stent type selection. © 2007 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Real World,Long‐Term Outcomes Comparison Between Paclitaxel‐Eluting and Sirolimus‐Eluting Stent Platforms

We compare real‐world, extended target vessel revascularization (TVR)‐free survival following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for patients receiving either sirolimus‐eluting stents (SES) or paclitaxel‐eluting stents (PES) following an index drug‐eluting stent (DES) supported procedure. We analyzed 2,363 consecutive patients having first DES‐supported PCI at receiving PES (n = 1,012) or SES (n = 1,332) from April 2004 to July 2006. Baseline clinical and procedural characteristics and in‐hospital outcomes were recorded during the time of the index procedure and extended clinical outcomes data were obtained thereafter. TVR and all cause mortality were identified during the study period. Adjusted Kaplan‐Meier and Cox's proportional hazard survival methods were performed. TVR‐free survival at 2.3 years was 91.3% for SES compared with 88.9% for PES (P = 0.06). Kaplan‐Meier survival curves did not significantly differ (adjusted hazard ratio ?1.39 [95% CI 0.99–1.97]) between the SES and PES patient cohorts. TVR was similar between the stent platforms at one (96.6% for SES [95% CI 95.3–97.6] vs. 95.7% for PES [95% CI 94.1–96.9]) and two (95.0%[95% CI 93.0–96.4] for SES vs. 93.7% for PES [95% CI 91.6–95.3]) years. Overall survival at 2 years was 96.2% for SES (95% CI 94.7–97.3) and 95.3% for PES (95% CI 93.7–96.5). SES and PES drug‐eluting stent platforms have good and similar extended outcomes in this real world registry of unselected patients having PCI. (J Interven Cardiol 2010;23:167‐175)     

Efficacy and safety of a double‐coated paclitaxel‐eluting coronary stent: The EUCATAX trial

Objectives : The aim of this study was the comparison of a new double‐coated paclitaxel‐eluting coronary stent with bare‐metal stent (BMS) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Background : Stent coating with biodegradable polymers as a platform for elution of drugs has the potential for complete elution of drugs and for decreasing the risk of late complications. Methods : Multicenter randomized trial comparing a paclitaxel‐eluting stent (PES) coated with a biodegradable polymer and glycocalyx with the equivalent BMS. We randomly assigned 422 patients with de novo coronary lesions to PES (211 patients) or to BMS (211 patients). Primary end point was target vessel failure (TVF) defined as cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization. Clinical secondary end points were target vessel revascularization, target lesion revascularization, stent thrombosis (ST), and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Angiographic secondary end points were late loss and binary restenosis. Results : At 1 year of follow‐up, TVF rate was 9.5% in the PES group and 17.1% in the BMS group (P = 0.02), and MACE rate was 10% in PES and 19% in BMS arm (P = 0.009). All other secondary end points were reached but ST. ST rate was low and similar in both study arms. Conclusions : The study shows that patients treated with PES with dual coating technology had significantly lower incidence of TVF and MACE than those treated with BMS design; however, longer follow‐up should be necessary to assess true advantages of this technology compared with the previous one. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, 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.     

Sirolimus versus paclitaxel coronary stents in clinical practice

Objectives: We aimed at comparing the long term clinical outcome of SES and PES in routine clinical practice. Background: Although sirolimus‐eluting stents (SES) more effectively reduce neointimal hyperplasia than paclitaxel‐eluting stents (PES), uncertainty prevails whether this difference translates into differences in clinical outcomes outside randomized controlled trials with selected patient populations and protocol‐mandated angiographic follow‐up. Methods: Nine hundred and four consecutive patients who underwent implantation of a drug‐eluting stent between May 2004 and February 2005: 467 patients with 646 lesions received SES, 437 patients with 600 lesions received PES. Clinical follow‐up was obtained at 2 years without intervening routine angiographic follow‐up. The primary endpoint was a composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), or target vessel revascularization (TVR). Results: At 2 years, the primary endpoint was less frequent with SES (12.9%) than PES (17.6%, HR = 0.70, 95% CI 0.50–0.98, P = 0.04). The difference in favor of SES was largely driven by a lower rate of target lesion revascularisation (TLR; 4.1% vs. 6.9%, P = 0.05), whereas rates of death (6.4% vs. 7.6%, P = 0.49), MI (1.9% vs. 3.2%, P = 0.21), or definite stent thrombosis (0.6% vs. 1.4%, P = 0.27) were similar for both stent types. The benefit regarding reduced rates of TLR was significant in nondiabetic (3.6% vs. 7.1%, P = 0.04) but not in diabetic patients (5.6% vs. 6.1%, P = 0.80). Conclusions: SES more effectively reduced the need for repeat revascularization procedures than PES when used in routine clinical practice. The beneficial effect is maintained up to 2 years and may be less pronounced in diabetic patients. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Comparison of sirolimus‐eluting stent,paclitaxel‐eluting stent,and bare metal stent in the treatment of long coronary lesions

Objective: This study compared the efficacy of the sirolimus‐eluting stent (SES), the paclitaxel‐eluting stent (PES), and the bare metal stent (BMS) for long coronary lesions. Background: The outcome of drug‐eluting stent (DES) implantation in long coronary lesions remains unclear. Methods: The study involved 527 patients with de novo long coronary lesions (≥24 mm), which were treated with long (≥28 mm) SESs (223 lesions), PESs (194 lesions), or BMSs (201 lesions). Results: Lesions in the SES (36.0 ± 14.9 mm, P < 0.001) and PES (36.3 ± 14.5 mm, P < 0.001) groups were longer than those in the BMS group (32.0 ± 12.3 mm), meaning the two DES groups had longer stented segments than did the BMS group. Six‐month angiographic follow‐up showed the SES (9.3%, P < 0.001) and PES (21.3%, P < 0.001) groups had lower in‐segment restenosis rates than that of the BMS group (42.5%). The rate of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) including death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization at 9 months was higher in the BMS group (26.6%) than that in the SES (13.0%, P < 0.001) and PES (15.7%, P < 0.001) groups. Posthoc analysis of the two DES groups showed that the in‐segment restenosis rate was lower for the SES than that for the PES group (P = 0.002), while the MACE rate was similar. Conclusions: The use of DESs for long coronary lesions appears to be safe and more effective than the use of BMSs in terms of restenosis and adverse clinical events. SES use was associated with lower late luminal loss and a lower angiographic restenosis rate compared with PES use. © 2006 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

The short‐ and long‐term outcomes of percutaneous intervention with drug‐eluting stent vs bare‐metal stent in saphenous vein graft disease: An updated meta‐analysis of all randomized clinical trials

The use of drug‐eluting stents (DES) vs bare‐metal stents (BMS) in saphenous vein graft (SVG) lesions remains controversial. We conducted a meta‐analysis of all randomized clinical trials comparing the outcomes of DES with BMS in SVG percutaneous coronary interventions. A search of PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, and Clinicaltrials.gov was performed for all randomized clinical trials. We evaluated the short‐ and long‐term clinical outcomes of the following: all‐cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), definite/probable stent thrombosis, target lesion revascularization (TLR), and target‐vessel revascularization (TVR). From a total of 1582 patients in 6 randomized clinical trials, 797 had DES and 785 had BMS. Patients with DES had lower short‐term MACE, TLR, and TVR in comparison with BMS (odds ratio [OR]: 0.56, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.35–0.91, P = 0.02; OR: 0.43, 95% CI: 0.19–0.99, P = 0.05; and OR: 0.45, 95% CI: 0.22–0.95, P = 0.04, respectively). However, there were no different outcomes for all‐cause mortality (P = 0.63) or stent thrombosis (P = 0.21). With long‐term follow‐up, there were no significant reductions of MACE (P = 0.20), TLR (P = 0.57), TVR (P = 0.07), all‐cause mortality (P = 0.29), and stent thrombosis (P = 0.76). The use of DES in SVG lesions was associated with lower short‐term MACE, TLR, and TVR in comparison with BMS. However, there were no significant differences with long‐term follow‐up.     

Long-term outcomes of sirolimus-eluting stents vs. paclitaxel-eluting stents in unprotected left main coronary artery bifurcation lesions

Background:

The treatment of unprotected left main coronary artery (uLMCA) bifurcation lesions remains challenging.

Hypothesis:

We hypothesized that the type of drug‐eluting stent would correlate with clinical outcomes for the treatment of uLMCA bifurcation lesions.

Methods:

One hundred fifteen patients who underwent stent implantation using a provisional T‐stenting technique with sirolimus‐eluting stents (SES) or paclitaxel‐eluting stents (PES) for uLMCA bifurcation lesions were enrolled. A major adverse cardiac event (MACE) was defined as a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization.

Results:

Ninety‐four patients were treated with SES and 21 patients with PES. Baseline characteristics were similar between the 2 groups. Angiographic follow‐up was performed in 99 (86%) patients. Late loss in the LMCA to the left anterior descending coronary artery was significantly lower in the SES group than in the PES group (0.28 ± 0.54 mm vs 1.03 ± 0.45 mm, P<0.001). One case of stent thrombosis occurred in the SES group. During follow‐up with a median of 712 days, the SES group had a lower MACE compared with the PES group (10.6% vs 28.6%, P = 0.032). Cox proportional hazards models including age, sex, diabetes, acute coronary syndrome, true bifurcation, stenting strategy, and type of drug‐eluting stent used (SES vs PES) demonstrated that stent type was the only predictor of MACE (hazard ratio of PES vs SES: 3.88, 95% confidence interval: 1.29–11.67, P = 0.016).

Conclusions:

According to the results of the present study, SES may be associated with more favorable outcomes than PES for stenting of uLMCA bifurcation, which should be further studied by larger trials. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. The authors have no funding, financial relationships, or conflicts of interest to disclose.     

Clinical impact of sirolimus‐eluting stent in ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction: A meta‐analysis of randomized clinical trials

Objectives: To evaluate outcome of patients undergoing sirolimus‐eluting stent (SES) as compared to bare‐metal stent (BMS) implantation during primary angioplasty for ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Background: The role of SES in primary percutaneous coronary intervention setting is still debated. Methods: We searched Medline, EMBASE, CENTRAL, scientific session abstracts, and relevant Websites for studies in any language, from the inception of each database until October 2008. Only randomized clinical trials with a mean follow‐up period >6 months and sample size >100 patients were included. Primary endpoint for efficacy was target‐vessel revascularization (TVR) and primary endpoint for safety was stent thrombosis. Secondary endpoints were cardiac death and recurrent myocardial infarction (MI). Results: Six trials were included in the meta‐analysis, including 2,381 patients (1,192 randomized to SES and 1,189 to BMS). Up to 12‐month follow‐up, TVR was significantly lower in patients treated with SES as compared to patients treated with BMS (4.53% vs. 12.53%, respectively; odds ratio [OR] 0.33; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.24–0.46; P < 0.00001). There were no significant differences in the incidence of stent thrombosis (3.02% vs. 3.70%, OR = 0.81 [95% CI, 0.52–1.27], P = 0.81), cardiac death (2.77% vs. 3.28%, OR = 0.84 [95% CI, 0.52–1.35], P = 0.47), and recurrent MI (2.94% vs. 4.04%, OR = 0.71 [95% CI, 0.45–1.11], P = 0.13) between the two groups. Conclusion: SES significantly reduces TVR rates as compared to BMS in STEMI patients up to 1 year follow‐up. Further studies with larger population and longer follow‐up time are needed to confirm our findings. © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Long‐term risk of clinical events from stenting side branches of coronary bifurcation lesions with drug‐eluting and bare‐metal stents: An observational meta‐analysis

Objectives : To compare the long‐term risks of coronary bifurcation lesions treated with side‐branch stenting using drug‐eluting versus bare‐metal stents. Background : Side‐branch stenting is an off‐label practice, but when needed, the incidence of late adverse events may differ between drug‐eluting and bare‐metal stents. Methods : We systematically searched PubMed, and the National Institutes of Health and Cochrane Registries for studies of coronary bifurcation stenting reporting clinical outcomes over at least 5 months. Data were extracted and cross checked independently by two investigators for inclusion in an observational meta‐analysis. Clinical outcomes included major adverse clinical events (MACE), death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization (TVR), and definite stent thrombosis. We used random‐effects models and meta‐regression in 6,825 subjects from 42 studies. Results : Most (79%) of the heterogeneity in MACE between treatment groups was explained by differences in stent type, side‐branch stenting, and length of follow‐up. Compared with drug‐eluting stents without side‐branch stenting, drug‐eluting stents with side‐branch stenting had a 3% higher incidence of myocardial infarction [95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.3%, 5%, P < 0.05], but no significant increase in MACE, death, TVR, or stent thrombosis. Bare‐metal stenting without side‐branch stenting had 10% (95% CI = 3%, 16%, P < 0.01) higher MACE, and 10% (95% CI = 4%, 17%, P < 0.01) higher TVR, whereas bare‐metal side‐branch stenting had 31% (95% CI = 23%, 39%, P < 0.001) higher MACE, and 19% (95% CI = 10%, 28%, P < 0.001) higher TVR. Conclusions : Side‐branch stenting has a much smaller impact on long‐term MACE with drug‐eluting stents compared with bare‐metal stents. Although this study does not support routine side‐branch stenting, when side‐branch stenting is required, drug‐eluting stents are associated with less adverse outcomes.© 2011 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.     

Five‐year long‐term 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 FIRST trial

Background : Drug‐eluting stents have shown to be superior over bare metal stents in clinical and angiographic outcomes after percutaneous treatment of coronary artery stenosis. However, long‐term follow‐up data are scarce and only available for sirolimus‐ and paclitaxel‐eluting stents. Aim : To assess the feasibility and performance of the XIENCE V everolimus‐eluting stent (EES) versus an identical bare metal stent after a 5‐year follow‐up period. Methods : SPIRIT FIRST was a First in Man, multicentre, prospective, single‐blind, clinical trial, randomizing 60 patients with a single de novo coronary artery lesion in a ratio of 1:1 to either an everolimus eluting or a bare metal control stent. Results : At 5‐year clinical follow‐up, data were available in 89% and 86% of patients in the everolimus and control arm, respectively. In the everolimus arm, no additional death, myocardial infarction, clinically driven target lesion revascularization (TLR), or clinically driven target vessel revascularization (TVR) events were observed between 1‐ and 5‐year follow‐up. The 5‐year hierarchical major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and target vessel failure (TVF) rates for the everolimus arm were 16.7% (4/24) for both endpoints. In the control group, no additional cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or clinically driven TLR events were observed between 2‐ and 5‐year follow‐up. No additional clinically driven TVR events were observed between 3‐ and 5‐year follow‐up. The 5‐year hierarchical MACE and TVF rates for the control arm were 28.0% (7/25) and 36.0% (9/25), respectively. No stent thromboses were observed in either the everolimus arm or the control arm up to 5 years. Conclusion : The favorable 5‐year long term clinical outcome of the EES is consistent with the results from other studies of the EES with shorter follow‐up. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.