Outcomes after sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stent implantation in patients with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus

Insulin-treated diabetic patients undergoing drug-eluting stent implantation are prone to high rates of adverse cardiac events. The efficacy of the sirolimus- (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) in this population was analyzed. Registry data for 434 consecutive patients with insulin-treated diabetes who underwent SES or PES implantation were analyzed. The end point, major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) at 1 year, was high for patients with SESs and PESs (20.6% vs 20.2%; p=0.91). Cox regression and propensity analysis were used to compare outcomes. The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for MACEs according to stent type (Cox model) was 1.0 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.64 to 1.76, p=0.82). The propensity score-adjusted (C statistic=0.66) HR was 0.95 (95% CI 0.56 to 1.61, p=0.84). Stent thrombosis rates were relatively high at 2.0% for SESs and 1.5% for PESs (p=0.49). The propensity score-adjusted HR for stent thrombosis was 2.7 (95% CI 0.31 to 23.6, p=0.37). In conclusion, SESs and PESs are similarly efficacious in insulin-treated diabetic patients. The high MACE and stent thrombosis rates are of concern. Additional studies in this group of patients are required to determine the optimal mode of revascularization and minimize the overall stent thrombosis rate.     

Comparison of inflammatory response after implantation of sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents in patients on hemodialysis

Because systemic inflammation after coronary intervention places patients at increased risk of subsequent cardiac events, we aimed to compare clinical outcomes and chronic serum inflammation markers of paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) and sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) in hemodialysis patients. Paclitaxel-eluting stents and SES were implanted in 36 patients with 46 lesions, and 32 patients with 40 lesions, respectively. In addition to 1-year major adverse cardiac event (MACE) rates, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), interleukin-6 (IL-6), neopterin, intercellular adhesion molecule 1 (ICAM-1) and vascular cell adhesion molecule 1 (VCAM-1) were also compared before and 9 months after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The incidence of MACE was significantly lower in the PES group than in the SES group (11.1 vs. 25.0 %, respectively, P = 0.042), mainly due to the reduction of target lesion revascularization in the PES group (6.5 vs. 17.5 %, P = 0.003). The logarithm of hs-CRP as well as IL-6 decreased significantly 9 months post-PCI compared with pre-PCI in the PES group (hs-CRP: 3.65 ± 0.35 vs. 2.91 ± 0.48, P = 0.007; IL-6: 6.73 ± 3.66 vs. 2.61 ± 2.29, P = 0.017) but not in the SES group (hs-CRP: 3.33 ± 0.29 vs. 3.42 ± 0.27, P not significant; IL-6: 6.08 ± 4.97 vs. 5.66 ± 4.29, P not significant). However, neopterin, ICAM-1, and VCAM-1 remained unchanged both pre-PCI and 9 months post-PCI in both groups. Moreover, MACE were less frequent in patients with decreased hs-CRP levels 9 months post-PCI compared with patients without decreased hs-CRP levels (P = 0.002) in all patients. Paclitaxel-eluting stents appear to be more effective than SES in reducing MACE rates, especially target lesion revascularization, and may be able to stabilize local inflammatory changes of target lesions specifically in patients on hemodialysis. Thus PES, which inhibit in-stent restenosis and cardiac events in hemodialysis patients, may play an important role in suppression of chronic inflammatory response in target lesions as compared with SES. Chronic continuous inflammation plays an important role after implantation of both types of stent with regard to in-stent restenosis in patients on hemodialysis.     

Comparison of paclitaxel-eluting stent and sirolimus-eluting stent expansion at incremental delivery pressures

OBJECTIVES: We sought to compare the adequacy of paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) and sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) expansion based on intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) imaging criteria at conventional delivery pressures. METHODS: Forty-six patients underwent SES implantation and 42 patients underwent PES implantation for de novo native coronary lesions<33 mm in length with reference lumen diameters of 2.5-3.5 mm. Stents were serially expanded with gradual balloon inflations at 14 and 20 atm. IVUS imaging was performed prior to intervention and after each balloon inflation. Stent expansion (minimal stent cross-sectional area/reference lumen cross-sectional area) was measured. Inadequate stent expansion was defined using the MUSIC criteria (all struts apposed, no tissue protrusion, and final lumen cross-sectional area>80% of the reference or >90% if minimal lumen cross-sectional area was <9 mm2). RESULTS: The baseline characteristics of the two groups were similar except for shorter lesion length, larger mean lumen cross-sectional area, larger lumen diameter, and lower plaque burden in the PES group. Stent expansion was inadequate in 80% of patients with SES versus 63% of patients with PES at 14 atm, although this was not statistically significant. After 20 atm, 48% of patients with SES remained underexpanded as compared with 35% of patients with PES. CONCLUSION: Drug-eluting stents showed significant underexpansion by MUSIC criteria at conventionally used inflation pressures. Higher balloon inflations are required especially during deployment of a SES. IVUS guidance is recommended to ensure optimal results and outcomes with both stents.     

Comparison of everolimus-eluting stent with paclitaxel-eluting stent in long chronic total occlusions

The aim of the present study was the comparison of the everolimus-eluting stent (EES) with the paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) in patients treated for long chronic total occlusions (CTOs). Previous randomized trials have shown the superiority of EESs over PESs. No data exist about the efficacy and safety of EESs in patients treated for complex CTOs requiring multiple stent implantation. We identified 258 patients treated for CTOs who received multiple EESs (n = 112) or PESs (n = 146), with a total stent length of ≥40 mm. The primary end point was in-segment restenosis, defined as >50% luminal narrowing at the segment site, including the stent and 5 mm proximal and distal to the stent edges of the target vessel, on the follow-up angiogram. The secondary end point was the 9-month composite of major adverse cardiovascular events. The 2 patient groups were similar in all baseline characteristics. The median lesion length was 48 mm in the EES group and 46 mm in the PES group (p = 0.793). The incidence of the primary end point of the study was 11.8% in the EES group and 31.4% in the PES group (p = 0.001). The major adverse cardiovascular event rate was lower in the EES group than in the PES group (8.9% and 22.6%, respectively, p = 0.003). Definite or probable stent thrombosis occurred in 5 patients in the PES group (3.4%), with no stent thrombosis occurring in the EES group (p = 0.048). On multivariate analysis, EES was the only variable independently related to the risk of binary angiographic restenosis with an odds ratio of 0.29 (95% confidence interval 0.14 to 0.62; p = 0.002). In conclusion, in patients treated for long CTOs and requiring multiple stent implantation, EESs performed better than PESs, with a >50% reduction in the risk of restenosis and major adverse cardiovascular events.     

Comparison of the effectiveness of sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents for small coronary artery lesions.

BACKGROUND: The sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) and the paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) reduce restenosis in small coronary artery lesions. However, it is not clear which of these stents is superior in terms of clinical outcomes. METHODS: The authors retrospectively examined 197 patients with 245 de novo small coronary artery lesions (相似文献   

Comparison of clinical outcomes of overlapping sirolimus- versus paclitaxel-eluting stents in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention

Sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) implantation for the treatment of single coronary lesions has proved to be effective and durable. However, the safety and efficacy of overlapping drug-eluting stents for the treatment of long lesions have not been well established. In total, 114 patients who received overlapping drug-eluting stents were identified, 55 of whom received overlapping SESs and 59 received overlapping PESs. Baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics were balanced. In-hospital complications were similar between the 2 groups. At 30-day and 6-month follow-ups, all clinical outcomes were also similar. In addition, the event-free survival rate was comparable (p = 0.71). Implantation of overlapping drug-eluting stents for the treatment of long, native coronary lesions is feasible and effective. In conclusion, in this observational study, clinical outcomes appeared similar in patients treated with overlapping SES implantation compared with those treated with overlapping PES implantation.     

Stent thrombosis after sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stent implantation in daily clinical practice: analysis of a single center registry.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate stent thrombosis (ST) rate after sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) implantation in daily clinical practice. BACKGROUND: The safety profile of drug-eluting stents (DES) was predominantly determined in randomized clinical trials with narrow inclusion criteria. Concerns about ST have been raised in unselected patients treated with DES. METHODS: We prospectively evaluated 867 patients undergoing DES implantation, 618 patients with SES, and 249 with PES, in a single academic center. RESULTS: Multivessel disease was present in 72% of patients, multivessel stenting was performed in 17%, long (>18 mm) lesions were treated in 30%, and multiple stents per lesion were needed in 31%. On average, 1.7 +/- 0.8 stents per patient were implanted (stented segment length: 32 +/- 25 mm/vessel). IIb/IIIa inhibitors were used in 7.5%. Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guidance was employed in 65% of SES and 50% of PES implantations, and the procedural success rate was 100% in SES and 99% in PES cases. Six-month follow-up was performed in all patients, whereas one-year follow-up was completed in 87% patients of the SES group and in 95% of the PES group. We considered that ST occurred when angiographic evidence of thrombus was available, or when patients experienced sudden cardiac death or either ST-elevation or non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (MI) through the 12-month follow-up period. The overall incidence of ST was 0.9% (0.4% in SES and 2% in PES, P = 0.03). Of the eight ST, two (25%) were acute, four (50%) subacute, one (12.5%) was a late event, and one (12.5%) a very late event. Seven ST were confirmed by angiography. No IVUS guidance was used in 4/8 (50%) ST patients, while antiplatelet therapy was prematurely discontinued in 3/8 (37.5%). Among ST patients, mortality and nonfatal MI rates were 25% and 37.5%, respectively. No ST was diagnosed between 6 and 12 months, while one very late thrombosis occurred at 15 months. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of ST after DES use in daily clinical practice is low and similar to that observed in randomized clinical trials.     

Concurrent implantation of sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents in the same vessel.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety and efficacy of concurrent implantation of sirolimus-eluting (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting (PES) stents in the same coronary artery. BACKGROUND: When it is impossible to deliver multiple drug eluting stents (DES) of the same type, the operator must opt to implant a different DES or a bare metal stent. There are currently no published data evaluating this approach. METHODS: We identified all cases in which one or more SES and PES were implanted in either the same lesion or adjacent segments of the same vessel during a single procedure between March 2003 and March 2005. Endpoints analyzed were; in-hospital major adverse cardiac events (MACE), and follow-up MACE (including stent thrombosis). RESULTS: We identified 44 patients with 89 lesions. This was a complex cohort of patients with a median of 3.5 stents implanted, 3 lesions and 2 vessels treated and a median stent length implanted of 80.5 mm, while 83% of the lesions were type B2/C. Eight patients had peri-procedural myocardial infarction. During follow-up; 1 cardiac death occurred, no patients had a myocardial infarct or stent thrombosis, 11 underwent target lesion and vessel revascularization (25%) and 13 had a major adverse cardiac event (29.5%). CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of patients, the concurrent use of SES and PES in the same vessel was associated with outcomes in keeping with the complexity of disease treated. Our data show that it is not unreasonable to implant different DES in the same vessel, although we would not advocate this as routine practice.     

Angiographic analysis of pattern of late luminal loss in sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents

Late loss is becoming an important end point to compare drug-eluting stents; however, little is known about its pattern of distribution. We analyzed the pattern of late loss distribution in sirolimus-eluting stents (SESs) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PESs) in a consecutive cohort of patients. From a cohort of 529 patients treated with drug-eluting stents in 1 year, we selected all patients who underwent angiographic follow-up. Three hundred fifty-nine patients with 592 de novo lesions received SESs (286 lesions) or PESs (306 lesions). Late loss and binary angiographic restenosis were analyzed. Binary restenosis occurred in 56 lesions (19.6%) treated with SESs compared with 53 (17.3%) treated with PESs (p = 0.48). The 2 late loss distributions were skewed to the right and were not normally distributed (p <0.001 for SES, p = 0.003 for PES). Late loss was significantly lower in the SES group (p = 0.03), with a median value of 0.29 mm (interquartile range -0.09 to 0.66) versus 0.41 mm (-0.02 to 0.85) in the PES group. When analyzing only restenotic lesions, late loss had a normal distribution in the SES and PES groups (p = 0.96 and 0.44, respectively) and was similar in the 2 groups (1.75 +/- 0.51 vs 1.82 +/- 0.62, p = 0.48). When evaluating nonrestenotic lesions, late loss was also normally distributed in the 2 groups (p = 0.75 for SES, p = 0.73 for PES) but was significantly lower (p = 0.002) after SES implantation (0.14 +/- 0.39) than after PES implantation (0.27 +/- 0.44). In conclusion, SESs and PESs have a bimodal pattern of late loss distribution. The observed difference in late loss between SES and PES seems to be partly explained by the decrease in late loss after SES implantation in nonrestenotic lesions (where SES approaches "zero late loss"). Thus, late loss may not be a reliable marker of the true efficacy of these devices due to its complex and nongaussian distribution.     

Comparison of sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents in patients with moderate renal insufficiency: results from the J-DESsERT trial

BackgroundIt is unclear whether there are differences in clinical outcomes between sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) in patients with moderate renal insufficiency (RI).MethodsThe Japan-Drug Eluting Stents Evaluation; a Randomized Trial (J-DESsERT) was a prospective, randomized multicenter trial which compared 1:1 coronary stenting between SES and PES patients. Patient with serious RI (serum creatinine value 2 mg/dL or higher) were excluded. Patients were classified into 2 arms according to renal function: a non-RI arm of 2220 patients (SES 1094 and PES 1126 patients with estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≥ 60 mL min^− 1 1.73 m^− 2) and an RI arm of 1206 patients (SES 613, PES 593 with 30 ≤ eGFR < 60 mL min^− 1 1.73 m^− 2).ResultsAt 12 months, the primary endpoint of target vessel failure in the non-RI arm occurred in 6.0% in the SES group and 8.7% in the PES group (p = 0.02). In the RI arm, this occurred in 5.7% and 8.1% (p = 0.10). Mortality rates were 0.8% vs 0.7% (p = 0.78) in the non-RI arm, and 2.2% vs 2.1% (p = 0.90) in the RI arm. Cardiac death was 0.4% vs 0.1% (p = 0.17) in the non-RI arm, and 1.0% vs 1.0% (p = 0.96) in the RI arm. Mortality was higher in patients with RI than those without RI (2.1% vs 0.8%; p < 0.01). Cardiac death rates increased in the RI arm compared with those in the non-RI arm (1.0% vs 0.2%; p < 0.01).ConclusionsRegardless of the presence or absence of moderate RI, differences in outcomes between SES and PES change little except mortality and cardiac death.     

Patterns of restenosis after drug-eluting stent implantation: Insights from a contemporary and comparative analysis of sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents.

AIM: To evaluate patterns of restenosis following implantation of sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) in comparable unselected lesions. METHODS AND RESULTS: We have identified all episodes of restenosis after SES or PES implantation in our institutions between March 2003 and March 2005. Restenosis pattern was classified as focal, diffuse, proliferative, or occlusive. The position of focal restenosis was also categorized as proximal, in-stent, distal, or multi-focal. We have characterized 150 and 149 restenotic lesions in SES and PES groups, respectively. The incidence of diffuse and occlusive restenosis was significantly higher in PES than in SES (47.6 vs. 27.0%, P < 0.001). Multivariable (OR 2.693, 95% CI 1.425-5.089, P = 0.002) and propensity (OR 3.00, 95% CI 1.584-5.672, P < 0.001) analyses confirmed the positive association of PES with non-focal restenosis. For both stents, focal-edge restenosis was significantly more likely to occur proximally than distally (61.0 vs. 16.9%, P < 0.001 for PES and 45.8 vs. 16.8%, P < 0.001 for SES). CONCLUSION: Focal restenosis remains the most common pattern with SES. In contrast, just under half of restenosis in PES is the more severe non-focal pattern. Paradoxically, the majority of focal restenosis occurs at the proximal stent margin for both platforms.     

Comparison of dual drug-eluting Cilotax stent and paclitaxel-eluting Taxus Liberte stent in native coronary artery lesions

Cilotax stent is a new type of drug-eluting stent (DES) designed to increase the antirestenotic performance of the paclitaxel-eluting stent and decrease the risk of stent thrombosis by the incorporation of cilostazol. Therefore, we investigated the safety and efficacy of Cilotax dual DESs and compared their performance to that of paclitaxel-eluting Taxus Liberte. Patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for de novo coronary artery lesions at 2 centers in Korea were randomized to receive Cilotax (n = 55) or Taxus Liberte (n = 56) stents. The primary end point was in-segment late loss at 8 months. The 2 groups had similar baseline characteristics. Cilotax stent was not inferior to Taxus Liberte stent as determined by in-segment late loss (0.28 ± 0.30 vs 0.42 ± 0.45 mm, difference -0.14, 95% confidence interval -0.27 to -0.01, 1-sided p = 0.028 for noninferiority). In-stent late loss was significantly lower in the Cilotax than in the Taxus Liberte group (0.22 ± 0.31 vs 0.50 ± 0.55 mm, p = 0.002). Although in-segment restenosis rate did not differ significantly between the 2 groups (3.8% vs 10.9%, respectively, p = 0.271), in-stent restenosis rate was significantly lower in the Cilotax stent group (0% vs 10.9%, p = 0.027). There was no stent thrombosis at 8 months in either group. Rates of death, myocardial infarction, and any target lesion revascularization at 8 months were 0%, 0%, and 1.9%, respectively, in the Cilotax group and 1.8%, 0% and 3.6%, respectively, in the Taxus Liberte group. In conclusion, the Cilotax stent was safe and effective in decreasing late loss, indicating that this stent represents a promising new type of DES system.