Comparison between imported versus domestic drug‐eluting stents in China: A large single‐center data

Background

In recent years, most drug‐eluting stents (DESs) were domestically produced in China, but how domestic DESs perform compared to imported DESs was still unknown.

Methods

A total of 9011 consecutive cases with DESs implantation in a single center throughout 2013 were prospectively collected. Two‐year clinical outcomes were evaluated between patients implanted with imported and domestic DESs.

Results

During 2‐year follow‐up, the rates of all‐cause death, cardiac death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and stent thrombosis were not significantly different between two groups. However, the rate of revascularization was significantly higher in domestic DES group, shown as higher rates of overall revascularization, target vessel revascularization (TVR), and target lesion revascularization (TLR) (9.7% vs 6.4%, P < 0.001; 5.6% vs 3.2%, P < 0.001; 4.5% vs 2.2%, P < 0.001, respectively). Accordingly, major adverse cardiac events (MACE) rate was significantly higher in domestic DES group (12.1% vs 8.5%, P < 0.001). Multivariable Cox regression analysis indicated that domestic DES was an independent risk factor of MACE (HR [95%CI]: 1.22 [1.05‐1.41]), overall revascularization (HR [95%CI]: 1.29 [1.09‐1.53]), TVR (HR [95%CI]: 1.54 [1.22‐1.94]), and TLR (HR [95%CI]: 1.85 [1.41‐2.42]). After propensity score matching, the rates of overall revascularization, TVR, and TLR were still significantly higher in domestic DES group, and domestic DES was still predictive of overall revascularization, TVR, and TLR in multivariate Cox regression analysis.

Conclusions

Domestic DESs showed the same safety as imported DESs in this real‐world cohort. But, patients implanted with domestic DESs had a higher risk of revascularization than imported DESs.

     

In‐Stent Restenosis

The introduction of coronary stents marked a major turning point in the practice of interventional cardiology. Whereas the efficacy of balloon angioplasty was challenged both by immediate mechanical complications and by a high incidence of restenosis, coronary stents offered cardiologists a means by which to not only augment immediate procedural success, but also to reduce the incidence of restenosis following coronary intervention. However, despite technological advances and an improved understanding of the restenotic process, the overall rate of in‐stent restenosis following bare metal stent implantation remains high. Although the introduction of drug‐eluting stents has further reduced the incidence of restenosis, the “real‐world” application of drug‐eluting stents in increasingly complex lesion and patient subsets has given way to the even greater clinical challenge of managing drug‐eluting stent restenosis. Although the standard treatment of bare metal stent restenosis typically involves placement of a drug‐eluting stent, the optimal therapeutic approach to drug‐eluting stent restenosis remains less defined. The issue of in‐stent restenosis (especially following implantation of a drug‐eluting stent) remains a clinical challenge, and investigation into therapeutic options remains ongoing. As technology evolves, such investigation will likely incorporate novel approaches including drug‐coated balloons novel stent designs.     

Long‐term clinical outcomes of real‐world experience using sirolimus‐eluting stents in saphenous vein graft disease

Objective : To evaluate the long‐term clinical outcomes of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for saphenous vein graft (SVG) disease. Specifically, we compared clinical endpoints of patients who received sirolimus‐eluting stents (SES) versus bare‐metal stents (BMS) for SVG disease. Background : A recent small randomized‐controlled trial (RCT) reported increased mortality with the use of SES in SVG disease. Methods : We retrospectively identified patients who underwent SES placement for a SVG lesion(s) at our institutions over a 4‐year period. The procedural and medical records were reviewed to identify predetermined clinical outcomes. Results : 318 patients who underwent SES placement for a SVG lesion were identified. 7 patients were lost to follow‐up. 141/311 patients (45%) received SES, while 170/311 (55%) received BMS. At a mean follow‐up of 34 months, there was a reduction in target lesion revascularization (TLR) (7% vs. 14%, P = 0.07) without an increased risk of mortality (6% vs. 12%, P = 0.06) in patients who received SES compared to patients who received BMS. When compared to the recent RCT's SES patients at long‐term follow‐up, our SES patients had significantly less mortality; rates of myocardial infarction, TLR, target vessel revascularization, and major adverse cardiac events; and were more likely to be taking dual antiplatelet and statin medications. Conclusion : Our results support that SES used in SVG lesions result in a reduction in TLR without an increased risk of mortality, and therefore may be an equally safe and feasible technique for revascularization with excellent long‐term clinical outcomes. These patients may benefit from prolonged dual antiplatelet and statin medication regimens. © 2008 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.     

Extended follow‐up safety and effectiveness of the Endeavor zotarolimus‐eluting stent in real‐world clinical practice: Two‐year follow‐up from the E‐Five Registry

Objectives: To present data from the cohort of patients in the all‐comers Endeavor zotarolimus‐eluting stent (ZES) registry (E‐Five) who underwent 2‐year follow‐up. Background: The Endeavor ZES has been shown to be safe and efficacious for treatment of single, de novo lesions in patients with stable coronary artery disease. E‐Five evaluated the ZES in over 8,000 real‐world patients, at 188 sites followed to 1 year. A subset of sites continued follow‐up through 2 years to evaluate late‐term safety and effectiveness of the ZES in this population with diverse clinical and lesion characteristics. Methods: E‐Five, a prospective, multicenter, nonrandomized global registry, collected 2‐year outcomes for 2,116 patients from 26 centers. Sites were selected for participation based on patient accrual rates and the ability to continue follow‐up activities for an additional year. Complete data was available for 2,054 patients. To observe whether or not a sustained benefit was achieved, data for all patients from the selected sites were included in the analysis. Results: The outcomes in the 2‐year cohort tracked with the results of randomized controlled trials using the Endeavor ZES. One year results were MACE 7.5%, TLR 4.5%, and ARC definite/probable stent thrombosis 0.6%. Outcomes at 2 years for MACE, TLR, and ARC definite/probable stent thrombosis were 8.5, 5.1, and 0.7%, respectively. Conclusions: Long‐term efficacy and safety outcomes were maintained between 1 and 2 years for the 2‐year patient cohort, with only a small number of additional MACE, TLR, and very late stent thrombosis events. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Angiographic and intravascular ultrasound follow up of paclitaxel‐ and sirolimus‐eluting stent after poststent high‐pressure balloon dilation: From the poststent optimal stent expansion trial

Objectives : The aims of this study were to identify the efficacy of optimal stent expansion (OSE) according to the Multicenter Ultrasound Stenting in Coronaries Study (MUSIC Study) criteria in drug‐eluting stent (DES) and compare paclitaxel‐eluting stent (PES) to sirolimus‐eluting stent (SES). Background : Although poststent high‐pressure balloon dilatation is proposed after bare metal stent implantation according to OSE, defined by the criteria of the MUSIC Study, very little data are available in DES. Methods : Two hundred fifty patients (M:F = 149:101; age, 61.5 ± 9.2 years) who underwent 9‐month follow‐up angiography in the Poststent Optimal Stent Expansion Trial (POET) were included in this study. We assessed angiographic in‐stent restenosis (ISR) and neointima volume (NV) using IVUS at 9 months. Results : At 9‐month follow up, there were no significant differences in ISR and NV index (NV/stent length, mm²) between patients with and without OSE. However, the rate of ISR and NV index were higher in PES [ISR: 18 (13.7%) and 4 (3.4%), P = 0.004; NV index: 1.02 ± 0.99 mm² and 0.21 ± 0.37, P < 0.001 in PES and SES]. Conclusions : OSE according to the MUSIC Study criteria was not related to ISR and NV in the DES era but PES had a significantly higher ISR rate and NV than SES after poststent high‐pressure balloon dilatation. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Polymer‐free versus permanent polymer‐coated drug eluting stents for the treatment of coronary artery disease: A meta‐analysis of randomized trials

Background

Polymer‐free drug eluting stents (PF‐DES) were developed, in part, to overcome risk of late ischemic events observed with permanent polymer‐coated DES (PP‐DES). However, trial results are inconsistent with longer‐term safety and efficacy of PF‐DES remaining unknown. We performed a meta‐analysis of randomized trials assessing outcomes of patients receiving PF‐DES versus PP‐DES for treatment of coronary artery disease (CAD).

Methods

Electronic searches were performed for randomized trials comparing outcomes between PF‐DES and PP‐DES. Trials reporting major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), myocardial infarction (MI), stent thrombosis (ST), all‐cause death, target lesion/vessel revascularization (TLR/TVR), and late lumen loss (LLL) were included. Analyses were performed at longest follow‐up and landmarked beyond 1‐year.

Results

Twelve trials (6,943 patients) were included. There was no significant difference in MACE between PF‐DES and PP‐DES at longest follow‐up (Odds Ratio [OR] 0.96, 95%CI 0.85‐1.10, P = 0.59) or landmark analysis beyond 1‐year (OR 0.96, 95%CI 0.76‐1.20, P = 0.70). Although PF‐DES were associated with a significant reduction in all‐cause death (OR 0.85, 95%CI 0.72‐1.00, P < 0.05), this effect was not present on landmark analysis beyond 1‐year (OR 0.89, 95%CI 0.73‐1.10, P = 0.30). There were no differences observed for MI (OR 1.00, 95%CI 0.77‐1.28, P = 0.99) or ST (OR 0.95, 95%CI 0.54‐1.68, P = 0.86), with similar efficacy outcomes including TVR (OR 1.07, 95%CI 0.91‐1.26, P = 0.42), TLR (OR 1.03, 95%CI 0.88‐1.21, P = 0.68) and angiographic LLL (pooled mean difference 0.01 mm, 95%CI ?0.08 to 0.11, P = 0.76).

Conclusions

PF‐DES are as safe and efficacious as PP‐DES for the treatment of patients with CAD, but do not significantly reduce late ischemic complications.

     

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.