Cost-effectiveness of everolimus- versus paclitaxel-eluting stents for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary revascularization (from the SPIRIT-IV Trial)

Although several drug-eluting stents (DESs) have been shown to be economically attractive compared to bare-metal stents in patients at moderate to high risk of restenosis, little is known about the cost-effectiveness of alternative DES designs, especially second-generation DESs. We therefore performed an economic substudy alongside the SPIRIT-IV trial, in which 3,687 patients undergoing single or multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention were randomized to receive second-generation everolimus-eluting stents (EESs; n = 2,458) or first-generation paclitaxel-eluting stents (PESs; n = 1,229). Costs through 2 years of follow-up were assessed from the perspective of the United States health care system. The primary cost-effectiveness end point was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio assessed as cost per quality-adjusted life year gained. Over a 2-year period, use of EESs versus PESs led to a trend toward decreased overall repeat revascularization procedures (14.2 vs 16.2 per 100 subjects, p = 0.20) driven by a significant decrease in the number of target vessel revascularization procedures (8.2 vs 11.0 per 100 subjects, p = 0.02) but also a slight increase in the number of nontarget vessel revascularization procedures (6.0 vs 5.1 per 100 subjects, p = 0.37). Follow-up cardiovascular costs were decreased by $273/patient in the EES group (95% confidence interval for difference 1,048 less to 502 more, p = 0.49). Formal cost-effectiveness analysis based on these results demonstrated that the probability that EES was an economically attractive strategy (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$50,000/quality-adjusted life year gained) was 85.7%. These findings demonstrate that in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with DESs, use of EESs is economically attractive compared to PESs with improved clinical outcomes and lower overall medical care costs at 2 years.

Comparison of everolimus-eluting and sirolimus-eluting coronary stents: 1-year outcomes from the Randomized Evaluation of Sirolimus-eluting Versus Everolimus-eluting stent Trial (RESET)

BACKGROUND

Several recent randomized trials comparing everolimus-eluting stent (EES) and sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) reported similar outcomes. However, only 1 trial was powered for a clinical end point, and no trial was powered for evaluating target-lesion revascularization.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Randomized Evaluation of Sirolimus-eluting versus Everolimus-eluting stent Trial is a prospective multicenter randomized open-label trial comparing EES with SES in Japan. The trial was powered for evaluating noninferiority of EES relative to SES in terms of target-lesion revascularization. From February and July 2010, 3197 patients were randomly assigned to receive either EES (1597 patients) or SES (1600 patients). At 1 year, the primary efficacy end point of target-lesion revascularization occurred in 65 patients (4.3%) in the EES group and in 76 patients (5.0%) in the SES group, demonstrating noninferiority of EES to SES (P(noninferiority)<0.0001, and P(superiority)=0.34). Cumulative incidence of definite stent thrombosis was low and similar between the 2 groups (0.32% versus 0.38%, P=0.77). An angiographic substudy enrolling 571 patients (EES, 285 patients and SES, 286 patients) demonstrated noninferiority of EES relative to SES regarding the primary angiographic end point of in-segment late loss (0.06±0.37 mm versus 0.02±0.46 mm, P(noninferiority)<0.0001, and P(superiority)=0.24) at 278±63 days after index stent implantation.

CONCLUSIONS

One-year clinical and angiographic outcome after EES implantation was noninferior to and not different from that after SES implantation in a stable coronary artery disease population with relatively less complex coronary anatomy. One-year clinical outcome after both EES and SES use was excellent with a low rate of target-lesion revascularization and a very low rate of stent thrombosis.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01035450.

Impact of lesion length and vessel size on clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention with everolimus- versus paclitaxel-eluting stents pooled analysis from the SPIRIT (Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System) and COMPARE (Second-generation everolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents in real-life practice) Randomized Trials

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of reference vessel diameter (RVD) and lesion length (LL) on the relative safety and efficacy of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES).

BACKGROUND

Lesion length and RVD are well-known predictors of adverse events after percutaneous coronary intervention.

METHODS

Patient-level data were pooled from the randomized SPIRIT (Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System) II, III, IV and COMPARE (Second-generation everolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents in real-life practice) trials. Quantitative angiographic core laboratory data were available for 6,183 patients randomized to EES (n = 3,944) or PES (n = 2,239). Long lesions and small vessels were defined as LL >median (13.4 mm) and RVD ≤median (2.65 mm), respectively. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (consisting of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization) were assessed at 2 years, according to stent type in 3 groups: short lesions in large vessels (group A, n = 1,297); long lesions or small vessels but not both (group B, n = 2,981); and long lesions in small vessels (group C, n = 1,905).

RESULTS

The pooled 2-year MACE rates were 5.6%, 8.2%, and 10.4% in Groups A, B, and C, respectively (p < 0.0001). There was no significant interaction between lesion group and stent type (p = 0.64), indicating lower MACE with EES compared with PES regardless of LL and RVD. However, the absolute difference was largest in Groups B and C. In Group A, 2-year MACE rates were not significantly different between EES and PES (4.8% vs. 7.0%, respectively, p = 0.11). In contrast, EES was associated with lower 2-year rates of MACE in Group B (6.6% vs. 11.2%, p < 0.01) and in Group C (9.1% vs. 12.7%, p = 0.008) as well as lower rates of myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization, and stent thrombosis. Multivariable analysis confirmed EES versus PES as an independent predictor of freedom from MACE in Groups B and C.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with short lesions in large vessels have low rates of MACE at 2 years after treatment with either EES or PES. In higher-risk patients with long lesions and/or small vessels, EES results in significant improvements in both clinical safety and efficacy outcomes. (A Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Patients With de Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions; NCT00180310; SPIRIT III: A Clinical Evaluation of the Investigational Device XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System [EECSS] in the Treatment of Subjects With de Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions; NCT00180479; SPIRIT IV Clinical Trial: Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Subjects With de Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions; NCT00307047; A Randomized Controlled Trial of Everolimus-eluting Stents and Paclitaxel-eluting Stents for Coronary Revascularization in Daily Practice: The COMPARE Trial; NCT01016041).

Clinical and angiographic outcomes with sirolimus-eluting stents in total coronary occlusions: the ACROSS/TOSCA-4 (Approaches to Chronic Occlusions With Sirolimus-Eluting Stents/Total Occlusion Study of Coronary Arteries-4) trial

OBJECTIVES

We sought to examine angiographic and clinical outcomes with sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) in total coronary occlusion (TCO) revascularization.

BACKGROUND

Despite evaluation of drug-eluting stents beyond approved indications, few studies have evaluated their clinical benefit in TCO revascularization.

METHODS

Among 15 centers in North America, 200 consecutive TCO patients (78.8% >6 weeks TCO age) were enrolled for treatment with SES. The primary end point was 6-month angiographic binary restenosis within the treated segment.

RESULTS

Patient characteristics included: diabetes, 24.5%; prior infarction, 33.5%; and stent length, 45.9 mm median (quartile 1, 30.2 mm; quartile 2, 62.1 mm). A total of 199 patients (99.5%) were treated with SES, and procedural success was 98.0%. The 6-month binary restenosis rates were 9.5% in-stent, 12.4% in-segment, and 22.6% in-"working length" representing the entire treatment segment. Rates of 1-year target lesion revascularization, myocardial infarction, and target vessel failure were 9.8%, 1.0%, and 10.9%, respectively. Stent thrombosis occurred in 2 patients (1.0%). Using logistic regression modeling with propensity score adjustment, the absolute reduction in binary restenosis with SES compared with a historical bare-metal stent control was 37.7% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 27.2% to 48.3%, p < 0.001; odds ratio: 0.17, 95% CI: 0.09 to 0.30, p < 0.0001). Among 32 patients (16%) identified with stent fracture, target lesion revascularization was more common than patients without fracture (25.0% vs. 6.7%, p = 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite greater lesion complexity than prior TCO trials, percutaneous revascularization with SES appears safe and results in substantial reductions in angiographic restenosis and failed patency and a low rate of repeat revascularization. These findings support the use of SES in TCO revascularization. (The ACROSS/TOSCA Trial; NCT00378612).

Everolimus-eluting versus paclitaxel-eluting stents in coronary artery disease

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have established the superiority of coronary everolimus-eluting stents over paclitaxel-eluting stents with respect to angiographic findings. However, these trials were not powered for superiority in clinical end points.

METHODS

We randomly assigned 3687 patients at 66 U.S. sites to receive everolimus-eluting stents or paclitaxel-eluting stents without routine follow-up angiography. The primary end point was the 1-year composite rate of target-lesion failure (defined as cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization).

RESULTS

Everolimus-eluting stents were superior to paclitaxel-eluting stents with respect to the primary end point of target-lesion failure (4.2% vs. 6.8%; relative risk, 0.62; 95% confidence interval, 0.46 to 0.82; P=0.001). Everolimus-eluting stents were also superior with respect to the major secondary end point of the 1-year rate of ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization (P=0.001) and were noninferior with respect to the major secondary end point of the 1-year composite rate of cardiac death or target-vessel myocardial infarction (P<0.001 for noninferiority; P=0.09 for superiority). The 1-year rates of myocardial infarction and stent thrombosis were also lower with everolimus-eluting stents than with paclitaxel-eluting stents (1.9% vs. 3.1%, P=0.02 for myocardial infarction; 0.17% vs. 0.85%, P=0.004 for stent thrombosis). Target-lesion failure was consistently reduced with everolimus-eluting stents as compared with paclitaxel-eluting stents in 12 prespecified subgroups, except in the subgroup of patients with diabetes (6.4% vs. 6.9%, P=0.80).

CONCLUSIONS

Everolimus-eluting stents, as compared with paclitaxel-eluting stents, resulted in reduced rates of target-lesion failure at 1 year, results that were consistent in all patients except those with diabetes, in whom the results were nonsignificantly different. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00307047.)

Outcomes with drug-eluting versus bare-metal stents in saphenous vein graft intervention results from the STENT (strategic transcatheter evaluation of new therapies) group

OBJECTIVES

This study compares outcomes of drug-eluting stents (DES) versus bare-metal stents (BMS) in patients undergoing saphenous vein graft (SVG) intervention.

BACKGROUND

The safety and efficacy of DES in patients undergoing SVG intervention is controversial.

METHODS

The STENT (Strategic Transcatheter Evaluation of New Therapies) registry is a multicenter U.S. registry evaluating outcomes with DES. Our study population includes patients undergoing PCI of SVG lesions with DES (n = 785) or BMS (n = 343) who completed 9-month or 2-year follow-up. Outcomes were adjusted with propensity analyses.

RESULTS

The DES patients had fewer emergent procedures but had smaller vessels and longer lesions. The DES patients had less death or myocardial infarction at 9 months (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.33 to 0.83, p = 0.006) and less death at 2 years (HR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.36 to 0.98, p = 0.041). Target vessel revascularization (TVR) was less with DES at 9 months (7.2% vs. 10.0%, HR: 0.36, 95% CI: 0.22 to 0.61, p < 0.001) but was no different by 2 years (18.3% vs. 16.9%, p = 0.86), although adjusted TVR rates were lower (HR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.40 to 0.90, p = 0.014). The DES reduced TVR at 9 months in SVG lesions with diameter <3.5 mm (8.0% vs. 17.2%, p = 0.013) but not >or=3.5 mm (6.0% vs. 6.6%, p = 0.74).

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of SVG lesions with DES vs. BMS is effective in reducing TVR at 9 months, although most of this advantage is lost at 2 years. The DES seem safe with less death or myocardial infarction, although selection bias might have affected these results. Our data suggest that DES might have short-term advantages over BMS in SVG lesions with diameter <3.5 mm.

Outcomes and complications with off-label use of drug-eluting stents: results from the STENT (Strategic Transcatheter Evaluation of New Therapies) group

OBJECTIVES

This study evaluates outcomes and complications in patients treated with drug-eluting stents (DES) for "off-label" indications.

BACKGROUND

Drug-eluting stents have been effective in randomized trials, but their safety and efficacy for off-label indications has not been well studied.

METHODS

The STENT (Strategic Transcatheter Evaluation of New Therapies) Registry is the largest multicenter U.S. registry evaluating outcomes of DES. Off-label indications included ostial, left main, long, bifurcation, and in-stent restenotic lesions, saphenous vein grafts, chronic total occlusions, small or large vessels, multilesion or multivessel percutaneous coronary interventions, and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Outcomes were adjusted using Cox proportional hazards regression and propensity analyses.

RESULTS

Drug-eluting stents were used in an off-label manner in 59% of patients. The patients who received off-label treatment were more often male, had a higher incidence of prior infarction and bypass surgery, and lower ejection fractions. Off-label versus "on-label" use of DES was associated with higher rates of death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, major adverse cardiac events, and stent thrombosis at 9 months and 2 years. Off-label use of DES compared with off-label use of bare-metal stents (BMS) had lower rates of death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, and major adverse cardiac events at 9 months and 2 years and lower rates of stent thrombosis at 9 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Off-label use of DES is associated with higher event rates compared with on-label use of DES, which is consistent with a higher risk clinical and lesion profile. However, event rates with off-label use of DES are lower compared with off-label use of BMS. Pending results from randomized trials, our data support the use of DES for off-label indications in selected patients.

Comparative clinical outcomes of paclitaxel- and sirolimus-eluting stents: results from a large prospective multicenter registry--STENT Group

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to compare the 9-month clinical outcomes of patients treated with paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) or sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) for coronary artery stenosis.

BACKGROUND

The STENT (Strategic Transcatheter Evaluation of New Therapies) registry is the first multicenter registry in the U.S. to collect long-term outcomes of drug-eluting stents from "real-world" practice.

METHODS

Data on all percutaneous coronary interventions in 8 U.S. hospital centers were collected in the STENT registry between 2003 and 2005. In this prospective, nonrandomized, observational study, the choice of procedures was at the physicians' discretion. Patients who only received a PES (n = 4,671) or SES (n = 4,555) and completed 9-month follow-up (93.8% of eligible) were included for analysis. Primary end points were death, myocardial infarction (MI), and target vessel revascularization (TVR) at 9 months. Secondary outcomes included major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (any of the 3 primary end points) and stent thrombosis.

RESULTS

At 9 months, death, MI, and TVR occurred in 2.2%, 2.0%, and 4.1%, respectively, of the PES group and 2.5%, 2.2%, and 4.3%, respectively, of the SES group (p = NS); MACE occurred in 7.5% of the PES group and 8.0% of the SES group (p = 0.37). After adjustments for group differences in baseline characteristics, TVR (hazard ratio [HR] 0.88, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.70 to 1.32; p = 0.26) and MACE (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.12; p = 0.56) were similar for PES and SES. Stent thrombosis at 9 months occurred in 0.7% of both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study show that clinical restenosis and MACE events after PES and SES procedures in "real-world" patients are infrequent and similar at 9 months.

AngioJet experience from the multi-center STENT Registry

OBJECTIVE

To explore the utilization and clinical outcomes of AngioJet Rheolytic thrombectomy from the Strategic Transcatheter Evaluation of New Therapies (STENT) multi-center prospective registry from May 2003 through December 2005.

METHODS

Prospective consent was sought for all consecutive percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) patients at all institutions and achieved in 84% of all patients. Of these, clinical follow-up at 9 months was achieved in 94% of eligible patients at all institutions.

RESULTS

Of a total of 9,707 patients, AngioJet was utilized in 3-4% of all procedures, including 12-14% of all procedures with thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) grade 3 thrombus or greater and 10-12% of acute evolving MI patients. Nine-month clinical outcomes showed similar mortality rates for patients treated with AngioJet (5.0%) versus those with no thrombectomy (6.5%) for patients with thrombus grade 3 or greater, despite the higher clinical risk profile of the AngioJet patient population due to a higher percentage of cardiogenic shock and larger thrombus.

CONCLUSION

The results of this larger, multi-center registry indicate that AngioJet thrombectomy, when selected in general clinical practice for high risk patients with thrombus, results in non-significant numerically lower rate of mortality with no indication of safety issues.

Drug-eluting stents for emerging treatment strategies in complex lesions

The use of drug-eluting stents (DES) has rapidly expanded from lower-risk, single-lesion procedures to include a broad spectrum of high-risk patients and complex lesions. For 4 complex patient subgroups, emerging data suggest that DES might offer an advantage for reducing late clinical restenosis. In ST elevation myocardial infarction, early registry reports are promising, with no evidence to date for an increased incidence of subacute stent thrombosis and significant trends for less restenosis. For chronic total occlusions, early, small clinical series show that DES might have unprecedented long-term patency. Initial registries of DES for in-stent restenosis reveal striking reductions in late loss and restenosis, compared with brachytherapy historical controls. The use of DES in saphenous vein graft lesions is increasing, and early registry results show a very acceptable incidence of thromboembolic complications and major adverse cardiac events. Important data regarding much larger groups of these patient cohorts will emerge over the next year, to help guide the broader application of DES in "real-world" practice.

Prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy with sodium bicarbonate: a randomized controlled trial

CONTEXT

Contrast-induced nephropathy remains a common complication of radiographic procedures. Pretreatment with sodium bicarbonate is more protective than sodium chloride in animal models of acute ischemic renal failure. Acute renal failure from both ischemia and contrast are postulated to occur from free-radical injury. However, no studies in humans or animals have evaluated the efficacy of sodium bicarbonate for prophylaxis against contrast-induced nephropathy.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the efficacy of sodium bicarbonate compared with sodium chloride for preventive hydration before and after radiographic contrast.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS

A prospective, single-center, randomized trial conducted from September 16, 2002, to June 17, 2003, of 119 patients with stable serum creatinine levels of at least 1.1 mg/dL (> or =97.2 micromol/L) who were randomized to receive a 154-mEq/L infusion of either sodium chloride (n = 59) or sodium bicarbonate (n = 60) before and after iopamidol administration (370 mg iodine/mL). Serum creatinine levels were measured at baseline and 1 and 2 days after contrast.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients received 154 mEq/L of either sodium chloride or sodium bicarbonate, as a bolus of 3 mL/kg per hour for 1 hour before iopamidol contrast, followed by an infusion of 1 mL/kg per hour for 6 hours after the procedure.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Contrast-induced nephropathy, defined as an increase of 25% or more in serum creatinine within 2 days of contrast.

RESULTS

There were no significant group differences in age, sex, incidence of diabetes mellitus, ethnicity, or contrast volume. Baseline serum creatinine was slightly higher but not statistically different in patients receiving sodium bicarbonate treatment (mean [SD], 1.71 [0.42] mg/dL [151.2 [37.1] micromol/L] for sodium chloride and 1.89 [0.69] mg/dL [167.1 [61.0] micromol/L] for sodium bicarbonate; P =.09). The primary end point of contrast-induced nephropathy occurred in 8 patients (13.6%) infused with sodium chloride but in only 1 (1.7%) of those receiving sodium bicarbonate (mean difference, 11.9%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.6%-21.2%; P =.02). A follow-up registry of 191 consecutive patients receiving prophylactic sodium bicarbonate and meeting the same inclusion criteria as the study resulted in 3 cases of contrast-induced nephropathy (1.6%; 95% CI, 0%-3.4%).

CONCLUSION

Hydration with sodium bicarbonate before contrast exposure is more effective than hydration with sodium chloride for prophylaxis of contrast-induced renal failure.

Impact of Sirolimus-Eluting Stents on Outcome in Diabetic Patients

Background— Randomized clinical trials have shown that a sirolimus-eluting stent significantly reduces restenosis after percutaneous coronary revascularization. Diabetic patients are known to have a higher risk of restenosis compared with nondiabetic patients. The purpose of this analysis was to determine the impact of sirolimus-eluting stents on outcomes of diabetic compared with nondiabetic patients.

Methods and Results— The SIRIUS (SIRolImUS-coated Bx Velocity balloon-expandable stent in the treatment of patients with de novo coronary artery lesions) trial is a randomized, double-blind study that compared sirolimus-eluting and bare metal stent implantation in 1058 patients with de novo native coronary artery lesions. Diabetes mellitus was present in 279 (26%) patients (diabetes mellitus group, 131 patients received sirolimus-eluting stents and 148 patients received bare metal stents) and was absent in 778 patients (no–diabetes mellitus group, 402 patients received sirolimus-eluting stents and 376 patients received bare metal stents). At 270 days, target lesion revascularization was reduced in diabetic patients from 22.3% with bare metal stents to 6.9% with sirolimus-eluting stents ( P <0.001) and in nondiabetic patients from 14.1% to 2.99% ( P <0.001), respectively. Major adverse cardiac events were reduced in diabetic patients from 25% with bare metal stents to 9.2% with sirolimus-eluting stents ( P <0.001) and from 16.5% to 6.5% ( P <0.001) in nondiabetic patients, respectively.

Conclusions— Implantation of sirolimus-eluting stents compared with bare metal stents in de novo coronary lesions reduces major adverse cardiac events in patients with and without diabetes mellitus. However, among patients receiving sirolimus-eluting stents, there remains a trend toward a higher frequency of repeat intervention in diabetic patients compared with nondiabetic patients, particularly in the insulin-requiring patients.

Directional coronary atherectomy: optimal atherectomy trials and new combined strategies with coronary stents

Directional coronary atherectomy (DCA) has evolved from its early use as a tool for minimal plaque debulking to its current use of more aggressive lumen enlargement. The trend toward improved lumen results and reduced restenosis following DCA compared to percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) in the Coronary Angioplasty Versus Excisional Atherectomy Trial (CAVEAT) was confirmed as a significant improvement in the subsequent Balloon versus Optimal Atherectomy Trial (BOAT). BOAT showed that acute lumen results and late angiographic restenosis could be significantly improved by DCA over PTCA, without any increase in procedural complications or late cardiac events. The role of DCA in conjunction with coronary stents is currently being defined as studies suggest that residual plaque burden after stenting is predictive of late restenosis. The Atherectomy before Multilink Stent Improves Lumen Gain and Clinical Outcomes Study (AMIGO) will help determine whether plaque debulking prior to stenting can reduce restenosis.

Final results of the Can Routine Ultrasound Influence Stent Expansion (CRUISE) study

BACKGROUND

Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) can assess stent geometry more accurately than angiography. Several studies have demonstrated that the degree of stent expansion as measured by IVUS directly correlated to clinical outcome. However, it is unclear if routine ultrasound guidance of stent implantation improves clinical outcome as compared with angiographic guidance alone.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The CRUISE (Can Routine Ultrasound Influence Stent Expansion) study, a multicenter study IVUS substudy of the Stent Anti-thrombotic Regimen Study, was designed to assess the impact of IVUS on stent deployment in the high-pressure era. Nine centers were prospectively assigned to stent deployment with the use of ultrasound guidance and 7 centers to angiographic guidance alone with documentary (blinded) IVUS at the conclusion of the procedure. A total of 525 patients were enrolled with completed quantitative coronary angiography, quantitative coronary ultrasound, and clinical events adjudicated at 9 months for 499 patients. The IVUS-guided group had a larger minimal lumen diameter (2.9+/-0.4 versus 2.7+/-0. 5 mm, P<0.001) by quantitative coronary angiography and a larger minimal stent area (7.78+/-1.72 versus 7.06+/-2.13 mm(2), P<0.001) by quantitative coronary ultrasound. Target vessel revascularization, defined as clinically driven repeat interventional or surgical therapy of the index vessel at 9 month-follow-up, occurred significantly less frequently in the IVUS-guided group (8.5% versus 15.3%, P<0.05; relative reduction of 44%).

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest that ultrasound guidance of stent implantation may result in more effective stent expansion compared with angiographic guidance alone.