Analysis of 14 trials comparing sirolimus-eluting stents with bare-metal stents

Where does the Occluded Artery Trial leave the late open artery hypothesis?

As of April 2007 the early open artery hypothesis is alive and well, but the late open artery hypothesis is adrift. For the foreseeable future, stable patients with persistent occlusion of the infarct artery late after myocardial infarction, and without severe ischaemia or uncontrollable angina, should be managed initially with optimal medical treatment alone, and not with percutaneous coronary intervention. Efforts should focus on establishing reperfusion earlier, including reducing the time to patient presentation.

Effectiveness and safety of drug-eluting stents in Ontario

BACKGROUND

The placement of drug-eluting stents decreases the frequency of repeat revascularization procedures in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in randomized clinical trials. However, there is uncertainty about the effectiveness of drug-eluting stents, and increasing concern about their safety, in routine clinical practice.

METHODS

From the Cardiac Care Network of Ontario's population-based clinical registry of all patients undergoing PCI in Ontario, Canada, we identified a well-balanced cohort of 3751 pairs of patients, matched on the basis of propensity score, who received either bare-metal stents alone or drug-eluting stents alone during an index PCI procedure between December 1, 2003, and March 31, 2005. The primary outcomes of the study were the rates of target-vessel revascularization, myocardial infarction, and death.

RESULTS

The 2-year rate of target-vessel revascularization was significantly lower among patients who received drug-eluting stents than among those who received bare-metal stents (7.4% vs. 10.7%, P<0.001). Drug-eluting stents were associated with significant reductions in the rate of target-vessel revascularization among patients with two or three risk factors for restenosis (i.e., presence of diabetes, small vessels [<3 mm in diameter], and long lesions [> or =20 mm]) but not among lower-risk patients. The 3-year mortality rate was significantly higher in the bare-metal-stent group than in the drug-eluting-stent group (7.8% vs. 5.5%, P<0.001), whereas the 2-year rate of myocardial infarction was similar in the two groups (5.2% and 5.7%, respectively; P=0.95).

CONCLUSIONS

Drug-eluting stents are effective in reducing the need for target-vessel revascularization in patients at highest risk for restenosis, without a significantly increased rate of death or myocardial infarction.

A Meta-Analysis of 16 Randomized Trials of Sirolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease

OBJECTIVES

Our purpose was to make a synthesis of the available evidence on the relative efficacy and safety of 2 drug-eluting stents (DES)--sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES)--in patients with coronary artery disease.

BACKGROUND

It is not known whether there are differences in late outcomes between the 2 most commonly used DES: SES and PES.

METHODS

Sixteen randomized trials of SES versus PES with a total number of 8,695 patients were included in this meta-analysis. A full set of individual outcome data from 5,562 patients was also available. Mean follow-up period ranged from 9 to 37 months. The primary efficacy end point was the need for reintervention (target lesion revascularization). The primary safety end point was stent thrombosis. Secondary end points were death and recurrent myocardial infarction (MI).

RESULTS

No significant heterogeneity was found across trials. Compared with PES, SES significantly reduced the risk of reintervention (hazard ratio [HR] 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.63 to 0.87, p < 0.001) and stent thrombosis (HR 0.66; 95% CI 0.46 to 0.94, p = 0.02) without significantly impacting on the risk of death (HR 0.92; 95% CI 0.74 to 1.13, p = 0.43) or MI (HR 0.84; 95% CI 0.69 to 1.03, p = 0.10).

CONCLUSIONS

Sirolimus-eluting stents are superior to PES in terms of a significant reduction of the risk of reintervention and stent thrombosis. The risk of death was not significantly different between the 2 DES, but there was a trend toward a higher risk of MI with PES, especially after the first year from the procedure.

Impact of in-stent restenosis on death and myocardial infarction

Although drug-eluting stents reduce restenosis and target lesion revascularization compared with bare metal stents (BMSs), the specter of late stent thrombosis has curbed enthusiasm for the widespread use of drug-eluting stents. Alternatively, increasing BMS use would increase restenosis and potentially increase adverse events. The presentation and outcomes of BMS restenosis are controversial. We evaluated 2,539 patients with BMS restenosis referred for repeat revascularization. Major adverse cardiac events, including mortality and myocardial infarction (MI), were assessed at clinical presentation, 30 days, and 6 months. Patients with acute presentation (i.e., unstable angina requiring hospitalization or MI) were compared with patients with stable presentation. At presentation, 19.2% of patients were asymptomatic, 27.5% had exertional angina, 46.6% had unstable angina, and 6.7% had MI. Mortality and MI rates were 1.1% and 1.4%, respectively, at 30 days and 3.3% and 4.5%, respectively, at 6 months. Patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and those without ACS had similarly low mortality rates at 30 days (1.2% ACS vs 1.0% non-ACS, p = 0.65) and 6 months (3.4% ACS vs 3.3% non-ACS, p = 0.93) and MI rates at 30 days (1.3% ACS vs 1.4% non-ACS, p = 0.87) and 6 months (4.7% ACS vs 4.3% non-ACS, p = 0.65). Combined major adverse cardiac events were similar at 30 days (2.5% vs 2.1%, p = 0.53) and 6 months (7.4% ACS vs 6.9%, non-ACS, p = 0.65). In conclusion, although BMS restenosis often manifests as an ACS, it is associated with a low incidence of 6-month major adverse cardiac events and does not predict a negative outcome.

Coronary Stents, Hypersensitivity Reactions, and the Kounis Syndrome

The use of drug-eluting stents (DES) for the treatment of coronary stenosis has increased sharply and now accounts for more than 75% of all coronary stents utilized. However, concern has been increasing that DES could be associated with stent thrombosis, paradoxical coronary vasoconstriction, and hypersensitivity reactions. Components of currently used DES have been reported to induce, either separately or synergistically, hypersensitivity reactions and possibly lead to cardiac events. DES-activated intracoronary mast cells could release histamine, arachidonic acid metabolites, proteolytic enzymes, as well as a variety of cytokines, chemokines, and platelet-activating factor (PAF) leading to local inflammation and thrombosis. These events may be more common than suspected because it is hard to document them, unless they become systemic, in which case they manifest themselves as the "Kounis syndrome," characterized by the concurrence of acute coronary events with hypersensitivity reactions. Recognition of this problem may lead to better vigilance, as well as new DES with mast cell blocking molecules that may also be disease modifying.

Outcomes associated with drug-eluting and bare-metal stents: a collaborative network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Whether the two drug-eluting stents approved by the US Food and Drug Administration-a sirolimus-eluting stent and a paclitaxel-eluting stent-are associated with increased risks of death, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis compared with bare-metal stents is uncertain. Our aim was to compare the safety and effectiveness of these stents.

METHODS

We searched relevant sources from inception to March, 2007, and contacted investigators and manufacturers to identify randomised controlled trials in patients with coronary artery disease that compared drug-eluting with bare-metal stents, or that compared sirolimus-eluting stents head-to-head with paclitaxel-eluting stents. Safety outcomes included mortality, myocardial infarction, and definite stent thrombosis; the effectiveness outcome was target lesion revascularisation. We included 38 trials (18,023 patients) with a follow-up of up to 4 years. Trialists and manufacturers provided additional data on clinical outcomes for 29 trials. We did a network meta-analysis with a mixed-treatment comparison method to combine direct within-trial comparisons between stents with indirect evidence from other trials while maintaining randomisation.

FINDINGS

Mortality was similar in the three groups: hazard ratios (HR) were 1.00 (95% credibility interval 0.82-1.25) for sirolimus-eluting versus bare-metal stents, 1.03 (0.84-1.22) for paclitaxel-eluting versus bare-metal stents, and 0.96 (0.83-1.24) for sirolimus-eluting versus paclitaxel-eluting stents. Sirolimus-eluting stents were associated with the lowest risk of myocardial infarction (HR 0.81, 95% credibility interval 0.66-0.97, p=0.030 vs bare-metal stents; 0.83, 0.71-1.00, p=0.045 vs paclitaxel-eluting stents). There were no significant differences in the risk of definite stent thrombosis (0 days to 4 years). However, the risk of late definite stent thrombosis (>30 days) was increased with paclitaxel-eluting stents (HR 2.11, 95% credibility interval 1.19-4.23, p=0.017 vs bare-metal stents; 1.85, 1.02-3.85, p=0.041 vs sirolimus-eluting stents). The reduction in target lesion revascularisation seen with drug-eluting stents compared with bare-metal stents was more pronounced with sirolimus-eluting stents than with paclitaxel-eluting stents (0.70, 0.56-0.84; p=0.0021).

INTERPRETATION

The risks of mortality associated with drug-eluting and bare-metal stents are similar. Sirolimus-eluting stents seem to be clinically better than bare-metal and paclitaxel-eluting stents.

A case report of very late thrombosis of coronary bare-metal stent 10 years after stenting

Although late stent thrombosis is not uncommon with the use of drug-eluting stents, it is unusual with the use of bare-metal stents (BMS) because stent endothelialization is considered to be completed 4 weeks after the intervention.(1) A 64 year-old male had undergone percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for a proximal left anterior descending (LAD) artery lesion with a BMS and excellent angiographic results were obtained. Two hundred mg of ticlopidine was prescribed for one month and 100 mg of aspirin daily was continued. One year after stent implantation, coronary angiography (CAG) showed no restenosis. Ten years and 7 months after stent implantation, he suffered an acute myocardial infarction due to stent thrombosis. Intra-coronary aspiration thrombectomy was successful. To the best of our knowledge, the longest delayed case of BMS thrombosis is 5 years after stent implantation.(2) Our report demonstrated evidence of the latest reported case of stent thrombosis with the use of a BMS.

Stent Thrombosis, Myocardial Infarction, and Death After Drug-Eluting and Bare-Metal Stent Coronary Interventions

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to examine outcomes subsequent to implantation of drug-eluting stents (DES) and bare-metal stents (BMS).

BACKGROUND

Use of DES might be associated with increased risk of stent thrombosis (ST), myocardial infarction (MI), and death.

METHODS

From January 2002 through June 2005, data from all percutaneous coronary interventions in western Denmark were prospectively recorded in the Western Denmark Heart Registry; 12,395 consecutive patients (17,152 lesions) treated with stent implantation were followed for 15 months. Data on death and MI were ascertained from the national databases. The Academic Research Consortium definition of ST was used.

RESULTS

The DES were implanted in 3,548 patients (5,422 lesions) and BMS were implanted in 8,847 patients (11,730 lesions). Definite, probable, or possible ST was found in 190 (2.15%) patients in the BMS group and in 64 (1.80%) patients in the DES. The risk of definite ST was similar in the 2 groups (DES: 0.65%; BMS: 0.61%). Very late definite ST (between 12 and 15 months after implantation) occurred more frequently in patients receiving DES (hazard ratio [HR] 10.93, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.27 to 93.76). Also, the risk of MI between 12 and 15 months after implantation was higher in the DES group (HR 4.00, 95% CI 2.06 to 7.79). Mortality was similar in the 2 groups. Target lesion revascularization was reduced by 43% in patients treated with DES (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.67).

CONCLUSIONS

The minor risk of ST and MI within 15 months after implantation of DES seems unlikely to outweigh the benefit of these stents.

Vascular Responses to Drug Eluting Stents

Polymer-based sirolimus- (Cypher) and paclitaxel-eluting (Taxus) drug eluting stents have become the treatment of choice for patients with symptomatic coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Although these stents reduce rates of restenosis compared with bare metal stents (BMS), late thrombosis, a life threatening complication, has emerged as a major safety concern. Our understanding of the pathophysiology of late DES thrombosis is derived from animal and human pathologic samples taken after implantation of these devices. These data indicate that both DES cause substantial impairment in arterial healing characterized by lack of complete reendothelialization and persistence of fibrin when compared with BMS. This delayed healing is the primary substrate underlying all cases of late DES thrombosis at autopsy. Several additional risk factors for late stent thrombosis such as penetration of necrotic core, malapposition, overlapping stent placement, excessive stent length, and bifurcation lesions represent additional barriers to healing and should be avoided if DES are to be used to minimize the risk of late thrombosis. Because the time course of complete healing with DES in man is unknown, the optimal duration of antiplatelet treatment remains to be determined.

Increased Late Mortality After Sirolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Bare-Metal Stents in Diseased Saphenous Vein Grafts

OBJECTIVES

We sought to provide long-term follow-up data of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) versus bare-metal stents (BMS) in saphenous vein grafts (SVG) from the RRISC (Reduction of Restenosis In Saphenous vein grafts with Cypher) trial.

BACKGROUND

We have previously shown that, in SVG, the use of SES reduces 6-month restenosis and repeated revascularization procedures versus the use of BMS. These data are consistent with trials in native coronary arteries. However, recently published long-term follow-up data of these trials have revealed an increased risk of adverse events (particularly very late stent thrombosis) after SES.

METHODS

A total of 75 patients with 96 SVG lesions were randomized to SES versus BMS. All patients underwent clinical follow-up up to 3 years. Specific outcomes assessed in this secondary post-hoc analysis were all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight patients received 60 SES for 47 lesions, whereas 37 patients received 54 BMS for 49 lesions. At a median follow-up time of 32 months (interquartile range 26.5 to 36 months), 11 deaths (7 cardiac, of which 1 was caused by very late stent thrombosis and, 3 were sudden) occurred after SES (29% [95% confidence interval (CI) 17% to 45%]) versus 0 after BMS (0% [95% CI 0% to 9%]) with an absolute difference of 29% ([95% CI 14% to 45%], p < 0.001). The rates of myocardial infarction and target vessel revascularization were not different: 18% and 34% after SES, respectively, versus 5% and 38% after BMS, respectively (p = 0.15 and p = 0.74, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

In this secondary post-hoc analysis, BMS were associated with lower long-term mortality than SES for SVG disease. Also, the 6-month reduction in repeated revascularization procedures with SES was lost at longer-term follow-up. (RRISC Study: Reduction of Restenosis In Saphenous Vein Grafts With Cypher Sirolimus-Eluting Stent; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct/show/NCT00263263?order=1; NCT00263263).

Contemporary use of clopidogrel in patients with coronary artery disease

Antiplatelet agents have long served as the cornerstone of pharmacologic therapy to prevent atherothrombotic events. The thienopyridines have risen to prominence as both an alternative and adjunctive treatment to aspirin monotherapy. These agents prevent platelet aggregation by selectively and irreversibly blocking the platelet ADP P2Y12 receptor. In this article we focus on the use of clopidogrel in the contemporary management of coronary artery disease. We assess the use of clopidogrel following revascularization for coronary artery disease with percutaneous coronary intervention, particularly after deployment of drug-eluting stents. Finally, we address some aspects of clopidogrel resistance.

Offsetting Impact of Thrombosis and Restenosis on the Occurrence of Death and Myocardial Infarction After Paclitaxel-Eluting and Bare Metal Stent Implantation

Background— Drug-eluting stents compared with bare metal stents (BMS) may increase late stent thrombosis (ST), although an accompanying increase in the rates of death and myocardial infarction (MI) has not been observed. We hypothesized that the prevention of restenosis-related adverse events by drug-eluting stents might offset some or all of the excess risk from ST.

Methods and Results— We analyzed a pooled patient-level database from 4 prospective, double-blind trials in which 3445 patients were randomized to paclitaxel-eluting stents or BMS. The occurrence of death or MI within 7 days of ST or target lesion revascularization was assessed. With a median follow-up of 3.2 years, ST occurred in 34 patients (1.0%), 31 (91.1%) of whom sustained death or MI within 7 days. Target lesion revascularization was performed in 425 patients (12.3%), 15 (3.5%) of whom died or had MI within 7 days. ST occurred in 14 BMS and 20 paclitaxel-eluting stent patients, resulting in 12 and 19 deaths or MIs within 7 days, respectively. Target lesion revascularization was performed in 290 BMS and 135 paclitaxel-eluting stent patients, resulting in 11 and 4 deaths or MI events within 7 days, respectively. In total, 23 patients in both the BMS and paclitaxel-eluting stents groups died or had an MI event within 7 days of either ST or target lesion revascularization.

Conclusions— ST, although infrequent, results in a high incident rate of death and MI, whereas the more frequent occurrence of target lesion revascularization is associated with a finite but lower rate of death and MI. The marked reduction in restenosis with drug-eluting stents compared with BMS may counterbalance the potential excess risk from late ST with drug-eluting stents.

As time goes by: current status and future directions in the controversy over stenting

Drug-eluting stents (DES) have dramatically transformed the landscape of interventional cardiology largely on the basis of empirical evidence showing profound reduction in angiographic and clinical restenosis without any significant increase in adverse events. Recent data, however, raise questions regarding the increased risk of late stent thrombosis associated with DES in more complex lesions and higher-risk patients than those evaluated in the initial clinical trials or Food and Drug Administration-approved indications, the challenge of continuing long-term antiplatelet therapy, and the danger of early discontinuation of antiplatelet therapy. We herein review the current status of this controversy, describe the additional evidence needed for its resolution, and offer recommendations for regulatory reform and 3 specific recommendations to encourage evidence-based patient management: 1) an emphasis on medical therapies with proven long-term benefit; 2) the use of kinetic modeling to estimate long-term outcomes of therapies based on the available near-term data; and 3) the restructuring of reimbursement incentives to encourage the use of evidence-based clinical management strategies.

Late and very late thrombosis of drug-eluting stents: evolving concepts and perspectives

Coronary stents are the mainstay of percutaneous coronary revascularization procedures and have significantly decreased the rates of acute vessel closure and restenosis. Stent thrombosis (ST) after percutaneous coronary intervention is an uncommon and potentially catastrophic event that might manifest as myocardial infarction and sudden death. Optimization of stent implantation and dual antiplatelet therapy have markedly reduced the occurrence of this complication. Bare-metal stent (BMS) thrombosis occurs in <1% of the cases, usually within the first month after implantation. The advent of drug-eluting stents (DES) has raised concerns regarding later occurrence of ST, beyond the traditional 1-month timeframe, especially in complex lesion subsets that were excluded from randomized trials that compared BMS to DES. There is widespread controversy regarding the actual incremental risk associated with DES. Recent studies suggest a 0.5% increased long-term thrombosis risk with DES; however, the clinical significance of these events remains under debate. The degree of protection achieved by dual antiplatelet therapy and optimal duration of treatment are under investigation. Novel stent designs might potentially decrease the incidence of this event. In this review, we will describe the current knowledge of the pathophysiology of late DES thrombosis, although many aspects remain incompletely understood.

Release profiles in drug-eluting stents: issues and uncertainties

This review presents the current data on drug release from drug-eluting stents and the effects of the release profiles on animal and human data for coronary stenosis. Data for the two most important drugs, sirolimus (rapamycin) and paclitaxel, are presented, the polymers used are described and the observed release profiles are discussed for various polymer carriers. The current literature on the tissue compatibility of the polymers commonly used in drug-eluting stents is also discussed. The range of release rates from stents studied to date is limited for sirolimus, but somewhat broader for paclitaxel. Animal and human data comparing the different release profiles are limited to about 6 months for animals and 2-4 years for humans. From the data available, it appears that for both sirolimus and paclitaxel, a slow-releasing drug-eluting stent leads to slightly more favorable angiographic outcomes than more rapid release. Most of the complications arising from the use of drug-eluting stents are attributed to incomplete healing; one possible clinical consequence of this delay in healing is that anti-platelet therapy needs to be maintained over a much longer period than is the case for bare metal stents.

Thrombosis and drug-eluting stents: an objective appraisal

Stent thrombosis (ST) after percutaneous coronary intervention has been the focus of intense interest because of its attendant morbidity and mortality. There is controversy about several facets of the problem. These include the frequency of ST with drug-eluting stents (DES) versus bare-metal stents (BMS), the timing of the event, clinical consequences, risk factors, adjunctive therapy, and new preventive approaches. Information has accrued rapidly from several sources, including randomized controlled clinical trials of DES versus BMS in carefully selected subsets of patients and registry experiences in larger patient groups, which provide a more universal real-world picture. The results from these different data sets are not completely concordant. However, several general conclusions can be made: 1) ST is an infrequent but very severe complication of both BMS and DES; 2) at the present time, during 4 years of follow-up from randomized controlled trials that compared DES and BMS, there is no apparent difference in overall ST frequency, although the time course for occurrence appears to differ, with a relative numeric excess of ST late after DES implant; 3) despite this relative imbalance, no differences in the end points of death or death and infarction between DES and BMS are observed; 4) longer-term follow-up of these patients as well as larger angiographic and clinical subsets of patients who receive this technology outside of randomized trials are required to fully study this issue; and 5) advances in stent platforms for drug elution as well as adjunctive pharmacologic therapy are being evaluated to enhance long-term safety.

Drug eluting stents for ST-elevation myocardial infarction: risk and benefit

Drug-eluting stents have been a major advance in percutaneous coronary revascularization. Widespread use of these stents has been spurred by substantial reductions in restenosis rates when compared with bare metal stents. The use of drugeluting stents during ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction has been a common practice and is associated with lower revascularization rates in various studies. Unfortunately, significant concerns regarding the occurrence of late stent thrombosis with this technology persist. A clinical dilemma exists as to whether the benefits of reduced repeat revascularization with DES outweigh the harm caused by a possible increased occurrence of the infrequent but devastating complication of late stent thrombosis. This review with discuss the theoretical risks and benefits of DES for STEMI, the available data regarding their use, and the areas where future studies are needed.

Optimal medical therapy with or without PCI for stable coronary disease

BACKGROUND

In patients with stable coronary artery disease, it remains unclear whether an initial management strategy of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with intensive pharmacologic therapy and lifestyle intervention (optimal medical therapy) is superior to optimal medical therapy alone in reducing the risk of cardiovascular events.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized trial involving 2287 patients who had objective evidence of myocardial ischemia and significant coronary artery disease at 50 U.S. and Canadian centers. Between 1999 and 2004, we assigned 1149 patients to undergo PCI with optimal medical therapy (PCI group) and 1138 to receive optimal medical therapy alone (medical-therapy group). The primary outcome was death from any cause and nonfatal myocardial infarction during a follow-up period of 2.5 to 7.0 years (median, 4.6).

RESULTS

There were 211 primary events in the PCI group and 202 events in the medical-therapy group. The 4.6-year cumulative primary-event rates were 19.0% in the PCI group and 18.5% in the medical-therapy group (hazard ratio for the PCI group, 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87 to 1.27; P=0.62). There were no significant differences between the PCI group and the medical-therapy group in the composite of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke (20.0% vs. 19.5%; hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.27; P=0.62); hospitalization for acute coronary syndrome (12.4% vs. 11.8%; hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.37; P=0.56); or myocardial infarction (13.2% vs. 12.3%; hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.43; P=0.33).

CONCLUSIONS

As an initial management strategy in patients with stable coronary artery disease, PCI did not reduce the risk of death, myocardial infarction, or other major cardiovascular events when added to optimal medical therapy. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00007657 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).

Does Addition of Estradiol Improve the Efficacy of a Rapamycin-Eluting Stent?

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to assess the efficacy of a rapamycin plus 17-beta-estradiol-eluting stent versus a rapamycin-eluting stent in patients with coronary artery disease.

BACKGROUND

Estradiol promotes rapid re-endothelialization of coronary stents in animal models, but it is not known whether combining this drug with rapamycin represents an improved drug-eluting stent technology in terms of reduced lumen renarrowing.

METHODS

In this randomized study, we enrolled 502 patients with de novo lesions in native coronary arteries who were randomly assigned to receive either a polymer-free, estradiol plus rapamycin-eluting stent (ERES) (n = 252) or a polymer-free, rapamycin-eluting stent (RES) (n = 250). The primary end point was in-stent late lumen loss in the follow-up angiography. Secondary end points were binary angiographic restenosis, target lesion revascularization, combined incidence of death and myocardial infarction, and incidence of stent thrombosis during 1 year after randomization. The study was designed to test for the superiority of the ERES compared with the RES with respect to in-stent late lumen loss.

RESULTS

Late lumen loss (0.52 +/- 0.58 mm vs. 0.51 +/- 0.58 mm, p = 0.83), the incidence of binary angiographic restenosis (17.6% vs. 16.9%, p = 0.85), the incidence of target lesion revascularization (14.3% vs. 13.2%, p = 0.72), the combined incidence of death and myocardial infarction (7.9% vs. 8.0%, p = 0.98), and the incidence of stent thrombosis (0.8% vs. 1.2%, p = 0.99) were not significantly different between the ERES group and the RES group.

CONCLUSIONS

No apparent beneficial effect is obtained by adding estradiol to a polymer-free rapamycin-eluting stent during the first year after the procedure. (The ISAR-PEACE trial; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct/show/NCT00402636?order=1; NCT00402636).

Impact of 6-Month Angiographic Restenosis Inside Bare-Metal Stents on Long-Term Clinical Outcome in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease

This study enrolled 536 patients who underwent successful coronary stenting with bare-metal stents and 6-month angiographic follow-up examinations between 1998 and 2000. Baseline characteristics and angiographic and procedural parameters for these patients were obtained. Primary endpoints were all-cause mortality and nonfatal myocardial infarction. Patients were assigned to instent restenosis or non-instent restenosis groups based on 6-month angiographic follow-up results. Restenosis inside a bare-metal stent was defined as more than 50% stenosis at the intervention site. In total, 178 (33.2%) patients had restenosis inside bare-metal stents, while 358 (66.8%) patients were without. At mean follow-up of 56.8 +/- 20.3 months, 36 (6.7%) patients had a primary endpoint event while 500 (93.3%) patients had no primary endpoint event. Survival rates for patients free from primary endpoints in the instent restenosis and non-instent restenosis groups were 96.0 versus 99.4% at 1 year and 89.8% versus 94.8% at 5 years, respectively (P = 0.0033). Survival rates for patients free of all-cause mortality in the instent restenosis and non-instent restenosis groups were 96.0% versus 99.4% at 1 year and 91.6% versus 96.3% at 5 years, respectively (P = 0.0079). Multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that restenosis inside bare-metal stents was an independent predictor of primary endpoint events (odds ratio: 2.053; 95% CI: 1.048-4.022; P = 0.036) and was a predictor of total mortality with borderline significance (odds ratio: 2.036; 95% CI: 0.936-4.431; P = 0.073). In conclusion, in this study, restenosis inside bare-metal stents at 6-month angiographic follow-up was an independent predictor of long-term outcome-all-cause mortality and nonfatal myocardial infarction. Thus, this study provides clinical evidence that patients with restenosis inside bare-metal stents at 6-month angiographic follow-up likely warrant aggressive follow-up.