A prospective randomized comparison between paclitaxel and sirolimus stents in the real world of interventional cardiology

Sirolimus- versus Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents: A Comparison of Two Consecutive Series in Routine Clinical Practice

BACKGROUND

We compared two consecutive series of patients treated with sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) or paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES).

METHODS

Two hundred and ninety-five patients with 590 coronary lesions were treated with 274 SES and 379 PES. Patients with symptoms or positive dobutamine stress echocardiography were subjected to repeat coronary angiography.

RESULTS

During a follow-up of 13.3 +/- 5.7 months, the incidence rate of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) was 4.1%, including, 1 death, 4 Q-wave myocardial infarctions, 2 late angiographic stent thromboses, 3 subacute stent thromboses, and 11 target vessel revascularizations (TVR), and was not significantly different between SES (n = 5) and PES (n = 7). Stent overlapping was found to be an independent predictor of both MACE (odds ratio = 0.078, P = 0.02) and TVR (odds ratio = 0.077, P = 0.02). Follow-up symptoms- or ischemia-driven angiography was performed in 45 patients. Only vessel size was a predictor of stent restenosis (P = 0.02), independent of stent type. Late loss was independently predicted by postdilatation of stent (beta =-0.24, P = 0.03), but not by type of stent (P = 0.14) or other parameters. Edge restenosis was seen in 8 patients subjected to lesion predilatation. The restenosis pattern after SES implantation was focal, but diffuse (n = 1) or proliferative (n = 1) restenosis, and in-stent aneurysm formation (n = 1) was also seen with PES.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a trend for a higher incidence of MACE with PES, no significant differences between the two stent types were detected. Diffuse restenosis was seen only with PES, and edge restenosis only in lesions with balloon predilatation before stent implantation. Stent overlapping was an independent predictor of both TVR and MACE.

Lower level of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol by statin prevents progression of coronary restenosis after successful stenting in acute myocardial infarction

OBJECTIVE

It is unclear whether the reduction of coronary restenosis by statins is due to a decrease in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol and/or pleiotropic effects. Therefore, we performed quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) and analyzed the lipid profile and changes in adhesion molecules and chemokines caused by statin in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI).

METHODS

The subjects included AMI patients who had initial coronary angiograms and significant coronary stenosis and were implanted with a stent. After stent implantation, patients were treated either with (n = 36) or without (n = 14) statin. The primary end-point for this study was the absolute changes in the lipid profile, C-reactive protein (CRP), adhesion molecules, chemokines and stenosis measured by QCA between the post-stent and follow-up angiogram at 6 months after stenting.

RESULTS

Treatment with statin reduced % coronary diameter stenosis (DS) and was associated with a greater reduction in LDL cholesterol at 6 months after stenting in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), while there were no differences in adhesion molecules, chemokines, CC chemokine receptor or CXC chemokine receptor. Interestingly, changes in % DS between before and after statin treatment at 6 months (Delta%DS) were positively correlated with DeltaLDL cholesterol, and patients who had an LDL cholesterol level of less than 80 mg/dl had a significantly lower Delta%DS. In addition, Delta%DS was significantly related only to the reduction in LDL cholesterol as assessed by a stepwise multivariable regression analysis.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that the lower level of LDL cholesterol is the most critical factor in preventing coronary restenosis.

Drug-Eluting Coronary Stents

The introduction and widespread use of coronary stents have been the most important advancement in the percutaneous treatment of coronary artery disease since the introduction of balloon angioplasty. Coronary artery stents reduce the rate of angiographic and clinical restenosis compared to balloon angioplasty. This angiographic restenosis was further reduced with the introduction of drug-eluting stents and hence further reduction in the frequency of major adverse cardiac events. Herein we present a comprehensive and up-to-date review about the use of drug-eluting stents in the treatment of coronary artery disease.

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

OBJECTIVE

This study compared the efficacy of the sirolimus-eluting stent (SES), the paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES), and the bare metal stent (BMS) for long coronary lesions.

BACKGROUND

The outcome of drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation in long coronary lesions remains unclear.

METHODS

The study involved 527 patients with de novo long coronary lesions (> or = 24 mm), which were treated with long (> or = 28 mm) SESs (223 lesions), PESs (194 lesions), or BMSs (201 lesions).

RESULTS

Lesions in the SES (36.0 +/- 14.9 mm, P < 0.001) and PES (36.3 +/- 14.5 mm, P < 0.001) groups were longer than those in the BMS group (32.0 +/- 12.3 mm), meaning the two DES groups had longer stented segments than did the BMS group. Six-month angiographic follow-up showed the SES (9.3%, P < 0.001) and PES (21.3%, P < 0.001) groups had lower in-segment restenosis rates than that of the BMS group (42.5%). The rate of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) including death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization at 9 months was higher in the BMS group (26.6%) than that in the SES (13.0%, P < 0.001) and PES (15.7%, P < 0.001) groups. Posthoc analysis of the two DES groups showed that the in-segment restenosis rate was lower for the SES than that for the PES group (P = 0.002), while the MACE rate was similar.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of DESs for long coronary lesions appears to be safe and more effective than the use of BMSs in terms of restenosis and adverse clinical events. SES use was associated with lower late luminal loss and a lower angiographic restenosis rate compared with PES use.

Two-year clinical outcome after coronary stenting of small vessels using 2.25-mm sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents: Insight into the RESEARCH and T-SEARCH registries

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate long-term outcomes after drug-eluting stents (DES) implantation in small coronary vessels.

BACKGROUND

Sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) have been reported to improve both the angiographic and clinical outcomes compared with bare metal stents even in 'real world' settings. Currently, no data is available on long-term outcomes after DES implantation in small vessels.

METHODS

Since April 2002, our institution has implanted DES, either SES or PES, as a default strategy in all patients irrespective of their clinical presentation. Between October 2002 and September 2003, 197 consecutive patients were enrolled: 107 consecutive patients received at least one 2.25-mm SES (SES group) and 90 consecutive patients received at least one 2.25-mm PES (PES group).

RESULTS

The two cohorts presented with high-risk characteristics. At 2 years, the cumulative incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in the SES group was significantly lower than that in the PES group (10.3% vs. 23.3%, P=0.02). There were two subacute angiographic stent thromboses in the PES group and none in the SES group. By multivariate analysis, PES utilization (HR 2.37, 95% CI 1.07-5.26), presentation with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) (HR 3.34, 95% CI 1.44-7.70) and multi-vessel disease (MVD) (HR 3.91, 95% CI 1.27-12.0) were identified as independent predictors of MACE.

CONCLUSIONS

In an unselected population treated for small vessel disease, SES were associated with significantly better 2-year clinical outcomes than PES. The use of PES and the presentation with ACS and MVD were identified as independent predictors of MACE.

Restenosis related to percutaneous coronary intervention has been solved?

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has become the most important revascularization method in the treatment of coronary artery disease. The major problem in PCI has been renarrowing of the dilated vessel after the procedure (restenosis). The best results in the prevention of restenosis have been obtained by covering the stent with drugs that inhibit cellular growth, thus limiting excessive scar formation inside of the stent. With drug-eluting stents, restenosis has been reduced to one-tenth compared with balloon angioplasty and to one-fourth compared to bare metal stents. Due to drug-eluting stents, PCI is an alternative to bypass surgery. However, restenosis will remain a challenge due to the increased number of procedures and more difficult disease treated with PCI.

Outcome in the real-world of coronary high-risk intervention with drug-eluting stents (ORCHID)—A single-center study comparing Cypher™ sirolimus-eluting with Taxus™ paclitaxel-eluting stents

OBJECTIVE

We present real world experience from a single center registry comparing the 6-month outcome of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in unselected high-risk individuals using either sirolimus-eluting (SES) or paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES).

METHODS/RESULTS

We compared clinical outcome at 6 months follow-up in two cohorts of 156 consecutive patients (total n = 312) who underwent SES (June 2002-February 2003) and PES (march 2003-July 2003) implantation. The primary endpoint was a composite of major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Baseline clinical characteristics were well matched. The 6-month target vessel revascularization (TVR) rates were 1.9% (SES) and 2.6% (PES) and MACE rates were similar in the two groups (SES 4.5% vs. PES 3.2%, P = NS). In the PES group, intervention for multivessel disease, bifurcation lesions and in small vessels was more common, and for in-stent restenosis less common, reflecting the impact of drug eluting stents on indications for PCI. The incidence of sub-acute stent thrombosis, related to inadequate antiplatelet therapy in 3 of the 6 cases, was 0.95% with no difference between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

This study confirms the safety and efficacy of SES and PES in unselected high risk patients undergoing PCI. Clinical outcomes of both stents are equivalent at 6 months with low rates of MACE and TVR. These data provide important complementary information to forthcoming randomized studies.

The paclitaxel-eluting Coroflex™ please stent pilot study (PECOPS I): Acute and 6-month clinical and angiographic follow-up

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Various active stent coatings significantly reduce restenosis rates and target lesion revascularization compared to bare metal stents. Therefore, the procedural and 6-month performance of the new paclitaxel-eluting Coroflex. Please stent was investigated.

METHODS

Ninety-seven patients (66 +/- 7.6 years, 34/97(35.1%) diabetics, 11/97(11.3%) unstable angina) were enrolled per protocol for elective single stent deployment into native coronary de-novo or post-PTCA restenotic lesions (stenosis: >or= 70%, < 100%; reference diameter >or= 2.25 mm and <3.3 mm; lesion length <or= 16 mm) with 13/97(13.4%) lesion type A, 64/97(66%) type B1, 20/97(20.6%) type B2). The mean reference diameter was 2.88 +/- 0.42 mm, the lesion length 10.03 +/- 2.93 mm, and the minimal lumen diameter 0.64 +/- 0.22 mm.

RESULTS

The success rates of procedure and study stent deployment were 100% and 94.8%, respectively. In 5/97(5.2%) two stents were implanted. Follow-up was performed clinically in 86/87(98.9%) and angiographically in 77/87(88.5%) patients after 6.1 +/- 0.7 months. Major adverse cardiac events occurred in 7/87(8%) 1/87(1.2%) subacute thrombosis 10.3hrs post procedure, 1/87(1.2%) myocardial infarction, 5/87(5.7%) target lesion revascularizations. The in-segment stenosis declined from 78 +/- 7.2% to 9.4 +/- 6.2% after stenting increasing to 31.9 +/- 18.6% at follow-up. The in-segment late loss and the late loss index were 0.47 +/- 0.6 mm and 0.23 +/- 0.29 resulting in 6/77(7.8%) in-segment restenoses three each of which were located either within or beyond the stent structure. The outcome was neither influenced by the prevalence of diabetes ( p = 0.4), hypercholesterolemia ( p = 1), hypertension ( p = 1), overweight ( p = 1), nor by the family history of coronary artery disease ( p = 0.7).

CONCLUSION

The data of the paclitaxel-eluting Coroflex. Please stent tested in PECOPS I are within the range other available paclitaxel-eluting stent.

Cypher Versus Taxus: Are There Differences?

Today, drug-eluting stents (DES) are the standard stenting procedure in the USA and in Switzerland. The objective of this analysis is to answer the two questions: what clinically relevant data regarding DES have been published, and is there a clinically relevant difference between the Cypher and the Taxus stents? Twenty-two randomized, controlled studies with a total of 11,118 patients were identified: 18 randomized studies compared a DES to a bare metal stent of identical design in 8,301 patients, and 4 randomized studies compared the Cypher and the Taxus stents in 2,817 patients. Three studies regarding Paclitaxel-releasing stents without polymer (1,235 pats) and five studies regarding Paclitaxel released from a polymer (3,513 pats) were analyzed. Sirolimus released from a polymer was investigated in five studies (2,070 pats). Everolimus released from a polymer was investigated in three studies (166 pats), Biolimus A9 released from a polymer in one (120 pats), and Zotarolimus (ABT-578) released from a polymer in also one (1,197 pats) trial. Thirteen studies chose either a surrogate primary endpoint (angiographic or IVUS) or a clinical endpoint insufficient for a power calculation. A primary clinical endpoint with an adequate sample size for a power calculation was chosen in three trials for the Taxus stent (TAXUS-IV, TAXUS-V, TAXUS-VI; 2,916 patients), in one trial for the Cypher stent (SIRIUS; 1,058 patients), and in one trial for the Endeavor stent (ENDEAVOR-II; 1,197 patients). In all these trials, the primary clinical endpoint was reached. Of the four studies comparing Cypher stents to Taxus stents, one did not define the primary endpoint (TAXi), two assumed superiority of the Cypher stent (REALITY with a surrogate endpoint and SIRTAX, a single-center study), and one was designed as a non-inferiority trial (ISAR-Diabetes, single-center study with a surrogate endpoint). Based on the European Society of Cardiology established strict criteria with a clinical primary endpoint as a prerequisite to recommend a DES, only three DES have thus far had proven positive effects on clinical outcome: the Cypher-stents, Taxus-stents, and Endeavor-stents. A trial proving the superiority of one DES over another would require a multicenter study with a clinical primary endpoint at an adequate power. As long as such a trial does not exist, Cypher and Taxus are regarded as being equivalent.

Technology Insight: an overview of research in drug-eluting stents

Drug-eluting stents (DESs) have revolutionized interventional cardiology over the past few years to the extent that balloon angioplasty and bare stents did in the 1980s and 1990s. The first DESs became commercially available in Europe in 2002 and in the US in 2003, and it is estimated that up to 80% of patients who undergo stent implantation in the US now receive a DES. Two devices, Cypher sirolimus-eluting stents (Cordis Corporation, Miami Lakes, FL) and Taxus paclitaxel-eluting stents (Boston Scientific Corporation, Natick, MN), are currently licensed for sale in both regions. Multiple new devices using different drugs, carriers and stents are currently undergoing clinical trials to establish their efficacy and obtain approval for commercialization. While the remarkable reduction of restenosis has accounted for the success of DESs, concerns remain regarding long-term follow-up; published 3-year follow-up results are available for fewer than 200 patients overall. Reports of late stent thrombosis have emerged, particularly in relation to discontinuation of antiplatelet therapy. In patients treated with DESs, long-term administration of at least one antiplatelet agent must be continued following completion of the mandatory dual antiplatelet regimen. In this review, we summarize the findings available for DESs so far, discuss emerging safety and efficacy data, and look at the future directions for these devices.

Sirolimus- versus Paclitaxel-Eluting Stent Implantation for Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis

We performed this study in order to compare the immediate and mid-term outcomes of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) in lesions of the unprotected left main coronary artery (LMCA). We assessed 54 patients from 5 centers who had undergone unprotected LMCA stenting (35 SES and 19 PES). The procedural success rates were 100 and 95%, respectively, in the SES and PES patients (p = 0.19). At the 6-month clinical follow-up, the event-free probability was 100% in the SES group, and 88% in the PES group (p = 0.07). At the 6-month angiographic follow-up (n = 24), the SES group exhibited a slightly lower late loss than did the PES group (0.24 +/- 0.44 vs. 0.65 +/- 0.60 mm, p = 0.09), and the restenosis rates were 8 and 9% (p = 0.94) in the SES and PES patients, respectively. In conclusion, both groups exhibited excellent in-hospital and 6-month outcomes with no significant differences between them.

Sirolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents for coronary revascularization

BACKGROUND

Sirolimus-eluting stents and paclitaxel-eluting stents, as compared with bare-metal stents, reduce the risk of restenosis. It is unclear whether there are differences in safety and efficacy between the two types of drug-eluting stents.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized, controlled, single-blind trial comparing sirolimus-eluting stents with paclitaxel-eluting stents in 1012 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. The primary end point was a composite of major adverse cardiac events (death from cardiac causes, myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven revascularization of the target lesion) by nine months. Follow-up angiography was completed in 540 of 1012 patients (53.4 percent).

RESULTS

The two groups had similar baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics. The rate of major adverse cardiac events at nine months was 6.2 percent in the sirolimus-stent group and 10.8 percent in the paclitaxel-stent group (hazard ratio, 0.56; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.36 to 0.86; P=0.009). The difference was driven by a lower rate of target-lesion revascularization in the sirolimus-stent group than in the paclitaxel-stent group (4.8 percent vs. 8.3 percent; hazard ratio, 0.56; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.34 to 0.93; P=0.03). Rates of death from cardiac causes were 0.6 percent in the sirolimus-stent group and 1.6 percent in the paclitaxel-stent group (P=0.15); the rates of myocardial infarction were 2.8 percent and 3.5 percent, respectively (P=0.49); and the rates of angiographic restenosis were 6.6 percent and 11.7 percent, respectively (P=0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

As compared with paclitaxel-eluting stents, the use of sirolimus-eluting stents results in fewer major adverse cardiac events, primarily by decreasing the rates of clinical and angiographic restenosis.

Guidelines for percutaneous coronary interventions. The Task Force for Percutaneous Coronary Interventions of the European Society of Cardiology

In patients with stable CAD, PCI can be considered a valuable initial mode of revascularization in all patients with objective large ischaemia in the presence of almost every lesion subset, with only one exception: chronic total occlusions that cannot be crossed. In early studies, there was a small survival advantage with CABG surgery compared with PCI without stenting. The addition of stents and newer adjunctive medications improved the outcome for PCI. The decision to recommend PCI or CABG surgery will be guided by technical improvements in cardiology or surgery, local expertise, and patients' preference. However, until proved otherwise, PCI should be used only with reservation in diabetics with multi-vessel disease and in patients with unprotected left main stenosis. The use of drug-eluting stents might change this situation. Patients presenting with NSTE-ACS (UA or NSTEMI) have to be stratified first for their risk of acute thrombotic complications. A clear benefit from early angiography (<48 h) and, when needed, PCI or CABG surgery has been reported only in the high-risk groups. Deferral of intervention does not improve outcome. Routine stenting is recommended on the basis of the predictability of the result and its immediate safety. In patients with STEMI, primary PCI should be the treatment of choice in patients presenting in a hospital with PCI facility and an experienced team. Patients with contra-indications to thrombolysis should be immediately transferred for primary PCI, because this might be their only chance for quickly opening the coronary artery. In cardiogenic shock, emergency PCI for complete revascularization may be life-saving and should be considered at an early stage. Compared with thrombolysis, randomized trials that transferred the patients for primary PCI to a 'heart attack centre' observed a better clinical outcome, despite transport times leading to a significantly longer delay between randomization and start of the treatment. The superiority of primary PCI over thrombolysis seems to be especially clinically relevant for the time interval between 3 and 12 h after onset of chest pain or other symptoms on the basis of its superior preservation of myocardium. Furthermore, with increasing time to presentation, major-adverse-cardiac-event rates increase after thrombolysis, but appear to remain relatively stable after primary PCI. Within the first 3 h after onset of chest pain or other symptoms, both reperfusion strategies seem equally effective in reducing infarct size and mortality. Therefore, thrombolysis is still a viable alternative to primary PCI, if it can be delivered within 3 h after onset of chest pain or other symptoms. Primary PCI compared with thrombolysis significantly reduced stroke. Overall, we prefer primary PCI over thrombolysis in the first 3 h of chest pain to prevent stroke, and in patients presenting 3-12 h after the onset of chest pain, to salvage myocardium and also to prevent stroke. At the moment, there is no evidence to recommend facilitated PCI. Rescue PCI is recommended, if thrombolysis failed within 45-60 min after starting the administration. After successful thrombolysis, the use of routine coronary angiography within 24 h and PCI, if applicable, is recommended even in asymptomatic patients without demonstrable ischaemia to improve patients' outcome. If a PCI centre is not available within 24 h, patients who have received successful thrombolysis with evidence of spontaneous or inducible ischaemia before discharge should be referred to coronary angiography and revascularized accordingly--independent of 'maximal' medical therapy.