A randomized comparison of sirolimus-eluting versus bare metal stents in the treatment of diabetic patients with native coronary artery lesions: the DECODE study

WITHDRAWN: Drug-eluting stents versus bare metal stents for angina or acute coronary syndromes

This review 'topic' has been included in work being carried out as part of a Health Technology Assessment commissioned by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence in England and Wales. Details of this research is available via www.nice.org.uk.

The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the HTA programme, NICE, NIHR, NHS or the Department of Health.

The review has been split into 2 reviews that will be published as "Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for stable ischaemic heart disease" and "Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome".

The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication.

A randomized study to compare bioactive titanium stents and everolimus-eluting stents in diabetic patients (TITANIC XV): 1-year results

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Up to 25% of patients who undergo a percutaneous coronary intervention show some limitation in the use of drug-eluting stents. The aim of this study was to evaluate if titanium-nitride-oxide-coated stents could be a good alternative to everolimus-eluting stents in diabetic patients.

METHODS

A total of 173 diabetic patients with lesions at moderate risk of restenosis (exclusion criteria: diameter < 2.5 mm or length > 28 mm in vessels < 3mm, chronic occlusion) were randomized to a titanium group (83 patients) or an everolimus group (90 patients).

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were well balanced; 28.3% of patients were insulin dependent. At 1 year, the incidence of major adverse cardiac events (death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, or repeat target vessel revascularization) was significantly higher in the titanium group than in the everolimus group (total, 14.5% vs 4.4%; P = .02; noninsulin-dependent subgroup, 9.7% vs 3.2%; P = .14; insulin-dependent subgroup, 28.6% vs 7.1%; P = .04). The incidence of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, or any revascularization was 16.9% in the titanium group and 7.8% in the everolimus group (P = .06). Target lesion and vessel revascularizations occurred in 8.4% compared with 3.3% (P = .15) and in 13.3% compared with 3.3% (P = .01) in the titanium and everolimus groups, respectively. Angiographic follow-up at 9 months showed significantly less late lumen loss in the everolimus group (in-segment, 0.52 [standard deviation, 0.58) mm vs -0.05 [0.32] mm; in-stent, 0.76 [0.54] mm vs 0.13 [0.31] mm; P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

The everolimus-eluting stent is superior to the titanium stent for clinical and angiographic end points in diabetic patients with lesions at moderate risk of restenosis.

Efficacy and safety of sirolimus-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents in coronary artery disease patients with diabetes: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare by meta-analysis the efficacy and safety of sirolimus-eluting and bare-metal stents in coronary artery disease (CAD) patients with diabetes.

METHOD

PubMed, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched from 1971 to 2012. Data on the efficacy and safety of sirolimus-eluting and bare-metal stents in patients with diabetes were collected. A meta-analysis was then performed on a total of 1 259 CAD patients with diabetes from six studies. The odds ratio (OR) was used for comparison. Subgroup analysis was performed according to the sample size, year of study, subjects' geographic area and study method.

RESULTS

Compared with those in the bare-metal stent group (BMS), the subjects in the sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) group had a reduced risk for major cardiac events [OR 0.42, 95% confidence interval (CI): 024-0.74, p < 0.01] and target-lesion revascularisation (OR 0.26, 95% CI: 0.11 - 0.59, p < 0.01). There was no difference for myocardial infarction (OR 0.92, 95% CI: 0.61-1.40, p > 0.05) or mortality (OR 1.19, 95% CI: 0.74-1.92, p > 0.05). Subgroup analysis showed a significant difference for overall risk of major cardiac events between SES and BMS when the sample size was ≤ 90 (OR 0.28, 95% CI: 0.16-0.48, p < 0.01), when it was a randomised control trial (RCT) (OR 0.28, 95% CI: 0.19-0.42, p < 0.01), or when it was performed on European subjects (OR 0.45, 95% CI: 0.27-0.77, p < 0.01). The sensitivity was not different when one study was removed at a time.

CONCLUSION

Our study confirmed that SES are safer and more effective than BMS in CAD patients with diabetes, as far as major cardiac events are concerned.

Usefulness of preprocedural levels of advanced glycation end products to predict restenosis in patients with controlled diabetes mellitus undergoing drug-eluting stent implantation for stable angina pectoris (from the Prospective ARMYDA-AGEs Study)

Diabetes mellitus (DM) remains the main predictor of restenosis rates and cardiovascular events following successful percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) despite the use of drug-eluting stents (DES). HbA1c <6.0% is considered an index of optimized metabolic control in patients with DM, but several studies are downsizing its role in the clinical management of these patients. Increasing evidence points at the role of advanced glycation end products (AGEs) in restenosis pathogenesis independently on Hb1AC levels. Thus, we investigated the predictive value of preprocedural AGE levels for in-stent restenosis in a population of euglycaemic diabetic patients undergoing PCI with DES implantation. One hundred twenty-five consecutive patients with DM in optimized glycemic control admitted for stable angina pectoris and treated with elective DES implantation at a tertiary hospital were prospectively included. The primary end point of the ARMYDA-AGEs study was to compare rates of angiographic ISR at 6 months after the intervention according to pre-PCI levels of AGEs. Secondary end points were the correlations of AGE levels with occurrence of periprocedural myocardial damage, major adverse cardiac events, and in-stent late loss at 6-month control coronary angiography. AGE levels >17 μM was found to be an independent predictor of ISR at 6 months and stent lumen loss. AGEs failed to predict occurrence of secondary endpoints. In conclusion, elevated AGE levels predict occurrence of in-stent restenosis after DES implantation in patients with DM on optimized glycemic control and might represent a dosable marker of adverse outcome after PCI.

Outcomes with various drug eluting or bare metal stents in patients with diabetes mellitus: mixed treatment comparison analysis of 22,844 patient years of follow-up from randomised trials

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of currently used drug eluting stents compared with each other and compared with bare metal stents in patients with diabetes.

DESIGN

Mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION

PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL were searched for randomised clinical trials, until April 2012, of four durable polymer drug eluting stents (sirolimus eluting stents, paclitaxel eluting stents, everolimus eluting stents, and zotarolimus eluting stents) compared with each other or with bare metal stents for the treatment of de novo coronary lesions and enrolling at least 50 patients with diabetes.

PRIMARY OUTCOMES

Efficacy (target vessel revascularisation) and safety (death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis).

RESULTS

From 42 trials with 22,844 patient years of follow-up, when compared with bare metal stents (reference rate ratio 1) all of the currently used drug eluting stents were associated with a significant reduction in target vessel revascularisation (37% to 69%), though the efficacy varied with the type of stent (everolimus eluting stents~sirolimus eluting stents>paclitaxel eluting stents~zotarolimus eluting stent>bare metal stents). There was about an 87% probability that everolimus eluting stents were the most efficacious compared with all others, though there were limited usable data for the zotarolimus eluting Resolute stent in patients with diabetes. Moreover, there was no increased risk of any safety outcome (including very late stent thrombosis) with any drug eluting stents compared with bare metal stents. There was about a 62% probability that the everolimus eluting stent was the safest stent for the outcome of "any" stent thrombosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with diabetes treated with coronary stents all currently available drug eluting stents were efficacious without compromising safety compared with bare metal stents. There were relative differences among the drug eluting stents, such that the everolimus eluting stent was the most efficacious and safe.

Revascularization for left main and multivessel coronary artery disease in the drug-eluting stent era: integration of recent drug-eluting stent trials

As older patients comprise a greater proportion of the population, the incidence of multivessel and left main coronary artery disease is increasing. Given the improvements in percutaneous coronary intervention, more patients are suitable for this revascularization strategy. However, the optimal revascularization strategy remains a moving target. Numerous trials, extending from the bypass surgery versus medical therapy era to the most current drug-eluting stent versus bypass surgery era, provide information to select the most appropriate revascularization strategy. The objective of this review is to summarize these data.

Intra-individual head-to-head comparison of Sirolimus®- and Paclitaxel®-eluting stents for coronary revascularization. A randomized, multi-center trial

BACKGROUND

Despite the known effects of drug-eluting stents (DES), other cofactors attributed to patient characteristics affect their success. Interest focused on designing a study minimizing these factors to answer continuing concerns on the heterogeneity of response to different DESs. The study's aim was to investigate the feasibility and impact of an intra-individual comparison design in patients (pts) with two coronary artery stenosis treated with a Sirolimus- (SES) and a Paclitaxel- (PES) eluting stent.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The study was conducted as a prospective, randomized, multi-center trial in 112 pts who consented to treatment with a SES and a PES. Pts were eligible if they suffered from the presence of two single primary target lesions in two different native coronary arteries. Lesions were randomized to either SES or PES treatment. The primary endpoint was in-stent luminal late loss (LLL), as determined by quantitative angiography at 8 months; clinical follow up was obtained at 1, 8, and 12 months additionally. The LLL (0.13 ± 0.28 mm SES vs. 0.26 ± 0.35 mm PES, p=0.011) showed less neointima in SES. With a predefined cut-off criterion of 0.2mm difference in LLL, 53/87 pts SES and PES were similar effective. 34/87 pts had a divergent result, 26 pts had greater benefit from SES while 8 pts had greater benefit from PES. Overall, MACE (MI, TLR, and death) occurred in 19 (17%) pts. Based on lesion analysis of 108 lesions treated with SES and 110 lesions treated with PES, 5 (4.6%) lesions with SES and 3 (2.7%) lesions with PES required repeated TLR.

CONCLUSION

An intra-individual comparison design to assess differences in efficacy of different DESs is feasible, safe and achieves similar results to inter-individual studies. This study is among the first to show that failure of one DES does not necessarily implicate failure of another DES and vice versa.

Five-year results of the Multicenter Randomized Controlled Open-Label Study of the CYPHER Sirolimus-Eluting Stent in the Treatment of Diabetic Patients with De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions (SCORPIUS) study: a German multicenter investigation on the effectiveness of sirolimus-eluting stents in diabetic patients

BACKGROUND

Because a delayed arterial healing response after drug-eluting stent implantation has raised concerns about safety in diabetic patients, long-term effects of treatment with sirolimus-eluting stent (SES), as compared with bare-metal stent (BMS), have to be established. The aim of the 5-year follow-up of the randomized, controlled, open-label multicenter SCORPIUS study was to assess long-term safety and efficacy of the CYPHER (Cordis, Johnson & Johnson, Bridgewater, NJ) SES in percutaneous coronary intervention of diabetic patients.

METHODS

A total of 190 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus were randomized to receive either a SES (n = 95) or a BMS (n = 95). Dual-antiplatelet therapy (aspirin plus clopidogrel) was prescribed for at least 6 months. Clinical follow-up data were scheduled at 1, 8, and 12 months and 5 years.

RESULTS

Treatment with SES resulted in a 16% decrease in the rate of major adverse cardiac events (36% vs 52%; hazard ratio 0.6, 95% CI 0.4-0.9; P = .02). This reduction in major adverse cardiac events with SES at 5 years was mostly attributable to a lower number of repeat target lesion revascularization (13% vs 29%; hazard ratio 0.4, 95% CI 0.2-0.7; P = .003). No differences between groups were observed for safety end points (all-cause mortality 21% vs 21%, cardiac death 15% vs 13%, repeat myocardial infarction 8% vs 9%, and stent thrombosis 5% vs 6%) at 5 years.

CONCLUSIONS

The 5-year follow-up of the SCORPIUS trial demonstrates the long-term antirestenotic efficacy of SES in diabetic patients with significantly reduced target lesion revascularization and comparable rates of mortality, myocardial infarction, and stent thrombosis compared with BMS.

Drug-eluting stents versus bare metal stents for angina or acute coronary syndromes

BACKGROUND

Coronary artery stents are tiny tubular devices used to 'scaffold' vessels open during percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA). Restenosis (re-narrowing) of vessels treated with stents is a problem; in order to reduce restenosis, stents that elute drugs over time are now available. However these drug-eluting stents are more expensive and there is a need to assess their clinical benefits prior to recommending their use.

OBJECTIVES

To examine evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the impact of drug eluting stents (DES) compared to bare metal stents (BMS) in the reduction of cardiac events.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2008, Issue 4), MEDLINE (1990 - April 2009) and EMBASE (1980 - January 2009) were searched. We carried out handsearching (electronic and manual) up to January 2008.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs comparing DES with BMS used in conjunction with PTCA techniques in the review. Participants were adults with stable angina or acute coronary syndrome (ACS). We considered published and unpublished sources and included them if they reported outcome data of interest.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently extracted data, assessed trial quality assessment and checked decisions within the group. Data extraction included composite event rates (major adverse cardiac event, target vessel failure); death; acute myocardial infarction (AMI); target lesion revascularisation (TLR); target vessel revascularisation (TVR) and thrombosis. Data synthesis included meta-analysis of composite event rate, death, AMI and revascularisation rates, presented as odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using a fixed-effect model. We assessed heterogeneity between trials.

MAIN RESULTS

We included more than 14,500 patients in 47 RCTs. There were no statistically significant differences in death, AMI or thrombosis between DES and BMS. For composite events, TLR and TVR reductions were evident with use of sirolimus, paclitaxel, everolimus, dexamethasone, zotarolimus and (to a limited extent) tacrolimus-eluting stents. These effects are demonstrated in the longer term follow up. Subgroup analyses (e.g. diabetics) largely mirrored these findings.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Drug-eluting stents releasing sirolimus, paclitaxel, dexamethasone and zotarolimus reduce composite cardiac events. However, this reduction is due largely to reductions in repeat revascularisation rates as there is no evidence of a significant effect on rates of death, MI or thrombosis. The increased cost of drug-eluting stents and lack of evidence of their cost-effectiveness means that various health funding agencies are having to limit or regulate their use in relation to price premium.

Defining patients at high risk for gastrointestinal hemorrhage after drug-eluting stent placement: a cost utility analysis

INTRODUCTION

The study goal was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of drug-eluting stent (DES) placement with consideration of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding risk. DES reduce the need for future coronary revascularization, but require prolonged dual anti-platelet (DAT) therapy, which may increase the risk for GI bleeding. While DES have been found to be cost-effective in patients at average risk for GI bleeding, they may not be the most cost-effective strategy in higher risk patients.

METHODS

A Markov model was created to compare DES with bare metal stents (BMS). Patients were a hypothetical cohort of 60-year-old individuals with coronary artery stenosis that required nonemergent percutaneous coronary revascularization (PCI). The primary outcomes were the threshold incremental risks of GI bleeding from DAT based on willingness to pay (WTP) of $50,000, $100,000, and $150,000 per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained.

RESULTS

For a WTP of $100,000, the relative risk of GI bleeding from DAT could be as high as 10.8 (when compared to aspirin alone) before DES would no longer be cost-effective. In patients with two risk factors for GI bleeding, the threshold relative risk could be as low as 1.6.

CONCLUSION

In average-risk patients, the risk of GI bleeding from DAT can be substantial without affecting the cost-effectiveness of DES. However, DES are unlikely to be cost-effective in patients with two or more risk factors for GI bleeding.