Comparison of the efficacy and safety of zotarolimus-, sirolimus-, and paclitaxel-eluting stents in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction

Three-Year Clinical Outcomes With the Cilotax Dual Drug-Eluting Stent vs Everolimus-Eluting Stents in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction

BACKGROUND

This study compared the safety and effectiveness of paclitaxel/cilostazol-eluting Cilotax stents with those of everolimus-eluting stents in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Real-world data from the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry were examined.

METHODS

A total of 5,472 patients with acute myocardial infarction underwent percutaneous coronary intervention with Cilotax stents (n = 212) or everolimus-eluting stents (n = 5,260). The primary end point was the 3-year rate of target lesion failure. The other end points were major adverse cardiovascular events (a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization), target vessel revascularization, and stent thrombosis. A propensity score matching analysis was performed to adjust for potential confounders by using a logistic regression model; propensity score matching generated 2 well-balanced groups (Cilotax group, n = 180; everolimus-eluting stents group, n = 170; N = 350). After propensity score matching, baseline clinical characteristics were similar between the groups.

RESULTS

After percutaneous coronary intervention, compared with the everolimus-eluting stents group, the Cilotax group more often had major adverse cardiovascular events (24.1% vs 18.5%; P = .042), myocardial infarction (8.0% vs 3.2%; P < .001), target lesion revascularization (8.0% vs 2.6%; P < .001), target vessel revascularization (11.3% vs 4.5%; P < .001), and stent thrombosis (4.7% vs 0.5%; P < .001) before matching. Even after matching, the Cilotax group had more frequent target lesion revascularization (9.4% vs 2.9%; P = .22) and stent thrombosis (5.6% vs 1.2%; P = .34).

CONCLUSION

In patients with acute myocardial infarction who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention, use of the Cilotax stent was associated with higher rates of target lesion revascularization, target vessel revascularization, and stent thrombosis than were everolimus-eluting stents. Use of the Cilotax dual drugeluting stent should be avoided in the treatment of myocardial infarction.

A comparison of the impact of current smoking on 2-year major clinical outcomes of first- and second-generation drug-eluting stents in acute myocardial infarction: Data from the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry

There are limited studies comparing the effect of current smoking on first-generation (1G)-drug-eluting stents (DES) and second-generation (2G)-DES in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients after successful percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We investigated the clinical impact of current smoking on 2-year clinical outcomes between the 1G-DES and the 2G-DES in AMI patients after PCI.A total of 11,812 AMI patients with a history of current smoking who underwent successful PCI with 1G-DES (n = 4622) or 2G-DES (n = 7190) were enrolled. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) defined as all-cause death, recurrent AMI (re-MI) or any revascularization (target lesion revascularization [TLR], target vessel revascularization [TVR], and non-TVR). The secondary endpoint was the incidence of definite or probable stent thrombosis (ST).Two propensity score-matched (PSM) groups (3900 pairs, n = 7800, C-statistic = .708) were generated. After PSM analysis, the 2-year cumulative incidence of MACE was significantly higher in the 1G-DES group compared with the 2G-DES (9.4% vs 7.4%, Log-rank P = .002; hazard ratio, 1.281; 95% confidence interval, 1.097-1.495; P = .002) and this increased incidence of MACE was associated with the increased incidence of any revascularization including TLR, TVR, and non-TVR. However, the incidences of ST, all-cause death, re-MI were not significantly different during 2-year follow-up period.2G-DES was the preferred treatment strategy for AMI patients with a history of current smoking to reduce MACE especially, any revascularization rate rather than 1G-DES in this study.

Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Strut Thickness on Outcomes in Patients With Drug-Eluting Stents in a Coronary Artery

The aim of this network meta-analysis is to assess the impact of strut thickness on clinical outcomes in patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention. We searched Medline/PubMed and performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis to compare outcomes of patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents (DES) of different strut thicknesses (ultrathin 60 to 80 μm; thin 81 to 100 μm; intermediate 101 to 120 μm; thick ≥120 μm). Studies comparing DES with similar strut thickness, bare metal stents, and fully bioresorbable scaffolds were excluded. Odds ratios with credible intervals (OR [CrIs]) were generated with random-effects models to compare outcomes. Our primary end point was stent thrombosis (ST). We identified 69 RCTs including 80,885 patients (ultrathin group = 10,219; thin group = 36,575; intermediate group = 11,399; thick group = 22,692). Mean age was 64 ± 11 years and 75% were male gender. When compared with thick-strut DES, ultrathin struts had significant less ST and myocardial infarction (OR 0.43 [CrI 0.27 to 0.68]; and OR 0.73 [CrI 0.62 to 0.92], respectively). Sensitivity analysis including only studies with permanent polymer DES gave similar results. Improvement in DES technology with thinner struts is associated with significant reduction in ST and myocardial infarction compared with thicker struts.

Comparison of 5-year outcomes of paclitaxel-eluting and endeavor zotarolimus-eluting stents in New York

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate long-term outcomes in patients undergoing either paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) or endeavor zotarolimus-eluting stents (E-ZES) placement and to assess comparative effectiveness of PES vs. E-ZES in different "off-label" and "high-risk" patient subgroups.

BACKGROUND

PES and E-ZES are frequently used in percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs). However, the long-term comparative effectiveness of PES vs. E-ZES in real practice is unknown.

METHODS

We created a longitudinal database by linking the New York State (NYS) cardiac registries, the NYS hospital discharge file, the National Death Index, and the U.S. Census file for patients undergoing either PES or E-ZES placement from July 2008 through December 2009. All-cause mortality, acute myocardial infarction (AMI), target lesion PCI (TLPCI), and target vessel coronary artery bypass graft (TVCABG) surgery were compared for 9,264 propensity score matched patients for a 5-year follow-up period using the Kaplan-Meier method with further adjustment using Cox proportional hazards regression.

RESULTS

We did not detect significant differences between E-ZES and PES (reference) in 5-year mortality (adjusted hazard ratio <AHR>: 1.02, 95% confidence interval <CI>: 0.91-1.14), AMI (AHR: 1.05, 95% CI: 0.90-1.22), TLPCI (AHR: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.86-1.13), and TVCABG (AHR, 1.07, 95% CI: 0.84-1.36). For six "off-label" and two "high-risk" subpopulations, we had similar findings for the two stent groups.

CONCLUSION

NYS observational data suggest that 5-year outcomes are comparable in patients receiving either PES or E-ZES placement, mirroring the findings of recent clinical trials. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

First- Versus Second-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents in Acute Coronary Syndromes (Katowice-Zabrze Registry)

Background

There are sparse data on the performance of different types of drug-eluting stents (DES) in acute and real-life setting.

Objective

The aim of the study was to compare the safety and efficacy of first- versus second-generation DES in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS).

Methods

This all-comer registry enrolled consecutive patients diagnosed with ACS and treated with percutaneous coronary intervention with the implantation of first- or second-generation DES in one-year follow-up. The primary efficacy endpoint was defined as major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event (MACCE), a composite of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, target-vessel revascularization and stroke. The primary safety outcome was definite stent thrombosis (ST) at one year.

Results

From the total of 1916 patients enrolled into the registry, 1328 patients were diagnosed with ACS. Of them, 426 were treated with first- and 902 with second-generation DES. There was no significant difference in the incidence of MACCE between two types of DES at one year. The rate of acute and subacute ST was higher in first- vs. second-generation DES (1.6% vs. 0.1%, p < 0.001, and 1.2% vs. 0.2%, p = 0.025, respectively), but there was no difference regarding late ST (0.7% vs. 0.2%, respectively, p = 0.18) and gastrointestinal bleeding (2.1% vs. 1.1%, p = 0.21). In Cox regression, first-generation DES was an independent predictor for cumulative ST (HR 3.29 [1.30-8.31], p = 0.01).

Conclusions

In an all-comer registry of ACS, the one-year rate of MACCE was comparable in groups treated with first- and second-generation DES. The use of first-generation DES was associated with higher rates of acute and subacute ST and was an independent predictor of cumulative ST.

Depression and anxiety as predictors of recurrent cardiac events 12 months after percutaneous coronary interventions

BACKGROUND

Anxiety and depression are associated with recurrent cardiac events after percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs). However, few investigators have evaluated the impact of depression and anxiety on recurrent cardiac events in Korea.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to examine the relationship among depression, anxiety, and recurrent cardiac events in Korean patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) after PCI.

METHODS

A prospective longitudinal study was undertaken with a sample of 133 CAD patients with PCI. Data were collected between August 2009 and September 2010, and patients were followed after discharge through 2011 with self-report questionnaires on anxiety and depression using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and with patient medical records on sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. Recurrent cardiac events were collected for 12 months after discharge and were assessed by patient interviews and medical records.

RESULTS

There were 18 recurrent cardiac events (13.5%) among the 133 participants. After adjustment for sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, a hierarchical Cox proportional hazards regression model found that a moderate or severe level of anxiety (hazard ratio, 6.21; 95% confidence interval, 1.64-23.54) and a moderate or severe level of depression (hazard ratio, 4.32; 95% confidence interval, 1.35-13.88) were independent predictors of recurrent cardiac events.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with CAD who have a high level of anxiety and depression are at increased risk for recurrent cardiac events after PCI. Screening should be focused on patients who experience anxious and depressive feelings in addition to traditional risk factors. Furthermore, psychoeducational support interventions to reduce anxiety and depression after PCI may improve health outcomes.

Balancing the risks of bleeding and stent thrombosis: a decision analytic model to compare durations of dual antiplatelet therapy after drug-eluting stents

BACKGROUND

After coronary stent placement, whether dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) duration should be extended to prevent late stent thrombosis (ST) or adverse cardiovascular events is uncertain.

METHODS

To define the reduction in ischemic events required to outweigh increased bleeding with longer-duration DAPT, we developed a decision-analytic Markov model comparing DAPT durations of 6, 12, and 30 months after DES. Separate models were developed for patients presenting with and without an acute coronary syndrome (ACS). We used sensitivity analyses to identify the incremental benefit of longer-duration DAPT on either ST or the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and ischemic stroke (major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events [MACCEs]) required to outweigh the increased risk of bleeding associated with longer DAPT. The outcome from each strategy was quantified in terms of quality-adjusted life years.

RESULTS

In the non-ACS population, in order for 30 months of DAPT to be preferred over 12 months of therapy, DAPT would have to result in a 78% reduction in the risk of ST (relative risk [RR] 0.22, 3.1 fewer events per 1000) and only a 5% reduction in MACCE (RR 0.95, 2.2 fewer events per 1000) as compared with aspirin alone. For the ACS population, DAPT would have to result in a 44% reduction in the risk of ST (RR 0.56, 3.4 fewer events per 1000) but only a 2% reduction in MACCE (RR 0.98, 2.3 fewer events per 1000) as compared with aspirin alone, for 30 months of DAPT to be preferred for 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Small absolute differences in the risk of ischemic events with longer DAPT would be sufficient to outweigh the known bleeding risks.

Safety and efficacy of first-generation and second-generation drug-eluting stents in the setting of acute coronary syndromes

Drug-eluting stents (DESs) are known to reduce in-stent restenosis rate, compared with bare metal stents (BMSs). Stent thrombosis, one of the most dangerous complications of DES, has emerged as a major concern. This issue has limited the use of DES in unstable coronary artery disease till recent years. In fact, acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and the subsequent activation of the hemocoagulative pathway could represent a prothrombotic environment, thus limiting the use of DES in this situation. Nowadays, there is increasing evidence in literature of similar stent thrombosis rates both for BMS and DES in ACS, and most interventional cardiologists are confident with the use of DES in ACS. The aim of this article is to review the current literature on this topic in order to compare first-generation and second-generation DES vs. BMS as concerns safety and efficacy.

Biolimus-eluting stent with biodegradable polymer improves clinical outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction

OBJECTIVE

To investigate clinical outcomes of coronary intervention using a biolimus-eluting stent (BES) compared with a sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in the Limus Eluted from A Durable versus ERodable Stent (LEADERS) coating trial at the final 5-year follow-up.

METHODS

The LEADERS trial is a multicentre all-comer study, where patients (n=1707) were randomised to percutaneous intervention with either BES containing biodegradable polymer or SES containing durable polymer. Out of 1707 patients enrolled in this trial, 573 patients had percutaneous coronary intervention for AMI (BES=280, SES=293) and were included in the current analysis. Patient-oriented composite endpoint (POCE, including all death, all myocardial infarction (MI) and all revascularisations), major adverse cardiac events (MACE, including cardiac death, MI and clinically indicated target vessel revascularisation) and stent thrombosis were assessed at 5-year follow-up.

RESULTS

The baseline clinical, angiographic and procedural characteristics were well matched between BES and SES groups. In all patients with AMI, coronary intervention with a BES, compared with SES, significantly reduced POCE (28.9% vs 42.3%; relative risk (RR) 0.61, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.82, p=0.001) at 5-year follow-up. There was also a reduction in MACE rate in the BES group (18.2% vs 25.9%; RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.95, p=0.025); however, there was no difference in cardiac death and stent thrombosis. In patients with ST-elevation MI (STEMI), coronary intervention with BES significantly reduced POCE (24.4% vs 39.3%; RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.85, p=0.006), MACE (12.6% vs 25.0%; RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.83, p=0.008) and cardiac death (3.0% vs 11.4%; RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.75, p=0.007), along with a trend towards reduction in definite stent thrombosis (3.7% vs 8.6%; RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.18, p=0.088), compared with SES.

CONCLUSIONS

BES, compared with SES, significantly improved safety and efficacy outcomes in patients with AMI, especially those with STEMI, at 5-year follow-up.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT 00389220.

Drug-eluting stents and acute myocardial infarction: A lethal combination or friends?

Primary percutaneous coronary intervention is the preferred reperfusion strategy for patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). First generation drug-eluting stents (DES), (sirolimus drug-eluting stents and paclitaxel drug-eluting stents), reduce the risk of restenosis and target vessel revascularization compared to bare metal stents. However, stent thrombosis emerged as a major safety concern with first generation DES. In response to these safety issues, second generation DES were developed with different drugs, improved stent platforms and more biocompatible durable or bioabsorbable polymeric coating. This article presents an overview of safety and efficacy of the first and second generation DES in STEMI.

Clinical outcomes of second- versus first-generation drug-eluting stents in patients with acute myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

It remains unclear whether the clinical outcomes of patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) receiving second- and first-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) are identical. The study aimed to investigate the differences in clinical utility between the two generations of DES in these specific subjects by a meta-analysis.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We systemically searched PubMed and EMBASE databases and the Cochrane Library up until January 2013. Randomized trials, which compared clinical outcomes of second-generation DES (everolimus- (EES) or zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZES)) with first-generation DES (sirolimus- or paclitaxel-eluting stents) in patients with AMI were included.

RESULTS

Five trials with 1720 AMI subjects were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled analysis demonstrated a trend toward lower incidence of stent thrombosis with the second-generation DES relative to the first-generation one (risk ratio (RR), 0.53; 95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.25-1.13; p = 0.10). However, the second-generation DES did not offer a significant advantage over the first-generation DES in reducing the incidence of target lesion revascularization (TLR) (RR = 1.73; 95% CI: 0.83-3.64; p = 0.15), major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) (RR = 0.97; p = 0.90), or all-cause death (RR = 1.00; p = 1.0). In addition, in elderly patients the second-generation DES seemed to reduce the occurrence of MACEs (RR = 0.65; p = 0.10) and stent thrombosis (RR = 0.40; p = 0.08), and the second-generation EES showed a potential benefit in lowering the MACE rate (RR = 0.55; p = 0.06).

CONCLUSIONS

The second-generation DES appeared to lower the risk of stent thrombosis in AMI patients. There might be a lower incidence of MACEs associated with the second-generation EES.

First-generation versus second-generation drug-eluting stents in current clinical practice: updated evidence from a comprehensive meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials comprising 31 379 patients

Background

First-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) have become the most widely used devices worldwide for management of coronary artery disease. As remote follow-up data were becoming available, concerns emerged in regard to their long-term safety. Second-generation DES were designed to overcome safety issues, but the results of randomised clinical trials remain conflicting.

Methods

We compared the safety and efficacy of first-generation versus second-generation Food and Drug Administration approved DES; the following devices were included: first-generation sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES); second-generation everolimus-eluting stent (EES), zotarolimus-eluting stent Endeavor and ZES-Resolute (ZES-R). Prespecified safety end points comprised ≤1 and >1 year: overall and cardiac mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), definite/definite or probable ST; efficacy end points were target lesion revascularisation and target vessel revascularisation. Composite end points were analysed as well.

Results

33 randomised controlled trials involving 31 379 patients with stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndrome undergoing DES implantation were retrieved. No differences in mortality among devices were found. In the overall class comparison, second-generation DES were associated with a 22% reduction of odds of MI at short-term OR 0.77 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.89) p=0.0002; EES reduced the odds of definite-probable ST compared with PES: OR 0.33 (95% CI 0.15 to 0.73) p=0.006; First-generation SES along with second-generation EES and ZES-R showed similar efficacy in decreasing the odds of repeat revascularisation.

Conclusions

Second-generation EES and ZES-R offer similar levels of efficacy compared with first-generation SES, but are more effective than PES; however, only second-generation EES significantly reduced the incidence of MI and ST, and therefore should be perceived as the safest DES to date.

Differential clinical outcomes after 1 year versus 5 years in a randomised comparison of zotarolimus-eluting and sirolimus-eluting coronary stents (the SORT OUT III study): a multicentre, open-label, randomised superiority trial

BACKGROUND

In head-to-head comparisons of coronary drug-eluting stents, the primary endpoint is traditionally assessed after 9-12 months. However, the optimum timepoint for this assessment remains unclear. In this study, we assessed clinical outcomes at up to 5 years' follow-up in patients who received two different types of drug-eluting stents.

METHODS

We undertook this multicentre, open-label, randomised superiority trial at five percutaneous coronary intervention centres in Denmark. We randomly allocated 2332 eligible adult patients (≥18 years of age) with an indication for drug-eluting stent implantation to the zotarolimus-eluting Endeavor Sprint stent (Medtronic, Santa Rosa, CA, USA) or the sirolimus-eluting Cypher Select Plus stent (Cordis, Johnson & Johnson, Warren, NJ, USA). Randomisation of participants was achieved by computer-generated block randomisation and a telephone allocation service. The primary endpoint of the SORT OUT III study was a composite of major adverse cardiac events-cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularisation-at 9 months' follow-up. In this study, endpoints included the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events and definite stent thrombosis at follow-up times of up to 5 years. Analysis was by intention to treat. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00660478.

FINDINGS

We randomly allocated 1162 patients to receive the zotarolimus-eluting stent and 1170 to the sirolimus-eluting stent. At 5-year follow-up, rates of major adverse cardiac events were similar in patients treated with both types of stents (zotarolimus-eluting stents 197/1162 [17.0%] vs sirolimus-eluting stents 182/1170 [15.6%]; odds ratio [OR] 1.10, 95% CI 0.88-1.37; p=0.40). This finding was indicative of the directly contrasting results for rates of major adverse cardiac events at 1-year follow up (zotarolimus 93/1162 [8.0%] vs sirolimus 46/1170 [3.9%]; OR 2.13, 95% CI 1.48-3.07; p<0.0001) compared with those at follow-up between 1 and 5 years (104 [9.0%] vs 136 [11.6%]; OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.59-1.02; p=0.071). At 1-year follow-up, definite stent thrombosis was more frequent after implantation of the zotarolimus-eluting stent (13/1162 [1.1%]) than the sirolimus-eluting stent (4/1170 [0.3%]; OR 3.34, 95% CI 1.08-10.3; p=0.036), whereas the opposite finding was recorded for between 1 and 5 years' follow-up (zotarolimus-eluting stent 1/1162 [0.1%] vs sirolimus-eluting stent 21/1170 [1.8%], OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.01-0.36; p=0.003). 26 of 88 (30%) target lesion revascularisations in the zotarolimus-eluting stent group occurred between 1 and 5 years' follow-up, whereas 54 of 70 (77%) of those in the sirolimus-eluting stent group occurred during this follow-up period.

INTERPRETATION

The superiority of sirolimus-eluting stents compared with zotarolimus-eluting stents at 1-year follow-up was lost after 5 years. The traditional 1-year primary endpoint assessment therefore might be insufficient to predict 5-year clinical outcomes in patients treated with coronary drug-eluting stent implantation.

FUNDING

Cordis and Medtronic.

Sex difference in clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention in Korean population

BACKGROUND

Conflicting data on sex-based differences in outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) among Western population exist. Little is known about the nature of sex-specific PCI outcomes in an Asian population.

METHODS

We performed a pooled analysis using 23,604 patients from 11 prospective PCI clinical studies performed in Korea. The primary outcome was a major cardiovascular event, defined as composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, or stroke. Secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality and target vessel revascularization.

RESULTS

Thirty-day and 2-year rates of major cardiovascular events were more frequent in women than in men, mainly because of a higher incidence of periprocedural myocardial infarction in women (30-day: 9.2% vs 7.1%; 2-year: 11.2% vs 8.9%). After multivariable adjustment, women had significantly higher risks of 30-day (hazard ratio [HR] 1.27, 95% CI 1.19-1.36) and 2-year major cardiovascular events (HR 1.21, 95% CI 1.13-1.30). Unadjusted 30-day and 2-year all-cause mortality was similar between women and men (30-day: 0.5% vs 0.4%; 2-year: 2.8% vs 2.8%). However, after multivariable adjustment, women had a lower adjusted risk of 2-year death (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.77-0.87). No sex-based difference was observed for target vessel revascularization (HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.91-1.25). Overall, sex-specific findings for outcomes were consistent across multiple patient subgroups.

CONCLUSION

Among Korean population undergoing contemporary PCI, women have a significantly higher risk of short- and long-term major cardiovascular events than do men but have better long-term survival.

Impact of the angiographic mechanisms underlying periprocedural myocardial infarction after drug-eluting stent implantation

Periprocedural myocardial infarction (MI) can be induced by several angiographic mechanisms. However, there are limited data on whether these mechanisms differentially affect clinical outcomes. The purpose of our study was to investigate the impact of periprocedural MI on mortality according to the underlying angiographic mechanisms after drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation. We pooled the databases from 7 coronary stent trials using DES. Periprocedural MI was classified according to its underlying angiographic mechanisms as type 1 (due to side-branch occlusion), type 2 (due to other angiographic complications), or type 3 (without angiographically identifiable causes). Among 10,889 patients treated with DES, 768 (7.1%) experienced periprocedural MI; 463 cases (60.3%) were driven by type 1 cause, 138 (18.0%) by type 2 cause, and 167 (21.7%) by type 3 cause. Mortality rates at 2 years were higher in patients with periprocedural MI than in those without (3.5% vs 2.1%, respectively). Significant differences in mortality were observed according to the angiographic mechanisms of MI (type 1: 2.8% vs type 2: 6.1% vs type 3: 3.1%). After multivariable adjustment, type 2 MI was significantly associated with an increased risk of mortality (hazard ratio 2.65, 95% confidence interval 1.77 to 3.96), whereas type 1 and type 3 MI were not related with increased mortality. In conclusion, among patients receiving DES implantation, periprocedural MI was associated with increased mortality, and there were differential associations with mortality according to the underlying angiographic mechanisms.

Therapy in ST-elevation myocardial infarction: reperfusion strategies, pharmacology and stent selection

OPINION STATEMENT

The estimated annual incidence of new and recurrent myocardial infarction (MI) in the U.S. is 715,000 events. Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is the reperfusion strategy of choice in most patients with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Recent advances in percutaneous techniques and devices, including manual aspiration catheters and newer generation drug eluting stents and pharmacologic therapies, such as novel antiplatelets and anticoagulants have led to significant improvements in the acute and long-term outcomes for these patients. Implementation of community-wide systems directed to shorten treatment times tied to closely monitored quality improvement processes have led to further advances in STEMI care. Recent data suggests that transradial access for primary PCI is associated with improved outcomes. This contemporary review discusses the strategies for reperfusion, pharmacological therapy and stent selection process involved in STEMI.

The use of drug-eluting stents in acute myocardial infarction - is the battle coming to an end? From despair to acceptance

The large-scale use of drug-eluting stents (DES) in elective percutaneous coronary interventions resulted in a significant reduction of restenosis and the need for repeat revascularization, compared to bare-metal stents (BMS) and balloon angioplasty. The position of DES used during primary percutaneous coronary intervention was not so well established. Based on the trials including the general population of patients, an increased risk of stent thrombosis was indicated, particularly late after implantation, which may be associated with increased mortality. A number of randomized clinical trials have compared first generation DES with BMS in acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). In most of them increased mortality after DES implantation was not confirmed, with demonstrated reduction of repeat revascularizations. However, long-term follow-up of these studies and the results from non-randomized “real world” registries are equivocal. A new generation of DES has been present on the market for several years. They have modern designs, are covered with more neutral polymers and release new drugs. The new generation DES have a better safety and efficacy profile, including a population of patients with acute STEMI, than the first generation stents. This paper is a review of randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses and registries, comparing DES with BMS in patients with acute STEMI. Attention was drawn to the current position and the role of new generation DES, which may prove to be a safe and effective choice in this population of patients.

Stent thrombosis with second-generation drug-eluting stents compared with bare-metal stents: network meta-analysis of primary percutaneous coronary intervention trials in ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction [corrected]

BACKGROUND

The relative safety of drug-eluting stents (DESs) and bare-metal stents (BMSs) with respect to stent thrombosis (ST) continues to be debated. There are limited data comparing safety and efficacy of second-generation DES to BMS. We compared the clinical outcomes between second-generation DES and BMS for primary percutaneous coronary intervention using network meta-analysis.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Randomized controlled trials comparing stent types (first-generation DES, second-generation DES or BMS) were considered for inclusion. A search strategy used Medline, Embase, Cochrane databases, and proceedings of the international meetings. Information about study design, inclusion criteria, and sample characteristics were extracted. Network meta-analysis was used to pool direct (comparison of second-generation DES to BMS) and indirect evidence (first-generation DES with BMS and second-generation DES) from the randomized trials. Twenty-one trials comparing all stents types, including 12 866 patients randomly assigned to treatment groups, were analyzed. A significantly lower incidence of ST was noted with the use of second-generation DES as early as 30 days (odds ratio [OR], 0.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.15-0.82) and between 31 days and 1 year (OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.30-0.79) when compared with BMS. Second-generation DES was associated with significantly lower incidence of definite ST at 1 year (OR, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.11-0.83) and myocardial infarction (OR, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.17-0.54) and target vessel revascularization at 1 year (OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.80-0.98) when compared with BMS. There was no difference in mortality at 30 days (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.45-1.59) or 1 year (OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.56-1.14) with the use of second-generation DES versus BMS. The small number of events may influence the precision of the analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Network meta-analysis of randomized trials of primary percutaneous coronary intervention demonstrated lower incidence of ST, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization with second-generation DES when compared with BMS. The use of second-generation DES for percutaneous coronary intervention in ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction was not associated with adverse events when compared with BMS.

Safety and efficacy outcomes of first and second generation durable polymer drug eluting stents and biodegradable polymer biolimus eluting stents in clinical practice: comprehensive network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the safety and efficacy of durable polymer drug eluting stents (DES) and biodegradable polymer biolimus eluting stents (biolimus-ES).

DESIGN

Network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION

Medline, Google Scholar, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) database search for randomised controlled trials comparing at least two of durable polymer sirolimus eluting stents (sirolimus-ES) and paclitaxel eluting stents (paclitaxel-ES), newer durable polymer everolimus eluting stents (everolimus-ES), Endeavor and Resolute zotarolimus eluting stents (zotarolimus-ES), and biodegradable polymer biolimus-ES.

PRIMARY OUTCOMES

Safety (death, myocardial infarction, definite or probable stent thrombosis) and efficacy (target lesion and target vessel revascularisation) assessed at up to one year and beyond.

RESULTS

60 randomised controlled trials were compared involving 63,242 patients with stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndrome treated with a DES. At one year, there were no differences in mortality among devices. Resolute and Endeavor zotarolimus-ES, everolimus-ES, and sirolimus-ES, but not biodegradable polymer biolimus-ES, were associated with significantly reduced odds of myocardial infarction (by 29-34%) compared with paclitaxel-ES. Compared with everolimus-ES, biodegradable polymer biolimus-ES were associated with significantly increased odds of myocardial infarction (by 29%), while Endeavor zotarolimus-ES and paclitaxel-ES were associated with significantly increased odds of stent thrombosis. All investigated DES were similar with regards to efficacy endpoints, except for Endeavor zotarolimus-ES and paclitaxel-ES, which were associated with significantly increased the odds of target lesion and target vessel revascularisations compared with other devices. Direction of results beyond one year did not diverge from the findings for up to one year follow-up. Bayesian probability curves showed a gradient in the magnitude of effect, with everolimus-ES and Resolute zotarolimus-ES offering the highest safety profiles.

CONCLUSIONS

The newer durable polymer everolimus-ES and Resolute zotarolimus-ES and the biodegradable polymer biolimus-ES maintain the efficacy of sirolimus-ES; however, for safety endpoints, differences become apparent, with everolimus-ES and Resolute zotarolimus-ES emerging as the safest stents to date.

Randomized comparison of Zotarolimus-Eluting Endeavor Sprint versus bare-metal stent implantation in uncertain drug-eluting stent candidates: rationale, design, and characterization of the patient population for the Zotarolimus-eluting Endeavor Sprint stent in uncertain DES candidates study

BACKGROUND

The use of drug-eluting stent (DES) instead of bare-metal stent (BMS) in patients at high stent thrombosis or bleeding risk as well as in those at low restenosis risk (ie, uncertain DES candidates) remains a matter of debate. Zotarolimus-Eluting Endeavor Sprint stent (E-ZES) (Santa Rosa, CA) is a hydrophilic polymer-based second-generation device with unique drug fast-release profile, which may allow for a shorter dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) duration without safety concerns.

HYPOTHESIS

The primary objective is to assess whether E-ZES implantation followed by a shorter than currently recommended course of DAPT will decrease the incidence of 12-month major adverse cardiovascular events as compared with BMS in undefined DES recipients. Actual duration of DAPT regimen will be dictated by patients' characteristics and not by stent type and, as such, can be as short as 30 days after intervention in both stent groups.

STUDY DESIGN

The ZEUS study is an open-label randomized clinical trial conducted at 20 clinical sites in Italy, Switzerland, Portugal, and Hungary. With 1,600 individuals, this study will have 85% power to detect a 33% difference in the primary end point consisting of the composite of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization.

SUMMARY

The ZEUS trial aims to assess whether the use of E-ZES, followed by a DAPT duration regimen based on patients' characteristics and not by stent type, is superior to conventional BMS implantation in undefined DES recipients who qualify for the presence of high thrombosis, bleeding, or low restenosis risk criteria.

Drug-eluting stents for acute coronary syndrome: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Drug-eluting stents (DES) are increasingly used for treatment of acute coronary syndrome (ACS). However, clinical efficacy and safety of various types of DES is not well established in these subjects. We therefore evaluated clinical utility of second-generation and first-generation DES in patients with ACS by conducting a meta-analysis.

METHODS

A search of Medline, Embase, the Cochrane databases, and Web of Science was made. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which compared second-generation DES (everolimus-eluting stents [EES] or zotarolimus-eluting stents [ZES]) versus first-generation DES (sirolimus-eluting stents [SES] or paclitaxe-eluting stents [PES]) in patients with ACS and provided data on clinical efficacy or safety endpoints were included. Pooled estimates were calculated using random-effects model.

RESULT

A total of 2,757 participants with ACS in 6 RCTs were included. Compared with first-generation one, second-generation DES trended to be associated with the decreased incidence of definite or probable stent thrombosis in ACS patients (risk ratio [RR]  = 0.60, 95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.33 to 1.07, p = 0.09). However, the rate of target lesion revascularization (TLR) significantly increased in second-generation DES (RR = 2.08, 95%CI 1.25 to 3.47, p = 0.005). There were no significant differences in the incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), all-cause death, cardiac death, and recurrent myocardial infarction between the two arms (all p>0.10). The second-generation EES showed a tendency towards lower risk of MACEs (p = 0.06) and a beneficial effect on reducing stent thrombosis episodes (p = 0.009), while the second-generation ZES presented an increased occurrence of MACEs (p = 0.02) and TLR (p = 0.003).

CONCLUSION

Second-generation DES, especially EES, appeared to present a lower risk of stent thrombosis, whereas second-generation ZES might increase the need for repeat revascularization in ACS patients. During coronary interventional therapy, DES class should be adequately considered in order to maximize clinical benefit of DES implantation in these specific subjects.

Outcomes with various drug-eluting or bare metal stents in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction: a mixed treatment comparison analysis of trial level data from 34 068 patient-years of follow-up from randomized trials

BACKGROUND

The efficacy and safety of drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is controversial. Consequently, DES implantation has a class IIa indication in the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and the European Society of Cardiology STEMI guidelines.

METHODS AND RESULTS

PUBMED, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched for randomized clinical trials, until March 2013, comparing any of the 5 Food and Drug Administration-approved durable stent and polymer DES (sirolimus eluting stent, paclitaxel eluting stent, everolimus-eluting stent [EES], zotarolimus-eluting stent, and zotarolimus-eluting stent resolute), against each other or bare metal stents (BMS), and enrolling ≥ 50 patients with STEMI. Efficacy (target vessel revascularization) and safety (death, myocardial infarction, and stent thrombosis) outcomes at the longest reported follow-up times were evaluated. Twenty-eight randomized clinical trials with 34 068 patient-years of follow-up on subjects with STEMI fulfilled the inclusion criteria. When compared with BMS (reference rate ratio [RR] of 1), sirolimus eluting stent (RR, 0.46; 95% credibility interval [CrI], 0.36-0.56), paclitaxel eluting stent (RR, 0.69; 95% CrI, 0.53-0.87), and EES (RR, 0.42; 95% CrI, 0.26-0.62) were associated with a statistically significant reduction in rate of target vessel revascularization, with the point estimate for zotarolimus-eluting stent resolute trending in a similar direction. There was no increase in the risk of death, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis with any DES compared with BMS. Moreover, EES was associated with a statistically significant reduction in the rate of stent thrombosis when compared with sirolimus eluting stent (RR, 0.38; 95% CrI, 0.21-0.74), paclitaxel eluting stent (RR, 0.39; 95% CrI, 0.21-0.73), and even BMS (RR, 0.42; 95% CrI, 0.23-0.76). There was a 74% probability that EES had the lowest rate of any stent thrombosis when compared with all other stent types (no data on zotarolimus-eluting stent resolute). There was no increase in very late stent thrombosis with EES versus BMS (RR, 0.89; 95% CrI, 0.09-8.67).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with STEMI, DES versus BMS was associated with substantial decrease in the risk of target vessel revascularization without compromising safety. EES had the added advantage of substantial reduction in the risk of stent thrombosis when compared with first-generation DES and BMS with no increase in very late stent thrombosis.

Association of body mass index with major cardiovascular events and with mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention

BACKGROUND

Conflicting data exist regarding the relation between body mass index (BMI) and cardiovascular events and mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We performed pooled analyses to evaluate the association between BMI (weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters) and the risks of major cardiovascular events (defined as death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, or stroke) and death among 23 181 patients from 11 prospective percutaneous coronary intervention studies. Overall, mean (±SD) BMI was 24.9±3.0. During follow-up (median, 2.1 years), 2381 patients had a major cardiovascular event, and 1004 patients died. After adjusting covariates, there was an inverse relationship between BMI and adverse outcomes. With a BMI of 22.5 to 24.9 as the reference category, the risk of major cardiovascular events was elevated among patients with a lower BMI (by a factor of 1.52 for a BMI <18.5; 1.05 for a BMI of 18.5-19.9; 1.03 for a BMI of 20.0-22.4); by contrast, the risk declined among patients with a higher BMI (by a factor of 0.97 for a BMI of 25.0-27.4; 0.97 for a BMI of 27.5-29.9; and 0.78 for a BMI of ≥30.0). In general, the hazard ratios for deaths were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, a low BMI was associated with increased risks of major cardiovascular events and death. However, there were no excess risks of these events associated with a high BMI.

Two-Year Follow-up of Sirolimus-Eluting Stents versus Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents in Acute Myocardial Infarction

It has been shown that drug-eluting stents (DESs) significantly reduce restenosis rate when compared with bare-metal stents in a broad range of patients with coronary artery disease. However, current data are limited about the efficacy of different DESs in treatment of ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness and safety of sirolimus-eluting stents (SESs) with paclitaxel-eluting stents (PESs) in primary percutaneous coronary intervention. We retrospectively examined 127 STEMI patients who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention. PES group consisted of 79 patients and SES group consisted of 48 patients. Patients were analyzed for major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and stent thrombosis (ST). The mean follow-up period was 2 years. The mean age was 53 ± 11 years in the SES group and 59 ± 11 years in the PES group (p = 0.03). Baseline and procedural characteristics were similar in the two groups except stent lengths, which was longer in the SES group. Two-year MACE rates were 8.3% in the SES group and 16.4% in the PES group (p = 0.28). Rates for ST for SES and PES groups were as follows: early ST was 2.08 versus 2.53%; late ST was 2.08 versus 2.53%; and very late ST was 2.08 versus 2.53% (p > 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences in MACE and ST rates between the SES and PES groups in the 2-year follow-up period. High ST rates detected in our study need to be clarified with future prospective and randomized clinical trials.

Frequency, causes, predictors, and clinical significance of peri-procedural myocardial infarction following percutaneous coronary intervention

AIMS

Peri-procedural myocardial infarction (MI) is a not infrequent complication of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), but conflicting information exists regarding incidence and prognostic impact of this event. We investigated frequency, causes, predictors, and clinical relevance of peri-procedural MI, using a large database.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We pooled individual patient-level data from 11 PCI studies in which peri-procedural creatine kinase-MB mass was routinely measured and mortality data were prospectively collected. Among 23 604 patients from 11 studies, 1677 {7.1% [95% confidence interval (CI) 6.8-7.5%]} had peri-procedural MI. The most common mechanism of peri-procedural MI was side-branch occlusion. Independent predictors of peri-procedural MI were older age, female gender, diabetes, hypertension, renal dysfunction, multivessel disease, left anterior descending artery disease, left main disease, bifurcation lesion, long lesion, drug-eluting stents, and number of stents. Follow-up varied from 1 year to 5 years. In a crude analysis, patients with peri-procedural MI had significantly a higher risk of mortality than those without peri-procedural MI [hazard ratio (HR) 1.47; 95% CI 1.24-1.74]. After adjustment for baseline covariates, peri-procedural MI was associated with an increased risk of mortality (HR 1.20; 95% CI 1.04-1.39).

CONCLUSION

Among patients undergoing PCI, the occurrence of peri-procedural MI measured by CK-MB mass assay was ~7%, and more than half of cases were associated with side-branch occlusion. Several higher risk patients, lesions, and procedural characteristics were independent predictors of peri-procedural MI. Peri-procedural MI was associated with an increase in mortality.

Comparison of drug-eluting stents in acute myocardial infarction patients with chronic kidney disease

BACKGROUND/AIMS

To determine which drug-eluting stents are more effective in acute myocardial infarction (MI) patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD).

METHODS

This study included a total of 3,566 acute MI survivors with CKD from the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry who were treated with stenting and followed up for 12 months: 1,845 patients who received sirolimus-eluting stents (SES), 1,356 who received paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES), and 365 who received zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZES). CKD was defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate < 60 mL/min/1.73 m(2) calculated by the modification of diet in renal disease method.

RESULTS

At the 12-month follow-up, patients receiving ZES demonstrated a higher incidence (14.8%) of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) compared to those receiving SES (10.1%) and PES (12%, p = 0.019). The ZES patients also had a higher incidence (3.9%) of target lesion revascularization (TLR) compared to those receiving SES (1.5%) and PES (2.4%, p = 0.011). After adjusting for confounding factors, ZES was associated with a higher incidence of MACE and TLR than SES (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.623; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.442 to 0.879; p = 0.007; adjusted HR, 0.350; 95% CI, 0.165 to 0.743; p = 0.006, respectively), and with a higher rate of TLR than PES (adjusted HR, 0.471; 95% CI, 0.223 to 0.997; p = 0.049).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that ZES is less effective than SES and PES in terms of 12-month TLR, and has a higher incidence of MACE due to a higher TLR rate compared with SES, in acute MI patients with CKD.

Zotarolimus-eluting stent versus sirolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents for percutaneous coronary intervention: a meta-analysis of randomized trials

BACKGROUND

The zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) is a new drug-eluting stent that delivers zotarolimus, a synthetic analogue of sirolimus, through a biocompatible phosphorylcholine polymer coating. ZES has shown promising results compared with bare-metal stents, but its safety and efficacy against sirolimus-eluting (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting (PES) stents is yet to be established.

AIMS

We aimed to summarize current evidence from randomized trials comparing ZES with SES and PES.

METHODS

We searched the Medline, Embase and CENTRAL databases for randomized studies comparing ZES with SES and PES for percutaneous coronary intervention. Relevant clinical and angiographic outcomes were extracted and combined using random and fixed-effect models for heterogeneous and homogenous outcomes, respectively.

RESULTS

Seven randomized trials met the inclusion criteria: ZES group, n=3787; SES group, n=2606; PES group, n=1966. Compared with SES, ZES was associated with significantly higher odds of clinically driven target vessel revascularization (odds ratio [OR] 2.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.78-3.14) and target lesion revascularization (OR 2.46, 95% CI 1.36-4.46). Compared with SES, ZES had higher in-stent restenosis (OR 6.13, 95% CI 3.96-9.50), late lumen loss 'in-stent' (mean difference [MD] 0.39 mm, 95% CI 0.34-0.44) and late lumen loss 'in-segment' (MD 0.18 mm, 95% CI 0.15-0.21). ZES was associated with higher in-stent late lumen loss than PES (MD 0.18 mm, 95% CI 0.07-0.28). There were no differences in mortality, reinfarction or stent thrombosis with ZES compared with SES and PES.

CONCLUSION

ZES is not superior to PES and is inferior to SES in terms of angiographic outcomes and clinically driven revascularization.

Coronary stent choice in patients with acute myocardial infarction

A prompt reperfusion with primary percutaneous coronary intervention represents the current gold standard treatment for patients with acute myocardial infarction. In this setting, coronary stents have been shown to improve outcomes compared to plain angioplasty and are routinely used. However, the stent selection among patients with acute myocardial infarction is still a matter of some debate. An increased risk of very late (>1-year) stent thrombosis has been associated with the use of early-generation drug-eluting stents (DES), leading to concerns regarding the long-term safety of these devices. Newer-generation DES were developed with the aim of addressing this safety issue, and were recently investigated in a few randomized studies in patients with acute myocardial infarction. The objective of the present review is to summarize the accumulated evidence, to guide the stent selection in patients with acute myocardial infarction.

Comparison of zotarolimus-eluting and sirolimus-eluting coronary stents: a study from the Western Denmark Heart Registry

Background

We evaluated the effectiveness and safety of a zotarolimus-eluting (ZES) versus a sirolimus-eluting (SES) coronary stent in a large cohort of patients treated with one of these stents in Western Denmark.

Methods

A total of 6,122 patients treated with ZES (n=2,282) or SES (n=3,840) were followed for up to 27 months. We ascertained clinical outcomes based on national medical databases.

Results

Incidence of target lesion revascularization (no. per 100 person-years) was 5.3 in the ZES group compared to 1.9 in the SES group (adjusted hazard ratio (HR)=2.19, 95% confidence intervals (CI): 1.39-3.47; p=0.001). All-cause mortality was also higher in the ZES group (ZES: 6.3; SES: 3.3; adjusted HR=1.34, 95% CI: 1.05-1.72; p=0.02), while stent thrombosis (ZES: 1.2; SES: 0.5; adjusted HR=1.98, 95% CI: 0.75-5.23; p=0.14) did not differ significantly.

Conclusions

In agreement with previously published randomised data, this observational study indicated that the ZES was associated with an increased risk of death and TLR in a large cohort of consecutive patients.

Stenting in Acute STEMI Intervention

Stenting in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) has the benefits of achieving acute optimal angiographic results and correcting residual dissection to decrease the incidence of restenosis and reocclusion. Studies have shown that percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty for primary treatment after AMI is superior to thrombolytic therapy regarding the restoration of normal coronary blood flow. Coronary stenting improves initial success rates, decreases the incidence of abrupt closure, and is associated with a reduced rate of restenosis. In the presence of thrombus-containing lesions, coronary stenting constitutes an effective therapeutic strategy, either after failure of initial angioplasty or electively as the primary procedure.

Zotarolimus-eluting vs. sirolimus-eluting coronary stents in patients with and without acute coronary syndromes: a SORT OUT III substudy

OBJECTIVES

To compare clinical outcomes among patients with acute coronary syndrome treated with zotarolimus-eluting and sirolimus-eluting stents in the SORT OUT III trial.

BACKGROUND

Currently, only limited data allow direct comparison of clinical outcomes among patients with acute coronary syndrome treated with a second-generation drug-eluting stent (DES) eluting zotarolimus vs. a first-generation DES eluting sirolimus.

METHODS

Patients with acute coronary syndrome (n=1052) were randomized to treatment with zotarolimus-eluting (n=506) or sirolimus-eluting (n=546) stents and followed for 18 months. The primary composite endpoint, major adverse cardiac events (MACE), was defined as a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction or target vessel revascularization.

RESULTS

Zotarolimus-eluting stent treatment compared to sirolimus-eluting stent treatment was associated with increased rates of MACE (8·7% vs. 5·0%; hazard ratio (HR), 1·78; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1·10-2·88; P=0·02) and TVR (6·8% vs. 3·9%; HR, 1·77; 95% CI, 1·03-3·04; P=0·04), while all-cause death, cardiac death, myocardial infarction and definite stent thrombosis did not differ significantly. In the same trial, stable angina pectoris patients (n=1206) were randomized to zotarolimus-eluting (n=614) and sirolimus-eluting (n=592) stents with similar results.

CONCLUSIONS

With and without acute coronary syndromes, patients treated with the sirolimus-eluting stent had better clinical outcomes than those treated with the zotarolimus-eluting stent.

Efficacy and safety of zotarolimus-eluting stents compared with sirolimus-eluting stents in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions--a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Whether ZES can further improve angiographic and clinical outcomes compared to SES still remains uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZES) compared with sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI).

METHODS

Major electronic information sources were explored for randomized controlled trials comparing ZES with SES among patients undergoing PCI during at least 9 months follow-up. The primary efficacy outcomes were target lesion revascularization (TLR), target vessel revascularization (TVR), and major adverse cardiac events (MACE); safety outcomes were stent thrombosis (ST), myocardial infarction (MI), and cardiac death.

RESULTS

Seven comparative studies were identified (a total of 5983 patients). When compared with ZES at 12-month follow-up, SES significantly reduced risk of MACE (relative risk [RR]: 0.74, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.61 to 0.89, p=0.002), and TLR (RR:0.39; 95% CI: 0.29 to 0.52; p<0.00001), without significant differences in terms of TVR (RR:0.68, 95% CI: 0.38 to 1.20; p=0.18), ST (RR:0.71; 95% CI: 0.39 to 1.31; p=0.28), cardiac death (RR:0.83; 95% CI: 0.49-1.42, p=0.50) or MI (RR:1.08; 95%CI: 0.80 to 1.45; p=0.62).

CONCLUSIONS

At 12-month follow-up, SES are superior to ZES in reducing the incidences of TLR and MACE in patients undergoing PCI, without significant differences in terms of TVR, ST, cardiac death, and MI.

Short- and long-term outcomes with drug-eluting and bare-metal coronary stents: a mixed-treatment comparison analysis of 117 762 patient-years of follow-up from randomized trials

BACKGROUND

Drug-eluting stents (DES) have been in clinical use for nearly a decade; however, the relative short- and long-term efficacy and safety of DES compared with bare-metal stents (BMS) and among the DES types are less well defined.

METHODS AND RESULTS

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched for randomized clinical trials, until March 2012, that compared any of the Food and Drug Administration-approved durable stent and polymer DES (sirolimus-eluting stent [SES], paclitaxel-eluting stent [PES], everolimus-eluting stent [EES], zotarolimus-eluting stent [ZES], and ZES-Resolute [ZES-R]) with each other or against BMS for de novo coronary lesions, enrolling at least 100 patients and with follow-up of at least 6 months. Short-term (≤ 1 year) and long-term efficacy (target-vessel revascularization, target-lesion revascularization) and safety (death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis) outcomes were evaluated and trial-level data pooled by both mixed-treatment comparison and direct comparison analyses. From 76 randomized clinical trials with 117 762 patient-years of follow-up, compared with BMS, each DES reduced long-term target-vessel revascularization (39%-61%), but the magnitude varied by DES type (EES~SES~ZES-R>PES~ZES>BMS), with a >42% probability that EES had the lowest target-vessel revascularization rate. There was no increase in the risk of any long-term safety outcomes, including stent thrombosis, with any DES (versus BMS). In addition, there was reduction in myocardial infarction (all DES except PES versus BMS) and stent thrombosis (with EES versus BMS: Rate ratio, 0.51; 95% credibility interval, 0.35-0.73). The safest DES appeared to be EES (>86% probability), with reduction in myocardial infarction and stent thrombosis compared with BMS. Short-term outcomes were similar to long-term outcomes, with SES, ZES-R, and everolimus-eluting stent being the most efficacious and EES being the safest stent.

CONCLUSIONS

DES are highly efficacious at reducing the risk of target-vessel revascularization without an increase in any safety outcomes, including stent thrombosis. However, among the DES types, there were considerable differences, such that EES, SES, and ZES-R were the most efficacious and EES was the safest stent.

Long-term safety and efficacy of sirolimus- and Paclitaxel-eluting stents in patients with acute myocardial infarction: four-year observational study

Background and Objectives

The comparison of long-term clinical effects between Sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) and Paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) for treatment of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) remains unclear. Seeking to clarify this issue, we performed a retrospective analysis to evaluate four-year clinical outcomes of SES compared to PES treated AMI patients.

Subjects and Methods

From January 2004 to August 2006, all patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and acute non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) by implantation of either SES or PES were enrolled. The occurrences of cardiac and non-cardiac deaths, recurrent infarction, target vessel revascularization (TVR) and stent thrombosis were analyzed. The composite end points of these major adverse cardiac events (MACE) were also analyzed.

Results

During the study period, a total of 668 AMI patients had visited, of which 522 patients (299 with SES and 223 with PES) were enrolled. During the four-year clinical follow-up, both groups showed similar occurrences of non-cardiac death (14.6±2.2% vs. 18.3±3.0%, p=0.26); cardiac death (6.8±1.52% vs. 11.2±2.6%, p=0.39); re-infarction (3.3±1.1% vs. 6.4±1.8%, p=0.31); and stent thrombosis (3.2±1.1% vs. 5.4±1.7%, p=0.53). However, occurrences of TVR {4.0±1.2% vs. 10.0±3.0%, hazard ratio (HR)=0.498, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.257-0.967, p=0.039} and MACE (19.4±2.5% vs. 29.4±3.5%, HR=0.645, 95% CI=0.443-0.940, p=0.021) were significantly lower in the SES population.

Conclusion

In AMI patients treated with either SES or PES implantation, the former had a significantly lower risk of TVR and MACE during four-year clinical follow-up. Rates of death, cardiac death or recurrent infarction, and stent thrombosis were similar.

Comparison of zotarolimus-eluting stents versus sirolimus-eluting stents versus paclitaxel-eluting stents for primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: results from the Korean Multicentre Endeavor (KOMER) acute myocardial infarction (AMI) trial

AIMS

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZES), sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

METHODS AND RESULTS

This study was a prospective, single-blind, multicentre, randomised trial. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 12 months post-procedure, defined as cardiac death, recurrent myocardial infarction (MI), or ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularisation (TLR). An angiographic substudy was performed at nine months among 348 patients. From October 2006 to April 2008, 611 patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI were randomly assigned to treatment with ZES (n=205), SES (n=204), or PES (n=202). The cumulative incidence of MACE was 5.9% in the ZES group, 3.4% in the SES group and 5.7% in the PES group at 12-month follow-up (p=0.457). There was a trend towards a lower rate of ischaemia-driven TLR at 12- (p=0.092) and 18-month (p=0.080) follow-up in the SES group compared to the ZES and PES groups. No difference was observed in rates of cardiac death, recurrent MI and combined death and/or recurrent MI among three groups at 12- and 18-month follow-up. The rate of stent thrombosis was similar among the three groups (2.0% in each group, p=1.000).

CONCLUSIONS

As compared with SES and PES, the use of ZES in patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI, showed similar rates of MACE, cardiac death and recurrent MI at 12 and 18 months. There was a trend towards a higher rate of TLR with ZES or PES compared to SES.

Differences in drug-eluting stents used in coronary artery disease

The introduction of drug-eluting stents (DES) has improved the efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention by addressing the issue of neointimal proliferation, a pathology contributing to restenosis. First-generation stents eluting sirolimus or paclitaxel were joined by second-generation stents, such as the everolimus- and the zotarolimus-eluting stents, promising increased safety and efficacy. As a result, there is a plethora of drug-eluting stents available, with differences in the stent platform, the polymer coating and the eluted drug, which translate into differences in biological markers of efficacy, such as late loss. However, it remains controversial whether these discrepancies have an impact on clinical markers of safety and efficacy, or if the improved efficacy of DES is a class effect. This article reviews the differences between DES by looking into the biological differences and into trials and registries of DES.

Outcome of sirolimus-eluting versus zotarolimus-eluting coronary stent implantation in patients with and without diabetes mellitus (a SORT OUT III Substudy)

Diabetes is associated with an increased risk of major adverse cardiac events after percutaneous coronary intervention. We compared clinical outcomes in patients with and without diabetes mellitus treated with the second-generation Endeavor zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) or the first-generation Cypher Select+ sirolimus-eluting stent (SES). We randomized 2,332 patients to treatment with ZESs (n = 1,162, n = 169 diabetics) or SESs (n = 1,170, n = 168 diabetics) and followed them for 18 months. Randomization was stratified by presence/absence of diabetes. The primary end point was major adverse cardiac events defined as a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization. Secondary end points included these individual end points plus all-cause mortality and target lesion revascularization. In diabetic patients, use of ZES compared to SES was associated with an increased risk of major adverse cardiac events (18.3% vs 4.8%, hazard ratio 4.05, 95% confidence interval 1.86 to 8.82), myocardial infarction (4.7% vs 0.6%, hazard ratio 8.09, 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 64.7), target vessel revascularization (14.2% vs 3.0%, hazard ratio 4.99, 95% confidence interval 1.90 to 13.1), and target lesion revascularization (12.4% vs 1.2%, hazard ratio 11.0, 95% confidence interval 2.59 to 47.1). In patients without diabetes differences in absolute risk decrease were smaller but similarly favored SES. In conclusion, implantation of ZESs compared to SESs is associated with a considerable increased risk of adverse events in patients with diabetes at 18-month follow-up.

Three-year clinical outcome with the Endeavor™ zotarolimus-eluting stent in primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST elevation myocardial infarction: the Endeavor™ primary PCI study (E-PPCI)

Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) is superior to thrombolysis in STEMI (ST segment elevation myocardial infarction) patients. Data on late stent thrombosis (ST) have raised concerns regarding the use of drug-eluting stents during PPCI. We report the first 3-year clinical evaluation of the zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) in patients undergoing PPCI for STEMI, a single-center, prospective cohort study of consecutive patients admitted with STEMI. All underwent PPCI within 12 hours of symptoms; each received one or more ZES in one or more target lesions. All patients received aspirin 300 mg, clopidogrel 600 mg, abciximab, and unfractionated heparin. A total of 102 STEMI patients (76 male, mean 62 years) received 162 ZES (mean 1.6 stents/patient). Median call-to-balloon time was 123 (102-152) minutes. Thirty-day combined major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) rate was 3.9% (n = 4). Subacute ST occurred in 2 patients (1.96%). Combined MACE rates at 12 months and 3 years were 7.8% (n = 8) and 13.7% (n = 14). Late ST occurred in 1 patient (1%) with no occurrence of very late ST. This is the first 3-year report of the use of the ZES in an unselected, consecutive PPCI population. Overall 3-year incidence of MACE and target lesion revascularization (5.9%) was low, and was comparable to that seen with sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents in randomized controlled trials. At 3 years there was no occurrence of very late ST.

Comparison of sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis of randomized trials

BACKGROUND

It has been reported that sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) have been more effective than bare-metal stents in reducing restenosis and cardiac events in a broad range of patients with coronary artery disease. However, it is unknown whether there might be differences between these two drug-eluting stents in terms of efficacy and safety in the setting of acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).

HYPOTHESIS

The aim of the present study was to compare SES with PES in patients with acute STEMI undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

METHODS

The published research was scanned by formal searches of electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) from January 2001 to February 2010. Internet-based sources of information on the results of clinical trials in cardiology were also searched.

RESULTS

A total of 4 randomized trials were included in the present meta-analysis, involving 1105 patients (550 in the SES group, 555 in the PES group). SES were significantly more effective in the reduction of angiographic binary (≥50%) restenosis (4.0% vs 9.6%, odds ratio 0.38, 95% confidence interval 0.19 to 0.74, P = 0.004) compared to PES. The differences between SES and PES were not statistically significant with respect to target vessel revascularization (TVR), stent thrombosis, cardiac death, and myocardial infarction.

CONCLUSIONS

SES are superior to PES in reducing the incidence of restenosis in patients undergoing primary PCI for STEMI, with nonsignificant differences in terms of TVR, cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and stent thrombosis.