Long-term (three-year) safety and efficacy of everolimus-eluting stents compared to paclitaxel-eluting stents (from the SPIRIT III Trial)

Revolutionizing Cardiovascular Frontiers: A Dive Into Cutting-Edge Innovations in Coronary Stent Technology

Plain balloon angioplasty was the initial method used to enlarge the intracoronary lumen size. However, it was linked to acute coronary closure due to early vessel recoil. This led to the invention of coronary stents, which offer mechanical support to open and maintain the vascular lumen. Nevertheless, the metallic scaffold introduced other issues, such as thrombosis and restenosis caused by neointimal proliferation. To address these concerns, polymers were employed to cover the scaffold, acting as drug reservoirs and regulators for controlled drug release. The use of polymers prevents direct contact between blood and metallic scaffolds. Drugs within the stent were incorporated to inhibit proliferation and expedite endothelialization in the healing process. Despite these advancements, adverse effects still arise due to the inflammatory reaction caused by the polymer material. Consequently, resorbable polymers and scaffolds were later discovered, but they have limitations and are not universally applicable. Various scaffold designs, thicknesses, materials, polymer components, and drugs have their own advantages and complications. Each stent generation has been designed to address the shortcomings of the preceding generation, yet new challenges continue to emerge. Conflicting data regarding the long-term safety and efficacy of coronary stents, especially in the extended follow-up, further complicates the assessment.

Pathological findings after third- and second-generation everolimus-eluting stent implantations in coronary arteries from autopsy cases and an atherosclerotic porcine model

Pathological changes after third-generation drug-eluting stent implantation remain unclear. We compared the tissue responses of coronary arteries after the implantation of third-generation abluminal biodegradable-polymer everolimus-eluting stent (3rd EES) and second-generation durable-polymer EES (2nd EES) using autopsy specimens and an atherosclerotic porcine model. We compared the histology of stented coronary arteries obtained by autopsy performed 1–10 months after 3rd EES (n (number of cases) = 4, stent-implanted period of 3–7 months) and 2nd EES (n (number of cases) = 9, stent-implanted period of 1–10 months) implantations. The ratio of covered stent struts was higher with 3rd EESs than with 2nd EESs (3rd; 0.824 ± 0.032 vs. 2nd; 0.736 ± 0.022, p = 0.035). Low-density lipoprotein receptor knockout minipigs were stented with 3rd or 2nd EES in the coronary arteries and the stented regions were investigated. The fibrin deposition around the 2nd EES was more prominent. Additionally, higher density of smooth muscle cells was confirmed after the 3rd EES implantation. Pathological examination after the 3rd EES demonstrated a combination of less fibrin deposition and more rapid acquisition of well-developed neointima as compared to the 2nd EES at autopsy and the atherosclerotic porcine model.

Second generation drug-eluting stents: a focus on safety and efficacy of current devices

Introduction: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) represents the most frequent procedure performed in medicine. Second generation drug eluting stents (DES) have been developed to reduce the rates of late and very late complications of first generation DES.Areas covered: To improve long-term efficacy and safety of patients undergoing PCI, second generation DES have been developed with novel stent platforms, biocompatible durable and biodegradable polymers and newer antiproliferative agents. In this review we provide an overview of second generation DES and their clinical trials, discussing safety and effectiveness of these devices, and outlining clinical indication for use.Expert commentary: Numerous clinical trials have demonstrated the safety and efficacy of second generation DES over the last decade. These devices represent the gold standard treatment in stable and acute coronary syndromes.

Long-term safety of bioresorbable scaffolds: insights from a network meta-analysis including 91 trials

AIMS

The aim of this study was to investigate the long-term safety and efficacy of biodegradable scaffolds and metallic stents.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We analysed a total of 91 randomised controlled trials with a mean follow-up of 3.7 years in 105,842 patients which compared two or more coronary metallic stents or biodegradable scaffolds and reported the long-term clinical outcomes (≥2 years). Network meta-analysis showed that patients treated with the Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) had a significantly higher risk of definite or probable scaffold thrombosis (ScT) compared to those treated with metallic DES. The risk of very late ScT was highest with the Absorb BVS among comparators. Pairwise conventional meta-analysis demonstrated that the elevated risk of ScT with Absorb BVS compared to cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents was consistent across the time points of ≤30 days (early), 31 days - 1 year (late) and >1 year (very late) ScT. In addition, target lesion failure rates were significantly higher in the Absorb BVS cohort, driven by both increased risk of target vessel myocardial infarction and ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularisation.

CONCLUSIONS

Absorb BVS implantation was associated with increased risk of long-term and very late ScT compared to current-generation metallic DES. The risk of ScT occurred with a rising trend beyond one year.

First-generation versus second-generation drug-eluting stents in patients with chronic kidney disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients are associated with very high rate of adverse cardiovascular outcomes after drug-eluting stents (DES) implantation. The clinical outcomes of second-generation DES versus first-generation DES in CKD patients remain controversial.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the current study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the safety and efficacy of second-generation DES versus first-generation DES in CKD patients.

METHODS

A systematical search of databases of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library was conducted for eligible studies comparing the clinical outcomes of first-generation DES versus second-generation DES. Sirolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents were classified as first-generation DES, and everolimus-eluting, zotarolimus-eluting, and biolimus-eluting stent (BES) were classified as second-generation DES. A pooled odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were used to summary the estimates. Heterogeneity, subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis and publication bias were also performed.

RESULTS

We identified 14 trials involving 9,542 patients with CKD undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. First-generation DES implantation was associated with higher risk of long-term all-cause mortality (OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.02-1.69; P = 0.04; I² = 0%), in stent restenosis (OR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.14-2.49; P = 0.008; I² = 49%) and stent thrombosis (OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.00-2.69; P = 0.05; I² = 49%) compared with second-generation DES implantation. First-generation DES and second-generation DES showed similar efficacy in decreasing risk of repeat revascularization, myocardial infarction (MI), or major adverse cardiac events (MACE) between first-generation and second-generation DES implantation.

CONCLUSIONS

In CKD patients, the use of second-generation DES was associated with lower risk of long-term all-cause mortality, in stent restenosis and stent thrombosis as compared with first-generation DES. No differences were found regarding repeat revascularization, MI, and MACE.

Effect of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention on Survival in Patients with Stable Ischemic Heart Disease

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This study aims to determine if percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) does improve survival in stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD).

RECENT FINDINGS

The International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches (ISCHEMIA) trial will evaluate patients with moderate to severe ischemia and will be the largest randomized trial of an initial management strategy of coronary revascularization (percutaneous or surgical) versus optimal medical therapy alone for SIHD. Although the ISCHEMIA trial may show a benefit with upfront coronary revascularization in this high-risk population, cardiac events after PCI are largely caused by plaque rupture in segments outside of the original stented segment. Furthermore, given the robust data from prior randomized trials, which showed no survival benefit with PCI, and the likelihood that the highest risk patients in ISCHEMIA will be treated with surgery, it is unlikely that the ISCHEMIA trial will show a survival benefit particular to PCI.

RECENT FINDINGS

Although PCI relieves symptoms, the evidence base indicates that it does not prolong survival in SIHD.

Contemporary Drug-Eluting Stent Platforms: Design, Safety, and Clinical Efficacy

First-generation drug-eluting stents significantly improved treatment of coronary disease, decreasing rates of revascularization. This was offset by high rates of late adverse events, driven primarily by stent thrombosis. Research and design improvements of individual DES platform components led to next-generation devices with superior clinical safety and efficacy profiles compared with bare-metal stents and first-generation drug-eluting stents. These design improvements and features are explored, and their resulting clinical safety and efficacy reviewed, focusing on platforms approved by the Food and Drug Administration currently widely used in the United States.

Contemporary Drug-Eluting Stent Platforms: Design, Safety, and Clinical Efficacy

First-generation drug-eluting stents significantly improved treatment of coronary disease, decreasing rates of revascularization. This was offset by high rates of late adverse events, driven primarily by stent thrombosis. Research and design improvements of individual DES platform components led to next-generation devices with superior clinical safety and efficacy profiles compared with bare-metal stents and first-generation drug-eluting stents. These design improvements and features are explored, and their resulting clinical safety and efficacy reviewed, focusing on platforms approved by the Food and Drug Administration currently widely used in the United States.

First-Generation Versus Second-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents in Coronary Chronic Total Occlusions: Two-Year Results of a Multicenter Registry

BACKGROUND

Limited data are available regarding the long-term clinical outcomes of second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) versus first-generation DES in patients with coronary chronic total occlusion (CTO) who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of second-generation DES with those of first-generation DES for the treatment of CTO.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Between March 2003 and February 2012, 1,006 consecutive patients with CTO who underwent successful PCI using either first-generation DES (n = 557) or second-generation DES (n = 449) were enrolled in a multicenter, observational registry. Propensity-score matching was also performed. The primary outcome was cardiac death over a 2-year follow-up period. No significant differences were observed between the two groups regarding the incidence of cardiac death (first-generation DES versus second-generation DES; 2.5% vs 2.0%; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.37 to 1.98; p = 0.72) or major adverse cardiac events (MACE, 11.8% vs 11.4%; HR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.67 to 1.50; p = 0.99). After propensity score matching, the incidences of cardiac death (HR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.35 to 2.06; p = 0.86) and MACE (HR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.63 to 1.37; p = 0.71) were still similar in both groups. Furthermore, no significant differences were observed between sirolimus-eluting, paclitaxel-eluting, zotarolimus-eluting, and everolimus-eluting stents regarding the incidence of cardiac death or MACE.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that the efficacy of second-generation DES is comparable to that of first-generation DES for treatment of CTO over 2 years of follow-up.

Drug-eluting stents: the past, present, and future

Since the advent of percutaneous coronary intervention, enormous advances have been made in the treatment of coronary artery disease. Angioplasty and bare metal stents were plagued by high rates of restenosis leading to repeat revascularization procedures. Examination of the underlying pathophysiology of restenosis led to the development of drug-eluting stents to reduce neointimal hyperplasia. However, as restenosis rates declined, length of dual antiplatelet therapy use and risk of long-term stent thrombosis associated with drug-eluting stents increased. Subsequent generations have improved each facet of stent design. Novel alloys maintain durability and reduce strut thickness to increase deliverability, biocompatible polymers decrease the inflammatory response and improve drug elution kinetics, and new generations of drugs predictably inhibit restenosis. Developments on the horizon include stents with bioabsorbable polymers and platforms. The purpose of this review is to assess the evolution of stent design and the evidence behind each generation and to peer into the future of stent technology.

Impact of technological developments in drug-eluting stents on patient-focused outcomes: a pooled direct and indirect comparison of randomised trials comparing first- and second-generation drug-eluting stents

AIMS

To establish whether technological improvements in drug-eluting stent (DES) technology introduced in second-generation (G2) DES have contributed to improving patient-focused outcomes.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We performed a systematic review of randomised clinical trials (RCT) comparing first-generation (G1) and G2 DES with a>9-month clinical follow-up. The primary endpoint for efficacy was ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularisation (ID-TLR); safety endpoints were all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI) and stent thrombosis (ST). Sixteen RCTs involving 25,427 patients met eligibility criteria (17 comparisons). In these trials, paclitaxel (PES) and sirolimus (SES) were compared with everolimus (EES), zotarolimus (ZES) or biolimus A9 (BES) DES. G2 varied in metal alloy, strut thickness and type of drug-eluting matrix. Overall, G2 DES were associated with a 26% relative risk reduction (RRR) of MI (relative risk [RR]=0.74, 95% CI: 0.61-0.90, p=0.003) and ST (RR=0.70, 95% CI: 0.55-0.89, p=0.004), while no significant benefit was observed for ID-TLR and death. Use of 2G DES was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of ID-TLR (RR=0.66, 95% CI: 0.51-0.85, p=0.002), MI (RR=0.60, 95% CI: 0.49-0.72, p<0.001) and ST (RR=0.41, 95% CI: 0.26-0.65, p=0.001) when compared with PES. Strut thickness ≤91 µm in G2 DES was associated with a significantly lower risk of MI (RR=0.54, 95% CI: 0.51-0.86, p=0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

The introduction of thinner stent struts and other technological improvements made in G2 DES technology have translated into better patient outcomes. Overall, the net benefit of G2 DES over G1 DES is expressed in terms of ID-TLR and ST risk reduction but it could be masked by heterogeneities in the use of G1 comparators and the use of non-inferiority study designs in RCTs.

Composite outcomes in 2.25-mm drug eluting stents: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Coronary atherosclerosis often involves small-caliber coronaries, yet the safety and efficacy of 2.25-mm DES have been poorly defined, with a general lack of separation of 2.25 with 2.5-mm performance. No randomized head-to-head 2.25 mm DES studies have been reported. There are several single-arm prospective studies, and we aim to systematically review all published specific 2.25-mm data to estimate composite DES-specific performance and highlight current knowledge gaps.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane database for clinical trials of 2.25-mm DES. Angiographic and composite clinical outcomes were compared with descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

2.25 mm-Paclitaxel (PES), sirolimus (SES), everolimus (EES) and platinum chromium EES DES-specific outcomes have been reported. Death at 12 months for SES, PES, EES and platinum chromium EES was 1.3%, 3.0%, 1.5%, and 4.4%. Rates of target vessel revascularization at 12 months for SES, PES, EES and platinum chromium EES were 5.7%, 13.3%, 8.8%, and 3.3%. Angiographic outcomes at 9 months to one year were as follows: mean late lumen loss (LLL) for SES, PES, and EES was 0.15 ± 0.11-mm, 0.28 ± 0.11-mm, and 0.16 ± 0.41-mm and mean diameter restenosis for SES, PES, and EES were 29.5 ± 6.2%, 34.7 ± 4.2%, and 20.9 ± 22.5%. Reported stent thrombosis rates for 2.25-mm DES were low ranging from 0% to 2.2% in up to 24-months of follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review summarizes and tabulates all available specific data on 2.25-mm DES. Based on our descriptive analysis, 2.25-mm DESs have a favorable safety and efficacy profile for the treatment of very small coronary lesions.

Preventable effects of bare-metal stent on restenosis after everolimus-eluting stent deployment

This case report describes a patient who underwent implantation of a bare-metal stent (BMS) for the treatment of everolimus-eluting stent (EES) restenosis caused by chronic stent recoil, and the BMS successfully escaped from duplicate restenosis and target lesion revascularization (TLR).

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.

Evolving management of patients treated by drug-eluting stent: prevention of late events

SUMMARY

Drug eluting stents (DES) were introduced in clinical practice to overcome the problem of in-stent restenosis (ISR) that limited the overall efficacy of percutaneous coronary revascularization with bare metal stent (BMS). Long-term outcome data confirm a sustained benefit of DES as compared with BMS. However, this benefit is mainly evident in the first year of follow-up. Indeed, DES-related events may extend over this time, due to late events (late ISR and/or very late stent thrombosis). Prevention of late failure of DES may become a specific therapeutic target.

Outcomes of Patients Treated with the Everolimus- versus the Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents in a Consecutive Cohort of Patients at a Tertiary Medical Center

In this study, we compare the outcomes of the paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) versus the everolimus-eluting stent (EES) treated patients at a tertiary medical center and up to 2 years follow-up. Unselected consecutive patients were retrospectively recruited following stenting with PES (159 patients) or EES (189 patients). The primary endpoint of the study was target lesion failure (TLF), defined as the combined endpoint of cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), or target lesion revascularization (TLR). Secondary endpoints included target vessel revascularization (TVR), TLR, target vessel failure (TVF), acute stent thrombosis (ST), total death, cardiac death, and nonfatal MI. Patients treated with the PES stent had less congestive heart failure and restenotic lesions, but a higher prevalence of longer lesions, nonleft main bifurcations, required more stents per patient (4.3 ± 2.8 vs. 2.9 ± 2.1). TLF occurred in 32.3% PES versus 21.5% EES (p = 0.027). The secondary unadjusted endpoints for PES versus EES, respectively, were TVF 38.6 versus 30.7% (p = 0.140), TVR 35.7 versus 26.5% (p = 0.079), definite and probable ST 1.2 versus 0.0%, nonfatal MI 4.5 versus 4.2%, and mortality 9.6 versus 4.0%. Logistic regression analysis showed that the numbers of stents per patient (p = 0.001), age (p = 0.01), and renal failure (p = 0.045) were independent predictors of TLF. Using univariate analysis, EES had lower TLF than PES in a cohort of unselected patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention at 2 years follow-up. Multivariate analysis showed that the numbers of stents per patient, age, and renal failure, but not stent type, were predictors of TLF.

Comparison of dual versus triple antiplatelet therapy after drug-eluting stent according to stent length (from the pooled analysis of DECLARE trials)

There are no practical criteria for the use of triple antiplatelet therapy after drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation. In our present report, pooled analysis of 3 randomized studies in patients with diabetes mellitus (Drug-Eluting Stenting Followed by Cilostazol treatment reduces LAte Restenosis in patients with diabetes mellitus trial) and long coronary narrowings (Drug-Eluting Stenting Followed by Cilostazol Treatment Reduces Late Restenosis in Patients with Long Coronary Lesions trials I and II) compared triple (aspirin, clopidogrel, and cilostazol; triple group, n = 700) and dual antiplatelet therapies (aspirin and clopidogrel; dual group, n = 699) after DES implantation. Among pooled population (n = 1,399 patients), 1,173 patients with follow-up angiography were divided into 3 stent length categories (≤20, 20 to 40, and >40 mm). There was no statistical significance of in-stent restenosis (ISR) in ≤20- and 20- to 40-mm categories between 2 groups. However, ISR rate was significantly reduced in triple versus dual group in >40-mm stent length category (12.4% vs 22.1%, p = 0.008). In diabetic patients, triple group also showed significant reduction in the ISR rate in >40-mm stent length category (15.4% vs 32.3%, p = 0.003). According to postprocedural minimal lumen diameter, triple group showed a trend toward a lower ISR than that of the dual group in all categories (p = 0.033 for ≤2.5 mm, p = 0.087 for 2.5 to 3.0 mm, and p = 0.119 for >3.0 mm). In conclusion, the triple group had a significantly reduced ISR in patients with >40-mm stent length after DES implantation compared with the dual group. Therefore, this suggestion for use of triple antiplatelet therapy could be easily applied after DES implantation in routine clinical practice.

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.

New-generation drug-eluting stents: focus on Xience V® everolimus-eluting stent and Resolute® zotarolimus-eluting stent

Compared to bare metal stent angioplasty, first-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) have markedly reduced the incidence of in-stent restenosis. However, given the increased concerns over late and very late stent thrombosis, newer-generation DES were developed. To date, these DES have virtually replaced the use of first-generation DES worldwide. In this review article, we carefully consider the pre-clinical and clinical trials that have been performed with currently available, european conformity-marked and Food and Drug Administration-approved new-generation Resolute(®) and Xience V(®) DES.

Everolimus-eluting stents versus sirolimus- or paclitaxel-eluting stents: two-year results from the Guthrie Health Off-Label Stent (GHOST) registry

OBJECTIVES

We sought to compare the safety and effectiveness of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) versus first generation drug-eluting stents (FG-DES; sirolimus-eluting stent [SES] or paclitaxel-eluting stent [PES]).

METHODS

In 2,126 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), we compared the 2-year incidence of stent thrombosis (ST) and target vessel revascularization (TVR) between the EES versus FG-DES groups. Secondary end-points included all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), death or MI, and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE, including death, MI, ST, or TVR). Further, we evaluated these end-points in 2 propensity-matched subgroups: EES versus SES; EES versus PES.

RESULTS

Complete 2-year follow-up was available in 1,911 (90%) patients. Compared to FG-DES, implantation of EES was associated with trends towards lower ST (0.9% vs. 2.8%, P = 0.068) and TVR (3.8% vs. 7.2%, P = 0.052), which persisted after adjustment for baseline differences (for ST, adjusted hazard ratio, HR 0.32; 95% confidence interval, 95% CI 0.10-1.02, P = 0.053; for TVR, HR 0.40; 95% CI 0.22-0.75, P = 0.004). Compared to SES, EES implantation was associated with lower TVR and a trend towards lower ST. Compared to PES, EES implantation was associated with less ST and TVR and trends towards lower death/MI and MACE. In the EES group, no ST was seen after the first 3 months.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of EES compared to FG-DES appears to be associated with reductions in ST and TVR at 2-year follow-up. Improved outcomes with EES are observed in comparison with SES as well as PES.

Everolimus-Eluting versus Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

Background. Individual randomized trials have suggested that everolimus-eluting stents may have improved clinical outcomes compared to paclitaxel-eluting stents, but individual trials are underpowered to examine outcomes such as mortality and very late stent thrombosis. Methods. Medline, Cochrane, and conference proceedings were searched for randomized trials comparing everolimus versus paclitaxel-eluting stents for percutaneous coronary intervention. Results. 6792 patients were included from 4 randomized controlled trials. Stent thrombosis was reduced with everolimus stents versus paclitaxel stents (0.7% versus 2.3%; OR: 0.32; CI: 0.20-0.51; P < 0.00001). The reductions in stent thrombosis were observed in (i) early stent thrombosis (within 30 days) (0.2% versus 0.9%; OR: 0.24; P = 0.0005), (ii) late (day 31-365) (0.2% versus 0.6%; OR: 0.32; P = 0.01), and (iii) very late stent thrombosis (>365 days) (0.2% versus 0.8%; OR: 0.34; P = 0.009). The rates of cardiovascular mortality were 1.2% in everolimus group and 1.6% in paclitaxel group (OR: 0.85; P = 0.43). Patients receiving everolimus-eluting stents had significantly lower myocardial infarction events and target vessel revascularization as compared to paclitaxel-eluting stents. Interpretation. Everolimus compared to paclitaxel-eluting stents reduced the incidence of early, late, and very late stent thrombosis as well as target vessel revascularization.

The Generations of Drug-Eluting Stents and Outcomes in Women

Drug-eluting stents have become one of the mainstays of percutaneous coronary artery revascularization. Since their introduction, there have been many developments in this technology including the optimization of the stent platform, novel polymer coatings, and antiproliferative drugs. Although cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in women, the prevalence of obstructive coronary artery disease is lower, and women comprise a minority of patients included in clinical trials assessing the performance of drug-eluting stents. This article reviews the advances in drug-eluting stent technology and the studies reporting outcomes in women after implantation of these stents.

Impact of the everolimus-eluting stent on stent thrombosis: a meta-analysis of 13 randomized trials

OBJECTIVES

We evaluated the impact of the everolimus-eluting stent (EES) on the frequency of stent thrombosis (ST), target vessel revascularization (TVR), myocardial infarction (MI), and cardiac death in randomized controlled trials comparing the EES to non-everolimus-eluting drug-eluting stents (EE-DES).

BACKGROUND

Whether or not the unique properties of the EES translate into reductions in ST remains unknown.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, and Internet sources for articles comparing outcomes between EES and non-EE-DES without language or date restriction. Randomized controlled trials reporting the frequency of ST were included. Variables relating to patient and study characteristics and clinical endpoints were extracted.

RESULTS

We identified 13 randomized trials (n = 17,101) with a weighted mean follow-up of 21.7 months. Compared with non-EE-DES, the EES significantly reduced ST (relative risk [RR]: 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.38 to 0.78; p = 0.001), TVR (RR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.64 to 0.92; p = 0.004), and MI (RR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.64 to 0.96; p = 0.02). There was no difference in cardiac mortality between the groups (RR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.74 to 1.16; p = 0.38). The treatment effect was consistent by different follow-up times and duration of clopidogrel use. The treatment effects increased with higher baseline risks of the respective control groups with the strongest correlation observed for ST (R(2) = 0.89, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Intracoronary implantation of the EES is associated with highly significant reductions in ST with concordant reductions in TVR and MI compared to non-EE-DES. Whether these effects apply to different patient subgroups and DES types merits further investigation.