Comparative clinical outcomes of paclitaxel- and sirolimus-eluting stents: results from a large prospective multicenter registry--STENT Group

Focus on STENTYS® Xposition S Self-Apposing® stent: a review of available literature

Percutaneous coronary interventions are the primary revascularization strategy for the vast majority of patients with coronary artery disease. Nevertheless, challenging settings still limit optimal results, especially in case of significant tapering, bifurcations or primary angioplasty in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Stentys^® Self-Apposing^® stent was designed to improve strut apposition to the vessel wall and to adapt to difficult targets. The Xposition S is a sirolimus-eluting stent with a novel delivery system, to improve accurate positioning. Several studies compared the device with traditional balloon-expandable stents, showing better results in terms of malapposition reduction and a noninferiority in relation to procedural outcomes. Available data show good clinical results, but a direct comparison with balloon-expandable stents from large randomized trials is still lacking. Thus, the Stentys Xposition S can be an alternative to traditional stents in dedicated scenarios, but strong evidence from large randomized trials is needed to derive stronger recommendations.

The Need for Comparative Data in Vascular Access: The Rationale and Design of the PICC Registry

Approximately 4.3 million peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are placed each year. Currently, there are no national-level comparative data registries to gather information regarding PICC placement, care, or maintenance, and there are no benchmarks or quality measures for vascular access specialists. As the specialty of vascular access evolves from placing peripheral intravenous catheters and administering infusions to the placement of more advanced devices such as PICCs and other central venous access devices, the lack of national comparative data becomes more significant. Without consistent, comparative data, vascular access specialists cannot demonstrate the high level of clinical outcomes provided for patients or justify the value of the specialty to hospital administrators or third-party payers. Data collection must evolve to improve quality and show cost-effectiveness. National-level comparative data collection has been used for decades by physicians to implement quality initiatives and improve patient care. Comparative data can now easily be provided using informatics technologies like the Internet to collect and analyze data for improved clinical outcomes. Vascular access teams must begin using data registries for collecting comparative data, allowing the development of benchmarks and improved quality measures.

Everolimus-eluting stents in interventional cardiology

Bare metal stents have a proven safety record, but limited long-term efficacy due to in-stent restenosis. First-generation drug-eluting stents successfully countered the restenosis rate, but were hampered by concerns about their long-term safety. Second generation drug-eluting stents have combined the low restenosis rate of the first generation with improved long-term safety. We review the evolution of drug-eluting stents with a focus on the safety, efficacy, and unique characteristics of everolimus-eluting stents.

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.

Long-term outcome after drug-eluting stent implantation in unselected population: ROME and UDINE experience (the RUDI registry)

OBJECTIVES

The aim of our study is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of DES implantation in an unselected, "real world," high-risk population.

BACKGROUND

Several clinical trials showed that drug-eluting stents (DESs) implantation is safe and effective in selected population. In spite of these encouraging results, there are some concerns about "real world" utilization of these stents.

METHODS

One thousand four hundred and fifty-five off-label patients have been included in our registry. Primary end-points were: long-term clinical incidence of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) and thrombosis (ST). We detected the difference between uniDES vs. multiDES implantation in terms of MACCE, death, nonfatal-MI, the composite of death/nonfatal-MI and target lesion revascularization (TLR) and the difference between DES type in term of MACCE.

RESULTS

At 36 months follow-up we found: cardiac death occurred in 20 patients (1.6%); 33 patients (2.6%) had a nonfatal MI and 81 patients (6.3%) had a TLR. We observed one (0.1%) acute, 9 subacute (0.6%), 6 late (0.6%), and 1 (0.5%) very late definite ST. No difference were found in terms of overall MACCE, MI, death and composite of death/nonfatal-MI between uni- and multiDES implantation but multiDES group had a higher incidence of TLR. No difference between DES type in term of MACCE was detected.

CONCLUSIONS

DES utilization shows their safety and efficacy in off-label patients with complex clinical and angiographic profile in terms of long-term incidence of MACCE. MultiDES implantation is associated with a higher risk of long-term TLR. No difference between DES type was found.

Cost-effectiveness of drug-eluting stents versus bare metal stents in clinical practice

BACKGROUND

Drug-eluting stents (DES) reduce the need for repeat target revascularization (TVR) compared with bare metal stents (BMS) but are more costly. The objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of DES versus BMS.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We evaluated clinical outcomes and costs of care over 3 years in 1147 undergoing BMS before the availability of DES and 1247 DES patients at Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center from 2002 to 2005. Costs for index stenting, TVR, and clopidogrel use were assessed. The 2 groups were well matched for baseline characteristics. Index stenting costs were $1846 higher per patient for DES versus BMS ($1737 more to $1950 more). At 3 years, absolute TVR rates were 15.2 per 100 DES patients and 24.1 per 100 BMS patients, and as a result, cumulative TVR-related costs were $2065 less per patient for DES versus BMS ($3001 less to $1134 less). Including the cost of clopidogrel, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per TVR avoided with DES was $4731 through 1 year, $4703 through 2 years, and $6379 through 3 years.

CONCLUSIONS

At 3 years, the higher index cost of DES versus BMS was completely offset by lower TVR-related costs. However, because of extended clopidogrel use for DES, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per TVR avoided ranged from $4703 to $6379 over 3 years. These unadjusted observational findings provide support for the continued use of DES in routine practice but highlight the important impact of prolonged dual antiplatelet use on the cost-effectiveness of this technology.

Long-term outcomes of sirolimus-eluting stents vs. paclitaxel-eluting stents in unprotected left main coronary artery bifurcation lesions

BACKGROUND

The treatment of unprotected left main coronary artery (uLMCA) bifurcation lesions remains challenging.

HYPOTHESIS

We hypothesized that the type of drug-eluting stent would correlate with clinical outcomes for the treatment of uLMCA bifurcation lesions.

METHODS

One hundred fifteen patients who underwent stent implantation using a provisional T-stenting technique with sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) or paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) for uLMCA bifurcation lesions were enrolled. A major adverse cardiac event (MACE) was defined as a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization.

RESULTS

Ninety-four patients were treated with SES and 21 patients with PES. Baseline characteristics were similar between the 2 groups. Angiographic follow-up was performed in 99 (86%) patients. Late loss in the LMCA to the left anterior descending coronary artery was significantly lower in the SES group than in the PES group (0.28 ± 0.54 mm vs 1.03 ± 0.45 mm, P<0.001). One case of stent thrombosis occurred in the SES group. During follow-up with a median of 712 days, the SES group had a lower MACE compared with the PES group (10.6% vs. 28.6%, P = 0.032). Cox proportional hazards models including age, sex, diabetes, acute coronary syndrome, true bifurcation, stenting strategy, and type of drug-eluting stent used (SES vs. PES) demonstrated that stent type was the only predictor of MACE (hazard ratio of PES vs SES: 3.88, 95% confidence interval: 1.29-11.67, P = 0.016).

CONCLUSIONS

According to the results of the present study, SES may be associated with more favorable outcomes than PES for stenting of uLMCA bifurcation, which should be further studied by larger trials.

How safe and how good are drug-eluting stents?

Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty revolutionized therapy for coronary artery disease. This early promise of a viable alternative to surgical treatment of coronary artery disease was thwarted by the high rates of angiographic restenosis. The advent of stenting reduced the rates of restenosis, although it was hindered by the new problem of in-stent restenosis. It was demonstrated that in-stent restenosis was the result of a new pathology in the form of neointimal hyperplasia, which was a maladaptive healing response to bare-metal stent implantation. Recently, the introduction of drug-eluting stents (DES) technology has offered a new solution to the problem of restenosis. Current evidence suggests that although DES have reduced restenosis rates, important concerns have been raised regarding increased stent thrombosis, myocardial infarction and death. The purpose of this article is to examine the efficacy and safety data of DES as highlighted in recent publications and to further discuss the biomolecular mechanisms of accelerated endothelization and stent thrombosis. In addition, we will examine some of the newer stent technologies available.

High soluble Fas and soluble Fas Ligand serum levels before stent implantation are protective against restenosis

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) represents the most important treatment of coronary artery stenosis today. But instent restenosis (ISR) is a limitation for the outcome. Fas and Fas Ligand have been implicated in apoptosis and vessel wall inflammation. Their role in ISR is not known so far. In this prospective study we studied 137 patients with stable coronary artery disease who underwent elective PCI. Blood samples were taken directly before and 24 hours after PCI. Soluble (s)Fas and sFas Ligand serum levels were measured by ELISA. Restenosis was evaluated six to eight months later either by coronary angiography or by exercise testing. During the follow-up period, 18 patients (13%) developed ISR. At baseline, patients with ISR had significantly lower median sFas, as well as sFas Ligand levels compared to patients without ISR (sFAS: ISR 492 pg/ml, no ISR 967 pg/ml, p=0.014; sFAS Ligand: ISR: 26 pg/ml, no ISR: 42 pg/ml, p=0.001). After PCI median sFas levels significantly decreased in patients with ISR compared to patients without ISR [ISR: -152 pg/ml (IQR -36 to -227), no ISR: -38 pg/ml (IQR -173 to +150 pg/ml), p=0.03]. sFas Ligand levels after PCI significantly increased in ISR patients compared to patients without ISR [ISR: 14 pg/ml (IQR -3 to +26 pg/ml), no ISR -6 pg/ml (IQR -22 to +21 pg/ml), p=0.014]. In conclusion, sFas and sFas Ligand seem to be associated with the development of ISR. Determination of serum levels before and after PCI might help identifying patients at higher risk of ISR.

Extended follow-up safety and effectiveness of the Endeavor zotarolimus-eluting stent in real-world clinical practice: two-year follow-up from the E-Five Registry

OBJECTIVES

To present data from the cohort of patients in the all-comers Endeavor zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) registry (E-Five) who underwent 2-year follow-up.

BACKGROUND

The Endeavor ZES has been shown to be safe and efficacious for treatment of single, de novo lesions in patients with stable coronary artery disease. E-Five evaluated the ZES in over 8,000 real-world patients, at 188 sites followed to 1 year. A subset of sites continued follow-up through 2 years to evaluate late-term safety and effectiveness of the ZES in this population with diverse clinical and lesion characteristics.

METHODS

E-Five, a prospective, multicenter, nonrandomized global registry, collected 2-year outcomes for 2,116 patients from 26 centers. Sites were selected for participation based on patient accrual rates and the ability to continue follow-up activities for an additional year. Complete data was available for 2,054 patients. To observe whether or not a sustained benefit was achieved, data for all patients from the selected sites were included in the analysis.

RESULTS

The outcomes in the 2-year cohort tracked with the results of randomized controlled trials using the Endeavor ZES. One year results were MACE 7.5%, TLR 4.5%, and ARC definite/probable stent thrombosis 0.6%. Outcomes at 2 years for MACE, TLR, and ARC definite/probable stent thrombosis were 8.5, 5.1, and 0.7%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term efficacy and safety outcomes were maintained between 1 and 2 years for the 2-year patient cohort, with only a small number of additional MACE, TLR, and very late stent thrombosis events.

Comparison of outcomes in patients with insulin-dependent versus non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus receiving drug-eluting stents (from the first phase of the prospective multicenter German DES.DE registry)

Drug-eluting stents have been effective in randomized controlled trials, but their safety and efficacy in patients with insulin-dependent diabetes has not been well studied. Baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics and in-hospital and follow-up events were recorded for enrolled patients. From October 2005 and October 2006, 581 patients with insulin-dependent diabetes and 1,078 with non-insulin-dependent diabetes treated with sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents were enrolled at 98 sites. The composite of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke, defined as major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, as well as target vessel revascularization was used as the primary end point. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to adjust for confounding parameters. Baseline clinical characteristics were more severe in patients with insulin-dependent diabetes, whereas descriptive characteristics were not unique. At 1-year follow-up, the comparison between the 2 groups revealed significantly higher rates of overall death (7.4% vs 4.6%, p <0.05), target vessel revascularization (15.1% vs 10.4%, p <0.05), and overall stent thrombosis (6.5% vs 4.1%, p <0.05) for insulin-dependent patients, while rates of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events were not significantly different (12.8% vs 9.9%, p = 0.09). These results persisted even after risk adjustment for heterogenous baseline characteristics of the 2 groups. In conclusion, the data generated from the German Drug-Eluting Stent (DES.DE) registry revealed that even with drug-eluting stents, the annual risk for death, target vessel revascularization, and thrombotic events remains higher in patients with insulin-dependent diabetes compared to those with non-insulin-dependent diabetes.

Twelve-month outcomes in patients with diabetes implanted with a zotarolimus-eluting stent: results from the E-Five Registry

Objective

To retrospectively evaluate the 12-month effectiveness of the Endeavor zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) in diabetic versus non-diabetic patients enrolled in the E-Five Registry.

Design and Setting

The E-Five Registry is a prospective, multicentre registry of 8314 patients presenting with symptomatic coronary artery disease treated with the Endeavor (ZES). Patients were treated at 188 centres located in 37 countries across Europe, Latin America and Asia Pacific.

Patients

There were 2721 (32.7%) patients with diabetes (DM) and among these patients 682 were insulin-treated (ITDM) and 2039 were non-insulin-treated diabetic patients (NITDM).

Interventions

All enrolled patients received an Endeavor ZES and were followed for 12 months.

Main outcome measurements

The primary outcome measure was major adverse cardiac event (MACE) at 12 months. Secondary endpoints included target lesion revascularisation (TLR), target vessel revascularisation (TVR), target vessel failure (TVF) and stent thrombosis.

Results

Compared with non-DM patients, DM patients had higher rates of MACE (9.7% vs 6.4%, p<0.001), TLR (5.3% vs 4.0%, p=0.028) and Academic Research Consortium (ARC) definite and probable stent thrombosis (1.5% vs 0.9%, p=0.041). Compared with non-DM patients, ITDM patients had higher rates of MACE (12.6% vs 6.4%, p<0.001). ITDM patients had higher rates of death (6.7% vs 1.7%, p<0.001), cardiac death (4.5% vs 1.2%, p<0.001) and TLR (6.5% vs 4.0%, p=0.011) than non-DM patients.

Conclusions

The Endeavor ZES performed well in DM patients; however, DM patients experienced higher rates of adverse clinical events compared with non-DM patients.

Trial Reg No

Clinical trial registration information: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NTC00623441

Paclitaxel- versus sirolimus-eluting stents for treatment of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: with analyses for diabetic and nondiabetic subpopulation

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to determine which drug-eluting stent (DES) is preferable for the treatment of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and to elucidate the impact of diabetes mellitus on the outcome of each DES.

BACKGROUND

Recent studies have shown the benefit of DES in patients with STEMI. Diabetes mellitus might differentially affect outcomes of each DES.

METHODS

We analyzed the large-scale, prospective, observational KAMIR (Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry) study, which enrolled 4,416 STEMI patients (26% with diabetes) treated with paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) or sirolimus-eluting stent (SES). Primary outcome was major adverse cardiac event (MACE), defined as a composite of mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization (TLR).

RESULTS

In the overall population, the MACE rate at 1 year was significantly higher in the PES than the SES group (11.6% vs. 8.6%, p = 0.014), which was mainly due to increased TLR (3.7% vs. 1.8%, p < 0.001). In the diabetic subgroup, however, the MACE rate was not significantly different between PES and SES (14.5% vs. 12.3%, p = 0.217), in contrast to the nondiabetic subgroup, where PES was inferior to SES as in the overall population. Matching by propensity-score did not significantly alter these results. For TLR, there was interaction between the type of stents and diabetes mellitus (unadjusted: p = 0.052; after propensity-score matching: p = 0.035).

CONCLUSIONS

The PES was inferior to the SES in the overall population, with regard to the occurrence of MACE and TLR. However, subgroup analysis for diabetic subjects showed no differences in clinical outcomes between PES and SES. These results suggest that diabetes differentially affects the outcome of first-generation DES.

Three-year outcomes following sirolimus- versus paclitaxel-eluting stent implantation in an unselected population with coronary artery disease (from the REWARDS Registry)

The Registry Experience at the Washington Hospital Center with Drug-Eluting Stents (REWARDS) study includes unselected patients with coronary artery disease treated with sirolimus-eluting stents (SESs; n = 2,392) or paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES; n = 1,119). This study aimed to examine the long-term safety profile of the 2 stents in a "real-world" population, especially in relation to stent thrombosis, and to compare differences in the diabetic cohort. Patients were followed for 3 years with regard to major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), including death, Q-wave myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization. Rates of stent thrombosis were also studied. Baseline characteristics were similar between stents. Although MACE rates at 3 years were similar (SES 28.1% vs PES 28.9%, p = 0.62), there was a significant difference in unadjusted rates of target lesion revascularization (SES 15.6% vs PES 12.6%, p = 0.03), death (SES 15.7% vs PES 19.0%, p = 0.02), and Q-wave myocardial infarction (SES 0.8% vs PES 2.1%, p = 0.003). After multivariable Cox regression to adjust for confounders, there was no significant difference in overall MACEs. Incidence of stent thrombosis was higher in the SES group (SES 2.2% vs PES 1.6%, p = 0.22), but this was not statistically significant (hazard ratio 1.6, 95% confidence interval 0.8 to 2.9, p = 0.17). Overall, diabetics had a higher MACE rate, but there was no difference between insulin- and noninsulin-dependent diabetics. In conclusion, at 3 years, PES and SES achieved similar results in MACEs and stent thrombosis. This should foster confidence that SES or PES can be compared to second-generation drug-eluting stents without concerns for safety or efficacy.

Vertebral Artery Origin Stents Revisited

BACKGROUND

Vertebral origin angioplasty and stenting (VOAS) with bare metal stents is associated with a high rate of in-stent restenosis (ISR).

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the rate of ISR after VOAS with drug-eluting stents.

METHODS

Twenty patients (15 men, 5 women; age range, 36–88 years; mean, 63.7 years) were treated for VOAS with a paclitaxel-eluting stent (Taxus Express2, Boston Scientific, Natick, Massachusetts). Stenosis at follow-up was quantified as insignificant (0%–24%), mild (25%–49%), moderate (50%–74%), and severe (75%–100%). ISR was defined using a binary criteria of &gt; 50% stenosis at follow-up angiography.

RESULTS

All procedures were technically successful with no periprocedural complications. Follow-up angiography (range, 4–48 months; mean, 14.7 months) showed insignificant stenosis in 9 patients, mild in 6, moderate in 4, and severe in 1. In 1 patient with “moderate” stenosis, the stent migrated distally; therefore, the lesion restenosis was not within the stent. Thus, 4 of 19 patients (21%) exhibited binary moderate or severe ISR, and 5 of 20 showed restenosis at the lesion (25%). The patient with severe stenosis developed stent thrombosis &gt; 3 years after VOAS.

CONCLUSION

VOAS with drug-eluting stents was associated with a low incidence of periprocedural complications. Although the rate of restenosis was half that seen with the use of bare metallic stents, 21% of patients still developed moderate or severe ISR. These patients may require ≥ 1 revascularization procedures. The risk of delayed stent thrombosis may necessitate lifelong dual antiplatelet medications.

Outcomes with drug-eluting versus bare-metal stents in saphenous vein graft intervention results from the STENT (strategic transcatheter evaluation of new therapies) group

OBJECTIVES

This study compares outcomes of drug-eluting stents (DES) versus bare-metal stents (BMS) in patients undergoing saphenous vein graft (SVG) intervention.

BACKGROUND

The safety and efficacy of DES in patients undergoing SVG intervention is controversial.

METHODS

The STENT (Strategic Transcatheter Evaluation of New Therapies) registry is a multicenter U.S. registry evaluating outcomes with DES. Our study population includes patients undergoing PCI of SVG lesions with DES (n = 785) or BMS (n = 343) who completed 9-month or 2-year follow-up. Outcomes were adjusted with propensity analyses.

RESULTS

The DES patients had fewer emergent procedures but had smaller vessels and longer lesions. The DES patients had less death or myocardial infarction at 9 months (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.33 to 0.83, p = 0.006) and less death at 2 years (HR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.36 to 0.98, p = 0.041). Target vessel revascularization (TVR) was less with DES at 9 months (7.2% vs. 10.0%, HR: 0.36, 95% CI: 0.22 to 0.61, p < 0.001) but was no different by 2 years (18.3% vs. 16.9%, p = 0.86), although adjusted TVR rates were lower (HR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.40 to 0.90, p = 0.014). The DES reduced TVR at 9 months in SVG lesions with diameter <3.5 mm (8.0% vs. 17.2%, p = 0.013) but not >or=3.5 mm (6.0% vs. 6.6%, p = 0.74).

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of SVG lesions with DES vs. BMS is effective in reducing TVR at 9 months, although most of this advantage is lost at 2 years. The DES seem safe with less death or myocardial infarction, although selection bias might have affected these results. Our data suggest that DES might have short-term advantages over BMS in SVG lesions with diameter <3.5 mm.

Clinical outcomes after sirolimus-eluting, paclitaxel-eluting, and bare metal stents (from the first phase of the prospective multicenter German DES.DE Registry)

The prospective multicenter German Drug-Eluting Stent (DES.DE) registry is an observational study to analyze and evaluate the therapeutic principle of the differential drug-eluting stents (sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents) and bare metal stents under real world conditions in the context of the German healthcare system. The baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics and follow-up events for 1 year were recorded for all enrolled patients. In addition, a health economics assessment was performed at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after initial stent placement. The composite of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke, defined as major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, and target vessel revascularization were used as the primary objectives. From October 2005 to October 2006, 6,384 patients were enrolled (sirolimus-eluting stents, n = 2,137; paclitaxel-eluting stents, n = 2,740; bare metal stents, n = 485) at 98 Deutsches Drug-Eluting Stent Register sites. With similar baseline clinical and descriptive morphology of coronary artery disease between both drug-eluting stent groups, no differences were present at 1 year of follow-up in the rates of overall mortality (3.8% vs 4.1%), target vessel revascularization (10.4% vs 10.4%), overall stent thrombosis (3.6% vs 3.8%), and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (8.1% vs 8.0%). Compared with the bare metal stent group, patients treated with drug-eluting stents had significantly lower rates of myocardial infarction (3.2% vs 6.0%; p <0.01), stroke (1.2% vs 2.7%; p <0.05), and target vessel revascularization (10.4% vs 14.9%; p <0.01) without any difference in the stent thrombosis rate (3.7% vs 4.3%; p = 0.57) or mortality rate (4.0% vs 5.2%; p = 0.21). In conclusion, the data generated from the German Drug-Eluting Stent registry revealed no differences between patients receiving a paclitaxel-eluting stent and sirolimus-eluting stent in a "real-world" setting with regard to the clinical outcomes at 1 year.

Outcomes and complications with off-label use of drug-eluting stents: results from the STENT (Strategic Transcatheter Evaluation of New Therapies) group

OBJECTIVES

This study evaluates outcomes and complications in patients treated with drug-eluting stents (DES) for "off-label" indications.

BACKGROUND

Drug-eluting stents have been effective in randomized trials, but their safety and efficacy for off-label indications has not been well studied.

METHODS

The STENT (Strategic Transcatheter Evaluation of New Therapies) Registry is the largest multicenter U.S. registry evaluating outcomes of DES. Off-label indications included ostial, left main, long, bifurcation, and in-stent restenotic lesions, saphenous vein grafts, chronic total occlusions, small or large vessels, multilesion or multivessel percutaneous coronary interventions, and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Outcomes were adjusted using Cox proportional hazards regression and propensity analyses.

RESULTS

Drug-eluting stents were used in an off-label manner in 59% of patients. The patients who received off-label treatment were more often male, had a higher incidence of prior infarction and bypass surgery, and lower ejection fractions. Off-label versus "on-label" use of DES was associated with higher rates of death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, major adverse cardiac events, and stent thrombosis at 9 months and 2 years. Off-label use of DES compared with off-label use of bare-metal stents (BMS) had lower rates of death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, and major adverse cardiac events at 9 months and 2 years and lower rates of stent thrombosis at 9 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Off-label use of DES is associated with higher event rates compared with on-label use of DES, which is consistent with a higher risk clinical and lesion profile. However, event rates with off-label use of DES are lower compared with off-label use of BMS. Pending results from randomized trials, our data support the use of DES for off-label indications in selected patients.

One-year outcomes from the TAXUS express stent versus cypher stent

We compared 1-year outcomes in patients treated with paclitaxel-eluting stents (PESs) or sirolimus-eluting stents (SESs) in "real-world" clinical practice. Clinical outcomes were evaluated in 1,558 consecutive, unselected, retrospectively collected patients treated with drug-eluting stents (DESs; PES = 816, SES = 742) at 19 United States centers. The primary end point was 1-year target vessel revascularization (TVR). The study included a prespecified diabetic cohort (PES = 289, SES = 247), for which efficacy comparisons between DESs were analyzed according to vessel diameter and presence of chronic kidney disease. Baseline demographic, angiographic, and procedural characteristics were similar between patients treated with PESs and those treated with SESs. At 1 year, there were no overall statistical differences in death, myocardial infarction, TVR, or stent thrombosis. In the diabetic cohort, however, the cumulative incidence of TVR was significantly lower for patients treated with PESs (3%) compared with SESs (9%, p <0.01), which persisted after adjustment for baseline differences (hazard ratio 0.29, 95% confidence interval 0.12 to 0.67). This decrease in TVR with PES was similar in insulin- and noninsulin-requiring diabetic patients. In multivariate analysis, independent predictors of TVR included diabetes, bifurcation stenting, and overlapping stents; in the diabetic cohort, treatment with SESs was also a multivariate predictor of TVR. In conclusion, in this observational, retrospective analysis of DES-treated patients, PESs and SESs demonstrated similar overall safety and efficacy, but PESs were associated with a significant decrease in 1-year TVR rates in diabetic patients.

Management of multivessel coronary disease: let us not shortchange drug-eluting stents

A recent observational study of coronary artery graft (CABG) versus drug-eluting stents (DES) performed in the state of New York reported that CABG was superior to DES for multivessel disease. Our comment provides rational criticism of this study, reviews the data that support a role for DES in the management of multivessel coronary disease, and emphasizes the need for ongoing prospective clinical trials in this area. Till randomized trial data become available, physicians should continue to use their clinical judgment based on existing evidence in managing their patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD).