Effect of Paclitaxel-Eluting Versus Sirolimus-Eluting Stents on Coronary Restenosis in Korean Diabetic Patients

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.

Paclitaxel-eluting stents versus sirolimus-eluting stents in patients with diabetes mellitus undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Uncertainties exist with regard to the efficacy of paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) versus sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) in diabetes patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to investigate the outcome of PES versus SES in diabetes patients undergoing PCI. A literature search was started, and we found all studies conducted from 2005 to 2016. We systematically searched the literature through the MEDLINE, Cochrane library, and EMBASE. Quality assessments were evaluated with the Jadad scale. Data were extracted considering the characteristics of efficacy and the safety of the designs. 12 RCTs satisfy the inclusion criteria. There is a significant decrease of target lesion revascularization (TLR) (MD = 0.65, 95 % CI = 0.42-1.00, P = 0.05) in a year and more than 1 year (MD = 0.54, 95 % CI = 0.37-0.78, P = 0.00010). A significant decrease of target vessel revascularization (TVR) in more than 1 year is (MD = 0.62, 95 % CI = 0.47-0.81, P = 0.0004). A significant decrease of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in more than 1 year is (MD = 0.73, 95 % CI = 0.60-0.89, P = 0.002). Nevertheless, there is no significant difference in mortality (MD = 0.85, 95 % CI = 0.66-1.11, P = 0.24), stent thrombosis (ST) (MD = 0.65, 95 % CI = 0.35-1.21, P = 0.18), or myocardial infarction (MD = 1.04, 95 % CI = 0.71-1.51, P = 0.84). SES may be more significant in decreasing TLR, TVR, and MACE than PES without significantly increasing mortality, ST and MI in diabetes patients.

Stent thrombosis and adverse cardiovascular outcomes observed between six months and five years with sirolimus-eluting stents and other drug-eluting stents in patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus complicated by coronary artery disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis

This study aimed to compare 6 months to 5 years stent thrombosis (ST) and adverse cardiovascular outcomes associated with sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) and other drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).Electronic databases were searched for studies comparing SES with other DES in patients with T2DM. Total ST, definite ST, probable ST, and other adverse cardiovascular outcomes reported between 6 months and 5 years were considered as the clinical end points in this study. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for categorical variables and the pooled analyses were performed with RevMan 5.3 software.Twenty-nine studies involving a total number of 25,729 patients with diabetes were included in this meta-analysis. SES were not associated with significantly higher total, definite, and probable STs with OR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.77-1.17, P = 0.62; OR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.65-1.37, P = 0.76; and OR: 1.05, 95% CI: 0.77-1.45, P = 0.74, respectively. SES were also noninferior to the other non-sirolimus eluting drug eluting stents (non-SE DES) in terms of all-cause mortality, cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and stroke with OR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.82-1.03, P = 0.16; OR: 1.09, 95% CI: 0.88-1.35, P = 0.44; OR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.80-1.06, P = 0.26; and OR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.49-1.28, P = 0.43, respectively. Target vessel revascularization, target lesion revascularization, and major adverse cardiac events were also similarly reported between SES and non-SE DES with OR: 1.04, 95% CI: 0.83-1.31, P = 0.72; OR: 1.25, 95% CI: 0.95-1.64, P = 0.11; and OR: 1.06, 95% CI: 0.90-1.25, P = 0.49, respectively.During this particular follow-up period, SES were not associated with any increase in ST among these patients with T2DM. Mortality and other adverse cardiovascular outcomes were also not significantly different between these 2 groups. Hence, SES should be considered neither superior nor inferior to other DES. They are expected to be equally effective and safe to use in patients with T2DM.

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.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

DESIGN

Mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION

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

PRIMARY OUTCOMES

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

A meta-analysis of specifically designed randomized trials of sirolimus-eluting versus paclitaxel-eluting stents in diabetic patients with coronary artery disease

BACKGROUND

There is an ongoing debate on the optimal drug-eluting stent (DES) in diabetic patients with coronary artery disease. We addressed this issue by making a synthesis of the available evidence on the relative long-term efficacy and safety of sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) in these patients.

METHODS

Individual patient data were analyzed from 6 randomized trials specifically designed to compare SES with PES in diabetic patients. In total, 1183 patients were followed up for a median of 3.9 years (25th, 75th percentiles 3.4-4.5 years). The primary efficacy end point was target lesion revascularization (TLR). The composite of death and myocardial infarction (MI) was the primary safety end point. Stent thrombosis was a secondary end point. Overall hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs were calculated as summary estimates.

RESULTS

No significant heterogeneity was seen across the 6 randomized trials for all analyzed events. Sirolimus-eluting stent was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of TLR (HR 0.65 [0.47-0.91], P = .01). No significant differences were observed regarding the risk of death or MI (HR 1.04 [0.74-1.45], P = .83) and stent thrombosis (HR 1.00 [0.31-3.30], P = .67). Mortality was also not affected by the type of DES (HR 0.95 [0.65-1.39], P = .79).

CONCLUSIONS

In diabetic patients with coronary artery disease, SES leads to a sustained reduction in the risk of TLR compared with PES. Both these DES types are, however, comparable with respect to the risk of stent thrombosis, MI, or death over long-term follow-up.

Cost analysis of four major drug-eluting stents in diabetic populations

AIM

To use an indirect comparisons approach and conduct a cost analysis comparing four drug-eluting stents (DES) from a United States (US) payer (i.e., fixed-fee reimbursement) perspective.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Studies were chosen that randomised two or more DES in diabetic patients. A one-year target lesion revascularisation (TLR) risk for Taxus was first derived. Risk Ratios (RRs) for each DES versus Taxus were calculated through meta-analyses. The RRs were multiplied by the average TLR risk for Taxus to estimate DES TLR risks. Estimates were added to a budget-impact model, along with utilisation and reimbursement rates for diagnosis-related groups. Budgets were calculated, assuming 100% stent use and 200,000 diabetic beneficiaries. One-year TLR risks were estimated to be 3.2%, 7.1%, 6.9% and 7.9% for Cypher, Endeavor, Taxus and Xience respectively. By substituting Cypher for DES with higher TLR, results predicted annual cost-savings greater than $146 million per population ($ 733 per patient). Results were comparable when assuming no difference in TLR risk between Endeavor, Taxus and Xience.

CONCLUSIONS

When outcomes from trials of diabetic populations are analysed and used in a budget-impact model from a US payer perspective, the use of Cypher is associated with lower TLR rates, which translates into large potential cost savings.

Meta-analysis of five randomized clinical trials comparing sirolimus- versus paclitaxel-eluting stents in patients with diabetes mellitus

Recent data on drug-eluting stents have shown improved clinical outcomes in patients with diabetes mellitus. However, the relative efficacy and safety of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) compared with paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) remains controversial. Therefore, a meta-analysis of randomized trials was performed to compare SES with PES exclusively in patients with diabetes. 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 April 2009. All randomized trials involving head-to-head comparison of SES versus PES in patients with diabetes were examined for analysis. A total of 5 randomized trials were included in the present meta-analysis, involving 1,173 patients (594 in the SES group, 579 in the PES group). SES were significantly more effective in the reduction of target lesion revascularization (5.1% vs 11.4%, odds ratio [OR] 0.41, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.26 to 0.64, p <0.001) and angiographic binary (> or =50%) restenosis (5.6% vs 16.4%, OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.48, p <0.001) compared to PES. In contrast, the differences between SES and PES were not statistically significant with respect to cardiac death (2.2% vs 2.9%, OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.47, p = 0.35), myocardial infarction (1.5% vs 2.6%, OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.31, p = 0.19), and stent thrombosis (0.6% vs 1.2%, OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.84, p = 0.35). In conclusion, SES are superior to PES in reducing the incidences of restenosis and target lesion revascularization in patients with diabetes, with nonsignificant differences in terms of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and stent thrombosis.

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.