Comparison of Limus-Eluting and Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents for Coronary Intervention in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients have worse adverse cardiovascular outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Clinical outcomes comparing a limus-eluting stent (LES) to a paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) in patients with CKD remain controversial.A systematic search was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library. A pooled odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were used to calculate original data. We conducted heterogeneity, quality assessment, and publication bias analyses.A total of 17 trials involving 10,724 patients were included. No significant differences were found regarding target vessel revascularization, target lesion revascularization (TLR), stent thrombosis (ST), myocardial infarction (MI), all-cause mortality, and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) between first-generation LES implantation and PES implantation. Second-generation LES implantation was associated with lower rates of all-cause mortality (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.39-0.82; P = 0.003), MACE (OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.38-0.97; P = 0.04), and ST (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.26-0.77; P = 0.004) compared with PES implantation. In all, the long-term all-cause mortality rate was significantly lower after LES implantation than after PES implantation in patients with CKD (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.66-0.93; P = 0.004). However, second-generation LES implantation resulted in a higher rate of TLR (OR, 2.23; 95% CI, 1.53-3.25; P < 0.001) than PES implantation in dialysis patients.In patients with CKD, first-generation LES and PES implantation had comparable mortality and morbidity. Second-generation LES implantation was superior to PES in reducing long-term mortality, MACE, and ST. However, PES may be more effective than LES in dialysis patients.

In-hospital outcomes after rotational atherectomy in patients with low ejection fraction

OBJECTIVES

This study evaluated angiographic success and in-hospital outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with rotational atherectomy (RA) in patients with low left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

DESIGN

Between January 2010 and March 2014, 272 consecutive patients with heavily calcified lesions underwent elective PCI with RA. Of these, 33 patients had LVEF ≤35% (low LVEF group), whereas 237 patients had LVEF >35% (preserved LVEF group). The primary endpoint was angiographic success and in-hospital major adverse cardiac events (MACE). MACE included death from any cause, postprocedure onset MI, emergency coronary artery bypass grafting, and target vessel revascularization. The secondary endpoints were MACE and the components within 30days after PCI. The components of MACE were evaluated.

RESULTS

Angiographic success, defined as <30% residual stenosis with thrombolysis in myocardial infarction flow 3 at final angiography, was achieved in all patients without fatal complications. Intra-aortic ballon pumping (IABP) was used significantly more frequently in the low LVEF group compared with the preserved LVEF group (15.2% vs. 2.1%, p = .003). There were no significant differences between groups regarding in-hospital and clinical outcomes within 30 days following PCI.

CONCLUSION

If medications and mechanical support were appropriately performed, the angiographic success rate and in-hospital MACE rate of PCI with RA in patients with low LVEF could be expected to have good outcomes similar to those for patients with preserved LVEF.

Clinical and angiographic outcomes of paclitaxel-eluting coronary stent implantation in hemodialysis patients: A prospective multicenter registry: The OUCH-TL study (outcome in hemodialysis of TAXUS Liberte)

BACKGROUND

The outcome of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has been reported to be poor in hemodialysis (HD) patients even in the drug-eluting stent era. We have reported relatively poor outcomes after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation in the OUCH study.

METHODS

The OUCH-TL study is a prospective, non-randomized, single-arm registry designed to assess the results of paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) in HD patients with follow-up quantitative coronary angiography analysis. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of target-vessel failure (TVF) defined as cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), and target-vessel revascularization (TVR) at 12 months.

RESULTS

A total of 119 patients with 154 lesions were enrolled (one withdrawal). Mean age was 65±10 years, male gender was 79%, 89% of cases had stable coronary disease. Diabetic nephropathy was diagnosed in 61% of the patients. American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association type B2/C accounted for 96% of lesions and 22.7% of lesions were treated with Rotablator (Boston Scientific Corporation, Natick, MA, USA). Rates of TVF, death, MI, stent thrombosis and TVR at 12 months were 20.2%, 5.9%, 5.0%, 1.4%, and 12.6%, respectively. TVR was performed in 8.4% of the patients up to 12 months. Late loss in-stent was 0.48±0.61mm, and late loss in-segment was 0.37±0.61mm at 9 months. Binary restenosis in-stent was 10.3% and in-segment was 14.5%.

CONCLUSIONS

Outcomes of PES implantation in hemodialysis patients appears comparable to those of non-hemodialysis patients.

Comparison of sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents in patients with moderate renal insufficiency: results from the J-DESsERT trial

BACKGROUND

It is unclear whether there are differences in clinical outcomes between sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) in patients with moderate renal insufficiency (RI).

METHODS

The Japan-Drug Eluting Stents Evaluation; a Randomized Trial (J-DESsERT) was a prospective, randomized multicenter trial which compared 1:1 coronary stenting between SES and PES patients. Patient with serious RI (serum creatinine value 2mg/dL or higher) were excluded. Patients were classified into 2 arms according to renal function: a non-RI arm of 2220 patients (SES 1094 and PES 1126 patients with estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≥60 mL min(-1) 1.73 m(-2)) and an RI arm of 1206 patients (SES 613, PES 593 with 30≤eGFR <60 mL min(-1) 1.73 m(-2)).

RESULTS

At 12 months, the primary endpoint of target vessel failure in the non-RI arm occurred in 6.0% in the SES group and 8.7% in the PES group (p=0.02). In the RI arm, this occurred in 5.7% and 8.1% (p=0.10). Mortality rates were 0.8% vs 0.7% (p=0.78) in the non-RI arm, and 2.2% vs 2.1% (p=0.90) in the RI arm. Cardiac death was 0.4% vs 0.1% (p=0.17) in the non-RI arm, and 1.0% vs 1.0% (p=0.96) in the RI arm. Mortality was higher in patients with RI than those without RI (2.1% vs 0.8%; p<0.01). Cardiac death rates increased in the RI arm compared with those in the non-RI arm (1.0% vs 0.2%; p<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Regardless of the presence or absence of moderate RI, differences in outcomes between SES and PES change little except mortality and cardiac death.

Drug-eluting stents in patients on chronic hemodialysis: paclitaxel-eluting stents vs. limus-eluting stents

BACKGROUND

Patients requiring chronic hemodialysis (HD) are at high risk for restenosis after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with bare metal stents. Outcome data on drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation in HD patients are limited and suggest superiority of paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) over limus-eluting stents (LES).

METHODS

In total, 218 consecutive patients were prospectively enrolled. A comparison of post-PCI outcomes up to 2 years was carried out between patients receiving PES (n=62) and LES (n=156; SES n=112, EES n=44). The primary end point was 2-year major adverse cardiac events [MACE; death, Q-wave myocardial infarction and target lesion revascularization (TLR)].

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were comparable. The overall prevalence of diabetes mellitus was 71%. On clinical follow-up to 2 years, MACE rates were similar [PES 32/51 (62.7%) vs. LES 77/132 (58.3%), p=0.59]; however, clinically-driven revascularization occurred more than twice as frequently in LES patients: TLR [PES 4/36 (11.1%) vs. LES 24/93 (25.8%), p=0.07] and target vessel revascularization [5/37 (13.5%) vs. 33/96 (34.4%), p=0.02]. Given that overall mortality was nominally higher for PES patients [31/50 (62.0%) vs. 61/127 (48.0%), p=0.09], a competing outcome analysis was implemented for TLR against mortality, which demonstrated that the trend for increased TLR with LES was no longer apparent (p=0.282). On multivariable adjustment, only diabetes mellitus was independently associated with TLR (use of PES was not).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients on chronic HD experience high rates of clinically driven TLR despite DES implantation. Use of PES does not demonstrate a significant advantage over LES in this population.

The impact of preprocedural hemoglobin A1c on the efficacy of sirolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents

Several reports have shown contrary results regarding the efficacy of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) in diabetic patients. The association between hemoglobin A1c (A1c) before coronary intervention and the midterm clinical outcomes of patients treated with these stents is unclear. The enrolled population was 415 patients with diabetes or impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) who underwent follow-up angiography after being implanted with a SES (n = 282) or PES (n = 133). The enrolled population was classified into the optimal glycemic control group (n = 213) and suboptimal glycemic control group (n = 202), and the predictors of restenosis were examined in each group. In the optimal glycemic control group, the use of PES was an independent predictor of restenosis [odds ratio (OR) 9.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.08-38.9, p < 0.0001]; on the other hand, the use of SES was a positive independent predictor of restenosis prevention (OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.03-0.32, p < 0.0001). In the suboptimal glycemic control group, neither stent was predictive of restenosis. In a subanalysis, preprocedural A1c (≥7.0%) was found to be an independent predictor of restenosis in the SES group (OR 3.61, 95% CI 1.14-12.8, p = 0.03), but not the PES group. Postprocedural A1c (≥7.0%) was not an independent predictor of restenosis in either stent group. This study showed that the superiority of SES compared to PES was attenuated in the suboptimal glycemic control group. Preprocedural A1c (≥7.0%) was found to be an independent predictor of restenosis in the SES group, but not in the PES group.

Sirolimus- vs. paclitaxel-eluting stent to coronary intervention in dialysis patients

BACKGROUND

Patients on maintenance hemodialysis (HD) are at high risk for restenosis after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) even if treated with a sirolimus-eluting stent (SES). The aim of this study was to compare the effects of SES and paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) in preventing restenosis in HD patients with coronary artery disease.

METHODS

A total of 100 consecutive patients on HD who underwent PCI were enrolled into the study. They were randomly assigned to receive either SES or PES. We compared follow-up angiographic outcomes between the SES and PES groups at 8-month follow-up.

RESULTS

The angiographical restenosis rate, defined as % diameter stenosis>50% at 8-month follow-up, was 19.7% in the SES group and 20.0% in the PES group (p=0.97). Late loss was also similar between the two groups (0.49±0.70 mm vs. 0.48±0.91 mm, P=0.94). There were no significant differences in the rates of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, or TLR due to stent restenosis-induced ischemia between the two groups (2.0% vs. 4.0%, p=0.56, 2.0% vs. 4.0%, p=0.56, and 16.0% vs. 12.0%, p=0.57, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

There was no significant difference in angiographical outcome at 8-month follow-up between HD patients treated with SES and PES. Even if treated with DES including SES and PES, patients on HD are at high risk of restenosis after PCI.