Search

Background: Durable polymer coatings have been implicated in mid- and long-term adverse events after drug-eluting stent implantation. A polymer-free dual-drug sirolimus- and probucol-eluting stent and a new generation permanent polymer zotarolimus-eluting stent are recently developed technologies demonstrating encouraging results. Methods and Results: In a clinical trial with minimal exclusion criteria, we randomly assigned 3002 patients to treatment with sirolimus- and probucol-eluting stents versus zotarolimus-eluting stents. The trial was designed to demonstrate noninferiority of the sirolimus- and probucol-eluting stents. The primary end point was the combined incidence of cardiac death, target-vessel-related myocardial infarction, or target-lesion revascularization at 1-year follow-up. Follow-up angiography was scheduled at 6 to 8 months. The sirolimus- and probucol-eluting stent was noninferior to the zotarolimus-eluting stent in terms of occurrence of the primary end point (13.1% versus 13.5%, respectively, P(noninferiority)=0.006; hazard ratio=0.97, 95% confidence interval, 0.78 to 1.19; P(superiority)=0.74). The incidence of definite/probable stent thrombosis was low in both groups (1.1% versus 1.2%, respectively; hazard ratio=0.91 [95% confidence interval, 0.45 to 1.84], P=0.80). With regard to angiographic efficacy, there were no differences between the sirolimus- and probucol-eluting stent and the zotarolimus-eluting stent in terms of either in-segment binary angiographic restenosis (13.3% versus 13.4% respectively; P=0.95) or in-stent late luminal loss (0.31±0.58 mm versus 0.29±0.56 mm, respectively; P=0.46). Conclusion: In this large-scale study powered for clinical end points, a polymer-free sirolimus- and probucol-eluting stent was noninferior to a new generation durable polymer-based zotarolimus-eluting stent out to 12 months. Clinical Trial Registration: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier NCT 00598533. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: In the ISAR-TEST-2 (Intracoronary Stenting and Angiographic Results: Test Efficacy of Three Limus-Eluting Stents) randomized trial, a new-generation sirolimus- and probucol-eluting stent (Dual-DES) demonstrated a 12-month efficacy that was comparable to sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) (Cypher, Cordis Corp., Warren, New Jersey) and superior to zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZES) (Endeavor, Medtronic CardioVascular, Santa Rosa, California). The aim of the current study was to investigate the comparative clinical and angiographic effectiveness of SES, Dual-DES, and ZES between 1 and 2 years. Background: Long-term polymer residue is implicated in adverse events associated with delayed vessel healing after drug-eluting stent therapy. The second-generation ZES utilizes an enhanced biocompatibility polymer system whereas a new-generation Dual-DES employs a polymer-free drug-release system. Methods: A total of 1,007 patients undergoing coronary stenting of de novo lesions in native vessels were randomized to treatment with SES (n = 335), Dual-DES (n = 333), or ZES (n = 339). Clinical follow-up was performed to 2 years. Angiographic follow-up was scheduled at 6 to 8 months and 2 years. Results: There were no significant differences between groups regarding death/myocardial infarction (SES: 10.2% vs. Dual-DES: 7.8% vs. ZES: 9.2%; p = 0.61) or definite stent thrombosis (SES: 0.9% vs. Dual-DES: 0.9% vs. ZES: 0.6%; p = 0.87). Two-year target lesion revascularization (TLR) was 10.7%, 7.7%, and 14.3% lesions in the SES, Dual-DES, and ZES groups, respectively (p = 0.009). Incident TLR between 1 and 2 years in the Dual-DES group (0.9%) was significantly lower than in the Cypher SES group (3.6%) (p = 0.009), but comparable to the Endeavor ZES group (0.7%) (p = 0.72). These findings mirrored those observed for binary restenosis. Conclusions: At 2 years, there was no signal of a differential safety profile between the 3 stent platforms. Furthermore, the antirestenotic efficacy of both Dual-DES and ZES remained durable between 1 and 2 years, with Dual-DES maintaining an advantage over the entire 2-year period. (Intracoronary Stenting and Angiographic Results: Test Efficacy of Three Limus-Eluting Stents [ISAR-TEST-2]; NCT00332397). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Patients with decreased kidney function and acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-STEMI are less likely to receive reperfusion therapy and aggressive medical treatment. This undertreatment may contribute to the poor outcome of these patients. The prognostic value of kidney function in patients with STEMI and NSTEMI treated predominantly with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and aggressive medical treatment is less known. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: 2 academic centers in Germany; 4,701 consecutive patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) from 1998 to 2006. PREDICTOR: Estimated creatinine clearance (eCCr) at admission. OUTCOMES & MEASUREMENTS: The primary end point was all-cause mortality during the first year after PCI for AMI (STEMI and NSTEMI) with a prespecified landmark at 30 days (landmark analysis). Secondary end points were nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, and major bleeding. RESULTS: Patients were divided into quartiles according to eCCr less than 56, 56 to 76, 77 to 100, and greater than 100 mL/min. Patients had an increased risk of death with decreased eCCr both within 30 days (7.7%, 3.1%, 1.4%, and 0.7% for the 4 quartiles; P < 0.001) and after 30 days (12.1%, 4.8%, 1.9%, and 1.2%; P < 0.001). The association of eCCr with mortality was similar in patients younger and older than 70 years. Major bleeding within 30 days and incidence of stroke also were more frequent with reduced eCCr. However, recurrent myocardial infarction was not associated with eCCr. After adjustment for additional baseline characteristics, kidney function based on eCCr at admission remained a strong independent predictor of mortality at 1 year after AMI (hazard ratio, 1.21 per 10-mL/min decrease; 95% confidence interval, 1.13 to 1.30). LIMITATIONS: Single assessment of eCCr. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with AMI treated with primary PCI for STEMI and early PCI for NSTEMI, eCCr at admission remains a powerful independent predictor of short- and long-term mortality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Drug-eluting stent (DES) platforms devoid of durable polymer have potential to enhance long-term safety outcomes. The ISAR-TEST-3 study was a randomised trial comparing three rapamycin-eluting stents with different coating strategies. The present study examined 2-year outcomes of these patients and is the first large-scale trial to report longer-term outcomes with biodegradable polymer and polymer-free DES. Methods: Patients with de novo coronary lesions in native vessels were randomly assigned to receive biodegradable polymer (BP; n = 202), permanent polymer (PP; Cypher; n = 202) and polymer-free (PF; n = 201) stents. The 2-year endpoints of interest were target lesion revascularisation (TLR), death/myocardial infarction (MI), stent thrombosis and delayed angiographic late luminal loss (LLL) between 6-8 months and 2 years. Results: There were no significant differences in TLR (8.4%, 10.4% and 13.4% for BP, PP and PF stents, respectively; p = 0.19), death/MI (5.9%, 6.4% and 6.5% with BP, PP and PF respectively; p = 0.97) or stent thrombosis (definite/probable 0.5%, 1.0% and 1.0% with BP, PP and PF, respectively; p = 0.82). Paired angiographic follow-up at 6-8 months and 2 years was available for 302 patients (69.0% of eligible patients). Delayed LLL was significantly different across the treatment groups: 0.17 (0.42) mm, 0.16 (0.41) mm and -0.01 (0.36) mm for BP, PP and PF stents, respectively (p<0.001). Conclusion: Clinical antirestenotic efficacy was maintained with all three platforms between 1 and 2 years, although angiographic surveillance showed ongoing delayed LLL with both BP and PP stent platforms. At 2 years there was no signal of a differential safety profile between the three stent platforms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Drug-eluting stent (DES) therapy has represented a very significant milestone in the evolution of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) therapy. This review attempts to provide a balanced overview of the unprecedented wealth of data generated on this new technology, by examining the evidence bases for anti-restenotic efficacy, safety and cost effectiveness. The performance of a DES may be related to each of its three components: stent backbone; carrier polymer (to control drug-release kinetics); and active drug. In terms of anti-restenotic efficacy, the most appropriate parameters to examine are target lesion revascularization, angiographic restenosis and late luminal loss. The principal safety parameters are overall mortality, myocardial infarction (MI) and stent thrombosis. Anti-restenotic superiority of DES over bare metal stents (BMS) has been demonstrated across a spectrum of disease from straightforward 'vanilla lesions' through higher disease complexity in pivotal clinical trials to phase IV studies of efficacy in 'off-label' populations. The treatment effect of DES versus BMS is consistent in terms of a reduction in the need for repeat intervention of the order of 35-70%. Regarding differential efficacy of first-generation DES, a benefit may exist in favour of the Cypher (sirolimus-eluting) stent over Taxus (paclitaxel-eluting), particularly in high-risk lesion subsets. The second-generation approved devices are the Endeavor (zotarolimus-eluting) and Xience (everolimus-eluting) DES. While all four of these stents are permanent polymer-based, the current focus of development is towards DES platforms that are devoid of durable polymer, the presence of which has been implicated in late adverse events. In terms of safety concerns raised in relation to DES therapy, it is reasonable to conclude the following at 4- to 5-year post-stent implantation: (i) that there is no increased risk of death or MI with DES (neither is there a general signal of mortality reduction with DES) compared with BMS; and (ii) there is very little, if any, overall increased risk of stent thrombosis with DES compared with BMS, although a difference in the time distribution of thrombotic events after PCI may exist, i.e. a slight excess of events with BMS in the first 6 months and with DES beyond 12 months. Duration of dual anti-platelet therapy after stenting is a central issue and is also, at present, a matter of clinical equipoise. A threshold for cost effectiveness likely exists where the price premium associated with DES is approximately euro 450. On the balance of benefit and risk data available, DES implantation should be the preferred approach across the spectrum of patients with obstructive coronary disease who require PCI therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Concern regarding the rate of delayed acute stent thrombosis associated with drug-eluting stent (DES) treatment has resulted in upward revision of the advised duration of dual antiplatelet therapy after DES implantation by both European and United States guideline writing committees. In fact, the corroboration of an increased rate of late thrombotic events remains outstanding, and these clinical practice guidelines are limited by an inadequate evidence base on which to ground their recommendations. Hypothesis: We postulate that a 6-month duration of clopidogrel therapy after DES implantation is associated with a clinical outcome that is not inferior to that of a 12-month therapy. Study Design: The Intracoronary Stenting and Antithrombotic Regimen: Safety And EFficacy of Six Months Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Drug-Eluting Stenting (ISAR-SAFE) is a multinational, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial designed to examine the effects of a 6-month duration of clopidogrel therapy after DES implantation compared to that of 12 months. Patients on clopidogrel therapy at 6 months after DES implantation will be randomized in a 1:1 fashion to discontinuation of clopidogrel versus a further 6 months of treatment. The primary end point is a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, stroke, or thrombolysis in myocardial infarction major bleeding. Clinical follow-up is scheduled at 9 months postrandomization (15 months postintervention). According to power calculations based on a noninferiority design, it is estimated that 6,000 patients are required to be enrolled. Summary: There is clinical equipoise on the issue of optimal duration of dual antiplatelet treatment after percutaneous intervention with DES. The ISAR-SAFE trial aims to assess whether discontinuation of clopidogrel 6 months after DES implantation is noninferior to routine prolongation of such therapy out to 1 year. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The combination of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors and heparin has not been compared with bivalirudin in studies specifically involving patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We compared the two treatments in this patient population.Methods: Immediately before PCI, we randomly assigned, in a double-blind manner, 1721 patients with acute non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction to receive abciximab plus unfractionated heparin (861 patients) or bivalirudin (860 patients). The study tested the hypothesis that abciximab and heparin would be superior to bivalirudin with respect to the primary composite end point of death, large recurrent myocardial infarction, urgent target-vessel revascularization, or major bleeding within 30 days. Secondary end points included the composite of death, any recurrent myocardial infarction, or urgent target-vessel revascularization (efficacy end point) and major bleeding (safety end point) within 30 days.Results: The primary end point occurred in 10.9% of the patients in the abciximab group (94 patients) and in 11.0% in the bivalirudin group (95 patients) (relative risk with abciximab, 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74 to 1.32; P=0.94). Death, any recurrent myocardial infarction, or urgent target-vessel revascularization occurred in 12.8% of the patients in the abciximab group (110 patients) and in 13.4% in the bivalirudin group (115 patients) (relative risk, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.25; P=0.76). Major bleeding occurred in 4.6% of the patients in the abciximab group (40 patients) as compared with 2.6% in the bivalirudin group (22 patients) (relative risk, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.10 to 3.07; P=0.02).Conclusions: Abciximab and unfractionated heparin, as compared with bivalirudin, failed to reduce the rate of the primary end point and increased the risk of bleeding among patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction who were undergoing PCI. (Funded by Nycomed Pharma and others; ISAR-REACT 4 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00373451.). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]