Search

Background--Newer-generation drug-eluting stents that release zotarolimus or everolimus have been shown to be superior to the first-generation drug-eluting stents. However, data comparing long-term safety and efficacy of zotarolimus- (ZES) and everolimus-eluting stents (EES) are limited. RESOLUTE all-comers (Randomized Comparison of a Zotarolimus- Eluting Stent With an Everolimus-Eluting Stent for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) trial compared these 2 stents and has shown that ZES was noninferior to EES at 12-month for the primary end point of target lesion failure. We report the secondary clinical outcomes at the final 5-year follow-up of this trial. Methods and Results--RESOLUTE all-comer clinical study is a prospective, multicentre, randomized, 2-arm, open-label, noninferiority trial with minimal exclusion criteria. Patients (n=2292) were randomly assigned to treatment with either ZES (n=1140) or EES (n=1152). Patient-oriented composite end point (combination of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and any revascularizations), device-oriented composite end point (combination of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization), and major adverse cardiac events (combination of all-cause death, all myocardial infarction, emergent coronary bypass surgery, or clinically indicated target lesion revascularization) were analyzed at 5-year follow-up. The 2 groups were well-matched at baseline. Fiveyear follow-up data were available for 98% patients. There were no differences in patient-oriented composite end point (ZES 35.3% versus EES 32.0%, P=0.11), device-oriented composite end point (ZES 17.0% versus EES 16.2%, P=0.61), major adverse cardiac events (ZES 21.9% versus EES 21.6%, P=0.88), and definite/probable stent thrombosis (ZES 2.8% versus EES 1.8%, P=0.12). Conclusions--At 5-year follow-up, ZES and EES had similar efficacy and safety in a population of patients who had minimal exclusion criteria. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: It is important to determine the best drug-eluting stent (DES) for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in patients with renal impairment. In this studythe outcomes of everolimus-eluting stents (EESs), zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZESs) and biolimus-eluting stents (BESs) were evaluated., Methods: From the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction-National Institutes of Health registry, a total of 1,470 AMI patients with renal impairment undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were enrolled (816 with EES, 345 with ZES, and 309 with BES). Renal impairment was defined as creatinine clearance < 60 mL/min/1.73 m² estimated by the Cockcroft-Gault method. Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events were determined as the composite of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), cerebrovascular accident, any revascularization, rehospitalization and stent thrombosis. All clinical outcomes were analyzed., Results: The baseline characteristics of the patients revealed no significant difference between the three groups, except for Killip classification > 2, beta-blockers, lesion type, vascular approach, staged PCI, left main coronary artery (LMCA) complex lesions, LMCA PCI, and the number and length of implanted stents. In the Kaplan-Meier analysis, similar clinical outcomes were derived from the unadjusted data between the three DES groups. However, after the inverse probability of treatment weighting, a statistically significant difference was found in non-fatal MI, which implied a higher incidence of non-fatal MI in the ZES group than in the other two DES groups., Conclusions: In AMI patients with renal impairment, there was no significant difference between the three stent groups in terms of long-term clinical outcomes, except for non-fatal MI.

Aims To compare the long-term clinical safety between two drug-eluting stents with different healing characteristics in the Patient Related Outcomes with Endeavour (E-ZES) vs. Cypher (C-SES) Stenting Trial (PROTECT). At 3 years, there was no difference in the primary outcome of definite or probable stent thrombosis or in the other main secondary clinical outcomes consisting of the composite of death or myocardial infarction (MI). Prespecified 4-year clinical follow-up was analysed. Methods and results Patient Related OuTcomes with Endeavour vs. Cypher Stenting Trial was a prospective, open-label randomized-controlled superiority trial powered to look at differences in long-term clinical safety, including stent thrombosis. Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) was prescribed for ≥3 months and up to 12 months based on current guidelines. Patient Related OuTcomes with Endeavour vs. Cypher Stenting Trial enrolled 8791 patients undergoing elective or emergency PCI to E-ZES or C-SES. There was no difference in DAPT usage between the two groups up to 4 years. At 4-year follow-up, the primary outcome occurred in 1.6% of E-ZES vs. 2.6% of C-SES patients [HR 0.63 (95% CI 0.46–0.85), P = 0.003]. The composite of all-cause death or large MI occurred in 6.7% of E-ZES vs. 8.0% of C-SES-treated patients [HR 0.84 (95% CI 0.71–0.98), P = 0.024]. Conclusions Drug-eluting coronary stents with different healing characteristics demonstrated different late safety profiles: after 4 years, compared with C-SES, E-ZES reduced the risk of stent thrombosis and the risk of the composite endpoints of death or MI. Appropriately powered large-scale trials with long-term follow-up are critical to determine clinical safety and efficacy of permanently implanted coronary stents. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

There have been attempts to find new approaches to the treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease without increasing adverse events. Deployment of drug-eluting stents (DES) for complex lesions and bare-metal stents (BMS) for simpler lesions, although already in wide use, has not been well supported by clinical study. A cohort of 1,658 patients who underwent multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention from March 2003 through June 2011 was studied for 1 year. These patients were divided into 3 groups: BMS only (599 patients); DES only (481 patients); and hybrid stent-ing (578 patients). Baseline characteristics were similar except for hyperlipidemia and moderate-to-severe mitral regurgitation, which were more frequent in the DES and hybrid groups, respectively. Lesion characteristics were more complex in the DES group, compared with the other groups: more B2/C type lesions, longer stents, and smaller reference-vessel diameters (P <0.001). The rates of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 1 year were similar between the groups (BMS=5.2%, hybrid=3.9%, and DES=3.4%; P=0.248). Subgroup analysis yielded no differences in death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, target-vessel revascularization, or target-lesion revascularization. On multivariable analysis, the strongest predictors of 1-year MACE were percutaneous intervention complicated by dissection, renal failure, left ventricular ejection fraction below 0.40, mean lesion length, reference vessel diameter, and percutaneous intervention on the left circumflex coronary artery. The latter two had inverse relationships with MACE. In conclusion, implanting the DES for more complex lesions and the BMS for simpler lesions seems more sensible than the exclusive use of the DES or the BMS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim To investigate the putative modifying effect of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) use on the incidence of stent thrombosis at 3 years in patients randomized to Endeavor zotarolimus-eluting stent (E-ZES) or Cypher sirolimus-eluting stent (C-SES). Methods and results Of 8709 patients in PROTECT, 4357 were randomized to E-ZES and 4352 to C-SES. Aspirin was to be given indefinitely, and clopidogrel/ticlopidine for ≥3 months or up to 12 months after implantation. Main outcome measures were definite or probable stent thrombosis at 3 years. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was applied, with stent type, DAPT, and their interaction as the main outcome determinants. Dual antiplatelet therapy adherence remained the same in the E-ZES and C-SES groups (79.6% at 1 year, 32.8% at 2 years, and 21.6% at 3 years). We observed a statistically significant (P = 0.0052) heterogeneity in treatment effect of stent type in relation to DAPT. In the absence of DAPT, stent thrombosis was lower with E-ZES vs. C-SES (adjusted hazard ratio 0.38, 95% confidence interval 0.19, 0.75; P = 0.0056). In the presence of DAPT, no difference was found (1.18; 0.79, 1.77; P = 0.43). Conclusion A strong interaction was observed between drug-eluting stent type and DAPT use, most likely prompted by the vascular healing response induced by the implanted DES system. These results suggest that the incidence of stent thrombosis in DES trials should not be evaluated independently of DAPT use, and the optimal duration of DAPT will likely depend upon stent type (Clinicaltrials.gov number NCT00476957). [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Optical coherence tomography (OCT) images and histology images of metal stents (MSs) inserted in animal ureters were compared, and the reliability of an OCT-based automated method for the performance of quantitative evaluation of ureteral MSs was evaluated. A zotarolimus-eluting metal stent (ZES) and a bare metal stent (BMS) were inserted in each ureter of ten pigs and six rabbits. OCT was performed in unobstructed stented ureters. Histopathologic examination of the stented ureters embedded in glycol-methacrylate took place. Quadrants of OCT images were compared to their respective histologic images by employing two independent observers who delineated different layers in the quadrants of OCT images and correlated them to the respective histologic quadrants. Manual (integrated OCT device software) and automated measurements of the OCT images using an automated strut detection method were compared. The observers highly agreed on the delineation of urothelium from the lamina propria and the lamina propria from the muscle layer of the ureteral wall. The algorithm measurements were similar to the manual measurements, and the algorithm proved to be reliable in the evaluation of ureteral MSs. Significantly higher endothelial hyperplasia of the BMSs in comparison to the ZESs was also quantitatively demonstrated by the strut detection method. OCT proved to be a reliable method for the evaluation of ureteral MSs. OCT provided images of the stented ureteral lumen similar to light microscopy quality. Measurements of the stented ureter are reliably performed by the automated strut detection method. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: Currently one of the major problems that interventional pulmonologists have to face is the increased proliferation of fibrinous tissue on the site of the stent placement, and usually at the two ends. Materials and methods: The drugs rapamycin and pirfenidone were chosen for our experiment. Fibroblasts were also cultured in order to administer pirfenidone and rapamycin in different concentrations. The following cell viability methods were used: (a) Senescence – Cell Titer Assay, (b) Necrosis – Cyto Tox Assay and (c) Apoptosis – Caspase-Glo 3/7 Assay. Results: Rapamycin has minimal to no effect on fibroblasts regarding apoptosis, senescence and necrosis. 0.1 to 1?M. Pirfenidone concentrations lead to an elevated cell metabolism because cells try to evade the cytotoxic effect of the drug. Increasing Pirfenidone concentrations lead to higher apoptosis rates. 10?M pirfenidone induces the highest apoptosis rates in this experiment and reduce cell viability to a minimum. Conclusion: Necrosis is unaffected by the investigated drugs. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Objectives: This study sought to compare everolimus-eluting stents (EES) versus Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZES) in terms of patient- or stent-related clinical outcomes in an “all-comer” group of patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention. Background: DM significantly increases the risk of adverse events after percutaneous coronary intervention. The efficacy and safety of second-generation drug-eluting stents, in particular EES versus ZES, in patients with DM have not been extensively evaluated. Methods: Patients with DM (1,855 of 5,054 patients, 36.7%) from 2 prospective registries (the EXCELLENT [Efficacy of Xience/Promus Versus Cypher in Reducing Late Loss After Stenting] registry and RESOLUTE-Korea [Registry to Evaluate the Efficacy of Zotarolimus-Eluting Stent]) who were treated with EES (n = 1,149) or ZES (n = 706) were compared. Stent-related outcome was target lesion failure (TLF), and patient-oriented composite events were a composite of all-cause mortality, any myocardial infarction, and any revascularization. Results: Despite a higher risk patient profile in the ZES group, both TLF (43 of 1,149 [3.7%] vs. 25 of 706 [3.5%], p = 0.899) and patient-oriented composite events (104 of 1,149 [9.1%] vs. 72 of 706 [10.2%], p = 0.416) were similar between the EES and ZES in patients with DM at 1 year. In those without DM, EES and ZES also showed comparable incidence of TLF (39 of 1,882 [2.1%] vs. 33 of 1,292 [2.6%], p = 0.370) and patient-oriented composite events (119 of 1,882 [6.3%] vs. 81 of 1,292 [6.3%], p = 0.951), which were all significantly lower than in the DM patients. These results were corroborated by similar findings from the propensity score-matched cohort. Upon multivariate analysis, chronic renal failure was the most powerful predictor of TLF in DM patients (hazard ratio: 4.39, 95% confidence interval: 1.91 to 10.09, p < 0.001). Conclusions: After unrestricted use of second-generation drug-eluting stents in all-comers receiving percutaneous coronary intervention, both EES and ZES showed comparable clinical outcomes in the patients with DM up to 1 year of follow-up. DM compared with non-DM patients showed significantly worse patient- and stent-related outcomes. Nonetheless, overall incidences of TLF were low, even in the patients with DM, suggesting excellent safety and efficacy of both types of second-generation drug-eluting stents in this high-risk subgroup of patients. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Drug eluting stents were an important addition to the interventional options available for patients with coronary artery disease, and they effectively reduced the risk of restenosis observed with bare metal stents. However, the drugs and polymers used in the composition of drug eluting stents were found to delay vascular healing and elicit inflammatory responses, which contributed to late and very late stent thrombosis events. Newer generation drug eluting stents have been engineered with polymers that are more biocompatible and have more favorable drug elution profiles. The Resolute® zotarolimus eluting stent (R-ZES) is a new-generation drug eluting stent. The Global RESOLUTE clinical program was designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the R-ZES. The studies conducted under this program have established that the R-ZES safely and effectively treats coronary artery stenosis, with low rates of target lesion failure, target vessel revascularization, and stent thrombosis during extended follow-up. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Drugeluting metal stents (DESs) have been extensively used in coronary and vascular disease. This type of stents has been proven to provide significantly lower restenosis rates due to the reduction of neo-intimal hyperplasia in comparison to the traditionally used bare metal stents (BMSs). The latter stents have been evaluated for more than a decade in urological practice in an attempt to provide permanent relief of urethral or ureteral obstruction. Although the initial results were promising, long-term experience revealed significant complications, which are mainly attributed to stent-related hyperplastic reaction compromising stent patency. The favorable experience of vascular DESs led to the application of DESs in both the urethra and ureter of animal models. These experimental results demonstrated a reduction of hyperplastic reaction of DESs in comparison to BMSs. Nevertheless, clinical data are currently not available. Considering the fact that DESs are under continuous development, the use of DESs in urology holds promise for the future and seems to be an intriguing field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: This study sought to compare the safety and efficacy of the zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) and the everolimus-eluting stent (EES) for treatment of unprotected left main coronary artery (uLMCA) disease. Background: The second-generation ZES and EES have reduced the risk of restenosis in large patient cohorts. However, their comparative performance in uLMCA lesions is not known. Methods: In this study, patients with symptomatic coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for uLMCA lesions were randomly assigned to receive either a ZES (n = 324) or an EES (n = 326). The primary endpoint was the combined incidence of death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization at 1 year. Secondary endpoints were definite or probable stent thrombosis at 1 year and angiographic restenosis based on analysis of the left main coronary artery area at follow-up angiography. Results: At 1 year, the cumulative incidence of the primary endpoint was 17.5% in the ZES group and 14.3% in the EES group (relative risk: 1.26; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.85 to 1.85; p = 0.25). Three patients in the ZES group (0.9%) and 2 patients in the EES group (0.6%) experienced definite or probable stent thrombosis (p > 0.99). All-cause mortality at 1 year was equal in the 2 groups (5.6%; relative risk: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.52 to 1.93; p = 0.98). Angiographic restenosis occurred in 21.5% of patients in the ZES group and 16.8% in the EES group (relative risk: 1.28; 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.92; p = 0.24). Conclusions: Within the statistical limitations of the present study, treatment of uLMCA lesions with a ZES or an EES provided comparable clinical and angiographic outcomes at 1-year follow-up. (Intracoronary Stenting and Angiographic Results: Drug-Eluting Stents for Unprotected Coronary Left Main Lesions [ISAR-LEFT MAIN-2]; NCT00598637) [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The efficacy and safety of drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is controversial. Consequently, DES implantation has a class IIa indication in the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and the European Society of Cardiology STEMI guidelines.PUBMED, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched for randomized clinical trials, until March 2013, comparing any of the 5 Food and Drug Administration-approved durable stent and polymer DES (sirolimus eluting stent, paclitaxel eluting stent, everolimus-eluting stent [EES], zotarolimus-eluting stent, and zotarolimus-eluting stent resolute), against each other or bare metal stents (BMS), and enrolling ≥50 patients with STEMI. Efficacy (target vessel revascularization) and safety (death, myocardial infarction, and stent thrombosis) outcomes at the longest reported follow-up times were evaluated. Twenty-eight randomized clinical trials with 34 068 patient-years of follow-up on subjects with STEMI fulfilled the inclusion criteria. When compared with BMS (reference rate ratio [RR] of 1), sirolimus eluting stent (RR, 0.46; 95% credibility interval [CrI], 0.36-0.56), paclitaxel eluting stent (RR, 0.69; 95% CrI, 0.53-0.87), and EES (RR, 0.42; 95% CrI, 0.26-0.62) were associated with a statistically significant reduction in rate of target vessel revascularization, with the point estimate for zotarolimus-eluting stent resolute trending in a similar direction. There was no increase in the risk of death, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis with any DES compared with BMS. Moreover, EES was associated with a statistically significant reduction in the rate of stent thrombosis when compared with sirolimus eluting stent (RR, 0.38; 95% CrI, 0.21-0.74), paclitaxel eluting stent (RR, 0.39; 95% CrI, 0.21-0.73), and even BMS (RR, 0.42; 95% CrI, 0.23-0.76). There was a 74% probability that EES had the lowest rate of any stent thrombosis when compared with all other stent types (no data on zotarolimus-eluting stent resolute). There was no increase in very late stent thrombosis with EES versus BMS (RR, 0.89; 95% CrI, 0.09-8.67).In patients with STEMI, DES versus BMS was associated with substantial decrease in the risk of target vessel revascularization without compromising safety. EES had the added advantage of substantial reduction in the risk of stent thrombosis when compared with first-generation DES and BMS with no increase in very late stent thrombosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: This study sought to compare the long-term effects of drug-eluting stent (DES) compared with bare-metal stent (BMS) implantation in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Background: The randomized DEDICATION (Drug Elution and Distal Protection in Acute Myocardial Infarction) trial evaluated the outcome after DES compared with BMS implantation in patients with STEMI undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Methods: Patients with a high-grade stenosis/occlusion of a native coronary artery presenting with symptoms <12 h and ST-segment elevation were enrolled after giving informed consent. Patients were randomly assigned to receive a DES or a BMS in the infarct-related lesion. Patients were followed for at least 5 years, and clinical endpoints were evaluated from population registries and hospital charts. The main endpoint was the occurrence of the first major adverse cardiac event (MACE), defined as cardiac death, nonfatal recurrent myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization. Results: Complete clinical status was available in 623 patients (99.5%) at 5 years follow-up. The combined MACE rate was insignificantly lower in the DES group (16.9% vs. 23%), mainly driven by a lower need of repeat revascularization (p = 0.07). Whereas the number of deaths from all causes tended to be higher in the DES group (16.3% vs. 12.1%, p = 0.17), cardiac mortality was significantly higher (7.7% vs. 3.2%, p = 0.02). The 5-year stent thrombosis rates were generally low and similar between the DES and the BMS groups. No cardiac deaths occurring within 1 month could be clearly ascribed to stent thrombosis, whereas stent thrombosis was involved in 78% of later-occurring deaths. Conclusions: The 5-year MACE rate was insignificantly different, but the cardiac mortality was higher after DES versus BMS implantation in patients with STEMI. Stent thrombosis was the main cause of late cardiac deaths. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background-Drug-coated balloons are increasingly used for peripheral vascular disease, and, yet, mechanisms of tissue uptake and retention remain poorly characterized. Most systems to date have used paclitaxel, touting its propensity to associate with various excipients that can optimize its transfer and retention. We examined zotarolimus pharmacokinetics. Methods and Results-Animal studies, bench-top experiments, and computational modeling were integrated to quantify arterial distribution after zotarolimus-coated balloon use. Drug diffusivity and binding parameters for use in computational modeling were estimated from the kinetics of zotarolimus uptake into excised porcine femoral artery specimens immersed in radiolabeled drug solutions. Like paclitaxel, zotarolimus exhibited high partitioning into the arterial wall. Exposure of intimal tissue to drug revealed differential distribution patterns, with zotarolimus concentration decreasing with transmural depth as opposed to the multiple peaks displayed by paclitaxel. Drug release kinetics was measured by inflating zotarolimus-coated balloons in whole blood. In vivo drug uptake in swine arteries increased with inflation time but not with balloon size. Simulations coupling transmural diffusion and reversible binding to tissue proteins predicted arterial distribution that correlated with in vivo uptake. Diffusion governed drug distribution soon after balloon expansion, but binding determined drug retention. Conclusions-A large bolus of zotarolimus releases during balloon inflation, some of which pervades the tissue, and a fraction of the remaining drug adheres to the tissue-lumen interface. As a result, the duration of delivery modulates tissue uptake where diffusion and reversible binding to tissue proteins determine drug transport and retention, respectively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate late safety and efficacy outcomes among patients enrolled in clinical trials comparing Endeavor zotarolimus-eluting stents (E-ZES) (Medtronic, Inc., Santa Rosa, California) with first-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) and bare-metal stents (BMS). Background: Despite demonstration of higher angiographic luminal loss and restenosis with E-ZES compared with alternative DES, whether differences in these early angiographic measures translate into more disparate late clinical events is uncertain. Methods: Among 3,616 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary revascularization in 5 registration trials, late safety and efficacy events were compared between E-ZES (n = 2,132) versus sirolimus- or paclitaxel-eluting stents (n = 888) or BMS (n = 596). Results: Compared with a parallel cohort of patients treated with first-generation DES and BMS, 5-year rates of cardiac death/myocardial infarction (MI) (5.8% vs. 8.8% DES, p = 0.003; vs. 8.4% BMS, p = 0.02) and major adverse cardiac events (16.1% vs. 20.6% DES, p = 0.009; vs. 24.6% BMS, p < 0.001) were significantly lower with E-ZES. The E-ZES was associated with significantly lower target lesion revascularization (TLR) compared with BMS (7.4% vs. 16.3%, p < 0.001) but similar to comparator DES (7.4% vs. 8.1%, p = 0.63). Despite higher TLR in the first year with E-ZES compared with DES, between 1- and 5-year follow-up, rates of cardiac death/MI, TLR, and definite/probable stent thrombosis were significantly lower with E-ZES. Conclusions: Over 5 years, significant differences in cardiac death/MI and composite endpoints favored treatment with E-ZES over comparator BMS and DES. Rates of clinical restenosis and safety events, including stent thrombosis beyond the first year of revascularization, remain stable with E-ZES, leading to significant differences compared with first-generation DES. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The need to develop a local antirestenotic mechanism to prevent in-stent thrombosis has driven the development of new generation stents. The Resolute Integrity® stent is a zotarolimus-eluting system with a new BioLinx™ polymer that allows a slower drug elution. Recently available data has shown the clinical efficacy and safety of this stent in randomized and observational studies. The Resolute Integrity stent system has demonstrated noninferiority when compared with other stents and holds the promise to treat more complex coronary lesions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Archives of Cardiovascular Diseases is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Objectives: This study sought to examine the 3-year clinical outcomes in patients treated with the Endeavor (Medtronic, Santa Rosa, California) zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) or the Cypher (Cordis, Johnson & Johnson, Warren, New Jersey) sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) in routine clinical practice. Background: The long-term clinical outcome in patients treated with ZES in comparison with SES is unclear. Methods: The authors randomized 2,332 patients to ZES (n = 1,162) or SES (n = 1,170) implantation. Endpoints included major adverse cardiac events (MACE), a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization; the individual endpoints of MACE; and definite stent thrombosis. Results: At 3-year follow-up, the MACE rate was higher in patients treated with ZES than in patients treated with SES (148 [12.9%] vs. 116 [10.1%]; hazard ratio [HR]: 1.33, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.04 to 1.69; p = 0.022). Target vessel revascularization was more frequent in the ZES group compared with the SES group (103 [9.1%] vs. 76 [6.7%]; HR: 1.40, 95% CI: 1.04 to 1.89; p = 0.025), whereas the occurrence of myocardial infarction (3.8% vs. 3.3%) and cardiac death (2.8% vs. 2.8%) did not differ significantly. Although the rate of definite stent thrombosis was similar at 3-year follow-up (1.1% vs. 1.4%), very late (12 to 36 months) definite stent thrombosis occurred in 0 (0%) patients in the ZES group versus 12 (1.1%) patients in the SES group (p = 0.0005). Conclusions: Although the 3-year MACE rate is higher in patients treated with ZES versus SES, our data highlight a late safety problem concerning definite stent thrombosis with the use of SES. This finding underscores the importance of long-term follow-up in head-to-head comparisons of drug-eluting stents. (Randomized Clinical Comparison of the Endeavor and the Cypher Coronary Stents in Non-selected Angina Pectoris Patients [SORT OUT III]; NCT00660478) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A prompt reperfusion with primary percutaneous coronary intervention represents the current gold standard treatment for patients with acute myocardial infarction. In this setting, coronary stents have been shown to improve outcomes compared to plain angioplasty and are routinely used. However, the stent selection among patients with acute myocardial infarction is still a matter of some debate. An increased risk of very late (>1-year) stent thrombosis has been associated with the use of early-generation drug-eluting stents (DES), leading to concerns regarding the long-term safety of these devices. Newer-generation DES were developed with the aim of addressing this safety issue, and were recently investigated in a few randomized studies in patients with acute myocardial infarction. The objective of the present review is to summarize the accumulated evidence, to guide the stent selection in patients with acute myocardial infarction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Non stent based delivery of antiproliferative agents using drug coated balloon catheters may offer additional flexibility and efficacy in a broad range of applications. The lipophilic antiproliferative drug zotarolimus makes it a potential candidate for balloon delivery. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a prototype zotarolimus coated balloon (ZCB) catheter in comparison to a zotarolimus eluting stent (ZES) in the porcine coronary overstretch model. Methods: Eighty-four stents (diameters 3.0 and 3.5 mm; length 15 mm) were implanted in LAD and Cx of 42 domestic pigs: control (TriMaxx, Abbott, polymer coated stent without drug, implanted with uncoated PCI catheter, n = 56); ZES (ZoMaxx, Abbott, stent coated with zotarolimus in polymer, implanted with uncoated PCI catheter, n = 14); ZCB (TriMaxx, Abbott, polymer coated stent without drug, implanted with zotarolimus coated PCI catheter, n = 14). Drug content of the vessel wall ( n = 9) was measured about 10-30 min post intervention with ZCB in additional pigs. Results: Immediately after ZCB treatment 101 ± 31 μg of zotarolimus was detected in the coronary arteries. After 28 days ZES led to a reduction of neointimal area from 4.32 ± 1.45 to 3.32 ± 1.11 mm ( P = 0.019 vs. control). The effect of neointimal inhibition was more pronounced with the novel ZCB (2.79 ± 1.43 mm², P = 0.001 vs. control). Inflammation score was significantly reduced in vessels treated with the ZCB (0.75 ± 0.86 compared to control (1.45 ± 0.94, P = 0.013) and ZES (1.65 ± 0.90, P = 0.012). Conclusion: Zotarolimus coated balloons and stents were found to effectively reduce neointimal proliferation in the porcine coronary model. Inflammation scores were significantly reduced after treatment with the coated balloon. Zotarolimus balloon coating might be a novel option in preventing and treating restenosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background/Objectives: The purpose of this prospective, randomized, single-blind controlled clinical trial was to compare the effectiveness of a zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZoMaxx™) with a paclitaxel-eluting coronary stent (Taxus™ Express2™) in patients with angina pectoris and a single native coronary artery lesion between 10–28mm in length and 2.5–3.75mm in diameter. Methods: Patients were enrolled at 75 international institutions between June 2005 and November 2006. Results: 1099 (1672 originally planned) patients received 557 ZoMaxx and 542 Taxus stents: cohorts were well-matched for diabetes (27% vs. 27%), reference vessel diameter (2.73±0.46mm vs. 2.74±0.45mm) and lesion length (14.8±6.7mm vs. 14.3±6.4mm). Nine month clinical and angiographic follow-up was available in 1052/1099 (96%) and 649/836 (78%) patients, respectively. The safety profiles for the two stents (myocardial infarction (MI), cardiac death and/or target vessel revascularization (TVR)) were similar (ZoMaxx 8.7% vs. Taxus 6.9%, p=NS). The primary endpoint of 9-month TVR occurred more frequently after treatment with ZoMaxx (6.8%) as compared with Taxus (4.2%), therefore the primary clinical endpoint was not met. However, the 9-month in-segment late lumen loss for ZoMaxx (0.29±0.47mm) and Taxus (0.22±0.41mm, p=NS) were similar, thus satisfying the primary angiographic endpoint. Secondary endpoints of the rates of in-segment and in-stent binary restenosis were also similar (5.9% vs. 5.8%, 7.8% vs. 7.9%, respectively). Conclusions: At 9months, the ZoMaxx stent failed to achieve the primary endpoint of non-inferiority in TVR to the Taxus stent, but safety endpoints were equal between the two stent systems. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: In this study we compared the outcomes of the everolimus-eluting stent (EES) versus the zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) in patients treated at a tertiary medical center, with up to one year of follow-up.Methods: Unselected consecutive patients were retrospectively recruited following stenting with the ZES (n = 197) or EES (n = 190). The first 100 consecutive patients in each cohort underwent syntax scoring. The primary endpoint of the study was target vessel failure, defined as the combined endpoint of cardiac death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization. Secondary endpoints included target lesion revascularization, target lesion failure, acute stent thrombosis, total death, cardiac death, and non-fatal myocardial infarction.Results: The two groups were similar, including for Syntax scores (19.6 ± 12.8 versus 20.6 ± 13.6), number of stents per patient (2.9 ± 1.9 versus 2.9 ± 2.1), and cardiovascular risk factors. By one year, the primary outcome occurred in 20.8% EES versus 26.7% ZES (P = 0.19) patients. The secondary endpoints were as follows: target lesion revascularization (8.9% versus 20.6%, P = 0.003), target vessel revascularization (18.9% versus 25.6%, P = 0.142), definite and probable stent thrombosis (0% versus 2.5%), non-fatal myocardial infarction (2.7% versus 3.6%), and mortality (3.2% versus 5.1%) for the EES versus the ZES, respectively.Conclusion: EES had similar target vessel failure to ZES, but superior target lesion revascularization and target lesion failure at one year of follow-up in an unselected cohort of patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In this study we compared the outcomes of the everolimus-eluting stent (EES) versus the zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) in patients treated at a tertiary medical center, with up to one year of follow-up. Methods: Unselected consecutive patients were retrospectively recruited following stenting with the ZES (n = 197) or EES (n = 190). The first 100 consecutive patients in each cohort underwent syntax scoring. The primary endpoint of the study was target vessel failure, defined as the combined endpoint of cardiac death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization. Secondary endpoints included target lesion revascularization, target lesion failure, acute stent thrombosis, total death, cardiac death, and non-fatal myocardial infarction. Results: The two groups were similar, including for Syntax scores (19.6 ± 12.8 versus 20.6 ± 13.6), number of stents per patient (2.9 ± 1.9 versus 2.9 ± 2.1), and cardiovascular risk factors. By one year, the primary outcome occurred in 20.8% EES versus 26.7% ZES (P = 0.19) patients. The secondary endpoints were as follows: target lesion revascularization (8.9% versus 20.6%, P = 0.003), target vessel revascularization (18.9% versus 25.6%, P = 0.142), definite and probable stent thrombosis (0% versus 2.5%), non-fatal myocardial infarction (2.7% versus 3.6%), and mortality (3.2% versus 5.1%) for the EES versus the ZES, respectively. Conclusion: EES had similar target vessel failure to ZES, but superior target lesion revascularization and target lesion failure at one year of follow-up in an unselected cohort of patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: We evaluated the effectiveness and safety of a zotarolimus-eluting (ZES) versus a sirolimus-eluting (SES) coronary stent in a large cohort of patients treated with one of these stents in Western Denmark. Methods: A total of 6,122 patients treated with ZES (n=2,282) or SES (n=3,840) were followed for up to 27 months. We ascertained clinical outcomes based on national medical databases. Results: Incidence of target lesion revascularization (no. per 100 person-years) was 5.3 in the ZES group compared to 1.9 in the SES group (adjusted hazard ratio (HR)=2.19, 95% confidence intervals (CI): 1.39-3.47; p=0.001). All-cause mortality was also higher in the ZES group (ZES: 6.3; SES: 3.3; adjusted HR=1.34, 95% CI: 1.05-1.72; p=0.02), while stent thrombosis (ZES: 1.2; SES: 0.5; adjusted HR=1.98, 95% CI: 0.75-5.23; p=0.14) did not differ significantly. Conclusions: In agreement with previously published randomised data, this observational study indicated that the ZES was associated with an increased risk of death and TLR in a large cohort of consecutive patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims To compare the tissue coverage of a hydrophilic polymer-coated zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) vs. a fluoropolymer-coated everolimus-eluting stent (EES) at 13 months, using optical coherence tomography (OCT) in an ‘all-comers' population of patients, in order to clarify the mechanism of eventual differences in the biocompatibility and thrombogenicity of the devices. Methods and results Patients randomized to angiographic follow-up in the RESOLUTE All Comers trial (NCT00617084) at pre-specified OCT sites underwent OCT follow-up at 13 months. Tissue coverage and apposition were assessed strut by strut, and the results in both treatment groups were compared using multilevel logistic or linear regression, as appropriate, with clustering at three different levels: patient, lesion, and stent. Fifty-eight patients (30 ZES and 28 EES), 72 lesions, 107 stents, and 23 197 struts were analysed. Eight hundred and eighty-seven and 654 uncovered struts (7.4 and 5.8%, P= 0.378), and 216 and 161 malapposed struts (1.8 and 1.4%, P= 0.569) were found in the ZES and EES groups, respectively. The mean thickness of coverage was 116 ± 99 µm in ZES and 142 ± 113 µm in EES (P= 0.466). No differences in per cent neointimal volume obstruction (12.5 ± 7.9 vs. 15.0 ± 10.7%) or other areas–volumetric parameters were found between ZES and EES, respectively. Conclusion No significant differences in tissue coverage, malapposition, or lumen/stent areas and volumes were detected by OCT between the hydrophilic polymer-coated ZES and the fluoropolymer-coated EES at 13-month follow-up. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Abstract: Background: Angiographic and clinical outcomes associated with coronary stents eluting the new molecular entity zotarolimus have been well characterized in a variety of geographies and patient subsets. The Endeavor Japan study is the first prospective clinical trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the Endeavor zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) in the treatment of Japanese patients with single de novo lesions in native coronary arteries. Methods and materials: This nonrandomized, prospective, multicenter, single-arm trial of 99 subjects with inclusion criteria (elective percutaneous revascularization of single native de novo coronary artery lesions with length ≥14 and ≤27 mm with reference vessel diameters between 2.25 and 3.5 mm) selected to enhance statistical comparability to the ENDEAVOR II randomized study as historical control. The primary end point was target vessel failure (TVF) at 9 months. Results: At 9 months, the TVF rate was 5.2%, compared with 7.9% in the ZES arm of ENDEAVOR II (P=.412). Notable baseline differences between the Endeavor Japan and ENDEAVOR II populations were mean age (68.2 vs. 61.6 years; P<.001), diabetes (38.4% vs. 18.2%; P<.001), and unstable angina (4.6% vs. 30.3%; P<.001). Despite cohort differences, acute, 9-month, and 3-year clinical outcomes were similar in the two groups, as were 8-month angiographic indices. Finally, out to 3 years, no stent thrombosis was observed in Japanese subjects. Conclusions: These findings demonstrate that, in a Japanese population, the Endeavor ZES has similar safety and efficacy compared with other geographies, with sustained clinical benefit and safety to 3 years. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

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, Pnoninferiority=0.006; hazard ratio=0.97, 95% confidence interval, 0.78 to 1.19; Psuperiority=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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of patient and lesion complexity on outcomes with newer-generation zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZES) and everolimus-eluting stents (EES). Background: Clinical and angiographic outcomes of newer-generation stents have not been described among complex patients. Methods: Patients enrolled in the RESOLUTE All Comers trial (A Randomized Comparison of a Zotarolimus-Eluting Stent With an Everolimus-Eluting Stent for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) were stratified into “complex” and “simple.” Results: Of 2,292 patients, 1,520 (66.3%) were complex and treated with ZES (n = 764) or EES (n = 756). Event rates were higher among complex patients, and results did not differ between ZES and EES, regardless of complexity. At 1 year, target lesion failure was 8.9% in ZES- and 9.7% in EES-treated complex patients (p = 0.66) and 6.8% in ZES- and 5.7% in EES-treated simple patients (p = 0.55). Rates of cardiac death (1.3% vs. 2.2%, p = 0.24), target-vessel myocardial infarction (4.3% vs. 4.4%, p = 0.90), and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization (4.4% vs. 4.0%, p = 0.80) were similar for both stent types among complex patients. Definite or probable stent thrombosis occurred in 20 (1.3%) complex patients with no difference between ZES (1.7%) and EES (0.9%, p = 0.26). Angiographic follow-up showed similar results for ZES and EES in terms of in-stent percentage diameter stenosis (22.2 ± 15.4% vs. 21.4 ± 15.8%, p = 0.67) and in-segment binary restenosis (6.6% vs. 8.0%, p = 0.82) in the complex group. Conclusions: In this all-comers randomized trial, major adverse cardiovascular events were more frequent among complex than simple patients. The newer-generation ZES and EES proved to be safe and effective, regardless of complexity, with similar clinical and angiographic outcomes for both stent types through 1 year. (RESOLUTE-III All Comers Trial: A Randomized Comparison of a Zotarolimus-Eluting Stent With an Everolimus-Eluting Stent for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention; NCT00617084) [Copyright &y& Elsevier]