Late clinical outcomes after implantation of drug-eluting stents coated with biodegradable polymers: 3-year follow-up of the PAINT randomised trial

Aims: The long-term clinical performance of drug-eluting stents (DES) coated with biodegradable polymers is poorly known. Methods and results: A total of 274 coronary patients were randomly allocated to paclitaxel-eluting stents, sirolimus-eluting stents, or bare metal stems (2:2:1 ratio). The two DES used the same biodegradable polymers and were identical except for the drug. At three years, the pooled DES population had similar rates of cardiac death or myocardial infarction (9.0% vs. 7.1; p=0.6), but lower risk of repeat interventions (10.0% vs. 29.9%; p<0.01) than controls with bare stents. The cumulative 3-year incidence of definite or probable stent thrombosis in the pooled DES group was 2.3% (first year: 1.8%; second year: 0.4%; third year: zero). There were no significant differences in outcomes between paclitaxel- and sirolimus-eluting stents. Conclusions: The biodegradable-polymer coated DES releasing either paclitaxel or sirolimus were effective in reducing the 3-year rate of re-interventions.

Motivation and frustration in cardiology trial participation: the patient perspective

OBJECTIVE: The participation of humans in clinical cardiology trials remains essential, but little is known regarding participant perceptions of such studies. We examined the factors that motivated participation in such studies, as well as those that led to participant frustration. METHODS: Patients who had participated in hypertension and coronary arterial disease (phases II, III, and IV) clinical trials were invited to answer a questionnaire. They were divided into two groups: Group I, which included participants in placebo-controlled clinical trials after randomization, and Group II, which included participants in clinical trials in which the tested treatment was compared to another drug after randomization and in which a placebo was used in the washout period. RESULTS: Eighty patients (47 patients in Group I and 33 patients in Group II) with different socio-demographic characteristics were interviewed. Approximately 60% of the patients were motivated to participate in the trial with the expectation of personal benefit. Nine participants (11.2%) expressed the desire to withdraw, which was due to their perception of risk during the testing in the clinical trial (Group I) and to the necessity of repeated returns to the institution (Group II). However, the patients did not withdraw due to fear of termination of hospital treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Although this study had a small patient sample, the possibility of receiving a benefit from the new tested treatment was consistently reported as a motivation to participate in the trials.