The impact of body mass index on the one year outcomes of patients treated by percutaneous coronary intervention with Biolimus- and Sirolimus-eluting stents (from the LEADERS Trial)

The aim of this analysis was to assess the effect of body mass index (BMI) on 1-year outcomes in patients enrolled in a contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention trial comparing a sirolimus-eluting stent with a durable polymer to a biolimus-eluting stent with a biodegradable polymer. A total of 1,707 patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention were randomized to treatment with either biolimus-eluting stents (n = 857) or sirolimus-eluting stents (n = 850). Patients were assigned to 1 of 3 groups according to BMI: normal (<25 kg/m(2)), overweight (25 to 30 kg/m(2)), or obese (>30 kg/m(2)). At 1 year, the incidence of the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and clinically justified target vessel revascularization was assessed. In addition, rates of clinically justified target lesion revascularization and stent thrombosis were assessed. Cox proportional-hazards analysis, adjusted for clinical differences, was used to develop models for 1-year mortality. Forty-five percent of the patients (n = 770) were overweight, 26% (n = 434) were obese, and 29% (n = 497) had normal BMIs. At 1-year follow-up, the cumulative rate of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and clinically justified target vessel revascularization was significantly higher in the obese group (8.7% in normal-weight, 11.3% in overweight, and 14.5% in obese patients, p = 0.01). BMI (hazard ratio 1.47, 95% confidence interval 1.02 to 2.14, p = 0.04) was an independent predictor of stent thrombosis. Stent type had no impact on the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and clinically justified target vessel revascularization at 1 year in the 3 BMI groups (hazard ratio 1.08, 95% confidence interval 0.63 to 1.83, p = 0.73). In conclusion, BMI was an independent predictor of major adverse cardiac events at 1-year clinical follow-up. The higher incidence of stent thrombosis in the obese group may suggest the need for a weight-adjusted dose of clopidogrel.

The twelve-month outcomes of a biolimus eluting stent with a biodegradable polymer compared with a sirolimus eluting stent with a durable polymer

This study reports the 12-month clinical outcomes of the LEADERS clinical trial which compared a biolimus eluting stent with a biodegradable polymer (BES) to a sirolimus eluting stent with a durable polymer (SES).

Sirolimus and everolimus reduce albumin endocytosis in proximal tubule cells via an angiotensin II-dependent pathway

The proliferation signal inhibitors (PSIs) sirolimus (SRL) and everolimus (ERL) often induce proteinuria due to glomerular but also tubular dysfunction in transplant patients. The beneficial effect of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-I) and angiotensin II (Ang II) type 1 receptor blockers (ARB) has been reported.

Five-Year Clinical and Angiographic Outcomes of a Randomized Comparison of Sirolimus-Eluting and Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents: Results of the Sirolimus-Eluting Versus Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents for Coronary Revascularization LATE Trial

Background—Long-term comparative data of first-generation drug-eluting stents are scarce. We investigated clinical and angiographic outcomes of sirolimus-eluting (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) at 5 years as part of the Sirolimus-Eluting Versus Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents for Coronary Revascularization (SIRTAX) LATE study. Methods and Results—A total of 1012 patients were randomly assigned to SES or PES. Repeat angiography was completed in 444 of 1012 patients (43.8%) at 5 years. Major adverse cardiac events occurred in 19.7% of SES- and 21.4% of PES-treated patients (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.68 to 1.17; P=0.39) at 5 years. There were no differences between SES and PES in terms of cardiac death (5.8% versus 5.7%; P=0.35), myocardial infarction (6.6% versus 6.9%; P=0.51), and target lesion revascularization (13.1% versus 15.1%; P=0.29). Between 1 and 5 years, the annual rate of target lesion revascularization was 2.0% (95% confidence interval, 1.4% to 2.6%) for SES and 1.4% (95% confidence interval, 0.9% to 2.0%) for PES. Among patients undergoing paired angiography at 8 months and 5 years, delayed lumen loss amounted to 0.37±0.73 mm for SES and 0.29±0.59 mm for PES (P=0.32). The overall rate of definite stent thrombosis was 4.6% for SES and 4.1% for PES (P=0.74), and very late definite stent thrombosis occurred at an annual rate of 0.65% (95% confidence interval, 0.40% to 0.90%). Conclusions—Long-term follow-up of first-generation drug-eluting stents shows no significant differences in clinical and angiographic outcomes between SES and PES. The continuous increase in late lumen loss in conjunction with the ongoing risk of very late stent thrombosis suggests that vascular healing remains incomplete up to 5 years after implantation of first-generation drug-eluting stents.

Long-term comparison of everolimus-eluting and sirolimus-eluting stents for coronary revascularization

Objectives This study sought to compare the unrestricted use of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) with sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Background It is unclear whether there are differences in safety and efficacy between EES and SES during long-term follow-up. Methods Using propensity score matching, clinical outcome was compared among 1,342 propensity score–matched pairs of patients treated with EES and SES. The primary outcome was a composite of death, MI, and target vessel revascularization. Results The median follow-up was 1.5 years with a maximum of 3 years. The primary outcome occurred in 14.9% of EES- and 18.0% of SES-treated patients up to 3 years (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.83, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.68 to 1.00, p = 0.056). All-cause mortality (6.0% vs. 6.5%, HR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.68 to 1.25, p = 0.59) was similar, risks of myocardial infarction (MI) (3.3% vs. 5.0%, HR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.42 to 0.92, p = 0.017), and target vessel revascularization (7.0% vs. 9.6%, HR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.57 to 0.99, p = 0.039) were lower with EES than SES. Definite stent thrombosis (ST) (HR: 0.30, 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.75, p = 0.01) was less frequent among patients treated with EES. The reduced rate of MI with EES was explained in part by the lower risk of definite ST and the corresponding decrease in events associated with ST (HR: 0.25, 95% CI: 0.08 to 0.75, p = 0.013). Conclusions The unrestricted use of EES appears to be associated with improved clinical long-term outcome compared with SES. Differences in favor of EES are driven in part by a lower risk of MI associated with ST.

The outcome of bifurcation lesion stenting using a biolimus-eluting stent with a bio-degradable polymer compared to a sirolimus-eluting stent with a durable polymer

This study investigated the differences in clinical outcomes between patients with bifurcation lesions (BL) treated with a biolimus-eluting stent (BES) with a biodegradable polymer, and a sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) with a durable polymer.

Sirolimus versus paclitaxel coronary stents in clinical practice

Objectives: We aimed at comparing the long term clinical outcome of SES and PES in routine clinical practice. Background: Although sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) more effectively reduce neointimal hyperplasia than paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES), uncertainty prevails whether this difference translates into differences in clinical outcomes outside randomized controlled trials with selected patient populations and protocol-mandated angiographic follow-up. Methods: Nine hundred and four consecutive patients who underwent implantation of a drug-eluting stent between May 2004 and February 2005: 467 patients with 646 lesions received SES, 437 patients with 600 lesions received PES. Clinical follow-up was obtained at 2 years without intervening routine angiographic follow-up. The primary endpoint was a composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), or target vessel revascularization (TVR). Results: At 2 years, the primary endpoint was less frequent with SES (12.9%) than PES (17.6%, HR = 0.70, 95% CI 0.50–0.98, P = 0.04). The difference in favor of SES was largely driven by a lower rate of target lesion revascularisation (TLR; 4.1% vs. 6.9%, P = 0.05), whereas rates of death (6.4% vs. 7.6%, P = 0.49), MI (1.9% vs. 3.2%, P = 0.21), or definite stent thrombosis (0.6% vs. 1.4%, P = 0.27) were similar for both stent types. The benefit regarding reduced rates of TLR was significant in nondiabetic (3.6% vs. 7.1%, P = 0.04) but not in diabetic patients (5.6% vs. 6.1%, P = 0.80). Conclusions: SES more effectively reduced the need for repeat revascularization procedures than PES when used in routine clinical practice. The beneficial effect is maintained up to 2 years and may be less pronounced in diabetic patients.

[Drug therapy of acute and chronic abdominal pain]

For drug therapy a differentiation of acute and chronic pain is essential. In emergency situations of acute abdominal pain a fast diagnosis is mandatory. Analgesia should be provided as soon as possible. The different groups of analgesics should be used according to their known effects, side effects and contraindications. Postoperative pain after abdominal surgery has to be considered as a special condition of acute abdominal pain. Main treatment options are non opioid analgesics and opioids. Opioids can be administered intravenously via patient controlled analgesia (PCA) devices. In major abdominal surgery neuroaxial analgesia, preferentially administered via an epidural catheter provides excellent pain relief with positive impact on gastrointestinal motility and patients' recovery. Because of difficulties to allocate chronic abdominal pain to a specific organ, causal treatment often turns out to be difficult. Peripheral and central sensitization, as well as an alteration of the endogenous pain modulation comes to the fore in these chronic pain conditions. Co-analgesics like anticonvulsants and antidepressants are utilized to reduce sensitization and improve the endogenous pain modulating system. Non drug approaches and alternative treatment options might be useful. In contrast, orally or transcutaneously administered opioids are the principal corner stone for the treatment of cancer pain.

Efficacy and safety of sirolimus and everolimus in heart transplant patients: a retrospective analysis

Since its introduction as an immunosuppressant in the late 1990s, sirolimus (SRL) has been used to prevent rejections after heart transplantation (HTx) in the United States. An analogue, everolimus (ERL) has been mainly used in Europe. We performed a retrospective longitudinal single-center study to evaluate efficacy and side effects of SRL and ERL.

Long-term clinical outcomes of biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stents versus durable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents in patients with coronary artery disease (LEADERS): 4 year follow-up of a randomised non-inferiority trial

Background The effectiveness of durable polymer drug-eluting stents comes at the expense of delayed arterial healing and subsequent late adverse events such as stent thrombosis (ST). We report the 4 year follow-up of an assessment of biodegradable polymer-based drug-eluting stents, which aim to improve safety by avoiding the persistent inflammatory stimulus of durable polymers. Methods We did a multicentre, assessor-masked, non-inferiority trial. Between Nov 27, 2006, and May 18, 2007, patients aged 18 years or older with coronary artery disease were randomly allocated with a computer-generated sequence to receive either biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stents (BES) or durable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (SES; 1:1 ratio). The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or clinically-indicated target vessel revascularisation (TVR); patients were followed-up for 4 years. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00389220. Findings 1707 patients with 2472 lesions were randomly allocated to receive either biodegradable polymer BES (857 patients, 1257 lesions) or durable polymer SES (850 patients, 1215 lesions). At 4 years, biodegradable polymer BES were non-inferior to durable polymer SES for the primary endpoint: 160 (18·7%) patients versus 192 (22·6%) patients (rate ratios [RR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·66–1·00, p for non-inferiority <0·0001, p for superiority=0·050). The RR of definite ST was 0·62 (0·35–1·08, p=0·09), which was largely attributable to a lower risk of very late definite ST between years 1 and 4 in the BES group than in the SES group (RR 0·20, 95% CI 0·06–0·67, p=0·004). Conversely, the RR of definite ST during the first year was 0·99 (0·51–1·95; p=0·98) and the test for interaction between RR of definite ST and time was positive (pinteraction=0·017). We recorded an interaction with time for events associated with ST but not for other events. For primary endpoint events associated with ST, the RR was 0·86 (0·41–1·80) during the first year and 0·17 (0·04–0·78) during subsequent years (pinteraction=0·049). Interpretation Biodegradable polymer BES are non-inferior to durable polymer SES and, by reducing the risk of cardiac events associated with very late ST, might improve long-term clinical outcomes for up to 4 years compared with durable polymer SES. Funding Biosensors Europe SA, Switzerland.

The three year follow-up of the randomised "all-comers" trial of a biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stent versus permanent polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (LEADERS)

Aims: The current study reports clinical outcomes at three year follow-up of the LEADERS clinical trial which was the first all-comers trial comparing a new generation biodegradable polymer biolimus drug-eluting stent (BES) with the first generation permanent polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (SES). Methods and results: One thousand seven hundred and seven patients were randomised to unrestricted use of BES (n=857) or SES (n=850) in an all-comers population. Three year follow-up was available in 95% of the patients, 812 treated with BES and 809 treated with SES. At three years, BES remains non-inferior to SES for the primary endpoint of major adverse cardiac events (composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), or clinically-indicated target vessel revascularisation (CI-TVR) (BES 15.7% versus SES 19%; HR 0.82 CI 0.65-1.03; p=0.09). The MACE Kaplan Meier event curves increasingly diverge with the difference in events increasing from 1.4% to 2.4% and 3.3% at 1, 2 and 3 years, respectively in favour of BES. The rate of cardiac death was non-significantly lower 4.2% versus 5.2% (HR=0.81 CI 0.52-1.26; p=0.34) and the rate of myocardial infarction was equivalent 7.2% versus 7.1% (HR 1.01 CI 0.70-1.44; p=0.97) for BES versus SES, respectively. Thus BES was non-inferior to SES in all the safety endpoints. Clinically-indicated TVR occurred in 9.4% of BES treated patients versus 11.1% of SES treated patients (HR 0.84 CI 0.62-1.13; p=0.25). Rates of definite stent thrombosis were 2.2% for BES and 2.9% for SES (HR 0.78 CI 0.43-1.43; p=0.43), with the event rate increase of 0.2% from one to three years for BES and 0.9% for SES. For patients presenting with ST-elevation myocardial infarction BES was superior to SES in reducing MACE. Conclusions: The findings of the three year follow-up support the claim that the biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stent has equivalent safety and efficacy to permanent polymer sirolimus-eluting stent in an all-comers patient population. Its performance is superior in some subpopulations such as in ST-elevation MI patients and event rates for BES are overall lower than for SES with a trend toward increasing divergence of outcomes over three years. - See more at: http://www.pcronline.com/eurointervention/42nd_issue/125/#sthash.E5HhMQ4a.dpuf

SYNTAX score and Clinical SYNTAX score as predictors of very long-term clinical outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions: a substudy of SIRolimus-eluting stent compared with pacliTAXel-eluting stent for coronary revascularization (SIRTAX) trial

To investigate the ability of SYNTAX score and Clinical SYNTAX score (CSS) to predict very long-term outcomes in an all-comers population receiving drug-eluting stents.

Implantation of the biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stent in patients with high SYNTAX score is associated with decreased cardiac mortality compared to a permanent polymer sirolimus-eluting stent: two year follow-up results from the "all-comers" LEADERS trial

Background: The SYNTAX score (SXscore) has been shown to be an effective predictor of clinical outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Methods and results: The SXscore was prospectively collected in 1,397 of the 1,707 patients enrolled in the “all-comers” LEADERS trial (patients post-surgical revascularisation were excluded). Post hoc analysis was performed by stratifying clinical outcomes at two-year follow-up, according to one of three SXscore tertiles: SXlow ≤8 (n=464), 816 (n=461). At two-year follow-up the rate of major adverse cardiovascular events was 18.4%, 12.0% and 9.4% in the SXhigh, SXmid, and SXlow tertile, respectively (HR 1.45; CI 1.21-1.74; p<0.01). There was a significantly higher rate of cardiac death in patients in the highest SXscore tertile (7% SXhigh versus 2.4% SXmid versus 1.8% SXlow; HR 2.22; CI 1.5-3.27; p<0.001). Within the SXhigh tertile the rate of cardiac death was significantly lower in patients treated with the biolimus-eluting stent compared with the sirolimus-eluting stent (4.7% versus 9.6%, HR 0.48; CI 0.23-0.99; p=0.046). Conclusions: The SXscore when applied to an “all-comers” patient population allows for prospective risk stratification of patients undergoing PCI up to two years follow-up. In addition, the SXscore appears to separate the performance of devices in high risk patient groups.

Two-year clinical follow-up from the randomized comparison of biolimus-eluting stents with biodegradable polymer and sirolimus-eluting stents with durable polymer in routine clinical practice

Objectives This study sought to investigate safety and efficacy of biolimus-eluting stents (BES) with biodegradable polymer as compared with sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) with durable polymer through 2 years of follow-up. Background BES with a biodegradable polymer provide similar efficacy and safety as SES with a durable polymer at 9 months. Clinical outcomes beyond the period of biodegradation of the polymer used for drug release and after discontinuation of dual antiplatelet therapy are of particular interest. Methods A total of 1,707 patients were randomized to unrestricted use of BES (n = 857) or SES (n = 850) in an all-comers patient population. Results At 2 years, BES remained noninferior compared with SES for the primary endpoint, which was a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or clinically indicated target vessel revascularization (BES 12.8% vs. SES 15.2%, hazard ratio [HR]: 0.84, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.65 to 1.08, pnoninferiority < 0.0001, psuperiority = 0.18). Rates of cardiac death (3.2% vs. 3.9%, HR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.49 to 1.35, p = 0.42), myocardial infarction (6.3% vs. 5.6%, HR: 1.12, 95% CI: 0.76 to 1.65, p = 0.56), and clinically indicated target vessel revascularization (7.5% vs. 8.6%, HR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.62 to 1.20, p = 0.38) were similar for BES and SES. The rate of definite stent thrombosis through 2 years was 2.2% for BES and 2.5% for SES (p = 0.73). For the period between 1 and 2 years, event rates for definite stent thrombosis were 0.2% for BES and 0.5% for SES (p = 0.42). After discontinuation of dual antiplatelet therapy, no very late definite stent thrombosis occurred in the BES group. Conclusions At 2 years of follow-up, the unrestricted use of BES with a biodegradable polymer maintained a similar safety and efficacy profile as SES with a durable polymer. (Limus Eluted From a Durable Versus Erodable Stent Coating [LEADERS]; NCT00389220)

Long-term comparison of everolimus- and sirolimus-eluting stents in patients with acute coronary syndromes

The goal of this study was to compare the long-term clinical outcome between everolimus-eluting stent (EES) and sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS).