Impact of vessel size on outcome after implantation of sirolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents: a subgroup analysis of the SIRTAX trial

OBJECTIVES: We assessed the impact of vessel size on angiographic and long-term clinical outcome after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) within a randomized trial (SIRTAX [Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Compared With Paclitaxel-Eluting Stent for Coronary Revascularization]). BACKGROUND: Percutaneous coronary intervention in small-vessel disease is associated with an increased risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE). METHODS: A total of 1,012 patients were randomly assigned to treatment with SES (n = 503) or PES (n = 509). A stratified analysis of angiographic and clinical outcome was performed up to 2 years after PCI according to size of the treated vessel (reference vessel diameter < or =2.75 vs. >2.75 mm). RESULTS: Of 1,012 patients, 370 patients (37%) with 495 lesions underwent stent implantation in small vessels only, 504 patients (50%) with 613 lesions in large vessels only, and 138 patients (14%) with 301 lesions in both small and large vessels (mixed). In patients with small-vessel stents, SES reduced MACE by 55% (10.4% vs. 21.4%; p = 0.004), mainly driven by a 69% reduction of target lesion revascularization (TLR) (6.0% vs. 17.7%; p = 0.001) compared with PES at 2 years. In patients with large- and mixed-vessel stents, rates of MACE (large: 10.4% vs. 13.1%; p = 0.33; mixed: 16.7% vs. 18.0%; p = 0.83) and TLR (large: 6.9% vs. 8.6%; p = 0.47; mixed: 16.7% vs. 15.4%; p = 0.86) were similar for SES and PES. There were no significant differences with respect to death and myocardial infarction between the 3 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with PES, SES more effectively reduced MACE and TLR in small-vessel disease. Differences between SES and PES appear less pronounced in patients with large- and mixed-vessel disease. (The SIRTAX trial; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct/show/NCT00297661?order=1; NCT00297661).

A pain assessment scale for population-based studies: Development and validation of the Pain Module of the Standard Evaluation Questionnaire

The objectives of this study were to develop and validate a tool for assessing pain in population-based observational studies and to develop three subscales for back/neck, upper extremity and lower extremity pain. Based on a literature review, items were extracted from validated questionnaires and reviewed by an expert panel. The initial questionnaire consisted of a pain manikin and 34 items relating to (i) intensity of pain in different body regions (7 items), (ii) pain during activities of daily living (18 items) and (iii) various pain modalities (9 items). Psychometric validation of the initial questionnaire was performed in a random sample of the German-speaking Swiss population. Analyses included tests for reliability, correlation analysis, principal components factor analysis, tests for internal consistency and validity. Overall, 16,634 of 23,763 eligible individuals participated (70%). Test-retest reliability coefficients ranged from 0.32 to 0.97, but only three coefficients were below 0.60. Subscales were constructed combining four items for each of the subscales. Item-total coefficients ranged from 0.76 to 0.86 and Cronbach's alpha were 0.75 or higher for all subscales. Correlation coefficients between subscales and three validated instruments (WOMAC, SPADI and Oswestry) ranged from 0.62 to 0.79. The final Pain Standard Evaluation Questionnaire (SEQ Pain) included 28 items and the pain manikin and accounted for the multidimensionality of pain by assessing pain location and intensity, pain during activity, triggers and time of onset of pain and frequency of pain medication. It was found to be reliable and valid for the assessment of pain in population-based observational studies.

Detection of latent tuberculosis in immunosuppressed patients with autoimmune diseases: performance of a Mycobacterium tuberculosis antigen-specific interferon gamma assay

OBJECTIVE: To analyse the performance of a new M. tuberculosis-specific interferon gamma (IFNgamma) assay in patients with chronic inflammatory diseases who receive immunosuppressive drugs, including tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNFalpha) inhibitors. METHODS: Cellular immune responses to the M. tuberculosis-specific antigens ESAT-6, CFP-10, TB7.7 were prospectively studied in 142 consecutive patients treated for inflammatory rheumatic conditions. Results were compared with tuberculin skin tests (TSTs). Association of both tests with risk factors for latent M. tuberculosis infection (LTBI) and BCG vaccination were determined and the influence of TNFalpha inhibitors, corticosteroids, and disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) on antigen-specific and mitogen-induced IFNgamma secretion was analysed. RESULTS: 126/142 (89%) patients received immunosuppressive therapy. The IFNgamma assay was more closely associated with the presence of risk factors (odds ratio (OR) = 23.8 (95% CI 5.14 to 110) vs OR = 2.77 (1.22 to 6.27), respectively; p = 0.009), but less associated with BCG vaccination than the TST (OR = 0.47 (95% CI 0.15 to 1.47) vs OR = 2.44 (0.74 to (8.01), respectively; p = 0.025). Agreement between the IFNgamma assay and TST results was low (kappa = 0.17; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.32). The odds for a positive IFNgamma assay strongly increased with increasing prognostic relevance of LTBI risk factors. Neither corticosteroids nor conventional DMARDs significantly affected IFNgamma responses, but the odds for a positive IFNgamma assay were decreased in patients treated with TNFalpha inhibitors (OR = 0.21 (95% CI 0.07 to 0.63), respectively; p = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate that the performance of the M. tuberculosis antigen-specific IFNgamma ELISA is better than the classic TST for detection of LTBI in patients receiving immunosuppressive therapy for treatment of systemic autoimmune disorders.

Meta-analysis: chondroitin for osteoarthritis of the knee or hip

BACKGROUND: Previous meta-analyses described moderate to large benefits of chondroitin in patients with osteoarthritis. However, recent large-scale trials did not find evidence of an effect. PURPOSE: To determine the effects of chondroitin on pain in patients with osteoarthritis. DATA SOURCES: The authors searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (1970 to 2006), MEDLINE (1966 to 2006), EMBASE (1980 to 2006), CINAHL (1970 to 2006), and conference proceedings; checked reference lists; and contacted authors. The last update of searches was performed on 30 November 2006. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were included if they were randomized or quasi-randomized, controlled trials that compared chondroitin with placebo or with no treatment in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee or hip. There were no language restrictions. DATA EXTRACTION: The authors extracted data in duplicate. Effect sizes were calculated from the differences in means of pain-related outcomes between treatment and control groups at the end of the trial, divided by the pooled SD. Trials were combined by using random-effects meta-analysis. DATA SYNTHESIS: 20 trials (3846 patients) contributed to the meta-analysis, which revealed a high degree of heterogeneity among the trials (I2 = 92%). Small trials, trials with unclear concealment of allocation, and trials that were not analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle showed larger effects in favor of chondroitin than did the remaining trials. When the authors restricted the analysis to the 3 trials with large sample sizes and an intention-to-treat analysis, 40% of patients were included. This resulted in an effect size of -0.03 (95% CI, -0.13 to 0.07; I2 = 0%) and corresponded to a difference of 0.6 mm on a 10-cm visual analogue scale. A meta-analysis of 12 trials showed a pooled relative risk of 0.99 (CI, 0.76 to 1.31) for any adverse event. LIMITATIONS: For 9 trials, the authors had to use approximations to calculate effect sizes. Trial quality was generally low, heterogeneity among the trials made initial interpretation of results difficult, and exploring sources of heterogeneity in meta-regression and stratified analyses may be unreliable. CONCLUSIONS: Large-scale, methodologically sound trials indicate that the symptomatic benefit of chondroitin is minimal or nonexistent. Use of chondroitin in routine clinical practice should therefore be discouraged.

Early and late coronary stent thrombosis of sirolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents in routine clinical practice: data from a large two-institutional cohort study

BACKGROUND: Stent thrombosis is a safety concern associated with use of drug-eluting stents. Little is known about occurrence of stent thrombosis more than 1 year after implantation of such stents. METHODS: Between April, 2002, and Dec, 2005, 8146 patients underwent percutaneous coronary intervention with sirolimus-eluting stents (SES; n=3823) or paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES; n=4323) at two academic hospitals. We assessed data from this group to ascertain the incidence, time course, and correlates of stent thrombosis, and the differences between early (0-30 days) and late (>30 days) stent thrombosis and between SES and PES. FINDINGS: Angiographically documented stent thrombosis occurred in 152 patients (incidence density 1.3 per 100 person-years; cumulative incidence at 3 years 2.9%). Early stent thrombosis was noted in 91 (60%) patients, and late stent thrombosis in 61 (40%) patients. Late stent thrombosis occurred steadily at a constant rate of 0.6% per year up to 3 years after stent implantation. Incidence of early stent thrombosis was similar for SES (1.1%) and PES (1.3%), but late stent thrombosis was more frequent with PES (1.8%) than with SES (1.4%; p=0.031). At the time of stent thrombosis, dual antiplatelet therapy was being taken by 87% (early) and 23% (late) of patients (p<0.0001). Independent predictors of overall stent thrombosis were acute coronary syndrome at presentation (hazard ratio 2.28, 95% CI 1.29-4.03) and diabetes (2.03, 1.07-3.83). INTERPRETATION: Late stent thrombosis was encountered steadily with no evidence of diminution up to 3 years of follow-up. Early and late stent thrombosis were observed with SES and with PES. Acute coronary syndrome at presentation and diabetes were independent predictors of stent thrombosis.

Two-year clinical outcome after implantation of sirolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents in diabetic patients

Aims Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in diabetic patients is associated with an increased risk of restenosis and major adverse cardiac events (MACE). We assessed the impact of diabetes on long-term outcome after PCI with sirolimus-eluting (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting (PES) stents. Methods and results In the SIRTAX trial, 1012 patients were randomized to treatment with SES (n = 503) or PES (n = 509). A stratified analysis of outcomes was performed according to the presence or absence of diabetes. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between SES and PES in patients with (N = 201) and without diabetes (N = 811). Clinical outcome was worse in diabetic compared with non-diabetic patients regarding death (9.0% vs. 4.1%, P = 0.004) and MACE (defined as cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or TLR; 19.9% vs. 12.7%, P = 0.007) at 2 years. Among diabetic patients, SES reduced MACE by 47% (14.8% vs. 25.8%, HR = 0.52, P = 0.05) and TLR by 61% (7.4% vs. 17.2%, HR = 0.39, P = 0.03) compared with PES at 2 years. Conclusion Diabetic patients have worse prognosis than non-diabetic patients undergoing PCI with DES. Among the diabetic patient population of this trial, SES reduce repeat revascularization procedures and MACE more effectively than PES and to a similar degree as in non-diabetic patients.

Biolimus-eluting stent with biodegradable polymer versus sirolimus-eluting stent with durable polymer for coronary revascularisation (LEADERS): a randomised non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND: A novel stent platform eluting biolimus, a sirolimus analogue, from a biodegradable polymer showed promising results in preliminary studies. We compared the safety and efficacy of a biolimus-eluting stent (with biodegradable polymer) with a sirolimus-eluting stent (with durable polymer). METHODS: We undertook a multicentre, assessor-blind, non-inferiority study in ten European centres. 1707 patients aged 18 years or older with chronic stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes were centrally randomised by a computer-generated allocation sequence to treatment with either biolimus-eluting (n=857) or sirolimus-eluting (n=850) stents. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or clinically-indicated target vessel revascularisation within 9 months. Analysis was by intention to treat. 427 patients were randomly allocated to angiographic follow-up, with in-stent percentage diameter stenosis as principal outcome measure at 9 months. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00389220. FINDINGS: We analysed all randomised patients. Biolimus-eluting stents were non-inferior to sirolimus-eluting stents for the primary endpoint at 9 months (79 [9%] patients vs 89 [11%], rate ratio 0.88 [95% CI 0.64-1.19], p for non-inferiority=0.003, p for superiority=0.39). Frequency of cardiac death (14 [1.6%] vs 21 [2.5%], p for superiority=0.22), myocardial infarction (49 [5.7%] vs 39 [4.6%], p=0.30), and clinically-indicated target vessel revascularisation (38 [4.4%] vs 47 [5.5%], p=0.29) were similar for both stent types. 168 (79%) patients in the biolimus-eluting group and 167 (78%) in the sirolimus-eluting group had data for angiographic follow-up available. Biolimus-eluting stents were non-inferior to sirolimus-eluting stents in in-stent percentage diameter stenosis (20.9%vs 23.3%, difference -2.2% [95% CI -6.0 to 1.6], p for non-inferiority=0.001, p for superiority=0.26). INTERPRETATION: Our results suggest that a stent eluting biolimus from a biodegradable polymer represents a safe and effective alternative to a stent eluting sirolimus from a durable polymer in patients with chronic stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes. FUNDING: Biosensors Europe SA, Switzerland.

Incidence and correlates of drug-eluting stent thrombosis in routine clinical practice. 4-year results from a large 2-institutional cohort study

OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine the risk of late stent thrombosis (ST) during long-term follow-up beyond 3 years, searched for predictors, and assessed the impact of ST on overall mortality. BACKGROUND: Late ST was reported to occur at an annual rate of 0.6% up to 3 years after drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation. METHODS: A total of 8,146 patients underwent percutaneous coronary intervention with a sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) (n=3,823) or paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) (n=4,323) and were followed up to 4 years after stent implantation. Dual antiplatelet treatment was prescribed for 6 to 12 months. RESULTS: Definite ST occurred in 192 of 8,146 patients with an incidence density of 1.0/100 patient-years and a cumulative incidence of 3.3% at 4 years. The hazard of ST continued at a steady rate of 0.53% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44 to 0.64) between 30 days and 4 years. Diabetes was an independent predictor of early ST (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.96; 95% CI: 1.18 to 3.28), and acute coronary syndrome (HR: 2.21; 95% CI: 1.39 to 3.51), younger age (HR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.95 to 0.99), and use of PES (HR: 1.67; 95% CI: 1.08 to 2.56) were independent predictors of late ST. Rates of death and myocardial infarction at 4 years were 10.6% and 4.6%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Late ST occurs steadily at an annual rate of 0.4% to 0.6% for up to 4 years. Diabetes is an independent predictor of early ST, whereas acute coronary syndrome, younger age, and PES implantation are associated with late ST.

Drug eluting and bare metal stents in people with and without diabetes: collaborative network meta-analysis

Objective To compare the effectiveness and safety of three types of stents (sirolimus eluting, paclitaxel eluting, and bare metal) in people with and without diabetes mellitus. Design Collaborative network meta-analysis. Data sources Electronic databases (Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), relevant websites, reference lists, conference abstracts, reviews, book chapters, and proceedings of advisory panels for the US Food and Drug Administration. Manufacturers and trialists provided additional data. Review methods Network meta-analysis with a mixed treatment comparison method to combine direct within trial comparisons between stents with indirect evidence from other trials while maintaining randomisation. Overall mortality was the primary safety end point, target lesion revascularisation the effectiveness end point. Results 35 trials in 3852 people with diabetes and 10 947 people without diabetes contributed to the analyses. Inconsistency of the network was substantial for overall mortality in people with diabetes and seemed to be related to the duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (P value for interaction 0.02). Restricting the analysis to trials with a duration of dual antiplatelet therapy of six months or more, inconsistency was reduced considerably and hazard ratios for overall mortality were near one for all comparisons in people with diabetes: sirolimus eluting stents compared with bare metal stents 0.88 (95% credibility interval 0.55 to 1.30), paclitaxel eluting stents compared with bare metal stents 0.91 (0.60 to 1.38), and sirolimus eluting stents compared with paclitaxel eluting stents 0.95 (0.63 to 1.43). In people without diabetes, hazard ratios were unaffected by the restriction. Both drug eluting stents were associated with a decrease in revascularisation rates compared with bare metal stents in people both with and without diabetes. Conclusion In trials that specified a duration of dual antiplatelet therapy of six months or more after stent implantation, drug eluting stents seemed safe and effective in people both with and without diabetes.

Safety of drug-eluting stents

Drug-eluting stents (DESs) effectively reduce angiographic restenosis and the clinical need for repeat revascularization procedures as compared with bare-metal stents. Widely publicized concerns arose recently about the incidence of late and very late stent thrombosis with the use of first-generation DESs. Recent systematic reviews and large-scale registry studies demonstrated similar rates of overall mortality and myocardial infarction for patients treated with either DESs or bare-metal stents during long-term follow-up. Careful selection of stent type according to patient and lesion characteristics as well as monitoring of adherence to dual antiplatelet therapy could maximize the therapeutic potential of these devices. The purpose of the present Review is to provide the reader with an overview of the benefits and risks of first-generation DESs that could help physicians select the most appropriate stent type for each patient.