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).

Rapid determination of gemcitabine in plasma and serum using reversed-phase HPLC

Gemcitabine (2'2'-difluorodeoxycytidine) is a pyrimidine analog used in the treatment of a variety of solid tumors. After intravenous (i.v.) administration, it is rapidly inactivated to 2'-deoxy-2',2'-difluorouridine (dFdU). A sensitive analytical method for the quantitation of gemcitabine is required for the assessment of alternative dosage and treatment schemes. A rapid and robust RP-HPLC assay for analysis of gemcitabine in human and animal plasma and serum was developed and validated using 2'-deoxyuridine (dU) and 5-fluoro-2'-deoxyuridine (5FdU) as internal standards. It is based on protein precipitation, the use of an Atlantis dC18 column of 100 mm length (inner diameter, 4.6 mm; particle size, 3 microm) and isocratic elution using a 10 mM phosphate buffer, pH 3.0, followed by isocratic elution with the same buffer containing 3% of ACN. For gemcitabine, RSD values for intraday and interday precision were < 4.4 and 5.3%, respectively, the LOQ was 20 ng/mL, and the assay was linear in the range of 0.020-20 microg/mL with an accuracy of > or =89%. The recovery for gemcitabine, dU and 5FdU was 86-98%. The assay was applied to determine gemcitabine levels in plasma samples of patients collected during and shortly after conventional infusion of 25-30 mg/kg body mass (levels: 2.0-18.9 microg/mL) and rats that received lower doses (1.5 mg/kg) via i.v., subcutaneous and oral drug administration (levels: 0.20-2.60 microg/mL). It could also be applied to estimate dFdU levels in human plasma.

Effects of non-ionic iodinated contrast media on patient heart rate and pressures during intra-cardiac or intra-arterial injection

PURPOSE: To compare the effects on heart rate (HR), on left ventricular (LV) or arterial pressures, and the general safety of a non-ionic low-osmolar contrast medium (CM) and a non-ionic iso-osmolar CM in patients undergoing cardiac angiography (CA) or peripheral intra-arterial digital subtraction angiography (IA-DSA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two double-blind, randomized studies were conducted in 216 patients who underwent CA (n=120) or peripheral IA-DSA (n=96). Patients referred for CA received a low-osmolar monomeric CM (iomeprol-350, n=60) or an iso-osmolar dimeric CM (iodixanol-320; n=60). HR and LV peak systolic and end-diastolic pressures were determined before and after the first injection during left and right coronary arteriography and left ventriculography. Monitoring for all types of adverse event (AE) was performed for 24 h following the procedure. t-tests were performed to compare CM for effects on HR. Patients referred for IA-DSA received iomeprol-300 (n=49) or iodixanol-320 (n=47). HR and arterial blood pressure (BP) were evaluated before and after the first 4 injections. Monitoring for AE was performed for 4 h following the procedure. Repeated-measures ANOVA was used to compare mean HR changes across the first 4 injections, whereas changes after the first injection were compared using t-tests. RESULTS: No significant differences were noted between iomeprol and iodixanol in terms of mean changes in HR during left coronary arteriography (p=0.8), right coronary arteriography (p=0.9), and left ventriculography (p=0.8). In patients undergoing IA-DSA, no differences between CM were noted for effects on mean HR after the first injection (p=0.6) or across the first 4 injections (p=0.2). No significant differences (p>0.05) were noted in terms of effects on arterial BP in either study or on LV pressures in patients undergoing CA. Non-serious AE considered possibly CM-related (primarily headache and events affecting the cardiovascular and digestive systems) were reported more frequently by patients undergoing CA and more frequently after iodixanol (14/60 [23.3%] and 2/47 [4.3%]; CA and IA-DSA, respectively) than iomeprol (10/60 [16.7%] and 1/49 [2%], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Iomeprol and iodixanol are safe and have equally negligible effects on HR and LV pressures or arterial BP during and after selective intra-cardiac injection and peripheral IA-DSA. CLINICAL APPLICATION: Iomeprol and iodixanol are safe and equally well tolerated with regard to cardiac rhythm and clinical preference should be based on diagnostic image quality alone.

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.