Long-term outcome of the unrestricted use of everolimus-eluting stents compared to sirolimus-eluting stents and paclitaxel-eluting stents in diabetic patients: The Bern–Rotterdam diabetes cohort study

BACKGROUND Newer generation everolimus-eluting stents (EES) improve clinical outcome compared to early generation sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES). We investigated whether the advantage in safety and efficacy also holds among the high-risk population of diabetic patients during long-term follow-up. METHODS Between 2002 and 2009, a total of 1963 consecutive diabetic patients treated with the unrestricted use of EES (n=804), SES (n=612) and PES (n=547) were followed throughout three years for the occurrence of cardiac events at two academic institutions. The primary end point was the occurrence of definite stent thrombosis. RESULTS The primary outcome occurred in 1.0% of EES, 3.7% of SES and 3.8% of PES treated patients ([EES vs. SES] adjusted HR=0.58, 95% CI 0.39-0.88; [EES vs. PES] adjusted HR=0.29, 95% CI 0.13-0.67). Similarly, patients treated with EES had a lower risk of target-lesion revascularization (TLR) compared to patients treated with SES and PES ([EES vs. SES], 5.6% vs. 11.5%, adjusted HR=0.68, 95% CI: 0.55-0.83; [EES vs. PES], 5.6% vs. 11.3%, adjusted HR=0.51, 95% CI: 0.33-0.77). There were no differences in other safety end points, such as all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, myocardial infarction (MI) and MACE. CONCLUSION In diabetic patients, the unrestricted use of EES appears to be associated with improved outcomes, specifically a significant decrease in the need for TLR and ST compared to early generation SES and PES throughout 3-year follow-up.

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.

Stent thrombosis in early-generation drug-eluting stents versus newer-generation everolimus-eluting stent assorted by LVEF.

OBJECTIVE Everolimus drug-eluting stents (EES) are superior to early-generation drug-eluting stents (DES), releasing sirolimus (SES) or paclitaxel (PES) in preventing stent thrombosis (ST). Since an impaired LVEF seems to increase the risk of ST, we aimed to investigate the difference in outcome of patients with varying LVEF using EES versus early-generation DES. METHODS In a prospective cohort study, we compared the risk of ST in patients in three LVEF subgroups: normal (LVEF >50%), mildly impaired (LVEF >40% and ≤50%) and moderate-severely impaired (LVEF ≤40%). Within these various LVEF groups, we compared EES with SES and PES after adjustment for baseline differences. RESULTS We assessed a cohort of 5363 patients, with follow-up of up to 4 years and available LVEF. Overall definite ST occurred in 123 (2.3%) patients. ST rates were higher in the LVEF moderate-severely impaired group compared with the normal LVEF group (2.8% vs 2.1%; HR 1.82; CI 1.10 to 3.00). Especially early ST (EST) was more frequent in the moderate-severely impaired LVEF group (HR 2.20; CI 1.06 to 4.53). Overall rates of definite ST were lower in patients using EES compared with patients using SES or PES in all LVEF groups. Interaction terms were not statistically significant. ST rates were higher in the moderate-severely impaired LVEF group compared with the normal LVEF group when using SES or PES, but not significantly different when using EES. CONCLUSIONS EES was associated with a lower risk of definite ST compared with early-generation DES. This lower risk was independent of LVEF, even though ST rates were higher in patients with a moderate-severely impaired LVEF. TRIAL REGISTRATION NO MEC-2013-262.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

Clinical long-term outcome after implantation of titanium nitride-oxide coated stents compared with paclitaxel- or sirolimus-eluting stents: propensity-score matched analysis

We performed a propensity score matched analysis to explore whether TiNOX stents are superior to paclitaxel- (PES) and sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) in routine clinical practice.

Long-term vascular healing in response to sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents: an optical coherence tomography study

This study sought to assess stent strut coverage, malapposition, protrusion, and coronary evaginations as markers of healing 5 years after implantation of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES), by optical coherence tomography (OCT).

Sirolimus-eluting coronary stents in small vessels

BACKGROUND: This prospective multicenter study compared angiographic in-lesion late lumen loss in de novo native coronary artery lesions (vessel diameter range 2.25-2.75 mm, length range > or = 15 to < or = 30 mm) 8 months after the implantation of a sirolimus-eluting stent with that of similar vessels with the same drug-eluting stent or a bare stent of the SIRIUS study (historical controls). METHODS AND RESULTS: One hundred one patients (study group) were matched and compared with 323 patients receiving the bare stent (bare control group) and with 350 receiving the Cypher stent (Cypher control group) in the SIRIUS trial. Mean in-lesion late loss in the study group was lower than that in the bare control group (0.20 versus 0.76 mm, P < .0001) and not inferior to that in the Cypher control group (0.27 mm, P = .3). Adverse event rates (death and myocardial infarction) were similar between groups. At 8 months, target lesion revascularization rates were 0% in the study group, 13.2% in the bare control group (P < .001), and 4.6% in the Cypher control group (P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: The Cypher Bx Velocity stent was confirmed to be superior to the bare Bx Velocity stent in small coronary vessels in terms of in-lesion late loss 8 months after implantation.

Periprocedural and late consequences of overlapping Cypher sirolimus-eluting stents: pooled analysis of five clinical trials

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this research was to determine the relative safety and efficacy of multiple (> or =2) overlapping Cypher sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) (Johnson ; Johnson, New Brunswick, New Jersey). BACKGROUND: Overlapping coronary stents are common. The periprocedural and late clinical and angiographic consequences of overlapped coronary stents are not clearly defined, particularly for drug-eluting stents. METHODS: All patients enrolled into five clinical trials of the SES were analyzed. Three of these trials were prospective randomized comparisons of the SES to the bare-metal stent (BMS), and two were prospective non-randomized trials of SES-treated patients with historical controls. All clinical and angiographic outcomes in overlap-stent-treated patients were compared by stent type and with single-stent-treated patients for the same stent device. RESULTS: In all, 575 patients with stent overlap (337 SES, 238 BMS) and 1,162 patients with single stents (697 SES, 465 BMS) were analyzed. Stent overlap was associated with a greater late lumen loss in stent and more frequent angiographic restenosis regardless of stent type. Among overlap-stent-treated patients, the SES provided similar magnitude of restenosis benefit as observed for single-stent-treated patients. Overlapped SES was not associated with an increase in myocardial infarction. CONCLUSIONS: The strategy of SES overlap, when required, is both safe and efficacious in reducing restenosis with no increase in the incidence of myocardial infarction or major adverse cardiovascular events, when compared with a bare metal coronary stent prosthesis.

Sirolimus- vs paclitaxel-eluting stents in de novo coronary artery lesions: the REALITY trial: a randomized controlled trial

CONTEXT: Compared with bare metal stents, sirolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents have been shown to markedly improve angiographic and clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary revascularization, but their performance in the treatment of de novo coronary lesions has not been compared in a prospective multicenter study. OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety and efficacy of sirolimus-eluting vs paclitaxel-eluting coronary stents. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized comparative trial (the REALITY trial) conducted between August 2003 and February 2004, with angiographic follow-up at 8 months and clinical follow-up at 12 months. SETTING: Ninety hospitals in Europe, Latin America, and Asia. PATIENTS: A total of 1386 patients (mean age, 62.6 years; 73.1% men; 28.0% with diabetes) with angina pectoris and 1 or 2 de novo lesions (2.25-3.00 mm in diameter) in native coronary arteries. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive a sirolimus-eluting stent (n = 701) or a paclitaxel-eluting stent (n = 685). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary end point was in-lesion binary restenosis (presence of a more than 50% luminal-diameter stenosis) at 8 months. Secondary end points included 1-year rates of target lesion and vessel revascularization and a composite end point of cardiac death, Q-wave or non-Q-wave myocardial infarction, coronary artery bypass graft surgery, or repeat target lesion revascularization. RESULTS: In-lesion binary restenosis at 8 months occurred in 86 patients (9.6%) with a sirolimus-eluting stent vs 95 (11.1%) with a paclitaxel-eluting stent (relative risk [RR], 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61-1.17; P = .31). For sirolimus- vs paclitaxel-eluting stents, respectively, the mean (SD) in-stent late loss was 0.09 (0.43) mm vs 0.31 (0.44) mm (difference, -0.22 mm; 95% CI, -0.26 to -0.18 mm; P<.001), mean (SD) in-stent diameter stenosis was 23.1% (16.6%) vs 26.7% (15.8%) (difference, -3.60%; 95% CI, -5.12% to -2.08%; P<.001), and the number of major adverse cardiac events at 1 year was 73 (10.7%) vs 76 (11.4%) (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.69-1.27; P = .73). CONCLUSION: In this trial comparing sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting coronary stents, there were no differences in the rates of binary restenosis or major adverse cardiac events. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00235092.

A meta-analysis of 16 randomized trials of sirolimus-eluting stents versus paclitaxel-eluting stents in patients with coronary artery disease

OBJECTIVES: Our purpose was to make a synthesis of the available evidence on the relative efficacy and safety of 2 drug-eluting stents (DES)--sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES)--in patients with coronary artery disease. BACKGROUND: It is not known whether there are differences in late outcomes between the 2 most commonly used DES: SES and PES. METHODS: Sixteen randomized trials of SES versus PES with a total number of 8,695 patients were included in this meta-analysis. A full set of individual outcome data from 5,562 patients was also available. Mean follow-up period ranged from 9 to 37 months. The primary efficacy end point was the need for reintervention (target lesion revascularization). The primary safety end point was stent thrombosis. Secondary end points were death and recurrent myocardial infarction (MI). RESULTS: No significant heterogeneity was found across trials. Compared with PES, SES significantly reduced the risk of reintervention (hazard ratio [HR] 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.63 to 0.87, p < 0.001) and stent thrombosis (HR 0.66; 95% CI 0.46 to 0.94, p = 0.02) without significantly impacting on the risk of death (HR 0.92; 95% CI 0.74 to 1.13, p = 0.43) or MI (HR 0.84; 95% CI 0.69 to 1.03, p = 0.10). CONCLUSIONS: Sirolimus-eluting stents are superior to PES in terms of a significant reduction of the risk of reintervention and stent thrombosis. The risk of death was not significantly different between the 2 DES, but there was a trend toward a higher risk of MI with PES, especially after the first year from the procedure.