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.

Glucocorticoids reduce phobic fear in humans

Phobias are characterized by excessive fear, cued by the presence or anticipation of a fearful situation. Whereas it is well established that glucocorticoids are released in fearful situations, it is not known whether these hormones, in turn, modulate perceived fear. As extensive evidence indicates that elevated glucocorticoid levels impair the retrieval of emotionally arousing information, they might also inhibit retrieval of fear memory associated with phobia and, thereby, reduce phobic fear. Here, we investigated whether acutely administrated glucocorticoids reduced phobic fear in two double-blind, placebo-controlled studies in 40 subjects with social phobia and 20 subjects with spider phobia. In the social phobia study, cortisone (25 mg) administered orally 1 h before a socio-evaluative stressor significantly reduced self-reported fear during the anticipation, exposure, and recovery phase of the stressor. Moreover, the stress-induced release of cortisol in placebo-treated subjects correlated negatively with fear ratings, suggesting that endogenously released cortisol in the context of a phobic situation buffers fear symptoms. In the spider phobia study, repeated oral administration of cortisol (10 mg), but not placebo, 1 h before exposure to a spider photograph induced a progressive reduction of stimulus-induced fear. This effect was maintained when subjects were exposed to the stimulus again 2 days after the last cortisol administration, suggesting that cortisol may also have facilitated the extinction of phobic fear. Cortisol treatment did not reduce general, phobia-unrelated anxiety. In conclusion, the present findings in two distinct types of phobias indicate that glucocorticoid administration reduces phobic fear.

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.

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).

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.

Elective implantation of sirolimus-eluting stents for bifurcated and non-bifurcated unprotected left main coronary artery lesions: clinical outcomes at one year

AIMS: Recent studies of drug-eluting stents for unprotected left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease have been encouraging. We examined the performance of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) for this indication. METHODS AND RESULTS: This retrospective study included 228 consecutive patients (mean age = 68 +/- 11 years, 80.6% men, 26.3% diabetics) who underwent implantation of SES for de novo LMCA stenoses. The mean additive and logistic EuroSCOREs were 5.2 +/- 3.9 and 8.2 +/- 13.2, respectively. The main objective of this study was to measure the rate of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), including death, myocardial infarction and target lesion revascularisation (TLR) at 12 months. Other objectives were to measure the rates of in-hospital MACE and 12-month TLR. Outcomes in 143 patients with (BIF+ group), versus 84 patients without (BIF-group) involvement of the bifurcation were compared. The pre-procedural percent diameter stenosis (%DS) was 60.1 +/- 11.2 in the BIF+ versus 54.7 +/- 12.2% in the BIF- group (p=0.008), and decreased to 18.0 +/- 9.7 and 13.9 +/- 11.3%, respectively (ns), after SES implant. The overall in-hospital MACE rate was 3.5%, and similar in both subgroups. The 1-year MACE rate was 14.5% overall, 16.8% in the BIF+ and 10.7% in the BIF- subgroup (ns). CONCLUSIONS: SES implants in high-risk patients with LMCA stenoses were associated with a low 1-year MACE rate. Stenting of the bifurcation was associated with significant increases in neither mortality nor 1-year MACE rate.

Impact of drug-eluting stent selection on long-term clinical outcomes in patients treated for unprotected left main coronary artery disease: the sirolimus vs paclitaxel drug-eluting stent for left main registry (SP-DELFT)

AIM: To compare the long-term relative efficacy and safety of SES and PES in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) disease and to evaluate the role of lesion location and stenting technique in determining outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: From April 2002 to April 2004, 288 consecutive patients who underwent elective PCI with DES implantation for de novo lesions on ULMCA have been retrospectively selected and analyzed in seven European and US tertiary care centers. All patients had a minimum follow-up of 3 years. SES was used in 152 patients while 136 received PES. Isolated ostial-shaft disease was present in 27% of patients. Distal LM disease (73%) was treated with single and double stent approach in 29.5% and 43.4% of patients respectively. After 3 years, rates of survival free from any of the events investigated, were independent from lesion location and stenting approach and did not differ significantly between SES and PES groups. Freedom from MACE (SES vs. PES) was 76.3% vs. 83.1% in the ostial/shaft group, 80.3% vs. 72.8% in the distal-single stent group and 67.1% vs. 66.2% in the distal-double stent group. Definite stent thrombosis occurred only in 1(0.3%) patient at 439 days. CONCLUSIONS: In elective patients who underwent PCI for de novo lesions in the ostium, shaft or distal ULMCA, long-term clinical outcomes with SES and PES use were similar independently of lesion location and stenting technique.

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.

Endothelialization of sirolimus-eluting stents with slow and extended drug release in the porcine overstretch model

BACKGROUND: Vascular healing of intracoronary stents has been shown to be delayed in drug-eluting stents (DES) due to the cytotoxic compounds on the stent surface that prevent stent ingrowth and endothelialization. The lack of endothelialization explains the occurrence of late and very late stent thrombosis in DES. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 11 house swines (body weight 38-45 kg), 3 stents were implanted randomly into the 3 large epicardial coronary arteries, namely a bare-metal stent (BMS), a sirolimus-eluting stent with slow-release (SES) and a SES with extended-release (SESXR). Stent length was 18 mm, and stent diameter 3 mm. All stents were of identical design. Animals were followed for 3 (n = 3), 7 (n = 4) and 14 (n = 4) days, respectively. One animal died before implantation due to hyperthermia. On the day of explantation, the animals were euthanized and endothelialization was tested by scanning electron microscopy after drying and sputtering the samples. Endothelial coverage was determined semiquantitatively by 2 observers. RESULTS: Endothelialization was more rapid with BMS and SESXR than SES at 3 and 14 days. At 7 days there were no significant differences between the 2 SES. CONCLUSIONS: Endothelialization of intracoronary stents is faster with BMS and SESXR at 3 days than with SES. These differences persist at 14 days, suggesting delayed vascular healing with the slow-release SES.

Impact of body mass index on the one-year clinical outcome of patients undergoing multivessel revascularization with sirolimus-eluting stents (from the Arterial Revascularization Therapies Study Part II)

The differential safety and efficacy profiles of sirolimus-eluting stents when implanted in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease who have increased body mass indexes (BMIs) compared with those with normal BMIs are largely unknown. This study evaluated the impact of BMI on 1-year outcomes in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease treated with sirolimus-eluting stents as part of the Arterial Revascularization Therapies Study Part II (ARTS II). From February to November 2003, 607 patients were included at 45 centers; 176 patients had normal BMIs (<25 kg/m(2)), 289 were overweight (> or =25 and < or =30 kg/m(2)), and 142 were obese (>30 kg/m(2)). At 30 days, the cumulative incidence of the primary combined end point of death, myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accident, and repeat revascularization (major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events) was 3.4% in the group with normal BMIs, 3.1% in overweight patients, and 2.8% in obese patients (p = 0.76). At 1 year, the cumulative incidence of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events was 10.8%, 11.8%, and 7.0% in the normal BMI, overweight, and obese groups, respectively (p = 0.31). In conclusion, BMI had no impact on 1-year clinical outcomes in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease treated with sirolimus-eluting stents in ARTS II.

Prognostic value of the modified American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association lesion morphology classification for clinical outcome after sirolimus-eluting stent placement (results of the prospective multicenter German Cypher Registry)

The modified American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) lesion morphology classification scheme has prognostic impact for early and late outcomes when bare-metal stents are used. Its value after drug-eluting stent placement is unknown. The predictive value of this lesion morphology classification system in patients treated using sirolimus-eluting stents included in the German Cypher Registry was prospectively examined. The study population included 6,755 patients treated for 7,960 lesions using sirolimus-eluting stents. Lesions were classified as type A, B1, B2, or C. Lesion type A or B1 was considered simple (35.1%), and type B2 or C, complex (64.9%). The combined end point of all deaths, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization was seen in 2.6% versus 2.4% in the complex and simple groups, respectively (p = 0.62) at initial hospital discharge, with a trend for higher rates of myocardial infarction in the complex group. At the 6-month clinical follow-up and after adjusting for other independent factors, the composite of cumulative death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization was nonsignificantly different between groups (11.4% vs 11.2% in the complex and simple groups, respectively; odds ratio 1.08, 95% confidence interval 0.8 to 1.46). This was also true for target vessel revascularization alone (8.3% of the complex group, 9.0% of the simple group; odds ratio 0.87, 95% confidence interval 0.72 to 1.05). In conclusion, the modified ACC/AHA lesion morphology classification system has some value in determining early complications after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation. Clinical follow-up results at 6 months were generally favorable and cannot be adequately differentiated on the basis of this lesion morphology classification scheme.

The self-administered 24-item geriatric pain measure (GPM-24-SA): psychometric properties in three European populations of community-dwelling older adults

OBJECTIVE: To explore the feasibility and psychometric properties of a self-administered version of the 24-item Geriatric Pain Measure (GPM-24-SA). DESIGN: Secondary analysis of baseline data from the Prevention in Older People-Assessment in Generalists' practices trial, an international multi-center study of a health-risk appraisal system. PARTICIPANTS: One thousand seventy-two community dwelling nondisabled older adults self-reporting pain from London, UK; Hamburg, Germany; and Solothurn, Switzerland. OUTCOME MEASURES: GPM-24-SA as part of a multidimensional Health Risk Appraisal Questionnaire including self-reported demographic and health-related information. RESULTS: Among the 1,072 subjects, 655 had complete GPM-24-SA data, 404 had 30% missing GPM-24-SA data. In psychometric analyses across the three European populations with complete GPM-24-SA data, the measure exhibited stable internal consistency, good convergent, divergent and discriminant validity, and produced stable pain measurements. However, factor analysis indicated differences in the GPM-24-SA across sites with discrepancies mainly related to items of a single subscale that failed to load appropriately. Analyses including imputation for subjects with