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.

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.

[Treatment after drug-eluting stent placement]

The use of drug-eluting stents (DES) in percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) decreased the rate of restenosis and hence the need for repeat revascularization by 50-71%. DES have changed PCI. DES allow successful revascularization of anatomically challenging lesions, such as long, thin vessels, bifurcation lesions, and chronic total occlusions. A rare, but severe complication of coronary stenting is stent thrombosis, a partial or total thrombotic occlusion of the stent. The use of DES for increasingly more complex lesions, the prothrombotic effect of the antiproliferative substances, and a delayed endothelialization of DES all potentially prolong and increase the risk of stent thrombosis. Dual antiplatelet therapy for 1 year is therefore recommended after DES placement. There is currently no evidence for the efficacy and safety of routine dual antiplatelet therapy beyond 1 year. It is also recommended postponing elective surgery for 1 year and, if surgery cannot be deferred, considering continuation of acetylsalicylic acid during the perioperative period in high-risk patients with DES.

Drug-eluting stent and coronary thrombosis: biological mechanisms and clinical implications

Although rare, stent thrombosis remains a severe complication after stent implantation owing to its high morbidity and mortality. Since the introduction of drug-eluting stents (DES), most interventional centers have noted stent thrombosis up to 3 years after implantation, a complication rarely seen with bare-metal stents. Some data from large registries and meta-analyses of randomized trials indicate a higher risk for DES thrombosis, whereas others suggest an absence of such a risk. Several factors are associated with an increased risk of stent thrombosis, including the procedure itself (stent malapposition and/or underexpansion, number of implanted stents, stent length, persistent slow coronary blood flow, and dissections), patient and lesion characteristics, stent design, and premature cessation of antiplatelet drugs. Drugs released from DES exert distinct biological effects, such as activation of signal transduction pathways and inhibition of cell proliferation. As a result, although primarily aimed at preventing vascular smooth muscle cell proliferation and migration (ie, key factors in the development of restenosis), they also impair reendothelialization, which leads to delayed arterial healing, and induce tissue factor expression, which results in a prothrombogenic environment. In the same way, polymers used to load these drugs have been associated with DES thrombosis. Finally, DES impair endothelial function of the coronary artery distal to the stent, which potentially promotes the risk of ischemia and coronary occlusion. Although several reports raise the possibility of a substantially higher risk of stent thrombosis in DES, evidence remains inconclusive; as a consequence, both large-scale and long-term clinical trials, as well as further mechanistic studies, are needed. The present review focuses on the pathophysiological mechanisms and pathological findings of stent thrombosis in DES.

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.

Simultaneous subacute coronary drug-eluting stent thrombosis in two different vessels of a patient with factor V Leiden mutation

We review the case of a 46-year-old man who underwent elective percutaneous coronary intervention and stenting of the left anterior descending artery and right coronary artery with two sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents. Four days after angioplasty, he was readmitted with cardiogenic shock due to acute anterior and inferior myocardial infarction. Coronary angiography revealed subacute thrombosis of both stents, and balloon dilation was performed successfully thereafter. The follow-up investigations revealed that the patient was a carrier of factor V Leiden. We hereby discuss the importance of factor V Leiden as the most common cause of hypercoagulable state and its probable role in acute and subacute coronary stent thrombosis in drug-eluting stents.

Rotational atherectomy followed by drug-eluting stent implantation (Rota-DES): a rational approach for complex calcified coronary lesions

Rotational atherectomy has been regaining interest over the last couple of years after it almost has disappeared from most interventional catheterization laboratories for several years due to failure to prove its original concept of improving long term results of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) as was repeatedly shown in studies in the 1990s. Its revival coupled the introduction of drug-eluting stents (DES); these devices have led to treating much more complex lesions and high-risk patients by PCI. However, real-world experience suggested that off-label use of DES is associated with a higher rate of early and late stent thrombosis. Therefore, more attention is now being paid to the initial implantation technique of DES including aggressive lesion preparation to facilitate stent delivery and expansion. The limited studies with rot-ablation and DES showed promising results with no long term safety concerns. In these studies, a subtle observation was made suggesting that rot-ablation prior to DES implantation in such lesions may have an add-on effect on long term outcome compared to DES alone. An ongoing multicenter study is investigating such effect among complex calcified coronary lesions. Even if this additive benefit does not prove true, rot-ablation remains an efficient tool for preparing certain lesions to facilitate effective and safe DES implantation. Therefore, interventional training programs should focus on this difficult technique to bridge the gap of experience which resulted from neglecting it for several years. In this regard, dedicated courses at experienced sites as well as medical simulation may be appropriate.

Drug-eluting stent thrombosis

Drug-eluting stents (DES) have reduced the risk of repeat revascularization procedures by 50-70% compared with bare metal stents across a wide range of lesion and patients subsets. Stent thrombosis is a rare but devastating adverse event, which results in abrupt closure of the treated artery with the incumbent risk of sudden death or myocardial infarction. Although stent thrombosis has been recognized as a shortcoming of coronary artery stents since there inception, very late stent thrombosis occurring more than one year after stent implantation emerged as a new entity complicating the use of DES. The mechanisms leading to very late ST are complex and only incompletely understood. Delayed healing and incomplete re-endothelialization emerged as prevailing mechanism of thrombosis in autopsy studies. Various components of DES may give rise to very late stent thrombosis, notably the polymers used for controlled drug-release. Newer generation DES attempt to address these concerns by aiming at improved vascular healing while maintaining potent neointimal suppression.

Improved safety and reduction in stent thrombosis associated with biodegradable polymer-based biolimus-eluting stents versus durable polymer-based sirolimus-eluting stents in patients with coronary artery disease: final 5-year report of the LEADERS (Limus Eluted From A Durable Versus ERodable Stent Coating) randomized, noninferiority trial

OBJECTIVES This study sought to report the final 5 years follow-up of the landmark LEADERS (Limus Eluted From A Durable Versus ERodable Stent Coating) trial. BACKGROUND The LEADERS trial is the first randomized study to evaluate biodegradable polymer-based drug-eluting stents (DES) against durable polymer DES. METHODS The LEADERS trial was a 10-center, assessor-blind, noninferiority, "all-comers" trial (N = 1,707). All patients were centrally randomized to treatment with either biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stents (BES) (n = 857) or durable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) (n = 850). The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), or clinically indicated target vessel revascularization within 9 months. Secondary endpoints included extending the primary endpoint to 5 years and stent thrombosis (ST) (Academic Research Consortium definition). Analysis was by intention to treat. RESULTS At 5 years, the BES was noninferior to SES for the primary endpoint (186 [22.3%] vs. 216 [26.1%], rate ratio [RR]: 0.83 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.68 to 1.02], p for noninferiority <0.0001, p for superiority = 0.069). The BES was associated with a significant reduction in the more comprehensive patient-orientated composite endpoint of all-cause death, any MI, and all-cause revascularization (297 [35.1%] vs. 339 [40.4%], RR: 0.84 [95% CI: 0.71 to 0.98], p for superiority = 0.023). A significant reduction in very late definite ST from 1 to 5 years was evident with the BES (n = 5 [0.7%] vs. n = 19 [2.5%], RR: 0.26 [95% CI: 0.10 to 0.68], p = 0.003), corresponding to a significant reduction in ST-associated clinical events (primary endpoint) over the same time period (n = 3 of 749 vs. n = 14 of 738, RR: 0.20 [95% CI: 0.06 to 0.71], p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS The safety benefit of the biodegradable polymer BES, compared with the durable polymer SES, was related to a significant reduction in very late ST (>1 year) and associated composite clinical outcomes. (Limus Eluted From A Durable Versus ERodable Stent Coating [LEADERS] trial; NCT00389220).

Clinical outcomes after zotarolimus and everolimus drug eluting stent implantation in coronary artery bifurcation lesions: insights from the RESOLUTE All Comers Trial

OBJECTIVE We investigated clinical outcomes after treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions with second generation drug eluting stents (DES). DESIGN Post hoc analysis of a randomised, multicentre, non-inferiority trial. SETTING Multicentre study. PATIENTS All comers study with minimal exclusion criteria. INTERVENTIONS Patients were treated with either zotarolimus or everolimus eluting stents. The patient population was divided according to treatment of bifurcation or non-bifurcation lesions and clinical outcomes were compared between groups. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES Clinical outcomes within 2-year follow-up. RESULTS A total of 2265 patients were included in the present analysis. Two-year follow-up data were available in 2223 patients: 1838 patients in the non-bifurcation group and 385 patients in the bifurcation group. At 2-year follow-up the bifurcation and the non-bifurcation lesion groups showed no significant differences in terms of cardiac death (2.3 vs 2.1, p=0.273), target lesion failure (9.7% vs 13.8%, p=0.255), major adverse cardiac events (11.5% vs 15.1%, p=0.305), target lesion revascularisation (4.7% vs 6.0%, p=0.569), and definite or probable stent thrombosis (1.6% vs 1.8%, p=0.419). CONCLUSIONS The use of second generation DES for the treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions was associated with similar long term mortality and clinical outcomes compared with non-bifurcation lesions.

Randomized comparison of biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents for percutaneous coronary revascularization: Rationale and design of the BIOSCIENCE trial

Background Biodegradable polymers for release of antiproliferative drugs from metallic drug-eluting stents (DES) aim to improve long-term vascular healing and efficacy. We designed a large scale clinical trial to compare a novel thin strut, cobalt chromium DES with silicon carbide coating releasing sirolimus from a biodegradable polymer (Orsiro, O-SES) with the durable polymer-based Xience Prime everolimus-eluting stent (X-EES) in an all-comers patient population. Design The multicenter BIOSCIENCE trial (NCT01443104) randomly assigned 2,119 patients to treatment with biodegradable polymer SES or durable polymer EES at 9 sites in Switzerland. Patients with chronic stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes, including non-ST-elevation and ST-elevation myocardial infarction, were eligible for the trial if they had at least one lesion with a diameter stenosis >50% appropriate for coronary stent implantation. The primary endpoint target lesion failure (TLF) is a composite of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically-driven target lesion revascularization within 12 months. Assuming a TLF rate of 8% at 12 months in both treatment arms and accepting 3.5% as a margin for non-inferiority, inclusion of 2,060 patients would provide 80% power to detect non-inferiority of the biodegradable polymer SES compared with the durable polymer EES at a one-sided type I error of 0.05. Clinical follow-up will be continued through five years. Conclusion The BIOSCIENCE trial will determine whether the biodegradable polymer SES is non-inferior to the durable polymer EES with respect to TLF.

Long-Term Comparison of Everolimus-Eluting and Biolimus-Eluting Stents in All-Comer Patients

AIMS: Second-generation everolimus-eluting stents (EES) are safer and more efficient than first-generation paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES). Third-generation biolimus-eluting stents (BES) have been found to be non-inferior to PES. To date, there is no available comparative study between EES and BES. We aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of BES with biodegradable polymer compared to EES with durable polymer at a follow-up of two years in an unselected population of consecutively enrolled patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: A group of 814 consecutive patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was enrolled between 2007 and 2010, of which 527 were treated with EES and 287 with BES implantation. Clinical outcome was compared in 200 pairs using propensity score matching. The primary endpoint was a composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI) and target vessel revascularisation (TVR) at two-year follow-up. Median follow-up was 22 months. The primary outcome occurred in 11.5% of EES and 10.5% of BES patients (HR 1.11, 95% CI: 0.61-2.00, p=0.74). At two years, there was no significant difference with regard to death (HR 0.49, 95% CI: 0.18-1.34, p=0.17), cardiac death (HR 0.14, 95% CI: 0.02-1.14, p=0.66) or MI (HR 6.10, 95% CI: 0.73-50.9, p=0.10). Stent thrombosis (ST) incidence was evenly distributed between EES (n=2) and BES (n=2) (p-value=1.0). CONCLUSIONS: This first clinical study failed to demonstrate any significant difference regarding safety or efficacy between these two types and generations of drug-eluting stents (DES).

Safety and efficacy of resolute zotarolimus-eluting stents compared with everolimus-eluting stents: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND Although new-generation drug-eluting stents represent the standard of care among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, there remains debate about differences in efficacy and the risk of stent thrombosis between the Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stent (R-ZES) and the everolimus-eluting stent (EES). The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the R-ZES compared with EES in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS AND RESULTS A systematic literature search of electronic resources was performed using specific search terms until September 2014. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed comparing clinical outcomes between patients treated with R-ZES and EES up to maximum available follow-up. The primary efficacy end point was target-vessel revascularization. The primary safety end point was definite or probable stent thrombosis. Secondary safety end points were cardiac death and target-vessel myocardial infarction. Five trials were identified, including a total of 9899 patients. Compared with EES, R-ZES had similar risks of target-vessel revascularization (risk ratio [RR], 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90-1.24; P=0.50), definite or probable stent thrombosis (RR, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.86-1.85; P=0.24), cardiac death (RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.79-1.30; P=0.91), and target-vessel myocardial infarction (RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.89-1.36; P=0.39). Moreover, R-ZES and EES had similar risks of late definite or probable very late stent thrombosis (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.53-2.11; P=0.87). No evidence of significant heterogeneity was observed across trials. CONCLUSIONS R-ZES and EES provide similar safety and efficacy among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

Stent Thrombosis in Drug-Eluting or Bare-Metal Stents in Patients Receiving Dual Antiplatelet Therapy

OBJECTIVES This study sought to compare rates of stent thrombosis and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) (composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) after coronary stenting with drug-eluting stents (DES) versus bare-metal stents (BMS) in patients who participated in the DAPT (Dual Antiplatelet Therapy) study, an international multicenter randomized trial comparing 30 versus 12 months of dual antiplatelet therapy in subjects undergoing coronary stenting with either DES or BMS. BACKGROUND Despite antirestenotic efficacy of coronary DES compared with BMS, the relative risk of stent thrombosis and adverse cardiovascular events is unclear. Many clinicians perceive BMS to be associated with fewer adverse ischemic events and to require shorter-duration dual antiplatelet therapy than DES. METHODS Prospective propensity-matched analysis of subjects enrolled into a randomized trial of dual antiplatelet therapy duration was performed. DES- and BMS-treated subjects were propensity-score matched in a many-to-one fashion. The study design was observational for all subjects 0 to 12 months following stenting. A subset of eligible subjects without major ischemic or bleeding events were randomized at 12 months to continued thienopyridine versus placebo; all subjects were followed through 33 months. RESULTS Among 10,026 propensity-matched subjects, DES-treated subjects (n = 8,308) had a lower rate of stent thrombosis through 33 months compared with BMS-treated subjects (n = 1,718, 1.7% vs. 2.6%; weighted risk difference -1.1%, p = 0.01) and a noninferior rate of MACCE (11.4% vs. 13.2%, respectively, weighted risk difference -1.8%, p = 0.053, noninferiority p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS DES-treated subjects have long-term rates of stent thrombosis that are lower than BMS-treated subjects. (The Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Study [DAPT study]; NCT00977938).