Long-term clinical and angiographic outcomes of diabetic patients after revascularization with early generation drug-eluting stents

Early generation drug-eluting stents (DESs) reduce restenosis and repeat revascularization procedures. However, the long-term safety and efficacy of early generation DES according to diabetic status are poorly established.

A prospective randomized multicenter comparison of balloon angioplasty and infrapopliteal stenting with the sirolimus-eluting stent in patients with ischemic peripheral arterial disease: 1-year results from the ACHILLES trial

The study investigated the efficacy and safety of a balloon expandable, sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) in patients with symptomatic infrapopliteal arterial disease.

SPIRIT Women, evaluation of the safety and efficacy of the XIENCE V everolimus-eluting stent system in female patients: referral time for coronary intervention and 2-year clinical outcomes

SPIRIT Women is the first interventional trial dedicated exclusively to women, focusing on symptoms at presentation, referral time to coronary intervention and the safety and performance of the XIENCE V stent.

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.

Efficacy of drug eluting stents in patients with and without diabetes mellitus: indirect comparison of controlled trials

To examine whether polymer based coronary stents eluting sirolimus or paclitaxel are equally effective in patients with and without diabetes.

Local vascular dysfunction after coronary paclitaxel-eluting stent implantation

BACKGROUND: Paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) have been shown to reduce the rate of restenosis and the need for repeated revascularization procedures compared with bare metal stents. However, long-term effects of paclitaxel on vascular function are unknown. The purpose of the present study was to assess coronary vasomotor response to exercise after paclitaxel-eluting stent implantation. METHODS: Coronary vasomotion was evaluated by biplane quantitative coronary angiography at rest and during supine bicycle exercise in 27 patients with coronary artery disease. Twelve patients were treated with a bare metal stent (controls), and fifteen patients with a paclitaxel-eluting stent. All patients were restudied 6+/-2 (range 2-12) months after stent implantation. Minimal luminal diameter, stent diameter, proximal, distal and a reference vessel diameter were determined. RESULTS: Reference vessels showed exercise-induced vasodilation in both groups (+20+/-5% controls; +26+/-3% PES group). Vasomotion within the stented vessel segments was abolished. In the controls, the adjacent segments proximal and distal to the stent showed exercise-induced vasodilation (+17+/-3% and +24+/-4%). In contrast, there was exercise-induced vasoconstriction of the proximal and distal vessel segments adjacent to the paclitaxel-eluting stent (-13+/-6% and -18+/-4%; p<0.005). After sublingual nitroglycerin, the proximal and distal vessel segments dilated in both groups. Exercise-induced vasoconstriction adjacent to paclitaxel-eluting stent correlated inversely with the time interval after stent implantation. CONCLUSIONS: Paclitaxel-eluting stent implantation is associated with exercise-induced vasoconstriction in the persistent region suggesting endothelial dysfunction as the underlying mechanism. Improvement of vascular function occurs over time, indicating delayed vascular healing.

Clinical end points in coronary stent trials: a case for standardized definitions

BACKGROUND: Although most clinical trials of coronary stents have measured nominally identical safety and effectiveness end points, differences in definitions and timing of assessment have created confusion in interpretation. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Academic Research Consortium is an informal collaboration between academic research organizations in the United States and Europe. Two meetings, in Washington, DC, in January 2006 and in Dublin, Ireland, in June 2006, sponsored by the Academic Research Consortium and including representatives of the US Food and Drug Administration and all device manufacturers who were working with the Food and Drug Administration on drug-eluting stent clinical trial programs, were focused on consensus end point definitions for drug-eluting stent evaluations. The effort was pursued with the objective to establish consistency among end point definitions and provide consensus recommendations. On the basis of considerations from historical legacy to key pathophysiological mechanisms and relevance to clinical interpretability, criteria for assessment of death, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization, and stent thrombosis were developed. The broadly based consensus end point definitions in this document may be usefully applied or recognized for regulatory and clinical trial purposes. CONCLUSION: Although consensus criteria will inevitably include certain arbitrary features, consensus criteria for clinical end points provide consistency across studies that can facilitate the evaluation of safety and effectiveness of these devices.

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.

Impact of vessel size on angiographic and clinical outcomes of revascularization with biolimus-eluting stent with biodegradable polymer and sirolimus-eluting stent with durable polymer the LEADERS trial substudy

OBJECTIVES: We assessed the impact of vessel size on outcomes of stenting with biolimus-eluting degradable polymer stent (BES) and sirolimus-eluting permanent polymer stent (SES) within a randomized multicenter trial (LEADERS). BACKGROUND: Stenting of small vessels might be associated with higher rates of adverse events. METHODS: "All-comer" patients (n = 1,707) were randomized to BES and SES. Post-hoc-stratified analysis of angiographic and clinical outcomes at 9 months and 1 year, respectively, was performed for vessels with reference diameter 2.75 mm. RESULTS: Of 1,707 patients, 429 patients in the BES group with 576 lesions and 434 patients in the SES group with 557 lesions had only small vessels treated (50.6% of the patient cohort). In patients with small vessels there was no significant difference in overall major adverse cardiac events (MACE) rate (12.1% vs. 11.8%; p = 0.89) or target lesion revascularization (TLR) rate (9.6% vs. 7.4%; p = 0.26) between BES and SES. The MACE and TLR rates in the small-vessel patient population were higher than in the large-vessel population. The TLR rate was 9.6% versus 2.6%, and MACE rate was 12.1% versus 7.1% for small versus large vessels in the BES arm (TLR: hazard ratio [HR] = 3.724, p = 0.0013; MACE: HR = 1.720, p = 0.0412). In the SES arm, TLR was 7.4% versus 5.1%, and MACE was 11.8% versus 10.3% in small versus large vessels (TLR: HR = 1.435, p = 0.2594; MACE: HR = 1.149, p = 0.5546). CONCLUSIONS: Prevalence of small vessel disease is high in an "all-comer" population with higher TLR and MACE rates. The BES and SES seem equivalent in treatment outcomes of small vessels in this "all-comer" patient population.