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.

Outcomes associated with drug-eluting and bare-metal stents: a collaborative network meta-analysis

Whether the two drug-eluting stents approved by the US Food and Drug Administration-a sirolimus-eluting stent and a paclitaxel-eluting stent-are associated with increased risks of death, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis compared with bare-metal stents is uncertain. Our aim was to compare the safety and effectiveness of these stents.

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.

Temporary scaffolding of coronary arteries with bioabsorbable magnesium stents: a prospective, non-randomised multicentre trial

BACKGROUND: Coronary stents improve immediate and late results of balloon angioplasty by tacking up dissections and preventing wall recoil. These goals are achieved within weeks after angioplasty, but with current technology stents permanently remain in the artery, with many limitations including the need for long-term antiplatelet treatment to avoid thrombosis. We report a prospective multicentre clinical trial of coronary implantations of absorbable magnesium stents. METHODS: We enrolled 63 patients (44 men; mean age 61.3 [SD 9.5 years]) in eight centres with single de novo lesions in a native coronary artery in a multicentre, non-randomised prospective study. Follow-up included coronary angiography and intravascular ultrasound at 4 months and clinical assessment at 6 months and 12 months. The primary endpoint was cardiac death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target lesion revascularisation at 4 months FINDINGS: 71 stents, 10-15 mm in length and 3.0-3.5 mm in diameter, were successfully implanted after pre-dilatation in 63 patients. Diameter stenosis was reduced from 61.5 (SD 13.1%) to 12.6 (5.6%) with an acute gain of 1.41 mm (0.46 mm) and in-stent late loss of 1.08 mm (0.49 mm). The ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularisation rate was 23.8% after 4 months, and the overall target lesion revascularisation rate was 45% after 1 year. No myocardial infarction, subacute or late thrombosis, or death occurred. Angiography at 4 months showed an increased diameter stenosis of 48.4 (17.0%). After serial intravascular ultrasound examinations, only small remnants of the original struts were visible, well embedded into the intima. Neointimal growth and negative remodelling were the main operating mechanisms of restenosis. INTERPRETATION: This study shows that biodegradable magnesium stents can achieve an immediate angiographic result similar to the result of other metal stents and can be safely degraded after 4 months. Modifications of stent characteristics with prolonged degradation and drug elution are currently in development.

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.

Thrombosis and drug-eluting stents: an objective appraisal

Stent thrombosis (ST) after percutaneous coronary intervention has been the focus of intense interest because of its attendant morbidity and mortality. There is controversy about several facets of the problem. These include the frequency of ST with drug-eluting stents (DES) versus bare-metal stents (BMS), the timing of the event, clinical consequences, risk factors, adjunctive therapy, and new preventive approaches. Information has accrued rapidly from several sources, including randomized controlled clinical trials of DES versus BMS in carefully selected subsets of patients and registry experiences in larger patient groups, which provide a more universal real-world picture. The results from these different data sets are not completely concordant. However, several general conclusions can be made: 1) ST is an infrequent but very severe complication of both BMS and DES; 2) at the present time, during 4 years of follow-up from randomized controlled trials that compared DES and BMS, there is no apparent difference in overall ST frequency, although the time course for occurrence appears to differ, with a relative numeric excess of ST late after DES implant; 3) despite this relative imbalance, no differences in the end points of death or death and infarction between DES and BMS are observed; 4) longer-term follow-up of these patients as well as larger angiographic and clinical subsets of patients who receive this technology outside of randomized trials are required to fully study this issue; and 5) advances in stent platforms for drug elution as well as adjunctive pharmacologic therapy are being evaluated to enhance long-term safety.

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.

Drug-eluting stents - what should be improved?

Despite the success of drug-eluting stents (DES) in reducing restenosis and the need for target vessel revascularization, several deficiencies have been unraveled since their first clinical application including the risk of stent thrombosis, undesired effects due to the stent polymer as well as the stent itself, and incomplete inhibition of restenosis (especially in complex lesions). Several novel stent systems are being investigated in order to address these issues. In second-generation DES, the rapamycin analogues zotarolimus and everolimus (and more recently biolimus) have been most extensively studied. Furthermore, special stent-coatings to actively promote endothelial healing (in order to reduce the risk of stent thrombosis) and to further reduce restenosis have been employed. To avoid undesirable effects of currently applied (durable) polymers, biocompatible and bioabsorbable polymers as well as DES delivery systems without the need for a polymer have been developed. Bioabsorbable stents, both polymeric and metallic, were developed to decrease potential late complications after stent implantation. Although most of these innovative novel principles intuitively seem appealing and demonstrate good results in initial clinical evaluations, long-term large-scale studies are necessary in order to reliably assess whether these novel systems are truly superior to first-generation DES with respect to safety and efficacy.

Drug-eluting or bare-metal stents for large coronary vessel stenting? The BASKET-PROVE (PROspective Validation Examination) trial: study protocol and design

BACKGROUND: Based on a subgroup analysis of 18-month BAsel Stent Kosten Effektivitäts Trial (BASKET) outcome data, we hypothesized that very late (> 12 months) stent thrombosis occurs predominantly after drug-eluting stent implantation in large native coronary vessel stenting. METHODS: To prove or refute this hypothesis, we set up an 11-center 4-country prospective trial of 2260 consecutive patients treated with > or = 3.0-mm stents only, randomized to receive Cypher (Johnson ; Johnson, Miami Lakes, FL), Vision (Abbott Vascular, Abbott Laboratories, IL), or Xience stents (Abbott Vascular). Only patients with left main or bypass graft disease, in-stent restenosis or stent thrombosis, in need of nonheart surgery, at increased bleeding risk, without compliance/consent are excluded. All patients are treated with dual antiplatelet therapy for 12 months. The primary end point will be cardiac death/nonfatal myocardial infarction after 24 months with further follow-up up to 5 years. RESULTS: By June 12, 229 patients (10% of the planned total) were included with a baseline risk similar to that of the same subgroup of BASKET (n = 588). CONCLUSIONS: This study will answer several important questions of contemporary stent use in patients with large native vessel stenting. The 2-year death/myocardial infarction-as well as target vessel revascularization-and bleeding rates in these patients with a first- versus second-generation drug-eluting stent should demonstrate the benefit or harm of these stents compared to cobalt-chromium bare-metal stents in this relevant, low-risk group of everyday patients. In addition, a comparison with similar BASKET patients will allow to estimate the impact of 12- versus 6-month dual antiplatelet therapy on these outcomes.

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.