Edge vascular response after polymer-free vs. polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stent implantation.

BACKGROUND It is unknown if lack of polymer can provoke a different edge response in drug-eluting stents. The aim of this study was to compare edge vascular response between polymer-free paclitaxel-eluting stent (PF-PES) and polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stents (PB-PES). METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 165 eligible patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention were prospectively randomized 1:1 to receive either PF-PES or PB-PES. Those patients with paired intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) after procedure and at 9-month follow-up were included in this analysis.Seventy-six patients with 84 lesions, divided into PB-PES (38 patients, 41 lesions) and PF-PES groups (38 patients, 43 lesions) had paired post-procedure and 9-month follow-up IVUS and were therefore included in this substudy. There was a significant lumen decrease at the proximal edge of PF-PES (from 9.02±3.06 mm(2)to 8.47±3.05 mm(2); P=0.040), and a significant plaque increase at the distal edges of PF-PES (from 4.39±2.73 mm(2)to 4.78±2.63 mm(2); P=0.004). At the distal edge there was a significant plaque increase in the PF-PES compared to PB-PES (+8.0% vs. -0.6%, respectively; P=0.015) with subsequent lumen reduction (-5.2% vs. +6.0%, respectively; P=0.024). CONCLUSIONS PF-PES had significant plaque increase and lumen reduction at the distal edge as compared to PB-PES, probably due to difference in polymer-based drug-release kinetics between the 2 platforms.

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).

High-speed rotational atherectomy before paclitaxel-eluting stent implantation in complex calcified coronary lesions: the randomized ROTAXUS (Rotational Atherectomy Prior to Taxus Stent Treatment for Complex Native Coronary Artery Disease) trial

OBJECTIVES This study sought to determine the effect of rotational atherectomy (RA) on drug-eluting stent (DES) effectiveness. BACKGROUND DES are frequently used in complex lesions, including calcified stenoses, which may challenge DES delivery, expansion, and effectiveness. RA can adequately modify calcified plaques and facilitate stent delivery and expansion. Its impact on DES effectiveness is widely unknown. METHODS The ROTAXUS (Rotational Atherectomy Prior to TAXUS Stent Treatment for Complex Native Coronary Artery Disease) study randomly assigned 240 patients with complex calcified native coronary lesions to RA followed by stenting (n = 120) or stenting without RA (n = 120, standard therapy group). Stenting was performed using a polymer-based slow-release paclitaxel-eluting stent. The primary endpoint was in-stent late lumen loss at 9 months. Secondary endpoints included angiographic and strategy success, binary restenosis, definite stent thrombosis, and major adverse cardiac events at 9 months. RESULTS Despite similar baseline characteristics, significantly more patients in the standard therapy group were crossed over (12.5% vs. 4.2%, p = 0.02), resulting in higher strategy success in the rotablation group (92.5% vs. 83.3%, p = 0.03). At 9 months, in-stent late lumen loss was higher in the rotablation group (0.44 ± 0.58 vs. 0.31 ± 0.52, p = 0.04), despite an initially higher acute lumen gain (1.56 ± 0.43 vs. 1.44 ± 0.49 mm, p = 0.01). In-stent binary restenosis (11.4% vs. 10.6%, p = 0.71), target lesion revascularization (11.7% vs. 12.5%, p = 0.84), definite stent thrombosis (0.8% vs. 0%, p = 1.0), and major adverse cardiac events (24.2% vs. 28.3%, p = 0.46) were similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS Routine lesion preparation using RA did not reduce late lumen loss of DES at 9 months. Balloon dilation with only provisional rotablation remains the default strategy for complex calcified lesions before DES implantation.

Role of the paclitaxel-eluting stent and tirofiban in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing postfibrinolysis angioplasty: the GRACIA-3 randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND A catheter-based approach after fibrinolysis is recommended if fibrinolysis is likely to be successful in patients with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction. We designed a 2x2 randomized, open-label, multicenter trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the paclitaxel-eluting stent and tirofiban administered after fibrinolysis but before catheterization to optimize the results of this reperfusion strategy. METHODS AND RESULTS We randomly assigned 436 patients with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction to (1) bare-metal stent without tirofiban, (2) bare-metal stent with tirofiban, (3) paclitaxel-eluting stent without tirofiban, and (4) paclitaxel-eluting stent with tirofiban. All patients were initially treated with tenecteplase and enoxaparin. Tirofiban was started 120 minutes after tenecteplase in those patients randomly assigned to tirofiban. Cardiac catheterization was performed within the first 3 to 12 hours after inclusion, and stenting (randomized paclitaxel or bare stent) was applied to the culprit artery. The primary objectives were the rate of in-segment binary restenosis of paclitaxel-eluting stent compared with that of bare-metal stent and the effect of tirofiban on epicardial and myocardial flow before and after mechanical revascularization. At 12 months, in-segment binary restenosis was similar between paclitaxel-eluting stent and bare-metal stent (10.1% versus 11.3%; relative risk, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 0.74 to 1.52; P=0.89). However, late lumen loss (0.04+/-0.055 mm versus 0.27+/-0.057 mm, P=0.003) was reduced in the paclitaxel-eluting stent group. No evidence was found of any association between the use of tirofiban and any improvement in the epicardial and myocardial perfusion. Major bleeding was observed in 6.1% of patients receiving tirofiban and in 2.7% of patients not receiving it (relative risk, 2.22; 95% confidence interval, 0.86 to 5.73; P=0.14). CONCLUSIONS This trial does not provide evidence to support the use of tirofiban after fibrinolysis to improve epicardial and myocardial perfusion. Compared with bare-metal stent, paclitaxel-eluting stent significantly reduced late loss but appeared not to reduce in-segment binary restenosis. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00306228.

An optical coherence tomography study of a biodegradable vs. durable polymer-coated limus-eluting stent: a LEADERS trial sub-study

Incomplete endothelialization has been found to be associated with late stent thrombosis, a rare but devastating phenomenon, more frequent after drug-eluting stent implantation. Optical coherence tomography (OCT) has 10 times greater resolution than intravascular ultrasound and thus appears to be a valuable modality for the assessment of stent strut coverage. The LEADERS trial was a multi-centre, randomized comparison of a biolimus-eluting stent (BES) with biodegradable polymer with a sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) using a durable polymer. This study sought to evaluate tissue coverage and apposition of stents using OCT in a group of patients from the randomized LEADERS trial.

Long-term tissue coverage of a biodegradable polylactide polymer-coated biolimus-eluting stent: comparative sequential assessment with optical coherence tomography until complete resorption of the polymer

Biolimus-eluting stents (BESs) with a biodegradable polymer in abluminal coating achieve more complete coverage at 9 months compared with sirolimus-eluting stents (SESs) with a durable polymer, as assessed by optical coherence tomography (OCT). Whether this advantage persists or augments after complete resorption of the polymer (>12 months) is unknown.

SYNTAX score and Clinical SYNTAX score as predictors of very long-term clinical outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions: a substudy of SIRolimus-eluting stent compared with pacliTAXel-eluting stent for coronary revascularization (SIRTAX) trial

To investigate the ability of SYNTAX score and Clinical SYNTAX score (CSS) to predict very long-term outcomes in an all-comers population receiving drug-eluting stents.

Tissue coverage of a hydrophilic polymer-coated zotarolimus-eluting stent vs. a fluoropolymer-coated everolimus-eluting stent at 13-month follow-up: an optical coherence tomography substudy from the RESOLUTE All Comers trial

Aims To compare the tissue coverage of a hydrophilic polymer-coated zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) vs. a fluoropolymer-coated everolimus-eluting stent (EES) at 13 months, using optical coherence tomography (OCT) in an ‘all-comers' population of patients, in order to clarify the mechanism of eventual differences in the biocompatibility and thrombogenicity of the devices. Methods and results Patients randomized to angiographic follow-up in the RESOLUTE All Comers trial (NCT00617084) at pre-specified OCT sites underwent OCT follow-up at 13 months. Tissue coverage and apposition were assessed strut by strut, and the results in both treatment groups were compared using multilevel logistic or linear regression, as appropriate, with clustering at three different levels: patient, lesion, and stent. Fifty-eight patients (30 ZES and 28 EES), 72 lesions, 107 stents, and 23 197 struts were analysed. Eight hundred and eighty-seven and 654 uncovered struts (7.4 and 5.8%, P= 0.378), and 216 and 161 malapposed struts (1.8 and 1.4%, P= 0.569) were found in the ZES and EES groups, respectively. The mean thickness of coverage was 116 ± 99 µm in ZES and 142 ± 113 µm in EES (P= 0.466). No differences in per cent neointimal volume obstruction (12.5 ± 7.9 vs. 15.0 ± 10.7%) or other areas–volumetric parameters were found between ZES and EES, respectively. Conclusion No significant differences in tissue coverage, malapposition, or lumen/stent areas and volumes were detected by OCT between the hydrophilic polymer-coated ZES and the fluoropolymer-coated EES at 13-month follow-up.

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.

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.

A Randomized Comparison of Reservoir-Based Polymer-Free Amphilimus-Eluting Stents Versus Everolimus-Eluting Stents With Durable Polymer in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus: The RESERVOIR Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of amphilimus-eluting stents (AES) with that of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM). BACKGROUND The AES is a polymer-free drug-eluting stent that elutes sirolimus formulated with an amphiphilic carrier from laser-dug wells. This technology could be associated with a high efficacy in patients with DM. METHODS This was a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial. Patients with DM medically treated with oral glucose-lowering agents or insulin and de novo coronary lesions were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to AES or EES. The primary endpoint was the neointimal (NI) volume obstruction assessed by optical coherence tomography at 9-month follow-up. RESULTS A total of 116 lesions in 112 patients were randomized. Overall, 40% were insulin-treated patients, with a median HbA1c of 7.3% (interquartile range: 6.7% to 8.0%). The primary endpoint, NI volume obstruction, was 11.97 ± 5.94% for AES versus 16.11 ± 18.18% for EES, meeting the noninferiority criteria (p = 0.0003). Pre-specified subgroup analyses showed a significant interaction between stent type and glycemic control (p = 0.02), with a significant reduction in NI hyperplasia in the AES group in patients with the higher HbA1c (p = 0.03). By quantitative coronary angiography, in-stent late loss was 0.14 ± 0.24 for AES versus 0.24 ± 0.57 mm for EES (p = 0.27), with a larger minimal lumen diameter at follow-up for AES (p = 0.02), mainly driven by 2 cases of occlusive restenosis in the EES group. CONCLUSIONS AES are noninferior to EES for the coronary revascularization of patients with DM. These results suggest a high efficacy of the AES and may support the potential benefit of this stent in patients with DM. (A Randomized Comparison of Reservoir-Based Polymer-Free Amphilimus-Eluting Stents Versus Everolimus-Eluting Stents With Durable Polymer in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus [RESERVOIR]; NCT01710748).

The three year follow-up of the randomised "all-comers" trial of a biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stent versus permanent polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (LEADERS)

Aims: The current study reports clinical outcomes at three year follow-up of the LEADERS clinical trial which was the first all-comers trial comparing a new generation biodegradable polymer biolimus drug-eluting stent (BES) with the first generation permanent polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (SES). Methods and results: One thousand seven hundred and seven patients were randomised to unrestricted use of BES (n=857) or SES (n=850) in an all-comers population. Three year follow-up was available in 95% of the patients, 812 treated with BES and 809 treated with SES. At three years, BES remains non-inferior to SES for the primary endpoint of major adverse cardiac events (composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), or clinically-indicated target vessel revascularisation (CI-TVR) (BES 15.7% versus SES 19%; HR 0.82 CI 0.65-1.03; p=0.09). The MACE Kaplan Meier event curves increasingly diverge with the difference in events increasing from 1.4% to 2.4% and 3.3% at 1, 2 and 3 years, respectively in favour of BES. The rate of cardiac death was non-significantly lower 4.2% versus 5.2% (HR=0.81 CI 0.52-1.26; p=0.34) and the rate of myocardial infarction was equivalent 7.2% versus 7.1% (HR 1.01 CI 0.70-1.44; p=0.97) for BES versus SES, respectively. Thus BES was non-inferior to SES in all the safety endpoints. Clinically-indicated TVR occurred in 9.4% of BES treated patients versus 11.1% of SES treated patients (HR 0.84 CI 0.62-1.13; p=0.25). Rates of definite stent thrombosis were 2.2% for BES and 2.9% for SES (HR 0.78 CI 0.43-1.43; p=0.43), with the event rate increase of 0.2% from one to three years for BES and 0.9% for SES. For patients presenting with ST-elevation myocardial infarction BES was superior to SES in reducing MACE. Conclusions: The findings of the three year follow-up support the claim that the biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stent has equivalent safety and efficacy to permanent polymer sirolimus-eluting stent in an all-comers patient population. Its performance is superior in some subpopulations such as in ST-elevation MI patients and event rates for BES are overall lower than for SES with a trend toward increasing divergence of outcomes over three years. - See more at: http://www.pcronline.com/eurointervention/42nd_issue/125/#sthash.E5HhMQ4a.dpuf

Intimal proliferation and restenosis in paclitaxel-eluting stents with aminoparylene as carrier substance in swines

BACKGROUND: Polymer as carrier substance for drugeluting stents (DES) has been accused of inducing inflammation and hypersensitivity reactions leading to restenosis and stent thrombosis. Thus, a new paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) with aminoparylene as a carrier substance is tested in the present study. METHODS: In 10 pigs, stents were implanted in the epicardial coronary arteries: 1) bare-metal stents (BMS, control stent); 2) cobalt-chromium stents (CCS); and 3) PES. Stent length was 15 mm, and diameter was 3 mm. The animals were restudied after 6 weeks. Quantitative coronary angiography was performed at baseline and follow up. Minimum luminal diameter (MLD) and late loss were calculated in all animals. Histologic vessel lumen, intimal proliferation and restenosis were determined by morphometry. Disruption of the lamina elastica interna (LEI) and inflammatory reactions were assessed by histology. RESULTS: The MLD at baseline was 2.83 +/- 0.28 mm, and at follow up it was 2.29 +/- 0.44 (p < 0.05; n = 30). Late loss and angiographic restenosis were smallest in the CCS and largest in the PES (ns). Neointimal proliferation was similar for all 3 stents, ranging between 1.38 and 1.64 mm(2) (ns). There was a significant correlation between disruption of the LEI and inflammatory reactions. CONCLUSIONS: PTs with aminoparylene as a carrier substance show similar late loss and angiographic restenosis to that of BM and CCS. The incidence of inflammatory reactions (35% of all histologic sections) is similar in all stents, but highest in PES. The mechanism of this reaction is unclear, but may be either due to the drug itself, the disruption of the LEI or to a hypersensitivity reaction.

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.