Five-year clinical and angiographic outcomes of a randomized comparison of sirolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents: results of the Sirolimus-Eluting Versus Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents for Coronary Revascularization LATE trial.
ABSTRACT Long-term comparative data of first-generation drug-eluting stents are scarce. We investigated clinical and angiographic outcomes of sirolimus-eluting (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) at 5 years as part of the Sirolimus-Eluting Versus Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents for Coronary Revascularization (SIRTAX) LATE study.
A total of 1012 patients were randomly assigned to SES or PES. Repeat angiography was completed in 444 of 1012 patients (43.8%) at 5 years. Major adverse cardiac events occurred in 19.7% of SES- and 21.4% of PES-treated patients (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.68 to 1.17; P=0.39) at 5 years. There were no differences between SES and PES in terms of cardiac death (5.8% versus 5.7%; P=0.35), myocardial infarction (6.6% versus 6.9%; P=0.51), and target lesion revascularization (13.1% versus 15.1%; P=0.29). Between 1 and 5 years, the annual rate of target lesion revascularization was 2.0% (95% confidence interval, 1.4% to 2.6%) for SES and 1.4% (95% confidence interval, 0.9% to 2.0%) for PES. Among patients undergoing paired angiography at 8 months and 5 years, delayed lumen loss amounted to 0.37 ± 0.73 mm for SES and 0.29 ± 0.59 mm for PES (P=0.32). The overall rate of definite stent thrombosis was 4.6% for SES and 4.1% for PES (P=0.74), and very late definite stent thrombosis occurred at an annual rate of 0.65% (95% confidence interval, 0.40% to 0.90%).
Long-term follow-up of first-generation drug-eluting stents shows no significant differences in clinical and angiographic outcomes between SES and PES. The continuous increase in late lumen loss in conjunction with the ongoing risk of very late stent thrombosis suggests that vascular healing remains incomplete up to 5 years after implantation of first-generation drug-eluting stents.
- SourceAvailable from: Lorenz Räber[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Pathology studies have shown delayed arterial healing in culprit lesions of patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) compared with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) after placement of drug-eluting stents (DES). It is unknown whether similar differences exist in-vivo during long-term follow-up. Using optical coherence tomography (OCT), we assessed differences in arterial healing between patients with ACS and stable CAD five years after DES implantation. A total of 88 patients comprised of 53 ACS lesions with 7864 struts and 35 stable lesions with 5298 struts were suitable for final OCT analysis five years after DES implantation. The analytical approach was based on a hierarchical Bayesian random-effects model. OCT endpoints were strut coverage, malapposition, protrusion, evaginations and cluster formation. Uncovered (1.7% vs. 0.7%, adjusted p=0.041) or protruding struts (0.50% vs. 0.13%, adjusted p=0.038) were more frequent among ACS compared with stable CAD lesions. A similar trend was observed for malapposed struts (1.33% vs. 0.45%, adj. p=0.072). Clusters of uncovered or malapposed/protruding struts were present in 34.0% of ACS and 14.1% of stable patients (adj. p=0.041). Coronary evaginations were more frequent in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction compared with stable CAD patients (0.16 vs. 0.13 per cross section, p=0.027). Uncovered, malapposed, and protruding stent struts as well as clusters of delayed healing may be more frequent in culprit lesions of ACS compared with stable CAD patients late after DES implantation. Our observational findings suggest a differential healing response attributable to lesion characteristics of patients with ACS compared with stable CAD in-vivo.International journal of cardiology 02/2014; · 6.18 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: In head-to-head comparisons of coronary drug-eluting stents, the primary endpoint is traditionally assessed after 9-12 months. However, the optimum timepoint for this assessment remains unclear. In this study, we assessed clinical outcomes at up to 5 years' follow-up in patients who received two different types of drug-eluting stents. We undertook this multicentre, open-label, randomised superiority trial at five percutaneous coronary intervention centres in Denmark. We randomly allocated 2332 eligible adult patients (≥18 years of age) with an indication for drug-eluting stent implantation to the zotarolimus-eluting Endeavor Sprint stent (Medtronic, Santa Rosa, CA, USA) or the sirolimus-eluting Cypher Select Plus stent (Cordis, Johnson & Johnson, Warren, NJ, USA). Randomisation of participants was achieved by computer-generated block randomisation and a telephone allocation service. The primary endpoint of the SORT OUT III study was a composite of major adverse cardiac events-cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularisation-at 9 months' follow-up. In this study, endpoints included the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events and definite stent thrombosis at follow-up times of up to 5 years. Analysis was by intention to treat. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00660478. We randomly allocated 1162 patients to receive the zotarolimus-eluting stent and 1170 to the sirolimus-eluting stent. At 5-year follow-up, rates of major adverse cardiac events were similar in patients treated with both types of stents (zotarolimus-eluting stents 197/1162 [17·0%] vs sirolimus-eluting stents 182/1170 [15·6%]; odds ratio [OR] 1·10, 95% CI 0·88-1·37; p=0·40). This finding was indicative of the directly contrasting results for rates of major adverse cardiac events at 1-year follow up (zotarolimus 93/1162 [8·0%] vs sirolimus 46/1170 [3·9%]; OR 2·13, 95% CI 1·48-3·07; p<0·0001) compared with those at follow-up between 1 and 5 years (104 [9·0%] vs 136 [11·6%]; OR 0·78, 95% CI 0·59-1·02; p=0·071). At 1-year follow-up, definite stent thrombosis was more frequent after implantation of the zotarolimus-eluting stent (13/1162 [1·1%]) than the sirolimus-eluting stent (4/1170 [0·3%]; OR 3·34, 95% CI 1·08-10·3; p=0·036), whereas the opposite finding was recorded for between 1 and 5 years' follow-up (zotarolimus-eluting stent 1/1162 [0·1%] vs sirolimus-eluting stent 21/1170 [1·8%], OR 0·05, 95% CI 0·01-0·36; p=0·003). 26 of 88 (30%) target lesion revascularisations in the zotarolimus-eluting stent group occurred between 1 and 5 years' follow-up, whereas 54 of 70 (77%) of those in the sirolimus-eluting stent group occurred during this follow-up period. The superiority of sirolimus-eluting stents compared with zotarolimus-eluting stents at 1-year follow-up was lost after 5 years. The traditional 1-year primary endpoint assessment therefore might be insufficient to predict 5-year clinical outcomes in patients treated with coronary drug-eluting stent implantation. Cordis and Medtronic.The Lancet 03/2014; · 39.06 Impact Factor
- The Lancet 03/2014; · 39.06 Impact Factor