Comparison of everolimus-eluting and sirolimus-eluting coronary stents: 1-year outcomes from the Randomized Evaluation of Sirolimus-eluting Versus Everolimus-eluting stent Trial (RESET)

1-year clinical outcomes of diabetic patients treated with everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds: a pooled analysis of the ABSORB and the SPIRIT trials

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate 1-year clinical outcomes of diabetic patients treated with the Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS).

BACKGROUND

Clinical outcomes of diabetic patients after BVS implantation have been unreported.

METHODS

This study included 101 patients in the ABSORB Cohort B trial and the first consecutive 450 patients with 1 year of follow-up in the ABSORB EXTEND trial. A total of 136 diabetic patients were compared with 415 nondiabetic patients. In addition, 882 diabetic patients treated with everolimus-eluting metal stents (EES) in pooled data from the SPIRIT trials (SPIRIT FIRST [Clinical Trial of the Abbott Vascular XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System], SPIRIT II [A Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System], SPIRIT III [Clinical Trial of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System (EECSS)], SPIRIT IV Clinical Trial [Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System]) were used for the comparison by applying propensity score matching. The primary endpoint was a device-oriented composite endpoint (DoCE), including cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization at 1-year follow-up.

RESULTS

The cumulative incidence of DoCE did not differ between diabetic and nondiabetic patients treated with the BVS (3.7% vs. 5.1%, p = 0.64). Diabetic patients treated with the BVS had a similar incidence of the DoCE compared with diabetic patients treated with EES in the matched study group (3.9% for the BVS vs. 6.4% for EES, p = 0.38). There were no differences in the incidence of definite or probable scaffold/stent thrombosis (0.7% for both diabetic and nondiabetic patients with the BVS; 1.0% for diabetic patients with the BVS vs. 1.7% for diabetic patients with EES in the matched study group).

CONCLUSIONS

In the present analyses, diabetic patients treated with the BVS showed similar rates of DoCEs compared with nondiabetic patients treated with the BVS and diabetic patients treated with EES at 1-year follow-up. (ABSORB Clinical Investigation, Cohort B; NCT00856856; ABSORB EXTEND Clinical Investigation; NCT01023789; Clinical Trial of the Abbott Vascular XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System [SPIRIT FIRST]; NCT00180453; A Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System [SPIRIT II]; NCT00180310; Clinical Trial of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System [EECSS] [SPIRIT III]; NCT00180479; Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System [SPIRIT IV Clinical Trial]; NCT00307047).

Update on interventional cardiology

This article provides a detailed review of the most important studies on interventional cardiology reported in publications or presentations during the year 2012. With regard to coronary interventions, ST-elevation myocardial infarction is extensively addressed in studies focusing on the relevance of reducing the reperfusion time and the utility of various devices and pharmacological strategies in primary angioplasty. Multiple comparative studies involving different generations of drug-eluting stents are available and indicate a favorable progression in terms of safety and efficacy. The risk of late thrombosis with the new generations of drug-eluting stents seems to be equivalent to that observed with bare-metal stents. The clinical outcomes with these stents in the elderly, in left main coronary artery, or in multivessel disease have also been the subject of important trials. Among the studies on intracoronary diagnostic techniques, those correlating imaging and pressure-based techniques are of special interest. The percutaneous treatment of structural heart disease, particularly transcatheter aortic valve implantation, followed by mitral repair, continues to be the subject of a great number of publications. Finally, renal denervation is currently being widely discussed in the literature.

Everolimus- and sirolimus-eluting stents in patients with and without ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

Aims

Everolimus-eluting stents (EES) were superior to sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) in a dedicated myocardial infarction trial, a finding that was not observed in trials with low percentages of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Therefore, this study sought to investigate the influence of clinical presentation on outcome after EES and SES implantation.

Methods

A pooled population of 1602 randomised patients was formed from XAMI (acute MI trial) and APPENDIX-AMI (all-comer trial). Primary outcome was cardiac mortality, MI and target vessel revascularisation at 2 years. Secondary endpoints included definite/probable stent thrombosis (ST). Adjustment was done using Cox regression.

Results

In total, 902 EES and 700 SES patients were included, of which 44 % STEMI patients (EES 455; SES 257) and 56 % without STEMI (EES 447; SES 443). In the pooled population, EES and SES showed similar outcomes during follow-up. Moreover, no differences in the endpoints were observed after stratification according to presentation. Although a trend toward reduced early definite/probable ST was observed in EES compared with SES in STEMI patients, long-term ST rates were low and comparable.

Conclusions

EES and SES showed a similar outcome during 2-year follow-up, regardless of clinical presentation. Long-term safety was excellent for both devices, despite wide inclusion criteria and a large sub-population of STEMI patients.

Impact of everolimus versus other rapamycin derivative-eluting stents on clinical outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis of 16 randomized trials

BACKGROUND

Everolimus-eluting stent (EES) are considered to have better clinical outcomes than other rapamycin derivative-eluting stents; however, the individual trials may not have sufficient power to prove it. This meta-analysis aimed to compare clinical outcomes of EES against other rapamycin derivative-eluting stents.

METHODS

We searched Medline, the Cochrane Library, and other internet sources, without language or date restrictions for articles comparing clinical outcomes between EES and other rapamycin derivative-eluting stents. Safety endpoints were stent thrombosis (ST), mortality, cardiac death, and myocardial infarction (MI). Efficacy endpoints were major adverse cardiac events (MACE), target lesion revascularization (TLR), and target vessel revascularization (TVR).

RESULTS

We identified 16 randomized controlled trials with 23,481 patients and a weighted mean follow-up of 18 months. Compared with other rapamycin derivative-eluting stents, EES were associated with a significant reduction in definite ST [relative risk (RR): 0.45; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.30-0.69; p<0.001] and TLR (RR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.77-0.99; p=0.03). EES also showed a non-significant trend toward reduction in definite/probable ST (RR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.56-1.01; p=0.06). However, both groups had similar rates of mortality (RR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.82-1.09; p=0.45), MI (RR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.82-1.10; p=0.43), and MACE (RR: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.87-1.02; p=0.35). The stratified analysis of the included trials showed that EES was associated with significantly lower rate of definite ST compared with either zotarolimus-eluting stent (p=0.012) or sirolimus-eluting stent (p=0.006), but not biolimus-eluting stent (p=0.16). In longer follow-up (>1 year) stratification, EES was associated with a significant reduction in risk of definite ST (p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

EES is associated with a significant reduction in definite ST and TLR for treating patients with coronary artery disease, compared with a pooled group of other rapamycin derivative-eluting stents. Biolimus-eluting stent had similar safety and efficacy for treating patients with coronary artery disease, compared with the EES.

Safety and efficacy of drug-eluting stents in women: a patient-level pooled analysis of randomised trials

BACKGROUND

The safety and efficacy of drug-eluting stents (DES) in the treatment of coronary artery disease have been assessed in several randomised trials. However, none of these trials were powered to assess the safety and efficacy of DES in women because only a small proportion of recruited participants were women. We therefore investigated the safety and efficacy of DES in female patients during long-term follow-up.

METHODS

We pooled patient-level data for female participants from 26 randomised trials of DES and analysed outcomes according to stent type (bare-metal stents, early-generation DES, and newer-generation DES). The primary safety endpoint was a composite of death or myocardial infarction. The secondary safety endpoint was definite or probable stent thrombosis. The primary efficacy endpoint was target-lesion revascularisation. Analysis was by intention to treat.

FINDINGS

Of 43,904 patients recruited in 26 trials of DES, 11,557 (26·3%) were women (mean age 67·1 years [SD 10·6]). 1108 (9·6%) women received bare-metal stents, 4171 (36·1%) early-generation DES, and 6278 (54·3%) newer-generation DES. At 3 years, estimated cumulative incidence of the composite of death or myocardial infarction occurred in 132 (12·8%) women in the bare-metal stent group, 421 (10·9%) in the early-generation DES group, and 496 (9·2%) in the newer-generation DES group (p=0·001). Definite or probable stent thrombosis occurred in 13 (1·3%), 79 (2·1%), and 66 (1·1%) women in the bare-metal stent, early-generation DES, and newer-generation DES groups, respectively (p=0·01). The use of DES was associated with a significant reduction in the 3 year rates of target-lesion revascularisation (197 [18·6%] women in the bare-metal stent group, 294 [7·8%] in the early-generation DES group, and 330 [6·3%] in the newer-generation DES group, p<0·0001). Results did not change after adjustment for baseline characteristics in the multivariable analysis.

INTERPRETATION

The use of DES in women is more effective and safe than is use of bare-metal stents during long-term follow-up. Newer-generation DES are associated with an improved safety profile compared with early-generation DES, and should therefore be thought of as the standard of care for percutaneous coronary revascularisation in women.

FUNDING

Women in Innovation Initiative of the Society of Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions.

A bumpy and winding but right path to domestic drug-eluting coronary stents

Restenosis and stent thrombosis remain major concerns after percutaneous coronary intervention for the treatment of coronary artery disease. The present review was undertaken in order to highlight the various coronary stents that have been investigated in our Heart Research Center, and how far we have come from the first heparin-coated stent first used in the late 1990s. Thereafter, from the abciximab-coated stent to the current gene-delivery stent and other newer agents, our group has applied a range of techniques in this field. However, in groups similar to ours, the restenosis rates of such stents are still high for second-generation drug-eluting stents (DESs). Moreover, our nation imports almost all of these types of stents from other countries. Thus, we need to develop domestic coronary stents. Research into newer DESs are warranted in Korea so as to achieve improved safety and efficacy outcomes.

Safety and efficacy outcomes of first and second generation durable polymer drug eluting stents and biodegradable polymer biolimus eluting stents in clinical practice: comprehensive network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the safety and efficacy of durable polymer drug eluting stents (DES) and biodegradable polymer biolimus eluting stents (biolimus-ES).

DESIGN

Network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION

Medline, Google Scholar, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) database search for randomised controlled trials comparing at least two of durable polymer sirolimus eluting stents (sirolimus-ES) and paclitaxel eluting stents (paclitaxel-ES), newer durable polymer everolimus eluting stents (everolimus-ES), Endeavor and Resolute zotarolimus eluting stents (zotarolimus-ES), and biodegradable polymer biolimus-ES.

PRIMARY OUTCOMES

Safety (death, myocardial infarction, definite or probable stent thrombosis) and efficacy (target lesion and target vessel revascularisation) assessed at up to one year and beyond.

RESULTS

60 randomised controlled trials were compared involving 63,242 patients with stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndrome treated with a DES. At one year, there were no differences in mortality among devices. Resolute and Endeavor zotarolimus-ES, everolimus-ES, and sirolimus-ES, but not biodegradable polymer biolimus-ES, were associated with significantly reduced odds of myocardial infarction (by 29-34%) compared with paclitaxel-ES. Compared with everolimus-ES, biodegradable polymer biolimus-ES were associated with significantly increased odds of myocardial infarction (by 29%), while Endeavor zotarolimus-ES and paclitaxel-ES were associated with significantly increased odds of stent thrombosis. All investigated DES were similar with regards to efficacy endpoints, except for Endeavor zotarolimus-ES and paclitaxel-ES, which were associated with significantly increased the odds of target lesion and target vessel revascularisations compared with other devices. Direction of results beyond one year did not diverge from the findings for up to one year follow-up. Bayesian probability curves showed a gradient in the magnitude of effect, with everolimus-ES and Resolute zotarolimus-ES offering the highest safety profiles.

CONCLUSIONS

The newer durable polymer everolimus-ES and Resolute zotarolimus-ES and the biodegradable polymer biolimus-ES maintain the efficacy of sirolimus-ES; however, for safety endpoints, differences become apparent, with everolimus-ES and Resolute zotarolimus-ES emerging as the safest stents to date.

Pathology of second-generation everolimus-eluting stents versus first-generation sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents in humans

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials have demonstrated that the second-generation cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stent (CoCr-EES) is superior to the first-generation paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) and is noninferior or superior to the sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) in terms of safety and efficacy. It remains unclear whether vascular responses to CoCr-EES are different from those to SES and PES because the pathology of CoCr-EES has not been described in humans.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 204 lesions (SES=73; PES=85; CoCr-EES=46) from 149 autopsy cases with duration of implantation >30 days and ≤3 years were pathologically analyzed, and comparison of vascular responses was corrected for duration of implantation. The observed frequency of late and very late stent thrombosis was less in CoCr-EES (4%) versus SES (21%; P=0.029) and PES (26%; P=0.008). Neointimal thickness was comparable among the groups, whereas the percentage of uncovered struts was strikingly lower in CoCr-EES (median=2.6%) versus SES (18.0%; P<0.0005) and PES (18.7%; P<0.0005). CoCr-EES showed a lower inflammation score (with no hypersensitivity) and less fibrin deposition versus SES and PES. The observed frequency of neoatherosclerosis, however, did not differ significantly among the groups (CoCr-EES=29%; SES=35%; PES=19%). CoCr-EES had the least frequency of stent fracture (CoCr-EES=13%; SES=40%; PES=19%; P=0.007 for CoCr-EES versus SES), whereas fracture-related restenosis or thrombosis was comparable among the groups (CoCr-EES=6.5%; SES=5.5%; PES=1.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

CoCr-EES demonstrated greater strut coverage with less inflammation, less fibrin deposition, and less late and very late stent thrombosis compared with SES and PES in human autopsy analysis. Nevertheless, the observed frequencies of neoatherosclerosis and fracture-related adverse pathological events were comparable in these devices, indicating that careful long-term follow-up remains important even after CoCr-EES placement.

A propensity score matched analysis to determine if second-generation drug-eluting stents outperform first-generation drug-eluting stents in a complex patient population

BACKGROUND

Drug-eluting stents (DES) are routinely used in complex patients, but the impact of 1st- versus 2nd-generation DES on clinical outcomes has not been well described. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of 2nd-generation (everolimus-eluting) DES compared to 1st-generation (sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting) DES in a selected, higher-risk population with complex clinical and angiographic features.

METHODS

The study included 5693 consecutive patients with the presence of ≥ 1 predefined complex clinical and angiographic characteristic treated with either generation DES. Using propensity score matching, the clinical outcomes of 1076 patients treated with 2nd-generation DES were compared with the outcomes of a matched population treated with 1st-generation DES over 1-year follow-up.

RESULTS

After matching, baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics were similar between groups. At 1-year follow-up, the rate of major adverse cardiac events was 9.4% with 2nd-generation DES and 11.3% with 1st-generation DES (p=0.16). There were no significant differences in the rates of death (3.2 vs. 4.0%, p=0.30), myocardial infarction (1.6 vs. 1.3%, p=0.57), target vessel revascularization (5.9 vs. 7.3%, p=0.17) or target lesion revascularization (4.4 vs. 5.0%, p=0.50). Definite stent thrombosis was less frequent with 2nd-generation DES (0.1 vs. 0.8%, p=0.011), as was definite or probable stent thrombosis (0.7 vs. 1.6%, p=0.040).

CONCLUSION

In this propensity score matched patient population with complex features undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, the use of 2nd-generation DES was associated with lower rates of stent thrombosis, and similar 1-year major adverse cardiac events compared to 1st-generation DES.

Two-year follow-up of outcomes of second-generation everolimus-eluting stents versus first-generation drug-eluting stents for stenosis of saphenous vein grafts used as aortocoronary conduits

Second-generation everolimus-eluting stents (EESs) have demonstrated superiority in efficacy and safety compared with first-generation drug-eluting stents (DESs) in the treatment of native coronary artery lesions. The present study evaluated and compared the safety and efficacy of EESs and first-generation DESs in saphenous vein graft lesions. The EES group consisted of 88 patients with 96 lesions, and the first-generation DES group consisted of 243 patients with 317 lesions (sirolimus-eluting stents, n = 212; paclitaxel-eluting stents, n = 105). The end points included target lesion revascularization, target vessel revascularization, major adverse cardiovascular events (composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization), and definite stent thrombosis at 2 years. The groups had similar baseline characteristics and graft ages (128.1 ± 77.5 vs 132.4 ± 90.8 months, p = 0.686). The EES group had more type C lesions and less embolic protection device use. The peak postprocedure values of creatinine kinase-MB and troponin I were similar between the 2 groups. Overall, major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in 18.2% of EES patients and 35.0% of first-generation DES patients (p = 0.003), mainly driven by a lower target vessel revascularization rate (6.8% vs 24.5%, p <0.001). The target lesion revascularization rate was lower in the EES group (1.1% vs 11.6%, p = 0.005). Stent thrombosis was low and similar between the 2 groups (0% vs 0.8%, p = 1.000). On multivariate analysis, the type of DES implanted and graft age were the only independent predictors of major adverse cardiovascular events. In conclusion, the superiority of EESs compared with first-generation DESs shown in native artery lesions has been extended to saphenous vein graft lesions and should be considered as the DES of choice for this lesion type.

Two-year results of an open-label randomized comparison of everolimus-eluting stents and sirolimus-eluting stents

Background

Second generation drug-eluting stents were developed to improve the safety and efficacy of first generation stents. So far, limited long term randomized data exist comparing the second generation everolimus-eluting stents (EES) with first generation sirolimus-eluting stents (SES).

Methods

A prospective, open-label, randomized, single center trial comparing EES and SES in all-comer patients. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiac mortality, myocardial infarction and target vessel revascularization. Secondary endpoints included individual components of the composite, along with target lesion revascularization and stent thrombosis.

Results

In total, 977 patients were randomized, of which 498 patients to EES and 479 to SES. Average age was 65.2±11.2 years and 71.6% of the population was male. Fifty percent of patients were treated for acute coronary syndrome, more often for ST-elevation myocardial infarctions in EES patients (13.7% vs. 9.2% in SES). In contrast, SES patients more often had prior interventions and showed more calcified lesions. Two-year follow-up was available in 98% of patients. The primary endpoint occurred in 10.7% of EES patients compared to 10.6% of SES patients (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.68–1.48). Additionally, secondary endpoints were similar between groups. The rate of stent thrombosis was low for both stent types.

Conclusion

In this all-comer population, there were no differences in endpoints between EES and SES during two-year follow-up. Stent thrombosis rates were low, supporting the safety of drug-eluting stent appliance in clinical practice.

Trial registration

TrialRegister.nl NTR3170

Optimal choice of coronary revascularization and stent type in diabetic patients with coronary artery disease

Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) are prone to a diffuse and accelerated form of coronary artery disease (CAD), which in turn is a major cause of cardiac-related morbidity and mortality. Compared with patients without diabetes, patients with diabetes undergoing coronary revascularization are at higher risk of procedural, short-, and long-term cardiovascular events and mortality. Although coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) has been regarded as the primary revascularization strategy in diabetic patients with complex CAD, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is an effective revascularization alternative, due to remarkable advances in stent devices and adjunctive drug therapies. Outcomes data, from subgroup analyses and small-sized clinical trials and large registries, have suggested that PCI with current stent technology showed comparable long-term risks of mortality and hard endpoints, but higher risk of repeat revascularization for the diabetic population compared to CABG. However, the recent landmark International Future REvascularization Evaluation in patients with diabetes mellitus: optimal management of Multivessel disease (FREEDOM) trial provides compelling evidence of the superiority of CABG over PCI in reducing the rates of death, myocardial infarction, at the expense of stroke, in patients with diabetes with advanced CAD. When opting for PCI in patients with diabetes, currently used drug-eluting stents (DES) are more efficient in reducing the risk of repeat revascularization without compromising safety outcomes, compared to bare-metal stents. The selection of a specific type of DES in patients with diabetes is controversial and therefore more data comparing second- and newer-generation DES for patients with diabetes are currently needed. Also, efforts to make more advanced DES platforms suitable for patients with diabetes with complicated angiographic features are still ongoing.

Drug eluting balloons for de novo coronary lesions - a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The role of drug-eluting balloons (DEB) is unclear. Increasing evidence has shown a benefit for the treatment of in-stent restenosis. Its effect on de novo coronary lesions is more controversial. Several smaller randomized trials found conflicting results.

METHODS

This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) evaluating the effect of local Paclitaxel delivery/drug eluting balloons (DEB) (+/- bare metal stent) compared to current standard therapy (stenting) to treat de novo coronary lesions. Data sources for RCT were identified through a literature search from 2005 through 28 December 2012. The main endpoints of interest were target lesion revascularization (TLR), major adverse cardiac events (MACE), binary in-segment restenosis, stent thrombosis (ST), myocardial infarction (MI), late lumen loss (LLL) and mortality. A random effects model was used to calculate the pooled relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Eight studies (11 subgroups) and a total of 1,706 patients were included in this analysis. Follow-up duration ranged from 6 to 12 months. Overall, DEB showed similar results to the comparator treatment. The relative risk (RR) for MACE was 0.95 (0.64 to 1.39); P = 0.776, for mortality it was 0.79 (0.30 to 2.11), P = 0.644, for stent thrombosis it was 1.45 (0.42 to 5.01), P = 0.560, for MI it was 1.26 (0.49 to 3.21), P = 0.629, for TLR it was 1.09 (0.71 to 1.68); P = 0.700 and for binary in-stent restenosis it was 0.96 (0.48 to 1.93), P = 0.918. Compared to bare metal stents (BMS), DEB showed a lower LLL (- 0.26 mm (-0.51 to 0.01)) and a trend towards a lower MACE risk (RR 0.66 (0.43 to 1.02)).

CONCLUSION

Overall, drug-eluting balloons (+/- bare metal stent) are not superior to current standard therapies (BMS or drug eluting stent (DES)) in treating de novo coronary lesions. However, the performance of DEB seems to lie in between DES and BMS with a trend towards superiority over BMS alone. Therefore, DEB may be considered in patients with contraindications for DES. The heterogeneity between the included studies is a limitation of this meta-analysis; different drug-eluting balloons have been used.

Angiographic findings of everolimus-eluting as compared to sirolimus-eluting stents: angiographic sub-study from the Randomized Evaluation of Sirolimus-eluting versus Everolimus-eluting stent Trial (RESET)

Several recent randomized trials comparing everolimus-eluting stent (EES) and sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) reported similar clinical outcomes. This study was aimed to clarify the differences in the angiographic findings of EES as compared to SES. Randomized Evaluation of Sirolimus-eluting versus Everolimus-eluting stent Trial is a prospective multicenter randomized open-label trial comparing EES with SES in Japan. From February to July 2010, 3197 patients were randomly assigned to receive either EES or SES. Of these, angiographic sub-study enrolled 571 patients (EES 285 patients, SES 286 patients). Angiograms were assessed qualitatively and quantitatively at procedure and at 8-12 months in the independent core angiographic laboratory. Late loss of the proximal edges tended to be greater in the EES group than that in the SES group (0.12 ± 0.49 vs. 0.04 ± 0.43 mm, P = 0.05), although late loss in the other segments was similar between the 2 groups. Edge restenosis was mainly observed in EES group, whereas body restenosis was demonstrated in half of SES group. Stent fracture was observed only in the SES group (1.5 %), and peri-stent contrast staining (PSS) tended to be more frequently observed in the SES group than in the EES group (3.6 and 1.5 %, P = 0.18). Restenotic response in the proximal edge was more prominent in the EES group as compared to the SES group. Abnormal angiographic findings such as stent fracture and PSS tended to be more frequent in the SES group.

Safety and efficacy of everolimus- versus sirolimus-eluting stents: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 11 randomized trials

BACKGROUND

While EES have proven superior to paclitaxel-eluting stents, it remains uncertain whether EES improve clinical outcomes compared to SES, which are the most efficacious among the first-generation drug-eluting stents. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing the efficacy and safety of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) versus sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

METHODS

From online and offline search until December 2011, we identified 11 randomized trials (total 12,869 patients). The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events.

RESULTS

The risk of major adverse cardiac events did not differ significantly between the patients treated with EES versus SES [OR, 0.90 (95% CI, 0.77-1.04); P = .162]. However, we found a significant reduction in the risk of repeat revascularization in the EES arm [OR, 0.85 (95% CI, 0.71-1.00); P = .047]. There were no significant differences regarding the risk of cardiac death [OR, 0.97 (95% CI, 0.74-1.27); P = .834], or myocardial infarction [OR, 0.95 (95% CI, 0.75-1.20), P = .656]. The risk of definite or probable stent thrombosis tended to be lower [OR, 0.68 (95% CI, 0.45-1.02); P = .065], while definite ST was significantly lower [OR, 0.44 (95% CI, 0.25-0.80); P = .007] with EES.

CONCLUSIONS

In a large systematic overview of comparative trials involving percutaneous revascularization with drug-eluting stents, treatment with EES significantly reduced the risk of repeat revascularization and definite ST compared to SES. We found no significant differences in the risk of cardiac death or myocardial infarction.

Coronary stent thrombosis: current insights into new drug-eluting stent designs

The advances of interventional cardiology have been achieved by new device development, finding appropriate drug regimes, and understanding of pathomechanism. Drug-eluting stents (DES) implantation with dual anti-platelet therapy reduced revascularization without increasing mortality or myocardial infarction compared with bare-metal stenting. However, late-term stent thrombosis (ST) and restenosis limited its value and raised the safety concern. Main mechanisms of this phenomenon are impaired endothelialization and hypersensitivity reaction with polymer. The second generation DES further improved safety and/or efficacy by using thinner stent strut and biocompatible polymer. Recently, new concept DES with biodegradable polymer, polymer-free and bioabsorbable scaffold are under investigation in the quest to minimize the risk of ST.