Charles A. Simonton

Everolimus-eluting versus paclitaxel-eluting stents in coronary artery disease.

BACKGROUND Previous studies have established the superiority of coronary everolimus-eluting stents over paclitaxel-eluting stents with respect to angiographic findings. However, these trials were not powered for superiority in clinical end points. METHODS We randomly assigned 3687 patients at 66 U.S. sites to receive everolimus-eluting stents or paclitaxel-eluting stents without routine follow-up angiography. The primary end point was the 1-year composite rate of target-lesion failure (defined as cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization). RESULTS Everolimus-eluting stents were superior to paclitaxel-eluting stents with respect to the primary end point of target-lesion failure (4.2% vs. 6.8%; relative risk, 0.62; 95% confidence interval, 0.46 to 0.82; P=0.001). Everolimus-eluting stents were also superior with respect to the major secondary end point of the 1-year rate of ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization (P=0.001) and were noninferior with respect to the major secondary end point of the 1-year composite rate of cardiac death or target-vessel myocardial infarction (P<0.001 for noninferiority; P=0.09 for superiority). The 1-year rates of myocardial infarction and stent thrombosis were also lower with everolimus-eluting stents than with paclitaxel-eluting stents (1.9% vs. 3.1%, P=0.02 for myocardial infarction; 0.17% vs. 0.85%, P=0.004 for stent thrombosis). Target-lesion failure was consistently reduced with everolimus-eluting stents as compared with paclitaxel-eluting stents in 12 prespecified subgroups, except in the subgroup of patients with diabetes (6.4% vs. 6.9%, P=0.80). CONCLUSIONS Everolimus-eluting stents, as compared with paclitaxel-eluting stents, resulted in reduced rates of target-lesion failure at 1 year, results that were consistent in all patients except those with diabetes, in whom the results were nonsignificantly different. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00307047.)

A comparison of directional atherectomy with coronary angioplasty in patients with coronary artery disease

BACKGROUND Directional coronary atherectomy is a new technique of coronary revascularization by which atherosclerotic plaque is excised and retrieved from target lesions. With respect to the rate of restenosis and clinical outcomes, it is not known how this procedure compares with balloon angioplasty, which relies on dilation of the plaque and vessel wall. We compared the rate of restenosis after angioplasty with that after atherectomy. METHODS At 35 sites in the United States and Europe, 1012 patients were randomly assigned to either atherectomy (512 patients) or angioplasty (500 patients). The patients underwent coronary angiography at base line and again after six months; the paired angiograms were quantitatively assessed at one laboratory by investigators unaware of the treatment assignments. RESULTS Stenosis was reduced to 50 percent or less more often with atherectomy than with angioplasty (89 percent vs. 80 percent; P < 0.001), and there was a greater immediate increase in vessel caliber (1.05 vs. 0.86 mm, P < 0.001). This was accompanied by a higher rate of early complications (11 percent vs. 5 percent, P < 0.001) and higher in-hospital costs (

Impact of sirolimus-eluting stents on outcome in diabetic patients: A SIRIUS (SIRolImUS-coated Bx Velocity balloon-expandable stent in the treatment of patients with de novo coronary artery lesions) substudy☆

11,904 vs

Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffolds for Coronary Artery Disease

10,637; P = 0.006). At six months, the rate of restenosis was 50 percent for atherectomy and 57 percent for angioplasty (P = 0.06). However, the probability of death or myocardial infarction within six months was higher in the atherectomy group (8.6 percent vs. 4.6 percent, P = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS Removing coronary artery plaque with atherectomy led to a larger luminal diameter and a small reduction in angiographic restenosis, the latter being confined largely to the proximal left anterior descending coronary artery. However, atherectomy led to a higher rate of early complications, increased cost, and no apparent clinical benefit after six months of follow-up.

Randomized Comparison of Everolimus- and Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents: 2-Year Follow-Up From the SPIRIT (Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System) IV Trial

Background—Randomized clinical trials have shown that a sirolimus-eluting stent significantly reduces restenosis after percutaneous coronary revascularization. Diabetic patients are known to have a higher risk of restenosis compared with nondiabetic patients. The purpose of this analysis was to determine the impact of sirolimus-eluting stents on outcomes of diabetic compared with nondiabetic patients. Methods and Results—The SIRIUS (SIRolImUS-coated Bx Velocity balloon-expandable stent in the treatment of patients with de novo coronary artery lesions) trial is a randomized, double-blind study that compared sirolimus-eluting and bare metal stent implantation in 1058 patients with de novo native coronary artery lesions. Diabetes mellitus was present in 279 (26%) patients (diabetes mellitus group, 131 patients received sirolimus-eluting stents and 148 patients received bare metal stents) and was absent in 778 patients (no–diabetes mellitus group, 402 patients received sirolimus-eluting stents and 376 patients received bare metal stents). At 270 days, target lesion revascularization was reduced in diabetic patients from 22.3% with bare metal stents to 6.9% with sirolimus-eluting stents (P <0.001) and in nondiabetic patients from 14.1% to 2.99% (P <0.001), respectively. Major adverse cardiac events were reduced in diabetic patients from 25% with bare metal stents to 9.2% with sirolimus-eluting stents (P <0.001) and from 16.5% to 6.5% (P <0.001) in nondiabetic patients, respectively. Conclusions—Implantation of sirolimus-eluting stents compared with bare metal stents in de novo coronary lesions reduces major adverse cardiac events in patients with and without diabetes mellitus. However, among patients receiving sirolimus-eluting stents, there remains a trend toward a higher frequency of repeat intervention in diabetic patients compared with nondiabetic patients, particularly in the insulin-requiring patients.

Coronary perfusion during acute myocardial infarction with a combined therapy of coronary angioplasty and high-dose intravenous streptokinase.

BACKGROUND In patients with coronary artery disease who receive metallic drug-eluting coronary stents, adverse events such as late target-lesion failure may be related in part to the persistent presence of the metallic stent frame in the coronary-vessel wall. Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds have been developed to attempt to improve long-term outcomes. METHODS In this large, multicenter, randomized trial, 2008 patients with stable or unstable angina were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular (Absorb) scaffold (1322 patients) or an everolimus-eluting cobalt-chromium (Xience) stent (686 patients). The primary end point, which was tested for both noninferiority (margin, 4.5 percentage points for the risk difference) and superiority, was target-lesion failure (cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization) at 1 year. RESULTS Target-lesion failure at 1 year occurred in 7.8% of patients in the Absorb group and in 6.1% of patients in the Xience group (difference, 1.7 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -0.5 to 3.9; P=0.007 for noninferiority and P=0.16 for superiority). There was no significant difference between the Absorb group and the Xience group in rates of cardiac death (0.6% and 0.1%, respectively; P=0.29), target-vessel myocardial infarction (6.0% and 4.6%, respectively; P=0.18), or ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization (3.0% and 2.5%, respectively; P=0.50). Device thrombosis within 1 year occurred in 1.5% of patients in the Absorb group and in 0.7% of patients in the Xience group (P=0.13). CONCLUSIONS In this large-scale, randomized trial, treatment of noncomplex obstructive coronary artery disease with an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold, as compared with an everolimus-eluting cobalt-chromium stent, was within the prespecified margin for noninferiority with respect to target-lesion failure at 1 year. (Funded by Abbott Vascular; ABSORB III ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01751906.).

A novel bioresorbable polymer paclitaxel-eluting stent for the treatment of single and multivessel coronary disease: primary results of the COSTAR (Cobalt Chromium Stent With Antiproliferative for Restenosis) II study.

OBJECTIVES We sought to determine whether the differences in outcomes present between everolimus-eluting stents (EES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) in the SPIRIT (Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System) IV trial at 1 year were sustained with longer-term follow-up. BACKGROUND In the SPIRIT IV trial, patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention who were randomized to EES compared with PES experienced lower 1-year rates of target lesion failure (cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction [MI], or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization [TLR]), with significant reductions in the individual rates of MI, TLR, and stent thrombosis. METHODS We prospectively randomized 3,687 patients with up to 3 noncomplex previously untreated native coronary artery lesions to EES versus PES at 66 U.S. sites. Follow-up through 2 years is complete in 3,578 patents (97.0%). RESULTS Treatment with EES compared with PES reduced the 2-year rates of TLF (6.9% vs. 9.9%, p = 0.003), all MI (2.5% vs. 3.9%, p = 0.02), Q-wave MI (0.1% vs. 0.8%, p = 0.002), stent thrombosis (0.4% vs. 1.2%, p = 0.008), and ischemia-driven TLR (4.5% vs. 6.9%, p = 0.004), with nonsignificantly different rates of all-cause and cardiac mortality. Between 1 year and 2 years, there were no significant differences in adverse event rates between the 2 stent types. CONCLUSIONS In the large-scale, prospective, multicenter, randomized SPIRIT IV trial, the benefits of EES compared with those of PES present at 1 year were sustained at 2 years.

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)

Two hundred and sixteen patients with acute myocardial infarction were treated with immediate infusion of high-dose (1.5 million units) intravenous streptokinase followed by emergency coronary angioplasty. The infarct lesion was crossed and dilated in 99% and persistent coronary perfusion after the procedure was achieved in 90% (including 3% with significant residual stenosis). Total in-hospital mortality was 12%. Multivariable analysis showed a higher hospital mortality with cardiogenic shock (41% vs 5% without shock), older age, lower left ventricular ejection fraction, and female sex. Final patency of the infarct-related vessel was determined by follow-up in-hospital cardiac catheterization. Coronary reocclusion occurred in 11% (symptomatic in 7%, treated with emergency angioplasty or bypass surgery; silent in 4%, treated medically). Of the surviving patients with successful initial establishment of infarct vessel patency, 94% were discharged from the hospital with an open infarct artery or a bypass graft to the infarct vessel. There was significant improvement in both ejection fraction (44% to 49%; p less than .0001) and regional wall motion in the infarct zone (-3.0 SD to -2.4 SD; p less than .0001) among patients with persistent coronary perfusion and insignificant residual stenosis at the time of the follow-up cardiac catheterization. Thus, a treatment strategy for acute myocardial infarction that includes immediate administration of streptokinase followed by emergency coronary angioplasty, and coronary bypass surgery when necessary, results in a high rate of early and sustained patency of the infarct-related vessel.

Myocardial protection during coronary angioplasty with an autoperfusion balloon catheter in humans.

OBJECTIVES The aim was to compare safety and effectiveness of the CoStar drug-eluting stent (DES) (Conor MedSystems, Menlo Park, California) with those of the Taxus DES (Boston Scientific, Maple Grove, Minnesota) in de novo single- and multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). BACKGROUND Paclitaxel elution from a stent coated with biostable polymer (Taxus) reduces restenosis after PCI. The CoStar DES is a novel stent with laser-cut reservoirs containing bioresorbable polymer loaded to elute 10 microg paclitaxel/30 days. METHODS Patients undergoing PCI for a single target lesion per vessel in up to 3 native epicardial vessels were randomly assigned 3:2 to CoStar or Taxus. Primary end point was 8-month major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as adjudicated death, myocardial infarction (MI), or clinically driven target vessel revascularization (TVR). Protocol-specified 9-month angiographic follow-up included 457 vessels in 286 patients. RESULTS Of the 1,700 patients enrolled, 1,675 (98.5%) were evaluable (CoStar = 989; Taxus = 686), including 1,330 (79%) single-vessel and 345 (21%) multivessel PCI. The MACE rate at 8 months was 11.0% for CoStar versus 6.9% for Taxus (p < 0.005), including adjudicated death (0.5% vs. 0.7%, respectively), MI (3.4% vs. 2.4%, respectively), and TVR (8.1% vs. 4.3%, respectively). Per-vessel 9-month in-segment late loss was 0.49 mm with CoStar and 0.18 mm with Taxus (p < 0.0001). Findings were consistent across pre-specified subgroups. CONCLUSIONS The CoStar DES is not noninferior to the Taxus DES based on per-patient clinical and per-vessel angiographic analyses. The relative benefit of Taxus is primarily attributable to reduction in TVR. Follow-up to 9 months showed no apparent difference in death, MI, or stent thrombosis rates.

Survival and cardiac event rates in the first year after emergency coronary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction

Background— Several recent randomized trials comparing everolimus-eluting stent (EES) and sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) reported similar outcomes. However, only 1 trial was powered for a clinical end point, and no trial was powered for evaluating target-lesion revascularization. Methods and Results— Randomized Evaluation of Sirolimus-eluting versus Everolimus-eluting stent Trial is a prospective multicenter randomized open-label trial comparing EES with SES in Japan. The trial was powered for evaluating noninferiority of EES relative to SES in terms of target-lesion revascularization. From February and July 2010, 3197 patients were randomly assigned to receive either EES (1597 patients) or SES (1600 patients). At 1 year, the primary efficacy end point of target-lesion revascularization occurred in 65 patients (4.3%) in the EES group and in 76 patients (5.0%) in the SES group, demonstrating noninferiority of EES to SES ( P noninferiority<0.0001, and P superiority=0.34). Cumulative incidence of definite stent thrombosis was low and similar between the 2 groups (0.32% versus 0.38%, P =0.77). An angiographic substudy enrolling 571 patients (EES, 285 patients and SES, 286 patients) demonstrated noninferiority of EES relative to SES regarding the primary angiographic end point of in-segment late loss (0.06±0.37 mm versus 0.02±0.46 mm, P noninferiority<0.0001, and P superiority=0.24) at 278±63 days after index stent implantation. Conclusions— One-year clinical and angiographic outcome after EES implantation was noninferior to and not different from that after SES implantation in a stable coronary artery disease population with relatively less complex coronary anatomy. One-year clinical outcome after both EES and SES use was excellent with a low rate of target-lesion revascularization and a very low rate of stent thrombosis. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: . Unique identifier: [NCT01035450][1]. # Clinical Perspective {#article-title-27} [1]: /lookup/external-ref?link_type=CLINTRIALGOV&access_num=NCT01035450&atom=%2Fcirculationaha%2F126%2F10%2F1225.atomBackground— Several recent randomized trials comparing everolimus-eluting stent (EES) and sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) reported similar outcomes. However, only 1 trial was powered for a clinical end point, and no trial was powered for evaluating target-lesion revascularization. Methods and Results— Randomized Evaluation of Sirolimus-eluting versus Everolimus-eluting stent Trial is a prospective multicenter randomized open-label trial comparing EES with SES in Japan. The trial was powered for evaluating noninferiority of EES relative to SES in terms of target-lesion revascularization. From February and July 2010, 3197 patients were randomly assigned to receive either EES (1597 patients) or SES (1600 patients). At 1 year, the primary efficacy end point of target-lesion revascularization occurred in 65 patients (4.3%) in the EES group and in 76 patients (5.0%) in the SES group, demonstrating noninferiority of EES to SES (Pnoninferiority<0.0001, and Psuperiority=0.34). Cumulative incidence of definite stent thrombosis was low and similar between the 2 groups (0.32% versus 0.38%, P=0.77). An angiographic substudy enrolling 571 patients (EES, 285 patients and SES, 286 patients) demonstrated noninferiority of EES relative to SES regarding the primary angiographic end point of in-segment late loss (0.06±0.37 mm versus 0.02±0.46 mm, Pnoninferiority<0.0001, and Psuperiority=0.24) at 278±63 days after index stent implantation. Conclusions— One-year clinical and angiographic outcome after EES implantation was noninferior to and not different from that after SES implantation in a stable coronary artery disease population with relatively less complex coronary anatomy. One-year clinical outcome after both EES and SES use was excellent with a low rate of target-lesion revascularization and a very low rate of stent thrombosis. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01035450.