Morten Madsen

Efficacy and safety of zotarolimus-eluting and sirolimus-eluting coronary stents in routine clinical care (SORT OUT III): a randomised controlled superiority trial.

BACKGROUND In low-risk patients, the zotarolimus-eluting stent has been shown to reduce rates of restenosis without increasing the risk of stent thrombosis. We compared the efficacy and safety of the zotarolimus-eluting stent versus the sirolimus-eluting stent in patients with coronary artery disease who were receiving routine clinical care with no direct follow-up. METHODS We did a single-blind, all-comer superiority trial in adult patients with chronic stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes, and at least one target lesion. Patients were treated at one of five percutaneous coronary intervention centres between January, 2006, and August, 2007. Computer-generated block randomisation and a telephone allocation service were used to randomly assign patients to receive the zotarolimus-eluting or the sirolimus-eluting stent. Data for follow-up were obtained from national Danish administrative and health-care registries. The primary endpoint was a composite of major adverse cardiac events within 9 months: cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularisation. Intention-to-treat analyses were done at 9-month and 18-month follow-up. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00660478. FINDINGS 1162 patients (1619 lesions) were assigned to receive the zotarolimus-eluting stent, and 1170 patients (1611 lesions) to receive the sirolimus-eluting stent. 67 patients (72 lesions) had stent failure, and six patients were lost to follow-up. All randomly assigned patients were included in analyses at 9-month follow-up; 2200 patients (94%) had completed 18-month follow-up by the time of our assessment. At 9 months, the primary endpoint had occurred in a higher proportion of patients treated with the zotarolimus-eluting stent than in those treated with the sirolimus-eluting stent (72 [6%] vs 34 [3%]; HR 2.15, 95% CI 1.43-3.23; p=0.0002). At 18-month follow-up, this difference was sustained (113 [10%] vs 53 [5%]; 2.19, 1.58-3.04; p<0.0001). For patients receiving the zotarolimus-eluting stent and those receiving the sirolimus-eluting stent, all cause-mortality was similar at 9-month follow-up (25 [2%] vs 18 [2%]; 1.40, 0.76-2.56; p=0.28), but was significantly different at 18-month follow-up (51 [4%] vs 32 [3%]; 1.61, 1.03-2.50; p=0.035). INTERPRETATION The sirolimus-eluting stent is superior to the zotarolimus-eluting stent for patients receiving routine clinical care. FUNDING Cordis and Medtronic.

Biolimus-eluting biodegradable polymer-coated stent versus durable polymer-coated sirolimus-eluting stent in unselected patients receiving percutaneous coronary intervention (SORT OUT V): a randomised non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND Third-generation biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents might reduce the risk of stent thrombosis compared with first-generation permanent polymer drug-eluting stents. We aimed to further investigate the effects of a biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stent compared with a durable polymer-coated sirolimus-eluting stent in a population-based setting. METHODS This randomised, multicentre, all-comer, non-inferiority trial was undertaken at three sites across western Denmark. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with chronic stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes, and at least one coronary artery lesion (>50% diameter stenosis). We randomly assigned patients (1:1) using an independently managed computer-generated allocation sequence to receive either a biolimus-eluting biodegradable polymer stent (Nobori, Terumo, Tokyo, Japan) or a sirolimus-eluting permanent polymer stent (Cypher Select Plus, Cordis, Johnson & Johnson, Warren, NJ, USA). The primary endpoint was a composite of safety (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, definite stent thrombosis) and efficacy (target vessel revascularisation) at 9 months, analysed by intention to treat (non-inferiority margin of 0·02). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01254981. FINDINGS From July, 2009, to January, 2011, we assigned 1229 patients (1532 lesions) to receive the biolimus-eluting stent and 1239 (1555 lesions) to receive the sirolimus-eluting stent. One patient was lost to follow-up because of emigration. Intention-to-treat analysis showed that 50 (4·1%) patients who were assigned the biolimus-eluting stent and 39 (3·1%) who were assigned the sirolimus-eluting stent met the primary endpoint (risk difference 0·9% [upper limit of one-sided 95% CI 2·1%]; p(non-inferiority)=0·06). Significantly more patients in the biolimus-eluting stent group had definite stent thrombosis at 12 months than did those in the sirolimus-eluting stent group (9 [0·7%] vs 2 [0·2%], risk difference 0·6% [95% CI 0·0-1·1]; p=0·034). Per-protocol analysis showed that 45 (3·8%) of 1193 patients who received a biolimus-eluting stent and 39 (3·2%) of 1208 who received a sirolimus-eluting stent met the primary endpoint (risk difference 0·5% [upper limit of one-sided 95% CI 1·8%]; p(non-inferiority)=0·03). INTERPRETATION At 1 year follow-up, the biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting Nobori stent did not improve clinical results compared with a first-generation sirolimus-eluting stent. We will need to obtain long-term data before we can make recommendations for the role of this biolimus-eluting stent in routine clinical practice. FUNDING Terumo and Cordis (Johnson & Johnson).

Randomized Comparison of Everolimus-Eluting and Sirolimus-Eluting Stents in Patients Treated With Percutaneous Coronary Intervention The Scandinavian Organization for Randomized Trials With Clinical Outcome IV (SORT OUT IV)

Background —Among drug-eluting stents released to date, the sirolimus-eluting stent has demonstrated the least amount of late lumen loss, but its efficacy and safety have not been compared head-to-head with the next-generation everolimus-eluting stent. Methods and Results —The S candinavian O rganization for R andomized T rials with Clinical O utcome IV trial was a randomized multicenter, single-blind, all-comer, two-arm, non-inferiority trial comparing the everolimus-eluting stent with the sirolimus-eluting stent in patients with coronary artery disease. The primary end point was a composite of safety (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, definite stent thrombosis) and efficacy (target vessel revascularization) parameters. The non-inferiority criterion was a risk difference of 0.015. Intention-to-treat analyses were done at 9-month and 18-month follow-up. 1,390 patients were assigned to receive the everolimus-eluting stent, and 1,384 patients were assigned to receive the sirolimus-eluting stent. At 9-month follow-up, 68 \[4.9%] patients treated with the everolimus-eluting stent versus 72 [5.2%] patients treated with the sirolimus-eluting stent experienced the primary end point (hazard ratio (HR) =0.94; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.67-1.31) ( p for non-inferiority=0.01). At 18-month follow-up, this differential remained: 99 [7.2%] patients treated with the everolimus-eluting stent versus 105 [7.6%\] (HR=0.94, 95% CI: 0.71-1.23). At 9-month follow-up, rate of definite stent thrombosis was higher in the sirolimus-eluting group (2 [0.1%] patients versus 9 [0.7%] patients, (HR=0.22, 95% CI:0.05-1.02)).At 18-monthfollow-up, this difference was sustained (3 [0.2%] patients versus 12 [0.9%] patients; (HR=0.25, 95% CI:0.07-0.88). Conclusions —The everolimus-eluting stent was found to be non-inferior to the sirolimus-eluting stent. Clinical Trial Registration Information —ClinicalTrials.gov; [NCT00552877][1] [1]: /lookup/external-ref?link_type=CLINTRIALGOV&access_num=NCT00552877&atom=%2Fcirculationaha%2Fearly%2F2012%2F02%2F03%2FCIRCULATIONAHA.111.063644.atomBackground— Among drug-eluting stents released to date, the sirolimus-eluting stent has demonstrated the least amount of late lumen loss, but its efficacy and safety have not been compared head-to-head with the next-generation everolimus-eluting stent. Methods and Results— The Scandinavian Organization for Randomized Trials with Clinical Outcome IV (SORT OUT IV) trial was a randomized multicenter, single-blind, all-comer, 2-arm, noninferiority trial comparing the everolimus-eluting stent with the sirolimus-eluting stent in patients with coronary artery disease. The primary end point was a composite of safety (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, definite stent thrombosis) and efficacy (target vessel revascularization) parameters. The noninferiority criterion was a risk difference of 0.015. Intention-to-treat analyses were done at 9- and 18-month follow-ups. A total of 1390 patients were assigned to receive the everolimus-eluting stent and 1384 patients to the sirolimus-eluting stent. At the 9-month follow-up, 68 patients (4.9%) treated with the everolimus-eluting stent compared with 72 patients (5.2%) treated with the sirolimus-eluting stent experienced the primary end point (hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.67–1.31; P for noninferiority=0.01). At the 18-month follow-up, this differential remained: 99 patients (7.2%) treated with the everolimus-eluting stent versus 105 (7.6%) treated with the sirolimus-eluting stent (hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.71–1.23). At the 9-month follow-up, the rate of definite stent thrombosis was higher in the sirolimus-eluting group (2 patients [0.1%] versus 9 patients [0.7%]; hazard ratio, 0.22; 95% confidence interval, 0.05–1.02). At the 18-month follow-up, this difference was sustained (3 patients [0.2%] versus 12 patients [0.9%]; hazard ratio, 0.25; 95% confidence interval, 0.07–0.88). Conclusion— The everolimus-eluting stent was found to be noninferior to the sirolimus-eluting stent. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00552877.

Zotarolimus-eluting durable-polymer-coated stent versus a biolimus-eluting biodegradable-polymer-coated stent in unselected patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (SORT OUT VI): a randomised non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND New-generation drug-eluting coronary stents have reduced the risk of coronary events, especially in patients with complex disease or lesions. To what extent different stent platforms, polymers, and antiproliferative drugs affect outcomes, however, is unclear. We investigated the safety and efficacy of a third-generation stent by comparing a highly biocompatible durable-polymer-coated zotarolimus-eluting stent with a biodegradable-polymer-coated biolimus-eluting stent. METHODS This open-label, randomised, multicentre, non-inferiority trial was done at three sites across western Denmark. All patients who presented with stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes and at least one coronary artery lesion (more than 50% stenosis) from March, 2011, to August, 2012, were assessed for eligibility. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either the durable-polymer zotarolimus-eluting stent or the biodegradable-polymer biolimus-eluting stent. The primary endpoint was a composite of safety (cardiac death and myocardial infarction not clearly attributable to a non-target lesion) and efficacy (target-lesion revascularisation) at 12 months, analysed by intention to treat. The trial was powered to assess non-inferiority of durable-polymer zotarolimus-eluting stent compared with the biodegradable-polymer biolimus-eluting stent with a predetermined non-inferiority margin of 0·025. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01956448. FINDINGS Of 7103 screened, 1502 patients with 1883 lesions were assigned to receive the durable-polymer zotarolimus-eluting stent and 1497 patients with 1791 lesions to receive the biodegradable-polymer biolimus-eluting stent. 79 (5·3%) and 75 (5·0%) patients, respectively, met the primary endpoint (absolute risk difference 0·0025, upper limit of one-sided 95% CI 0·016%; p=0·004). The individual components of the primary endpoint did not differ significantly between stent types at 12 months. INTERPRETATION The durable-polymer-coated zotarolimus-eluting stent was non-inferior to the biodegradable-polymer-coated biolimus-eluting stent in unselected patients. FUNDING Medtronic Cardiovascular and Biosensors Interventional Technologies.

3-Year clinical outcomes in the randomized SORT OUT III superiority trial comparing zotarolimus- and sirolimus-eluting coronary stents.

OBJECTIVES This study sought to examine the 3-year clinical outcomes in patients treated with the Endeavor (Medtronic, Santa Rosa, California) zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) or the Cypher (Cordis, Johnson & Johnson, Warren, New Jersey) sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) in routine clinical practice. BACKGROUND The long-term clinical outcome in patients treated with ZES in comparison with SES is unclear. METHODS The authors randomized 2,332 patients to ZES (n = 1,162) or SES (n = 1,170) implantation. Endpoints included major adverse cardiac events (MACE), a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization; the individual endpoints of MACE; and definite stent thrombosis. RESULTS At 3-year follow-up, the MACE rate was higher in patients treated with ZES than in patients treated with SES (148 [12.9%] vs. 116 [10.1%]; hazard ratio [HR]: 1.33, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.04 to 1.69; p = 0.022). Target vessel revascularization was more frequent in the ZES group compared with the SES group (103 [9.1%] vs. 76 [6.7%]; HR: 1.40, 95% CI: 1.04 to 1.89; p = 0.025), whereas the occurrence of myocardial infarction (3.8% vs. 3.3%) and cardiac death (2.8% vs. 2.8%) did not differ significantly. Although the rate of definite stent thrombosis was similar at 3-year follow-up (1.1% vs. 1.4%), very late (12 to 36 months) definite stent thrombosis occurred in 0 (0%) patients in the ZES group versus 12 (1.1%) patients in the SES group (p = 0.0005). CONCLUSIONS Although the 3-year MACE rate is higher in patients treated with ZES versus SES, our data highlight a late safety problem concerning definite stent thrombosis with the use of SES. This finding underscores the importance of long-term follow-up in head-to-head comparisons of drug-eluting stents. (Randomized Clinical Comparison of the Endeavor and the Cypher Coronary Stents in Non-selected Angina Pectoris Patients [SORT OUT III]; NCT00660478).

Comparison of Outcomes in Patients With Versus Without Diabetes Mellitus After Revascularization With Everolimus- and Sirolimus-Eluting Stents (from the SORT OUT IV Trial)

Diabetes is associated with increased risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) after percutaneous coronary intervention. The purpose of this substudy of the SORT OUT IV trial was to compare clinical outcomes in patients with and without diabetes mellitus treated with everolimus-eluting stents (EESs) or sirolimus-eluting stents (SESs). In total 2,774 patients (390 with diabetes, 14.1%) were randomized to stent implantation with EESs (n = 1,390, diabetes in 14.0%) or SESs (n = 1,384, diabetes in 14.2%). Randomization was stratified by presence/absence of diabetes. The primary end point was MACEs, a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, definite stent thrombosis, or target vessel revascularization within 18 months. MACEs were higher in diabetic than in nondiabetic patients (13.1% vs 6.4%, hazard ratio [HR] 2.08, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.51 to 2.86). In diabetic patients, MACEs were seen in 10.3% of those treated with EESs and in 15.8% of those treated with SESs (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.11). In nondiabetic patients, MACEs occurred in 6.6% of EES-treated and in 6.3% SES-treated patients (HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.46). In diabetics, cardiac death occurred in 3.1% of EES-treated and in 4.6% of SES-treated patients (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.89), myocardial infarction occurred in 0.5% of EES-treated and in 3.6% of SES-treated patients (HR 0.14, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.16), and clinically driven target lesion revascularization was needed in 3.1% of EES-treated and in 7.7% of SES-treated patients (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.02). No interaction between diabetes status and type of drug-eluting stent was found for the end points. In conclusion, patients with diabetes have higher MACE rates than nondiabetics. No significant differences in safety or efficacy outcomes after EES or SES implantation were present in nondiabetic or diabetic patients.

Long-Term Outcomes After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With and Without Diabetes Mellitus in Western Denmark

Patients with diabetes mellitus have worse outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention than patients without diabetes mellitus. We compared the risk of stent thrombosis, myocardial infarction, death, and target lesion revascularization in diabetic and nondiabetic patients after implantation of drug-eluting stents or bare metal stents. In the Western Denmark Heart Registry, 12,347 consecutive patients (1,575 with and 10,772 without diabetes) were identified and followed up for 2 years. The 2-year risk of definite stent thrombosis was 0.52% in patients with diabetes mellitus and 0.71% in nondiabetic patients (adjusted relative risk [RR] 0.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.41 to 1.34, p = 0.321). The 2-year risk of myocardial infarction was greater in the diabetic patients (6.9%) than in the nondiabetic patients (3.6%; adjusted RR 1.96, 95% CI 1.58 to 2.43; p <0.001). The all-cause 2-year mortality rate was almost twice as great for the diabetic patients compared to the nondiabetic patients (12.4% vs 6.7%; adjusted RR 1.91, 95% CI 1.63 to 2.23; p <0.001). The 2-year risk of target lesion revascularization was 8.5% in the diabetic patients and 6.8% in the nondiabetic patients (adjusted RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.49; p <0.001). In conclusion, 2 years after drug-eluting stent or bare metal stent implantation, diabetic patients had a greater risk than nondiabetic patients of myocardial infarction and death. Drug-eluting stent treatment reduced the risk of target lesion revascularization compared to bare metal stent treatment, regardless of diabetes status.

Outcome of sirolimus-eluting versus zotarolimus-eluting coronary stent implantation in patients with and without diabetes mellitus (a SORT OUT III Substudy).

Diabetes is associated with an increased risk of major adverse cardiac events after percutaneous coronary intervention. We compared clinical outcomes in patients with and without diabetes mellitus treated with the second-generation Endeavor zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) or the first-generation Cypher Select+ sirolimus-eluting stent (SES). We randomized 2,332 patients to treatment with ZESs (n = 1,162, n = 169 diabetics) or SESs (n = 1,170, n = 168 diabetics) and followed them for 18 months. Randomization was stratified by presence/absence of diabetes. The primary end point was major adverse cardiac events defined as a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization. Secondary end points included these individual end points plus all-cause mortality and target lesion revascularization. In diabetic patients, use of ZES compared to SES was associated with an increased risk of major adverse cardiac events (18.3% vs 4.8%, hazard ratio 4.05, 95% confidence interval 1.86 to 8.82), myocardial infarction (4.7% vs 0.6%, hazard ratio 8.09, 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 64.7), target vessel revascularization (14.2% vs 3.0%, hazard ratio 4.99, 95% confidence interval 1.90 to 13.1), and target lesion revascularization (12.4% vs 1.2%, hazard ratio 11.0, 95% confidence interval 2.59 to 47.1). In patients without diabetes differences in absolute risk decrease were smaller but similarly favored SES. In conclusion, implantation of ZESs compared to SESs is associated with a considerable increased risk of adverse events in patients with diabetes at 18-month follow-up.

Angiotensin II, aldosterone and arginine vasopressin in plasma in congestive heart failure.

Abstract. Angiotensin II(AII), aldosterone (Aldo) and arginine vasopressin (AVP) in plasma were determined during basal conditions in seventeen patients with congestive heart failure and in seventeen control subjects. The same parameters were measured before and 1, 2 and 3 h after an oral water load of 20 ml (kg body weight)‐1 together with urine volume (V) and free water clearance (CH2O) in seven patients with congestive heart failure and in seven control subjects. AII, Aldo and AVP were significantly higher in heart failure than in control subjects (AII: 81 and 12 pmol l‐1 (medians), P < 0·01; Aldo: 411 and 103 pmol l‐1, P < 0·01; AVP: 5·3 and 2·0 pmol l‐1, P < 0·01). AVP was positively correlated to Aldo in both heart failure (ρ= 0·593, n= 17, P < 0·02) and control subjects (ρ= 0·511, n= 17, P < 0·05), but in neither of the groups to AII. V and CH2O were significantly lower in heart failure when compared to control subjects (maximum increase in CH2O 3·55 and 5·86 ml min‐1, P < 0·02), but did not correlate directly with either A II, Aldo or AVP. Creatinine clearance was reduced in heart failure. It is concluded that the activity of both the renin‐angiotensin‐aldosterone system and the osmoregulatory system is enhanced in congestive heart failure, presumably as a compensatory phenomenon in order to maintain arterial blood pressure. It is suggested that the decrease in free water clearance may be attributed to both an elevated level of vasopressin and a reduced glomerular filtration rate.

Randomized Comparison of a Biodegradable Polymer Ultrathin Strut Sirolimus-Eluting Stent With a Biodegradable Polymer Biolimus-Eluting Stent in Patients Treated With Percutaneous Coronary Intervention The SORT OUT VII Trial

Background—Coronary drug-eluting stents with biodegradable polymers have been designed to improve safety and efficacy. Methods and Results—The Scandinavian Organization for Randomized Trials With Clinical Outcome (SORT OUT) VII trial—a large-scale registry-based randomized, multicenter, single-blind, 2-arm, noninferiority trial—compared 2 biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents: the thin-strut cobalt–chromium sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent and the stainless steel biolimus-eluting Nobori stent in an all-comer patient population. The primary end point target lesion failure was a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (not related to other than index lesion), or target lesion revascularization within 1 year, analyzed by intention to treat (noninferiority margin of 3.0%). Clinically driven event detection based on Danish registries was used. A total of 1261 patients were assigned to receive the sirolimus-eluting stent (1590 lesions) and 1264 patients to the biolimus-eluting stent (1588 lesions). At 1 year, the composite end point target lesion failure occurred in 48 patients (3.8%) in the sirolimus-eluting group and in 58 patients (4.6%) in the biolimus-eluting group (absolute risk difference, −0.78% [upper limit of 1-sided 95% confidence interval, 0.61%]; P<0.0001). Rates of definite stent thrombosis occurred in 5 (0.4%) of the sirolimus-eluting group compared with 15 (1.2%) biolimus-eluting stent–treated patients (rate ratio, 0.33; 95% confidence interval, 0.12–0.92; P=0.034), which largely was attributable to a lower risk of subacute definite stent thrombosis: 0.1% versus 0.6% (rate ratio, 0.12; 95% confidence interval, 0.02–1.00; P=0.05). Conclusions—The thin-strut sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent was noninferior to the biolimus-eluting Nobori stent in unselected patients for target lesion failure at 1 year. Clinical Trial Registration—URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01879358.