Safety and efficacy of everolimus-eluting stents versus paclitaxel-eluting stents in a diabetic population.

This study aimed to analyze the use of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) in an unrestricted diabetic population and to compare the performance of these two drug-eluting stents. EES have demonstrated superiority in efficacy when compared to PES in a general population. However, it is controversial whether this superiority holds true in a diabetic population. From March 2004 to May 2010, 968 patients with consecutive diabetes who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention and implantation of an EES (n = 388) or PES (n = 580) at our institution. In-hospital, 1-month, 6-month, and 1-year clinical outcomes were analyzed and compared. Correlates of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) were identified. Baseline clinical characteristics were similar between stent types except for more family history of coronary artery disease in the PES group and more insulin-dependent diabetes and unstable angina at initial diagnosis in the EES group. The PES group had higher number of lesions treated, longer stents used, and a higher proportion of intravascular ultrasound and glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor use. The EES group had more type C and distal lesions. There was higher target lesion revascularization (TLR)-MACE in the PES group (3.3% vs. 1.0%, P = 0.03) as well as a higher rate of stent thrombosis (ST) (8 patients vs. 0 in the EES group, P = 0.03). ST continued to be higher in the PES group at 6 and 12 months and mortality was higher at 12 months in the PES group (9.4% vs. 5.2%, P = 0.02). After adjustment, no significant differences were found between stent types on Cox regression analysis for hazard ratios at 1-year follow-up of TLR-MACE. In a diabetic population undergoing PCI, the use of an EES compared to PES was associated with lower rates of stent thrombosis; but after adjustment the composite TLR-MACE at 1 year was similar between both stents.

Laynez A ，Sardi G ，Hauville C ，Barbash IM ，Pakala R ，Torguson R ，Xue Z ，Satler LF ，Pichard AD ，Waksman R ... -  《-》

Meta-analysis of everolimus-eluting versus paclitaxel-eluting stents in coronary artery disease: final 3-year results of the SPIRIT clinical trials program (Clinical Evaluation of the Xience V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of P

This study sought to investigate whether the everolimus-eluting stent (EES) is superior to the paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) with respect to long-term individual clinical outcomes. Individual studies have indicated a clinical advantage of coronary EES compared with PES with respect to restenosis and the composite endpoint of major adverse cardiac events. However, these trials were not powered for superiority in low-frequency event rates and have reported limited data beyond 1-year follow-up. We conducted a meta-analysis of the final 3-year results from the international SPIRIT (Clinical Evaluation of the Xience V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Patients With De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions) II, III, and IV clinical trials. Individual patient data from 4,989 patients who were prospectively randomized to treatment with EES (n = 3,350) or PES (n = 1,639) were pooled for analysis. At 3-year follow-up, EES was superior to PES in reducing the following event rates: target lesion failure (8.9% vs. 12.5%, hazard ratio [HR]: 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.59 to 0.85; p = 0.0002), all-cause mortality (3.2% vs 5.1%, HR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.49 to 0.86; p = 0.003), myocardial infarction (3.2% vs. 5.1%, HR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.48 to 0.85; p = 0.002), cardiac death or myocardial infarction (4.4% vs. 6.3%, HR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.54 to 0.90; p = 0.005), ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (6.0% vs. 8.2%, HR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.58 to 0.90; p = 0.004), stent thrombosis (0.7% vs. 1.7%, HR: 0.45, 95% CI: 0.26 to 0.78; p = 0.003), and major adverse cardiac events (9.4% vs. 13.0%, HR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.60 to 0.85; p = 0.0002). No interaction was present between stent type and the 3-year relative rates of target lesion failure across a broad range of subgroups, with the exception of diabetes and vessel (left anterior descending vs. other). In this large dataset with 3-year follow-up, coronary implantation of EES compared with PES resulted in reduced rates of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization, stent thrombosis, and target lesion failure. Further research is warranted to characterize possible interactions between stent type, diabetes, and vessel.

Dangas GD ，Serruys PW ，Kereiakes DJ ，Hermiller J ，Rizvi A ，Newman W ，Sudhir K ，Smith RS Jr ，Cao S ，Theodoropoulos K ，Cutlip DE ，Lansky AJ ，Stone GW ... -  《-》

5-year results of a randomized comparison of XIENCE V everolimus-eluting and TAXUS paclitaxel-eluting stents: final results from the SPIRIT III trial (clinical evaluation of the XIENCE V everolimus eluting coronary stent system in the treatment of patient

This study sought to evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) in patients with obstructive coronary artery disease. The use of EES compared to PES has been shown to result in improved clinical outcomes in patients undergoing PCI. However, there have been concerns regarding the durability of these benefits over longer-term follow-up. SPIRIT III was a prospective, multicenter trial in which 1,002 patients were randomized 2:1 to EES versus PES. Endpoints included ischemia-driven target vessel failure (TVF) (death, myocardial infarction (MI), or ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization [TVR]), the pre-specified primary endpoint), target lesion failure (TLF) (cardiac death, target-vessel MI, or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization [TLR]), major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (cardiac death, MI, or ischemia-driven TLR), their individual components and stent thrombosis. Five-year follow-up was available in 91.9% of patients. Treatment with EES versus PES resulted in lower 5-year Kaplan-Meier rates of TVF (19.3% vs. 24.5%, p = 0.05), TLF (12.7% vs. 19.0%, p = 0.008), and MACE (13.2% vs. 20.7%, p = 0.007). EES also resulted in reduced rates of all-cause death (5.9% vs. 10.1%, p = 0.02), with nonsignificantly different rates of MI, stent thrombosis, and TLR, and no evidence of late catch-up of TLR over time. At 5 years after treatment, EES compared to PES resulted in durable benefits in composite safety and efficacy measures as well as all-cause mortality. Additionally, the absolute difference in TLR between devices remained stable over time without deterioration of effect during late follow-up.

Gada H ，Kirtane AJ ，Newman W ，Sanz M ，Hermiller JB ，Mahaffey KW ，Cutlip DE ，Sudhir K ，Hou L ，Koo K ，Stone GW ... -  《-》

Differential long-term outcomes of zotarolimus-eluting stents compared with sirolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents in diabetic and nondiabetic patients: two-year subgroup analysis of the ZEST randomized trial.

To evaluate the differential treatment effects of zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZES), sirolimus-eluting stents (SES), and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) according to diabetic status. Diabetic patients have a higher risk of ischemic complications after stenting than nondiabetic patients. Using data from the ZEST randomized trial, comparing ZES with SES and PES, we evaluated relative outcomes among stents in diabetic and nondiabetic patients. The primary outcome was a major adverse cardiac event (MACE), defined as a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target-vessel revascularization. Of the 2,645 patients enrolled in the ZEST trial, 760 (29%) had diabetes mellitus. Baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics were similar in the three stent groups, regardless of diabetic status. In diabetic patients, ZES showed similar rates of MACE as compared to PES (13.8% vs. 15.3%, P = 0.58), but higher rates of MACE than SES (13.8% vs. 7.7%, P = 0.05). In nondiabetic patients, ZES showed similar rates of MACE as compared to SES (10.3% vs. 10.8%, P = 0.72), whereas significantly lower rates of MACE compared to PES (10.3% vs. 15.3%, P = 0.01). In comparing the ZES and SES groups, there was a substantial interaction between diabetic status and stent types on MACE occurrence (Interaction P = 0.07). However, in comparison of ZES and PES, there were no significant interactions between diabetes and stent type on MACE (Interaction P = 0.25). In diabetic patients, SES showed the lowest rate of MACE compared with ZES and PES. But, in nondiabetic patients, SES and ZES showed significantly lower rates of MACE than PES. ZES shows a diabetes-related interaction on MACE compared with SES, but not with PES.

Jang SJ ，Park DW ，Kim WJ ，Kim YH ，Yun SC ，Kang SJ ，Lee SW ，Lee CW ，Park SW ，Park SJ ... -  《-》

Everolimus-eluting Xience v/Promus versus zotarolimus-eluting resolute stents in patients with diabetes mellitus.

This study sought to compare everolimus-eluting stents (EES) versus Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZES) in terms of patient- or stent-related clinical outcomes in an "all-comer" group of patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention. DM significantly increases the risk of adverse events after percutaneous coronary intervention. The efficacy and safety of second-generation drug-eluting stents, in particular EES versus ZES, in patients with DM have not been extensively evaluated. Patients with DM (1,855 of 5,054 patients, 36.7%) from 2 prospective registries (the EXCELLENT [Efficacy of Xience/Promus Versus Cypher in Reducing Late Loss After Stenting] registry and RESOLUTE-Korea [Registry to Evaluate the Efficacy of Zotarolimus-Eluting Stent]) who were treated with EES (n = 1,149) or ZES (n = 706) were compared. Stent-related outcome was target lesion failure (TLF), and patient-oriented composite events were a composite of all-cause mortality, any myocardial infarction, and any revascularization. Despite a higher risk patient profile in the ZES group, both TLF (43 of 1,149 [3.7%] vs. 25 of 706 [3.5%], p = 0.899) and patient-oriented composite events (104 of 1,149 [9.1%] vs. 72 of 706 [10.2%], p = 0.416) were similar between the EES and ZES in patients with DM at 1 year. In those without DM, EES and ZES also showed comparable incidence of TLF (39 of 1,882 [2.1%] vs. 33 of 1,292 [2.6%], p = 0.370) and patient-oriented composite events (119 of 1,882 [6.3%] vs. 81 of 1,292 [6.3%], p = 0.951), which were all significantly lower than in the DM patients. These results were corroborated by similar findings from the propensity score-matched cohort. Upon multivariate analysis, chronic renal failure was the most powerful predictor of TLF in DM patients (hazard ratio: 4.39, 95% confidence interval: 1.91 to 10.09, p < 0.001). After unrestricted use of second-generation drug-eluting stents in all-comers receiving percutaneous coronary intervention, both EES and ZES showed comparable clinical outcomes in the patients with DM up to 1 year of follow-up. DM compared with non-DM patients showed significantly worse patient- and stent-related outcomes. Nonetheless, overall incidences of TLF were low, even in the patients with DM, suggesting excellent safety and efficacy of both types of second-generation drug-eluting stents in this high-risk subgroup of patients.

Park KW ，Lee JM ，Kang SH ，Ahn HS ，Kang HJ ，Koo BK ，Rhew JY ，Hwang SH ，Lee SY ，Kang TS ，Kwak CH ，Hong BK ，Yu CW ，Seong IW ，Ahn T ，Lee HC ，Lim SW ，Kim HS ... -  《-》