Impact of lesion length and vessel size on clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention with everolimus- versus paclitaxel-eluting stents pooled analysis from the SPIRIT (Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent
The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of reference vessel diameter (RVD) and lesion length (LL) on the relative safety and efficacy of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES).
Lesion length and RVD are well-known predictors of adverse events after percutaneous coronary intervention.
Patient-level data were pooled from the randomized SPIRIT (Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System) II, III, IV and COMPARE (Second-generation everolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents in real-life practice) trials. Quantitative angiographic core laboratory data were available for 6,183 patients randomized to EES (n = 3,944) or PES (n = 2,239). Long lesions and small vessels were defined as LL >median (13.4 mm) and RVD ≤median (2.65 mm), respectively. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (consisting of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization) were assessed at 2 years, according to stent type in 3 groups: short lesions in large vessels (group A, n = 1,297); long lesions or small vessels but not both (group B, n = 2,981); and long lesions in small vessels (group C, n = 1,905).
The pooled 2-year MACE rates were 5.6%, 8.2%, and 10.4% in Groups A, B, and C, respectively (p < 0.0001). There was no significant interaction between lesion group and stent type (p = 0.64), indicating lower MACE with EES compared with PES regardless of LL and RVD. However, the absolute difference was largest in Groups B and C. In Group A, 2-year MACE rates were not significantly different between EES and PES (4.8% vs. 7.0%, respectively, p = 0.11). In contrast, EES was associated with lower 2-year rates of MACE in Group B (6.6% vs. 11.2%, p < 0.01) and in Group C (9.1% vs. 12.7%, p = 0.008) as well as lower rates of myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization, and stent thrombosis. Multivariable analysis confirmed EES versus PES as an independent predictor of freedom from MACE in Groups B and C.
Patients with short lesions in large vessels have low rates of MACE at 2 years after treatment with either EES or PES. In higher-risk patients with long lesions and/or small vessels, EES results in significant improvements in both clinical safety and efficacy outcomes. (A Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Patients With de Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions; NCT00180310; SPIRIT III: A Clinical Evaluation of the Investigational Device XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System [EECSS] in the Treatment of Subjects With de Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions; NCT00180479; SPIRIT IV Clinical Trial: Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Subjects With de Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions; NCT00307047; A Randomized Controlled Trial of Everolimus-eluting Stents and Paclitaxel-eluting Stents for Coronary Revascularization in Daily Practice: The COMPARE Trial; NCT01016041).
Claessen BE
，Smits PC
，Kereiakes DJ
，Parise H
，Fahy M
，Kedhi E
，Serruys PW
，Lansky AJ
，Cristea E
，Sudhir K
，Sood P
，Simonton CA
，Stone GW
... -
《-》
Comparison of newer-generation drug-eluting with bare-metal stents in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a pooled analysis of the EXAMINATION (clinical Evaluation of the Xience-V stent in Acute Myocardial INfArcTION) and COMFO
This study sought to study the efficacy and safety of newer-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) compared with bare-metal stents (BMS) in an appropriately powered population of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).
Among patients with STEMI, early generation DES improved efficacy but not safety compared with BMS. Newer-generation DES, everolimus-eluting stents, and biolimus A9-eluting stents, have been shown to improve clinical outcomes compared with early generation DES.
Individual patient data for 2,665 STEMI patients enrolled in 2 large-scale randomized clinical trials comparing newer-generation DES with BMS were pooled: 1,326 patients received a newer-generation DES (everolimus-eluting stent or biolimus A9-eluting stent), whereas the remaining 1,329 patients received a BMS. Random-effects models were used to assess differences between the 2 groups for the device-oriented composite endpoint of cardiac death, target-vessel reinfarction, and target-lesion revascularization and the patient-oriented composite endpoint of all-cause death, any infarction, and any revascularization at 1 year.
Newer-generation DES substantially reduce the risk of the device-oriented composite endpoint compared with BMS at 1 year (relative risk [RR]: 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.43 to 0.79; p = 0.0004). Similarly, the risk of the patient-oriented composite endpoint was lower with newer-generation DES than BMS (RR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.63 to 0.96; p = 0.02). Differences in favor of newer-generation DES were driven by both a lower risk of repeat revascularization of the target lesion (RR: 0.33; 95% CI: 0.20 to 0.52; p < 0.0001) and a lower risk of target-vessel infarction (RR: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.14 to 0.92; p = 0.03). Newer-generation DES also reduced the risk of definite stent thrombosis (RR: 0.35; 95% CI: 0.16 to 0.75; p = 0.006) compared with BMS.
Among patients with STEMI, newer-generation DES improve safety and efficacy compared with BMS throughout 1 year. It remains to be determined whether the differences in favor of newer-generation DES are sustained during long-term follow-up.
Sabaté M
，Räber L
，Heg D
，Brugaletta S
，Kelbaek H
，Cequier A
，Ostojic M
，Iñiguez A
，Tüller D
，Serra A
，Baumbach A
，von Birgelen C
，Hernandez-Antolin R
，Roffi M
，Mainar V
，Valgimigli M
，Serruys PW
，Jüni P
，Windecker S
... -
《-》
Efficacy and Safety of Ultrathin, Bioresorbable-Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Thin, Durable-Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stents for Coronary Revascularization of Patients With Diabetes Mellitus.
Patients with diabetes mellitus are prone to increased adverse outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention, even with contemporary drug-eluting stents. Randomized controlled trials have demonstrated comparable clinical outcomes between an ultrathin bioresorbable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (BP-SES) and a thin-strut durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stent (DP-EES) that has specific labeling for patients with diabetes. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the BP-SES in patients with diabetes mellitus. To determine the performance of the BP-SES in diabetic patients, patient-level data from the BIOFLOW II, IV, and V randomized controlled trials were pooled. The primary end point was target lesion failure (TLF), defined as the composite of cardiovascular death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization, and definite or probable stent thrombosis, at 1 year. Among 1,553 BP-SES and 791 DP-EES patients, 757 diabetic patients were identified. Of the diabetic patients included in this analysis (494 BP-SES vs 263 DP-EES), the proportion of insulin- and noninsulin-treated patients was similar between groups. The 1-year TLF rate in the diabetic population was 6.3% in the BP-SES group and 8.7% in the DP-EES group (hazard ratio 0.82, 95% confidence interval 0.047 to 1.43, p = 0.493). There were no significant differences, based on stent type or diabetes treatment regimen, in TLF hazards. In a patient-level pooled analysis of the diabetic population from randomized trials, 1-year clinical safety and efficacy outcomes were similar in patients treated with ultrathin BP-SES and thin-strut DP-EES.
Waksman R
，Shlofmitz E
，Windecker S
，Koolen JJ
，Saito S
，Kandzari D
，Kolm P
，Lipinski MJ
，Torguson R
... -
《-》
ResearchGate
(全网免费下载)
钛学术
(全网免费下载)
