Second-versus first-generation "Limus"-eluting stents in diabetic patients with coronary artery disease: a randomized comparison in setting of ISAR-TEST-4 trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with diabetes mellitus remain at higher risk for adverse events following percutaneous coronary intervention and the identification of the optimum drug eluting stents (DES) in these patients is of high clinical relevance. We compared effectiveness of everolimus-eluting stents (EES; Xience) versus sirolimus-eluting stents (SES; Cypher) in patients with diabetes mellitus enrolled in the Intracoronary Stenting and Angiographic Results: Test Efficacy of 3 Limus-Eluting Stents (ISAR-TEST-4) trial. METHODS: In the setting of the ISAR-TEST-4 trial, 1304 patients with broad inclusion criteria were randomized to treatment with EES or SES. The focus of the present analysis is on a cohort of 377 patients with diabetes mellitus assigned to receive EES (n = 184) or SES (n = 193). The primary endpoint was the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI) related to the target vessel, or target lesion revascularization (TLR) at 3-year follow-up. Secondary endpoints were parameters of angiographic and clinical restenosis (in-stent late lumen loss, binary restenosis, and TLR), all-cause mortality and definite/probable stent thrombosis. RESULTS: EES was comparable to SES concerning the incidence of the primary endpoint (21% vs. 24%, respectively; relative risk = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.57-1.34; P = 0.53). Concerning the secondary endpoint, TLR at 3 years with EES versus SES stents was not statistically different (14.7% vs. 16.6%, respectively; relative risk = 0.85; 95% CI, 0.51-1.43; P = 0.55). In terms of angiographic outcomes patients treated with EES as compared to SES had significantly lower late lumen loss (0.22 ± 0.46 mm vs. 0.44 ± 0.66 mm, respectively; P < 0.001) and binary restenosis (8.4% vs. 17%, respectively; P = 0.02) at 6- to 8-month angiographic follow-up. EES was comparable to SES concerning the incidence of all-cause death (10% vs. 16%, respectively; relative risk = 0.66; 95% CI, 0.37-1.18; P = 0.16) and stent thrombosis (1.1% vs. 3.1%, respectively; P = 0.19). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with diabetes mellitus enrolled in a real-world randomized control trial, EES is comparable to SES in terms of clinical efficacy and safety out to 3 years; angiographic markers of antirestenotic efficacy favored EES.

2-year clinical and angiographic outcomes from a randomized trial of polymer-free dual drug-eluting stents versus polymer-based Cypher and Endeavor [corrected] drug-eluting stents.

OBJECTIVES: In the ISAR-TEST-2 (Intracoronary Stenting and Angiographic Results: Test Efficacy of Three Limus-Eluting Stents) randomized trial, a new-generation sirolimus- and probucol-eluting stent (Dual-DES) demonstrated a 12-month efficacy that was comparable to sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) (Cypher, Cordis Corp., Warren, New Jersey) and superior to zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZES) (Endeavor, Medtronic CardioVascular, Santa Rosa, California). The aim of the current study was to investigate the comparative clinical and angiographic effectiveness of SES, Dual-DES, and ZES between 1 and 2 years. BACKGROUND: Long-term polymer residue is implicated in adverse events associated with delayed vessel healing after drug-eluting stent therapy. The second-generation ZES utilizes an enhanced biocompatibility polymer system whereas a new-generation Dual-DES employs a polymer-free drug-release system. METHODS: A total of 1,007 patients undergoing coronary stenting of de novo lesions in native vessels were randomized to treatment with SES (n = 335), Dual-DES (n = 333), or ZES (n = 339). Clinical follow-up was performed to 2 years. Angiographic follow-up was scheduled at 6 to 8 months and 2 years. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between groups regarding death/myocardial infarction (SES: 10.2% vs. Dual-DES: 7.8% vs. ZES: 9.2%; p = 0.61) or definite stent thrombosis (SES: 0.9% vs. Dual-DES: 0.9% vs. ZES: 0.6%; p = 0.87). Two-year target lesion revascularization (TLR) was 10.7%, 7.7%, and 14.3% lesions in the SES, Dual-DES, and ZES groups, respectively (p = 0.009). Incident TLR between 1 and 2 years in the Dual-DES group (0.9%) was significantly lower than in the Cypher SES group (3.6%) (p = 0.009), but comparable to the Endeavor ZES group (0.7%) (p = 0.72). These findings mirrored those observed for binary restenosis. CONCLUSIONS: At 2 years, there was no signal of a differential safety profile between the 3 stent platforms. Furthermore, the antirestenotic efficacy of both Dual-DES and ZES remained durable between 1 and 2 years, with Dual-DES maintaining an advantage over the entire 2-year period. (Intracoronary Stenting and Angiographic Results: Test Efficacy of Three Limus-Eluting Stents [ISAR-TEST-2]; NCT00332397).

Bivalirudin vs. unfractionated heparin during percutaneous coronary interventions in patients with stable and unstable angina pectoris: 1-year results of the ISAR-REACT 3 trial.

AIMS: In ISAR-REACT 3, 30-day outcomes in 4570 biomarker negative patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) > or =2 h after pre-treatment with 600 mg of clopidogrel revealed less bleeding with bivalirudin compared with unfractionated heparin, but no difference in 30-day net clinical benefit. The objective of the present analysis was to assess the impact of bivalirudin vs. heparin on 1-year outcomes in ISAR-REACT 3. METHODS AND RESULTS: The primary outcome for this analysis was the composite of death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization 1 year after randomization. The composite of death or myocardial infarction was a secondary outcome. At 1 year, the primary outcome occurred in 17.1% of patients assigned to bivalirudin vs. 17.5% assigned to heparin [hazard ratio (HR), 0.98; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.86-1.13; P = 0.816]. The combined incidence of death or myocardial infarction was 7.7% in the bivalirudin group vs. 6.7% in the heparin group (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.93-1.43; P = 0.200). The mortality rate was 1.9% in the bivalirudin group and 1.7% in the heparin group (HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.71-1.70; P = 0.667). At 1 year, no significant differences in the primary outcome were observed with bivalirudin and heparin in any of the subgroups analysed. CONCLUSION: Bivalirudin and unfractionated heparin during PCI provide comparable outcomes at 1 year in biomarker negative patients undergoing PCI after pre-treatment with 600 mg of clopidogrel. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION: URL www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier NCT00262054.