AIMS: Sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents effectively reduce restenosis in small coronary vessels. The relative efficacy of these drug-eluting stents in this high-risk subset is not known. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 360 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for de novo lesions in native coronary vessels with a diameter of <2.80 mm receivedrandomly paclitaxel-eluting stents (n=180) or sirolimus-eluting stents (n=180). The primary endpoint was in-stent late luminal loss. Secondary endpoints were angiographic restenosis and need of target lesion revascularization. The study intended to show that the paclitaxel-eluting stent is not inferior to the sirolimus-eluting stent with respect to the primary endpoint. The non-inferiority margin was set at 0.16 mm. Follow-up angiography was performed in 87% of the patients. In-stent late luminal loss in the paclitaxel-eluting stent group was 0.32 mm (upper 95% boundary, 0.42 mm), which was greater than that in the sirolimus-eluting stent group, failing to show the non-inferiority of the paclitaxel-eluting stent to the sirolimus-eluting stent (P>0.99). Angiographic restenosis was found in 19.0% of the lesions in the paclitaxel-eluting stent group and 11.4% of the lesions in the sirolimus-eluting stent group (P=0.047). Target lesion revascularization was performed in 14.7% of the lesions treated with paclitaxel-eluting stents and 6.6% of the lesions treated with sirolimus-eluting stents (P=0.008). CONCLUSION: The paclitaxel-eluting stent is associated with a greater late luminal loss and is less effective in reducing restenosis in small coronary vessels than the sirolimus-eluting stent.
RCT Entities:
AIMS: Sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents effectively reduce restenosis in small coronary vessels. The relative efficacy of these drug-eluting stents in this high-risk subset is not known. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 360 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for de novo lesions in native coronary vessels with a diameter of <2.80 mm received randomly paclitaxel-eluting stents (n=180) or sirolimus-eluting stents (n=180). The primary endpoint was in-stent late luminal loss. Secondary endpoints were angiographic restenosis and need of target lesion revascularization. The study intended to show that the paclitaxel-eluting stent is not inferior to the sirolimus-eluting stent with respect to the primary endpoint. The non-inferiority margin was set at 0.16 mm. Follow-up angiography was performed in 87% of the patients. In-stent late luminal loss in the paclitaxel-eluting stent group was 0.32 mm (upper 95% boundary, 0.42 mm), which was greater than that in the sirolimus-eluting stent group, failing to show the non-inferiority of the paclitaxel-eluting stent to the sirolimus-eluting stent (P>0.99). Angiographic restenosis was found in 19.0% of the lesions in the paclitaxel-eluting stent group and 11.4% of the lesions in the sirolimus-eluting stent group (P=0.047). Target lesion revascularization was performed in 14.7% of the lesions treated with paclitaxel-eluting stents and 6.6% of the lesions treated with sirolimus-eluting stents (P=0.008). CONCLUSION: The paclitaxel-eluting stent is associated with a greater late luminal loss and is less effective in reducing restenosis in small coronary vessels than the sirolimus-eluting stent.
Authors: Ralf Zahn; C W Hamm; S Schneider; U Zeymer; G Richardt; M Kelm; B Levenson; T Bonzel; U Tebbe; G Sabin; C A Nienaber; Thomas Pfannebecker; J Senges Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2007-06-04 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Martin Unverdorben; Franz X Kleber; Hubertus Heuer; Hans-Reiner Figulla; Christian Vallbracht; Matthias Leschke; Bodo Cremers; Stefan Hardt; Michael Buerke; Hanns Ackermann; Michael Boxberger; Ralf Degenhardt; Bruno Scheller Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2010-01-06 Impact factor: 5.460