CONTEXT: Although vascular brachytherapy is the only approved therapy for restenosis following bare-metal stent implantation, drug-eluting stents are now being used. Data on the relative merits of each are limited. OBJECTIVE: To determine the safety and efficacy of the sirolimus-eluting stent compared with vascular brachytherapy for the treatment of patients with restenosis within a bare-metal stent. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Prospective, multicenter, randomized trial of 384 patients with in-stent restenosis who were enrolled between February 2003 and July 2004 at 26 academic and community medical centers. Data presented represent all follow-up as of June 30, 2005. INTERVENTIONS:Vascular brachytherapy (n = 125) or the sirolimus-eluting stent (n = 259). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Target vessel failure (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization) at 9 months postprocedure. RESULTS: Baseline patient characteristics were well matched. Lesion length was similar between vascular brachytherapy and sirolimus-eluting stent patients (mean [SD], 16.76 [8.55] mm vs 17.22 [7.97] mm, respectively; P = .61). Procedural success was 99.2% (124/125) in the vascular brachytherapy group and 97.3% (250/257) in the sirolimus-eluting stent group (P = .28). The rate of target vessel failure was 21.6% (27/125) with vascular brachytherapy and 12.4% (32/259) with the sirolimus-eluting stent (relative risk [RR], 1.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-2.8; P = .02). Target lesion revascularization was required in 19.2% (24/125) of the vascular brachytherapy group and 8.5% (22/259) of the sirolimus-eluting stent group (RR, 2.3 [95% CI, 1.3-3.9]; P = .004). At follow-up angiography, the rate of binary angiographic restenosis for the analysis segment was 29.5% (31/105) for the vascular brachytherapy group and 19.8% (45/227) for the sirolimus-eluting stent group (RR, 1.5 [95% CI, 1.0-2.2]; P = .07). Compared with the vascular brachytherapy group, minimal lumen diameter was larger in the sirolimus-eluting stent group at 6-month follow-up (mean [SD], 1.52 [0.63] mm vs 1.80 [0.63] mm; P<.001), reflecting greater net lumen gain in the analysis segment (0.68 [0.60] vs 1.0 [0.61] mm; P<.001) due to stenting and no edge restenosis. CONCLUSION:Sirolimus-eluting stents result in superior clinical and angiographic outcomes compared with vascular brachytherapy for the treatment of restenosis within a bare-metal stent. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00231257.
RCT Entities:
CONTEXT: Although vascular brachytherapy is the only approved therapy for restenosis following bare-metal stent implantation, drug-eluting stents are now being used. Data on the relative merits of each are limited. OBJECTIVE: To determine the safety and efficacy of the sirolimus-eluting stent compared with vascular brachytherapy for the treatment of patients with restenosis within a bare-metal stent. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Prospective, multicenter, randomized trial of 384 patients with in-stent restenosis who were enrolled between February 2003 and July 2004 at 26 academic and community medical centers. Data presented represent all follow-up as of June 30, 2005. INTERVENTIONS: Vascular brachytherapy (n = 125) or the sirolimus-eluting stent (n = 259). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Target vessel failure (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization) at 9 months postprocedure. RESULTS: Baseline patient characteristics were well matched. Lesion length was similar between vascular brachytherapy and sirolimus-eluting stent patients (mean [SD], 16.76 [8.55] mm vs 17.22 [7.97] mm, respectively; P = .61). Procedural success was 99.2% (124/125) in the vascular brachytherapy group and 97.3% (250/257) in the sirolimus-eluting stent group (P = .28). The rate of target vessel failure was 21.6% (27/125) with vascular brachytherapy and 12.4% (32/259) with the sirolimus-eluting stent (relative risk [RR], 1.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-2.8; P = .02). Target lesion revascularization was required in 19.2% (24/125) of the vascular brachytherapy group and 8.5% (22/259) of the sirolimus-eluting stent group (RR, 2.3 [95% CI, 1.3-3.9]; P = .004). At follow-up angiography, the rate of binary angiographic restenosis for the analysis segment was 29.5% (31/105) for the vascular brachytherapy group and 19.8% (45/227) for the sirolimus-eluting stent group (RR, 1.5 [95% CI, 1.0-2.2]; P = .07). Compared with the vascular brachytherapy group, minimal lumen diameter was larger in the sirolimus-eluting stent group at 6-month follow-up (mean [SD], 1.52 [0.63] mm vs 1.80 [0.63] mm; P<.001), reflecting greater net lumen gain in the analysis segment (0.68 [0.60] vs 1.0 [0.61] mm; P<.001) due to stenting and no edge restenosis. CONCLUSION:Sirolimus-eluting stents result in superior clinical and angiographic outcomes compared with vascular brachytherapy for the treatment of restenosis within a bare-metal stent. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00231257.
Authors: Klaus Bonaventura; Alexander W Leber; Christian Sohns; Mattias Roser; Leif-Hendrik Boldt; Franz X Kleber; Wilhelm Haverkamp; Marc Dorenkamp Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2012-02-21 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Helge Möllmann; Albrecht Elsässer; Holger Nef; Steffen Schneider; Christoph A Nienaber; Gert Richardt; Michael Weber; Malte Kelm; Benny Levenson; Tassilo Bonzel; Ulrich Tebbe; Georg Sabin; Thomas Pfannebecker; Jochen Senges; Christian W Hamm Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2008-03-03 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Ralf Zahn; Christian W Hamm; Uwe Zeymer; Gert Richardt; Malte Kelm; Benny Levenson; Tassilo Bonzel; Ulrich Tebbe; Georg Sabin; Christoph A Nienaber; Thomas Pfannebecker; Jochen Senges Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2009-10-31 Impact factor: 5.460