Salvatore Cassese1, Steffen Desch2, Adnan Kastrati3, Robert A Byrne1, Lamin King1, Tomohisa Tada1, Bernward Lauer4, Albert Schömig5, Holger Thiele2, Jürgen Pache1. 1. Deutsches Herzzentrum, Technische Universität, München, Germany. 2. Department of Internal Medicine/Cardiology, University of Leipzig-Heart Center, Leipzig, Germany. 3. Deutsches Herzzentrum, Technische Universität, München, Germany. Electronic address: kastrati@dhm.mhn.de. 4. Department of Cardiology, Zentralklinik Bad Berka, Bad Berka, Germany. 5. Deutsches Herzzentrum, Technische Universität, München, Germany; 1. Medizinische Klinik, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität, München, Germany.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: The angiographic and clinical efficacy of polymer-free sirolimus-eluting stents vs polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stents remain a matter of debate. We sought to investigate angiographic and clinical measures of efficacy of polymer-free sirolimus-eluting stents vs polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stents. METHODS: Patient data from the randomized intracoronary stenting and angiographic restenosis-test equivalence between the 2 drug-eluting stents (ISAR-TEST) clinical trial and the LIPSIA Yukon clinical trial (randomized comparison of a polymer-free sirolimus-eluting stent vs a polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stent in patients with diabetes mellitus) were pooled. The angiographic (primary) endpoint was in-stent late lumen loss at 6 months to 9 months. The clinical (secondary) endpoints were death or myocardial infarction, cardiac death or myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization, and myocardial infarction. RESULTS: A total of 686 patients (polymer-free sirolimus-eluting stents, n=345 vs polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stents, n=341) and 751 lesions (polymer-free sirolimus-eluting stents, n=383 vs polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stents, n=368) were included in the study. Control angiography (606 lesions, 80.6%) showed comparable in-stent late lumen loss for polymer-free sirolimus-eluting stents vs polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stents (0.53 [0.59] mm vs 0.46 [0.57] mm; P=.15). Median follow-up was 34.8 months. Polymer-free sirolimus-eluting stents and polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stents were associated with comparable risk of death or myocardial infarction (relative risk=1.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.49-2.80; P=.71), cardiac death or myocardial infarction (relative risk=1.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-1.89; P=.50), target lesion revascularization (relative risk=0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.65-1.47; P=.93), and myocardial infarction (relative risk=1.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.85-3.76; P=.12). CONCLUSIONS: In this pooled analysis, polymer-free sirolimus-eluting stents were comparable to polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stents with respect to both angiographic and clinical efficacy.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: The angiographic and clinical efficacy of polymer-free sirolimus-eluting stents vs polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stents remain a matter of debate. We sought to investigate angiographic and clinical measures of efficacy of polymer-free sirolimus-eluting stents vs polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stents. METHODS:Patient data from the randomized intracoronary stenting and angiographic restenosis-test equivalence between the 2 drug-eluting stents (ISAR-TEST) clinical trial and the LIPSIA Yukon clinical trial (randomized comparison of a polymer-free sirolimus-eluting stent vs a polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stent in patients with diabetes mellitus) were pooled. The angiographic (primary) endpoint was in-stent late lumen loss at 6 months to 9 months. The clinical (secondary) endpoints were death or myocardial infarction, cardiac death or myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization, and myocardial infarction. RESULTS: A total of 686 patients (polymer-free sirolimus-eluting stents, n=345 vs polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stents, n=341) and 751 lesions (polymer-free sirolimus-eluting stents, n=383 vs polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stents, n=368) were included in the study. Control angiography (606 lesions, 80.6%) showed comparable in-stent late lumen loss for polymer-free sirolimus-eluting stents vs polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stents (0.53 [0.59] mm vs 0.46 [0.57] mm; P=.15). Median follow-up was 34.8 months. Polymer-free sirolimus-eluting stents and polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stents were associated with comparable risk of death or myocardial infarction (relative risk=1.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.49-2.80; P=.71), cardiac death or myocardial infarction (relative risk=1.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-1.89; P=.50), target lesion revascularization (relative risk=0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.65-1.47; P=.93), and myocardial infarction (relative risk=1.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.85-3.76; P=.12). CONCLUSIONS: In this pooled analysis, polymer-free sirolimus-eluting stents were comparable to polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stents with respect to both angiographic and clinical efficacy.