Comparison of Two Biodegradable Polymer Coated, Drug-Eluting Coronary Stents Paclitaxel vs. Sirolimus, with 6-Years Clinical Follow-Up: BIOPRESS (BIOdegradable Polymer REgistry Smt Stents) Infinnium vs. Supralimus
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12970/2311-052X.2014.02.01.4Keywords:
Biodegradable polymer, paclitaxel-eluting stent, sirolimus-eluting stent, percutaneous coronary interventionAbstract
Background: The safety and efficacy of drug-eluting stents has been shown in randomized trials, but some controversy exists regarding which stent, sirolimus-eluting or paclitaxel-eluting is more effective in unselected real-world patients. Therefore, we investigated, long term safety and efficacy of paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) compared to sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) when used without restriction in unselected real-world patients.
Methods: We created a prospective, open label, non-randomized, multicenter registry and analyzed data on a consecutive series of all patients who presented to our institution with symptomatic coronary artery disease between July-2004 and June-2006 and who were treated with the Infinnium® PES or the Supralimus® SES. All enrolled patients were divided into two groups based on stent type. By outpatient clinic visit and telephone interview, we obtained up to 6-years clinical outcomes including death, myocardial infarction (MI), stent thrombosis (ST), target lesion revascularization (TLR), target vessel revascularization (TVR), and major adverse cardiac events (MACE, the composite of cardiac death, TLR, TVR and ST).
Results: In total, 571 patients were treated with either the Infinnium® PES (n=276) or the Supralimus® SES (n=295). Baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics were almost similar in the two groups. The six-year clinical follow-up was completed in 529 patients (92.6%). Total 1.4% in-hospital major adverse cardiac event (MACE) were recorded (1.8% Infinnium® PES vs. 1.0% Supralimus® SES) with 99% procedural success. At 6-years, all-cause death was significantly lower in Supralimus® SES group than in Infinnium® PES group (3.1% vs. 6.9%, p=0.03). The incidence of cardiac death (4.3% vs. 2.7%, p=0.29), TLR (3.6% vs. 3.7%, p=0.95, TVR (4.0% vs. 2.4%, p=0.27) and ST (2.5 vs. 1.0, p=0.17) was more frequent in the Infinnium® PES group compare to Supralimus® SES group, but it did not reach statistical significance.
Conclusion: The long-term follow-up of 6-years, demonstrated the safety and efficacy of both Infinnium® PES and Supralimus® SES biodegradable polymer coated drug-eluting stents (Sahajanand Medical Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Surat, India) in real-world practice. Also superiority of Supralimus® SES proved on long term follow-up with complex lesions.
References
Babapulle MN, Joseph L, Belisle P, et al. A hierarchical Bayesian meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials of durgeluting stents. Lancet 2004; 364: 583-91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(04)16850-5
Eisenberg MJ, Konnyu KJ. Review of randomized clinical trials of drug-eluting stents for the prevention of in-stent restenosis. Am J Cardiol 2006; 8: 375-82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2006.02.042
Stettler C, Wandel S, Allemann S, et al. Outcomes associated with durg-eluting and bare-metal stents: a collaborative network meta-analysis. Lancet 2007; 370: 937- 48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61444-5
Goy JJ, Stauffer JC, Siegenthaler M, et al. A prospective randomized comparison between paclitaxel and sirolimus stents in the real world of interventional cardiology: The TAXi trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005; 45: 308-11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2004.10.062
Morice MC, Serruys PW, Sousa JE, et al. A randomized comparison of a sirolimus-eluting stent with a standard stent for coronary revascularization. N Eng J Med 2002; 346: 1773-80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa012843
Moses JW, Leon MB, Popma JJ, et al. Sirolimus-eluting stents versus standard stents in patients with stenosis in a native coronary artery. N Eng J Med 2003; 349: 1315-23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa035071
Stone GW, Ellis SG, Cox DA, et al. A polymer-based, paclitaxel-eluting stent in patients with coronary artery disease. N Eng J Med 2004; 350: 221-31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa032441
McFadden EP, Stabile E, Regar E, et al. Late thrombosis in drug-eluting coronary stents after discontinuation of antiplatelet therapy. Lancet 2004; 364: 1519-21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(04)17275-9
Moreno R, Fernandez C, Hernandez R, et al. Drug-eluting stent thrombosis: Results from a pooled analysis including 10 randomized studies. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005; 45: 954-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2004.11.065
Hofma SH, van der Giessen WJ, van Dalen BM, et al. Indication of long-term endothelial dysfunction after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation. Eur Heart J 2006; 27: 166-70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehi571
Guagliumi G, Farb A, Musumeci G, et al. Images in cardiovascular medicine. Sirolimus-eluting stent implanted in human coronary artery for 16 months: Pathological findings. Circulation 2003; 107: 1340-1. http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.0000062700.42060.6F
Virmani R, Guagliumi G, Farb A, Musumeci, et al. Localized hypersensitivity and late coronary thrombosis secondary to a sirolimus-eluting stent: Should we be cautious? Circulation 2004; 109: 701-5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.0000116202.41966.D4
Nebeker JR, Virmani R, Bennett CL, et al. Hypersensitivity cases associated with drug-eluting coronary stents: A review of available cases from the Research on Adverse Drug Events and Reports (RADAR) Project. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006; 47: 175-81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2005.07.071
Kastrati A, Dibra A, Eberle S, et al. Sirolimus-eluting stents vs paclitaxel-eluting stents in patients with coronary artery disease: meta-analysis of randomized trials. JAMA 2005; 294: 819-25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.294.7.819
Roiron C, Sanchez P, Bouzamondo A, et al. Drug eluting stents: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Heart 2006; 92: 641-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/hrt.2005.061622
Biondi-Zoccai GG, Lotrionte M, Abbate A, et al. Direct and indirect comparison meta-analysis demonstrates the superiority of sirolimus- versus paclitaxel-eluting stents across 5854 patients. Int J Cardiol 2007; 114: 104-5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2005.11.019
Schömig A, Dibra A, Windecker S, et al. A meta-analysis of 16 randomized trials of sirolimus-eluting stents in patients with coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007; 50: 1373-80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2007.06.047
Camenzind E, Steg PG, Wijns W. Stent thrombosis late after implantation of first-generation drug-eluting stents: a cause for concern. Circulation 2007; 115: 1440-55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.666800
Pfisterer M, Brunner-La Rocca H, Buser PT, et al; for the BASKETLATE Investigators. Late clinical events after clopidogrel discontinuation may limit the benefit of drugeluting stents: an observational study of drug-eluting versus bare-metal stents. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006; 48: 2584-91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2006.10.026
Mauri L, Hsieh WH, Massaro JM, et al. Stent thrombosis in randomized clinical trials of drug-eluting stents. N Engl J Med 2007; 356: 1020-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa067731
Cutlip DE, Windecker S, Mehran R, et al. Academic Research Consortium. Clinical end points in coronary stent trials: a case for standardized definitions. Circulation 2007; 115: 2344-51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.685313
Marzocchi A, Saia F, Piovaccari G, et al. Long-term safety and efficacy of drug-eluting stents: two-year results of the REAL Multicenter Registry. Circulation 2007; 115: 3181-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.667592
Garg P, Normand SL, Silbaugh TS, et al. Drug-eluting of bare-metal stenting in patients with diabetes mellitus: results from the Massachusetts data analysis center registry. Circulation 2008; 118: 2277-85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.820159
Mauri L, Silbaugh TS, wolf RE, et al. Long-term clinical outcomes after drug-eluting and bare-metal stenting in Massachusetts. Circulation 2008; 118: 1817-27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.781377
Katritsis DG, Korovesis S, Karabinos I, et al. Sirolimusversus paclitaxeleluting stents: a comparison of two consecutive series in routine clinical practice. J Intervent Cardiol 2006; 19: 31-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-8183.2006.00101.x
Wessely R, Schomig A, Kastrati A. Sirolimus and paclitaxel on polymer-based drug-eluting stents: similar but different. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006; 47: 708-14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2005.09.047
Stone GW, Rizvi A, Newman W, et al. Everolimus-eluting versus paclitaxel-eluting stents in coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 2010; 362: 1663-74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0910496
Schomig A, Mehilli J, de Waha A, et al. A meta-analysis of 17 randomized trials of a percutaneous coronary interventionbased strategy in patients with stable coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008; 52: 894-904. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2008.05.051
Lemos PA, Moulin B, Perin MA, et al. Randomized evaluation of two drug-eluting stents with identical metallic platform and biodegradable polymer but different agents (paclitaxel or sirolimus) compared against bare stents: 1-year results of the PAINT trial. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2009; 74: 665-73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ccd.22166
