Dataset Information

Randomised trial of the comparison of drug-eluting stents in patients with diabetes: OCT DES trial.

ABSTRACT: Background:To date, there have been limited comparisons performed between everolimus-eluting stents (EES) and zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZES) in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM). The objectives of this study was to assess the use of second-generation drug-eluting stents in patients with DM, using optical coherence tomography (OCT) to compare the level of stent coverage of Boston Scientific Promus Element EES compared with Medtronic Resolute Integrity ZES.(Clinicaltrials.gov number NCT02060357). Methods:This is a single-centre randomised blinded trials assessing two commercially available stents in 60 patients with diabetes (ZES: n=30, EES: n=30). Patients underwent intracoronary assessment at 6 months with OCT assessing stent coverage, malapposition, neointimal thickness and percentage of in-stent restenosis (ISR). Results:Of the 60 patients randomised, 46 patients underwent OCT analysis. There was no difference in baseline characteristics between the two groups. Both Promus Element and Resolute Integrity had low rates of uncovered struts at 6 months with no significant difference between the two groups (2.44% vs 1.24%, respectively; P=0.17). Rates of malapposition struts (3.9% vs 2.5%, P=0.25) and percentage of luminal loss did not differ between stent types. In addition, there was no significant difference in major adverse cardiovascular events (P=0.24) between the stent types. Conclusions:This study is the first randomised trial to evaluate OCT at 6 months for ZES and EES in patients with diabetes. Both stents showed comparable strut coverage at 6 months, with no difference in ISR rates at 6 months.

SUBMITTER: Hamshere S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5888447 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Randomised trial of the comparison of drug-eluting stents in patients with diabetes: OCT DES trial.

Hamshere Stephen S Byrne Alex A Choudhury Tawfiq T Gallagher Sean M SM Rathod Krishnaraj S KS Lungley Julia J Knight Charles J CJ Kapur Akhil A Jones Daniel A DA Mathur Anthony A

Open heart 20180405 1

<h4>Background</h4>To date, there have been limited comparisons performed between everolimus-eluting stents (EES) and zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZES) in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM). The objectives of this study was to assess the use of second-generation drug-eluting stents in patients with DM, using optical coherence tomography (OCT) to compare the level of stent coverage of Boston Scientific Promus Element EES compared with Medtronic Resolute Integrity ZES.(Clinicaltrials.gov number N ...[more]

PMID: 29632674

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundFew studies have examined the efficacy of drug-eluting stents (DES) for reducing aortocoronary saphenous vein bypass graft (SVG) failure compared with bare-metal stents (BMS) in patients undergoing stenting of de-novo SVG lesions. We assessed the risks and benefits of the use of DES versus BMS in de-novo SVG lesions.MethodsPatients were recruited to our double-blind, randomised controlled trial from 25 US Department of Veterans Affairs centres. Eligible participants were aged at least 18 years and had at least one significant de-novo SVG lesion (50-99% stenosis of a 2·25-4·5 mm diameter SVG) requiring percutaneous coronary intervention with intent to use embolic protection devices. Enrolled patients were randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, by phone randomisation system to receive a DES or BMS. Randomisation was stratified by presence or absence of diabetes and number of target SVG lesions requiring percutaneous coronary intervention (one or two or more) within each participating site by use of an adaptive scheme intended to balance the two stent type groups on marginal totals for the stratification factors. Patients, referring physicians, study coordinators, and outcome assessors were masked to group allocation. The primary endpoint was the 12-month incidence of target vessel failure, defined as the composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularisation. The DIVA trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01121224.FindingsBetween Jan 1, 2012, and Dec 31, 2015, 599 patients were randomly assigned to the stent groups, and the data for 597 patients were used. The patients' mean age was 68·6 (SD 7·6) years, and 595 (>99%) patients were men. The two stent groups were similar for most baseline characteristics. At 12 months, the incidence of target vessel failure was 17% (51 of 292) in the DES group versus 19% (58 of 305) in the BMS group (adjusted hazard ratio 0·92, 95% CI 0·63-1·34, p=0·70). Between-group differences in the components of the primary endpoint, serious adverse events, or stent thrombosis were not significant. Enrolment was stopped before the revised target sample size of 762 patients was reached.InterpretationIn patients undergoing stenting of de-novo SVG lesions, no significant differences in outcomes between those receiving DES and BMS during 12 months of follow-up were found. The study results have important economic implications in countries with high DES prices such as the USA, because they suggest that the lower-cost BMS can be used in SVG lesions without compromising either safety or efficacy.FundingUS Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program.

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy and safety of biodegradable polymer drug eluting stents with those of bare metal stents and durable polymer drug eluting stents.DesignMixed treatment comparison meta-analysis of 258,544 patient years of follow-up from randomized trials.Data sources and study selectionPubMed, Embase, and Central were searched for randomized trials comparing any of the Food and Drug Administration approved durable polymer drug eluting stents (sirolimus eluting, paclitaxel eluting, cobalt chromium everolimus eluting, platinum chromium everolimus eluting, zotarolimus eluting-Endeavor, and zotarolimus eluting-Resolute) or biodegradable polymer drug eluting stents, with each other or against bare metal stents.OutcomesLong term efficacy (target vessel revascularization, target lesion revascularization) and safety (death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis). Landmark analysis at more than one year was evaluated to assess the potential late benefit of biodegradable polymer drug eluting stents.ResultsFrom 126 randomized trials and 258,544 patient years of follow-up, for long term efficacy (target vessel revascularization), biodegradable polymer drug eluting stents were superior to paclitaxel eluting stents (rate ratio 0.66, 95% credibility interval 0.57 to 0.78) and zotarolimus eluting stent-Endeavor (0.69, 0.56 to 0.84) but not to newer generation durable polymer drug eluting stents (for example: 1.03, 0.89 to 1.21 versus cobalt chromium everolimus eluting stents). Similarly, biodegradable polymer drug eluting stents were superior to paclitaxel eluting stents (rate ratio 0.61, 0.37 to 0.89) but inferior to cobalt chromium everolimus eluting stents (2.04, 1.27 to 3.35) for long term safety (definite stent thrombosis). In the landmark analysis after one year, biodegradable polymer drug eluting stents were superior to sirolimus eluting stents for definite stent thrombosis (rate ratio 0.29, 0.10 to 0.82) but were associated with increased mortality compared with cobalt chromium everolimus eluting stents (1.52, 1.02 to 2.22). Overall, among all stent types, the newer generation durable polymer drug eluting stents (zotarolimus eluting stent-Resolute, cobalt chromium everolimus eluting stents, and platinum chromium everolimus eluting stents) were the most efficacious (lowest target vessel revascularization rate) stents, and cobalt chromium everolimus eluting stents were the safest with significant reductions in definite stent thrombosis (rate ratio 0.35, 0.21 to 0.53), myocardial infarction (0.65, 0.55 to 0.75), and death (0.72, 0.58 to 0.90) compared with bare metal stents.ConclusionsBiodegradable polymer drug eluting stents are superior to first generation durable polymer drug eluting stents but not to newer generation durable polymer stents in reducing target vessel revascularization. Newer generation durable polymer stents, and especially cobalt chromium everolimus eluting stents, have the best combination of efficacy and safety. The utility of biodegradable polymer stents in the context of excellent clinical outcomes with newer generation durable polymer stents needs to be proven.

Project description:BackgroundLimited data are available on the relative performances of diverse contemporary drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients undergoing complex high-risk indicated procedures (CHIP).ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of contemporary second-generation DES for CHIP patients in "real-world" settings.MethodsOf 28,843 patients enrolled in the IRIS-DES registry, a total of 6,645 patients with CHIP characteristics who received 5 different types of contemporary DES were finally included: 3,752 with cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents (CoCr-EES), 1,258 with Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stents (Re-ZES), 864 with platinum-chromium EES (PtCr-EES), 437 with ultrathin strut biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (UT-SES), and 334 with bioresorbable polymer SES (BP-SES). The primary outcome was target-vessel failure (a composite of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, and target-vessel revascularization) at 12 months.ResultsAt 12 months, the rate of target-vessel failure was highest in the CoCr-EES (7.1%) group; intermediate in the Re-ZES (5.0%), PtCr-EES (4.6%), and BP-SES (4.2%) groups; and lowest in the UT-SES (3.8%) group (overall long-rank P = 0.001). In multiple-treatment propensity-score analysis, the adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for target-vessel failure were significantly lower in the Re-ZES (HR: 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.52-0.97), the UT-SES (HR: 0.52; 95% CI: 0.29-0.95), and BP-SES (HR: 0.33; 95% CI: 0.16-0.70) groups than in the CoCr-EES group (referent).ConclusionsIn this contemporary PCI registry, we observed the differential risks of target-vessel failure according to various types of contemporary DES in patients with CHIP characteristics. However, owing to inherent selection bias, the results should be considered hypothesis-generating, highlighting the need for further randomized trials. (Evaluation of the First, Second, and New Drug-Eluting Stents in Routine Clinical Practice [IRIS-DES]; NCT01186133).

Project description:ImportanceWomen with acute myocardial infarction (MI) undergoing mechanical reperfusion remain at increased risk of adverse cardiac events and mortality compared with their male counterparts. Whether the benefits of new-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) are preserved in women with acute MI remains unclear.ObjectiveTo investigate the long-term safety and efficacy of new-generation DES vs early-generation DES in women with acute MI.Design, setting, and participantsCollaborative, international, individual patient-level data of women enrolled in 26 randomized clinical trials of DES were analyzed between July and December 2016. Only women presenting with an acute coronary syndrome were included. Study population was categorized according to presentation with unstable angina (UA) vs acute MI. Acute MI included non-ST-segment elevation MI (NSTEMI) or ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI).InterventionsRandomization to early- (sirolimus- or paclitaxel-eluting stents) vs new-generation (everolimus-, zotarolimus-, or biolimus-eluting stents) DES.Main outcomes and measuresComposite of death, MI or target lesion revascularization, and definite or probable stent thrombosis at 3-year follow-up.ResultsOverall, the mean age of participants was 66.8 years. Of 11?577 women included in the pooled data set, 4373 (37.8%) had an acute coronary syndrome as clinical presentation. Of these 4373 women, 2176 (49.8%) presented with an acute MI. In women with acute MI, new-generation DES were associated with lower risk of death, MI or target lesion revascularization (14.9% vs 18.4%; absolute risk difference, -3.5%; number needed to treat [NNT], 29; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.61-0.99), and definite or probable stent thrombosis (1.4% vs 4.0%; absolute risk difference, -2.6%; NNT, 46; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.19-0.69) without evidence of interaction for both end points compared with women without acute MI (P for interaction?=?.59 and P for interaction?=?.31, respectively). A graded absolute benefit with use of new-generation DES was observed in the transition from UA, to NSTEMI, and to STEMI (for death, MI, or target lesion revascularization: UA, -0.5% [NNT, 222]; NSTEMI, -3.1% [NNT, 33]; STEMI, -4.0% [NNT, 25] and for definite or probable ST: UA, -0.4% [NNT, 278]; NSTEMI, -2.2% [NNT, 46]; STEMI, -4.0% [NNT, 25]).Conclusions and relevanceNew-generation DES are associated with consistent and durable benefits over 3 years in women presenting with acute MI. The magnitude of these benefits appeared to be greater per increase in severity of acute coronary syndrome.

Project description:BackgroundWe sought to establish the long-term safety of drug-eluting stents compared with bare-metal stents in a usual care setting.MethodsUsing data from a prospective multicentre registry, we compared rates of death and of death or repeat revascularization during 3 years of follow-up of 6440 consecutive patients who underwent angioplasty with either drug-eluting or bare-metal stents between Apr. 1, 2003, and Mar. 31, 2006.ResultsDrug-eluting stents were inserted in 1120 patients and bare-metal stents in 5320. The drug-eluting stents were selected for patients who had a greater burden of comorbid illness, including diabetes mellitus (32.8% v. 20.8% in the bare-metal group, p < 0.001) and renal disease (7.4% v. 5.0%, p = 0.001). At 1-year follow-up, the drug-eluting stents were associated with a mortality of 3.0%, as compared with 3.7% with the bare-metal stents (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.62, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.46-0.83). The rate of the composite outcome of death or repeat revascularization was 12.0% for the drug-eluting stents and 15.8% for the bare-metal stents (adjusted OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.33-0.49). In the subgroup of patients who had acute coronary syndromes, the adjusted OR for this composite outcome was 0.46 (95% CI 0.35-0.61). During the 3 years of observation, the relative risks for death and repeat revascularization varied over time. In year 1, there was an initial period of lower risk in the group with drug-eluting stents than in the group with bare-metal stents; this was followed by a shift toward outcome rates favouring bare-metal stents in years 2 and 3. The adjusted relative risk of the composite outcome of death or repeat revascularization associated with drug-eluting stents relative to bare-metal stents was 0.73 early in the first year of follow-up; it then rose gradually over time, to a peak of 2.24 at 3 years.InterpretationDrug-eluting stents are safe and effective in the first year following insertion. Thereafter, the possibility of longer term adverse events cannot be ruled out.

Project description:ObjectivesTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of currently used drug eluting stents compared with each other and compared with bare metal stents in patients with diabetes.DesignMixed treatment comparison meta-analysis.Data sources and study selectionPubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL were searched for randomised clinical trials, until April 2012, of four durable polymer drug eluting stents (sirolimus eluting stents, paclitaxel eluting stents, everolimus eluting stents, and zotarolimus eluting stents) compared with each other or with bare metal stents for the treatment of de novo coronary lesions and enrolling at least 50 patients with diabetes.Primary outcomesEfficacy (target vessel revascularisation) and safety (death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis).ResultsFrom 42 trials with 22,844 patient years of follow-up, when compared with bare metal stents (reference rate ratio 1) all of the currently used drug eluting stents were associated with a significant reduction in target vessel revascularisation (37% to 69%), though the efficacy varied with the type of stent (everolimus eluting stents~sirolimus eluting stents>paclitaxel eluting stents~zotarolimus eluting stent>bare metal stents). There was about an 87% probability that everolimus eluting stents were the most efficacious compared with all others, though there were limited usable data for the zotarolimus eluting Resolute stent in patients with diabetes. Moreover, there was no increased risk of any safety outcome (including very late stent thrombosis) with any drug eluting stents compared with bare metal stents. There was about a 62% probability that the everolimus eluting stent was the safest stent for the outcome of "any" stent thrombosis.ConclusionsAmong patients with diabetes treated with coronary stents all currently available drug eluting stents were efficacious without compromising safety compared with bare metal stents. There were relative differences among the drug eluting stents, such that the everolimus eluting stent was the most efficacious and safe.

Dataset Information

Randomised trial of the comparison of drug-eluting stents in patients with diabetes: OCT DES trial.

Publications

Randomised trial of the comparison of drug-eluting stents in patients with diabetes: OCT DES trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets