4.8 Article

Effect of celecoxib on restenosis after coronary angioplasty with a Taxus stent (COREA-TAXUS trial): an open-label randornised controlled study

Journal

LANCET
Volume 370, Issue 9587, Pages 567-574

Publisher

LANCET LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61295-1

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background In-vitro and animal experiments have shown that the cyclo-oxygenase 2 inhibitor celecoxib can reduce formation of neointima within stents. We aimed to test whether celecoxib has similar effects in a clinical setting. Methods In a randomised two-centre trial, we enrolled 274 patients who had angina pectoris or a positive stress test and who had native coronary artery lesions for which implantation of paclitaxel-eluting stents was feasible. All patients were given aspirin (100 mg daily) and clopiclogrel (75 mg daily). 136 patients were randomly assigned to receive celecoxib (400 mg before the intervention, and 200 mg twice daily for 6 months after the procedure). The primary endpoint was late luminal loss on quantitative coronary angiography at 6 months after the intervention. Secondary endpoints were cardiac death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and revascularisation of the target lesion. Analysis was done on a modified intention-to-treat basis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00292721. Findings At 6 months, mean in-stent late luminal loss was lower in the celecoxib group (0.49 mm, SD 0.47) than in the control group (0.75 mm, 0.60) (absolute difference 0.26 mm; 95% CI 0.12-0.40). Frequency of secondary outcomes at 6 months was also lower in the celecoxib group, mainly because of a reduced need for revascularisation of the target lesion. Interpretation These data suggest that the adjunctive use of celecoxib for 6 months after stent implantation in patients with coronary artery disease is safe and can reduce the need for revascularisation of the target lesion.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available