4.7 Article

Randomized Trial of Paclitaxel-Versus Sirolimus-Eluting Stents for Treatment of Coronary Restenosis in Sirolimus-Eluting Stents The ISAR-DESIRE 2 (Intracoronary Stenting and Angiographic Results: Drug Eluting Stents for In-Stent Restenosis 2) Study

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
卷 55, 期 24, 页码 2710-2716

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2010.02.009

关键词

drug-eluting stent; in-stent restenosis; sirolimus; resistance; randomized trial

资金

  1. Cordis
  2. European Society of Cardiology
  3. Medtronic

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives For patients with sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) restenosis requiring reintervention, we compared a strategy of repeat SES (Cypher, Cordis, Miami Lakes, Florida) implantation with paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) (Taxus, Boston Scientific, Natick, Massachusetts) implantation. Background Despite their high anti-restenotic efficacy, the widespread utilization of SES therapy has led to a significant absolute number of patients presenting with SES treatment failure. The optimal treatment strategy for such patients remains unclear. Methods The ISAR-DESIRE 2 (Intracoronary Stenting and Angiographic Results: Drug Eluting Stents for In-Stent Restenosis 2) study was a randomized, open-label, active-controlled trial conducted among 450 patients with clinically significant in-SES restenosis at 2 centers in Munich, Germany. After pre-treatment with 600 mg clopidogrel, all patients were randomly assigned to either SES or PES implantation. The primary end point was late lumen loss, based on in-stent analysis, at 6- to 8-month follow-up angiography. Secondary end points were binary angiographic restenosis (diameter stenosis >50%) at 6- to 8-month follow-up, target lesion revascularization, the composite of death or myocardial infarction, and definite stent thrombosis at 12 months. Results Regarding anti-restenotic efficacy, there were no differences between SES and PES in late loss (0.40 +/- 0.65 mm vs. 0.38 +/- 0.59 mm; p = 0.85), binary restenosis (19.6% vs. 20.6%; p = 0.69), or target lesion revascularization (16.6% vs. 14.6%; p = 0.52). In terms of safety outcomes, the rates of death/myocardial infarction (6.1% vs. 5.8%; p = 0.86) and stent thrombosis (0.4% vs. 0.4%; p > 0.99) were also similar. Conclusions In cases of SES restenosis, treatment with either repeat SES or switch to PES was associated with a comparable degree of efficacy and safety. Drug resistance at an individual patient level may play a contributory role to the somewhat higher than expected late loss observed with the SES in the current study. (Intracoronary Stenting and Angiographic Results: Drug-Eluting Stents for In-Stent Restenosis 2 [ISAR-DESIRE 2]; NCT00598715) (JAm Coll Cardiol 2010;55:2710-6) (C) 2010 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据