Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Randomized Trial of Paclitaxel- Versus Sirolimus-Eluting Stents for Treatment of Coronary Restenosis in Sirolimus-Eluting Stents

2010; Elsevier BV; Volume: 55; Issue: 24 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1016/j.jacc.2010.02.009

1558-3597

Julinda Mehilli, Robert A. Byrne, Klaus Tiroch, Susanne Pinieck, S. Schulz, Sebastian Kufner, Steffen Maßberg, Karl‐Ludwig Laugwitz, Albert Schömig, Adnan Kastrati,

Coronary Interventions and Diagnostics

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. 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. 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. 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. 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)