Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
PES Group (pes + group)
Selected AbstractsEfficacy of Sirolimus-Eluting Stents as Compared to Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents for Saphenous Vein Graft InterventionJOURNAL OF INTERVENTIONAL CARDIOLOGY, Issue 2 2006Ph.D., WILLIAM W. CHU M.D. Background: Saphenous vein graft (SVG) intervention is associated with a significantly increased rate of periprocedural complications and late clinical and angiographic restenosis. In the contemporary drug-eluting stent (DES) era, the comparison of the efficacy of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) with paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) in SVG interventions is currently unknown. We conducted this retrospective analysis to investigate this issue. Methods and Results: Forty-seven patients with 50 SVG lesions who underwent standard percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with SES (SES group) were compared with 42 patients with 45 SVG lesions with PES (PES group). All patients received distal protection devices (DPDs) during the interventions. The in-hospital, 30-day, and 6-month clinical outcomes in both groups were compared. Baseline clinical and procedural characteristics were balanced between both groups except for the proximal and mid lesions. There were no deaths or Q-wave myocardial infarctions (MIs) during the index hospitalization. Non-Q-wave MI was similar between the two groups (SES vs PES, 4.3% vs 7.1%, P = 0.55). At 30-day and 6-month follow-ups, all the clinical outcomes were similar between the two groups. There was no subacute thrombosis (SAT) or late thrombosis in either group. The event-free survival at 6 months was also similar between both groups (P = 0.75). Conclusions: The use of DES in patients undergoing SVG intervention with a DPD is clinically safe and feasible. As compared to SES, PES have the same efficacy and clinical outcomes in SVG interventions up to 6 months. [source] An everolimus-eluting stent versus a paclitaxel-eluting stent in small vessel coronary artery disease: A pooled analysis from the SPIRIT II and SPIRIT III trials,CATHETERIZATION AND CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS, Issue 1 2010Antonio L. Bartorelli MD Abstract Objectives: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of the XIENCE V everolimus-eluting stent compared to the TAXUS paclitaxel-eluting stent in small vessels. Backgroud: The XIENCE V everolimus-eluting stent (EES) has been shown to improve angiographic and clinical outcomes after percutaneous myocardial revascularization, but its performance in small coronary arteries has not been investigated. Methods: In this pooled analysis, we studied a cohort of 541 patients with small coronary vessels (reference diameter <2.765 mm) by using patient and lesion level data from the SPIRIT II and SPIRIT III studies. TAXUS Express (73% of lesions) and TAXUS Liberté (27% of lesions) paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) were used as controls in SPIRIT II. In SPIRIT III, Taxus Express2 PES was the control. Results: Mean angiographic in-stent and in-segment late loss was significantly less in the EES group compared with the PES group, (0.15 ± 0.37 mm vs. 0.30 ± 0.44 mm; P = 0.011 for in-stent; 0.10 ± 0.38 mm vs. 0.21 ± 0.34 mm; P = 0.034 for in-segment). EES also resulted in a significant reduction in composite major adverse cardiac events at 1 year (19/366 [5.2%] vs. 17/159 [10.7%]; P = 0.037), due to fewer non-Q-wave myocardial infarctions and target lesion revascularizations. At 1 year, the rate of non-Q-wave myocardial infarction was significantly lower in the EES group compared with that of the PES group (6/366 [1.6%] vs. 8/159 [5.0%]; P = 0.037). Conclusions: In patients with small vessel coronary arteries, the XIENCE V EES was superior to the TAXUS PES. © 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc. [source] Three-year follow-up of the first prospective randomized comparison between paclitaxel and sirolimus stents: The TAXi-LATE trialCATHETERIZATION AND CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS, Issue 2 2007Alexandre Berger MD Abstract Goal: Analysis of the 3-year outcome of the original population of the TAXi trial which compared the efficacy of the paclitaxel (PES) and the sirolimus (SES) stents in a randomized "real world" investigation. History: The widespread use of drug-eluting stents strongly modified the world of interventional cardiology. The TAXi trial was a randomized comparison between PES and SES and showed similar efficacy between the two prostheses. Recently, emerging discussions raised questions about potential long-term risk with the use of DES. The present work attempts to describe the long-term outcome of the patients compared during the TAXi trial. Method: During April 2003 and January 2004, 202 patients were prospectively randomly assigned to the PES group (102 patients) and to the SES group (100 patients). The primary aim of the present investigation was the comparison of combined incidence of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization within 36-months. Results: No difference in mortality of all causes was noted in the PES and the SES groups (3% vs. 7%, P = 0.98) or in major adverse cardiac event free survival (89% vs. 83%, P = 0.28). Four stent thromboses were observed, two in the PES group (205 and 788 days) and two in the SES group (210 and 772 days). Conclusion: The long-term outcome analysis of the TAXi trial confirms available published data showing the equivalence of PES and SES on clinical basis. © 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc. [source] Outcome in the real-world of coronary high-risk intervention with drug-eluting stents (ORCHID),A single-center study comparing CypherÔ sirolimus-eluting with TaxusÔ paclitaxel-eluting stentsCATHETERIZATION AND CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS, Issue 5 2006S. Kumar MRCP Abstract Objective: We present real world experience from a single center registry comparing the 6-month outcome of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in unselected high-risk individuals using either sirolimus-eluting (SES) or paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES). Methods/Results: We compared clinical outcome at 6 months follow-up in two cohorts of 156 consecutive patients(total n = 312) who underwent SES (June 2002,Februrary 2003) and PES(march 2003,July 2003) implantation. The primary endpoint was a composite of major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Baseline clinical characteristics were well matched. The 6-month target vessel revascularization (TVR) rates were 1.9% (SES) and 2.6% (PES) and MACE rates were similar in the two groups (SES 4.5% vs. PES 3.2%, P = NS). In the PES group, intervention for multivessel disease, bifurcation lesions and in small vessels was more common, and for in-stent restenosis less common, reflecting the impact of drug eluting stents on indications for PCI. The incidence of sub-acute stent thrombosis, related to inadequate antiplatelet therapy in 3 of the 6 cases, was 0.95% with no difference between the two groups. Conclusion: This study confirms the safety and efficacy of SES and PES in unselected high risk patients undergoing PCI. Clinical outcomes of both stents are equivalent at 6 months with low rates of MACE and TVR. These data provide important complementary information to forthcoming randomized studies. © 2006 Wiley-Liss., Inc. [source] "Head-to-head comparison between sirolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents in patients with complex coronary artery disease: An intravascular ultrasound study"CATHETERIZATION AND CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS, Issue 6 2006FSCAI, Pavel, ervinka MD Abstract Background: The aim of this study was to assess neointimal hyperplasia following sirolimus-eluting (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) implantation in a patients with complex coronary disease. Method: Between January to December 2004, 70 patients were enrolled in this study (SES = 37; PES = 33. The primary objective was to assess the efficacy of SES and PES on neointimal proliferation inhibition in patients with complex coronary lesions by volumetric 3D intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) assessment at six-month follow-up. Results: Baseline clinical, demographic or angiographic characteristics were well balanced in both groups. All procedures as well as hospitalisation were uneventful. The percentage of B2/C lesions in our study was >90% in both groups. The IVUS-assessed in-stent mean neointimal hyperplasia volume was significantly lower in lesions treated with SES compared to PES (4.1 ± 11 mm3 vs. 17.4 ± 23 mm3, p < 0.002) at 6 month follow-up. No difference in both MACE (3.0 versus 6.0%, p = NS) and restenosis (5.4 versus 9.1%, p = NS) were found. The in-segment late loss at six month was 0.26 mm in the SES and 0.48 mm in the PES group (p = NS). Conclusions: The present study showed reduced neointimal proliferation after sirolimuseluting as compared to paclitaxel-eluting stents in patients with complex coronary artery disease. Both SES and PES were associated with low rate of angiographic restenosis or major adverse cardiovascular events. © 2006 Wiley-Liss, Inc. [source] | ||||||||||