RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare the efficacy and safety results after coronary implantation of a combined sirolimus-eluting CD34 antibody coated Combo stent (OrbusNeich Medical, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida) with the paclitaxel-eluting Taxus Liberté stent (PES) (Boston Scientific, Natick, Massachusetts). This report summarizes the first-in-man randomized, controlled multicenter REMEDEE trial (Randomized study to Evaluate the safety and effectiveness of an abluMinal sirolimus coatED bio-Engineered StEnt) angiographic, intravascular ultrasound, and clinical results up to 12 months. BACKGROUND: Drug-eluting stents have limited restenosis and reintervention but are complicated by especially late and very late stent thrombosis and accelerated neoatherosclerosis. Alternative or adjunct technologies should address these limitations. METHODS: One hundred eighty-three patients with de novo native coronary artery stenoses were randomized 2:1 to Combo stent or PES implantation. The primary endpoint is the angiographic in-stent late lumen loss at 9 months, which was tested for noninferiority between the 2 stent groups. Secondary endpoints include the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events. RESULTS: The Combo stent was found to be noninferior to the PES in 9-month angiographic in-stent late lumen loss with 0.39 ± 0.45 mm versus 0.44 ± 0.56 mm (pnoninferiority = 0.0012). At 12 months, the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events was 8.9% in the Combo group and 10.2% in the PES group (p = 0.80) with no difference in mortality, occurrence of myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization. No stent thrombosis was reported in either group. CONCLUSIONS: In the REMEDEE trial the Combo stent has shown to be effective by meeting the primary noninferiority angiographic endpoint and safe, with an overall low rate of clinical events in both stent groups, including no stent thrombosis up to 12 months.
Assuntos
Anticorpos/administração & dosagem , Fármacos Cardiovasculares/administração & dosagem , Materiais Revestidos Biocompatíveis , Estenose Coronária/terapia , Stents Farmacológicos , Células Endoteliais/patologia , Paclitaxel/administração & dosagem , Intervenção Coronária Percutânea/instrumentação , Sirolimo/administração & dosagem , Células-Tronco/patologia , Idoso , Antígenos CD34/imunologia , Ásia , Austrália , Brasil , Angiografia Coronária , Reestenose Coronária/etiologia , Estenose Coronária/imunologia , Estenose Coronária/mortalidade , Estenose Coronária/patologia , Trombose Coronária/etiologia , Células Endoteliais/imunologia , Europa (Continente) , Feminino , Humanos , Estimativa de Kaplan-Meier , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Infarto do Miocárdio/etiologia , Intervenção Coronária Percutânea/efeitos adversos , Intervenção Coronária Percutânea/mortalidade , Desenho de Prótese , Fatores de Risco , Células-Tronco/imunologia , Fatores de Tempo , Resultado do Tratamento , Ultrassonografia de IntervençãoRESUMO
AIMS: Percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) are associated with a high incidence of coronary restenosis, myocardial infarction (MI) and death. This study was to assess the potential role of a paclitaxel-eluting balloon (PEB) treatment in patients with DM with coronary lesions compared to those treated either with bare-metal stents (BMS) or drug-eluting stents (DES). METHODS AND RESULTS: The Diabetic Argentina Registry (DEAR) was an observational, prospective, non-randomised, open-label study that enrolled 92 patients with diabetes mellitus in three centers from Buenos Aires, Argentina, between April 2009 and March 2011, to be treated with PEB. Results were compared with previous outcome data in all patients with DM treated with DES (n=129 pts) or BMS (n=96 pts) in clinical studies conducted at our institutions. At one-year follow-up, patients with DM who received PEB followed by BMS implantation (96%) had a significantly lower incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) compared to the BMS group (BMS 32.3%, PEB 13.2%; P=.003). The incidence of target-vessel failure (TVF) was 30.2% (BMS) and 11% (PEB) (P=.003), that of target-vessel revascularization (TVR) was 22.9% (BMS) and 8.3% (PEB) (P=.005) and the composite of death/MI occurred in 13.5% (BMS) and in 2.2% for PEB (P=.05). These positive results are persistent even after subgroups analysis. When comparing with previous DES patients, TVF was 18.6% in DES vs. 11.0% in PEB (P=.13), MACE was 18.6% in DES vs. 13.2% in PEB (P=.29), TVR rate was 14.0% in DES vs. 8.3% in PEB (P=.14) and the composite death/MI was 9.3% in DES vs. 4.4% in PEB (0.18) CONCLUSIONS: Diabetic patients treated with PEB followed by BMS resulted in a significantly better outcome than BMS alone and appeared to be comparable to DES treatment.