Format

Send to

Choose Destination
JAMA. 2006 Mar 15;295(11):1253-63. Epub 2006 Mar 12.

Paclitaxel-eluting stents vs vascular brachytherapy for in-stent restenosis within bare-metal stents: the TAXUS V ISR randomized trial.

Author information

1
Department of Cardiology, Columbia University Medical Center and the Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York, NY 10032, USA. gs2184@columbia.edu

Abstract

CONTEXT:

Restenosis within bare-metal stents is often treated with repeat percutaneous coronary intervention, although subsequent recurrence rates are high, with vascular brachytherapy (VBT) affording the best results. The effectiveness of drug-eluting stents in this setting has not been established.

OBJECTIVE:

To investigate the safety and efficacy of the polymer-based, slow-release paclitaxel-eluting stent in patients with restenotic lesions after prior stent implantation in native coronary arteries.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS:

Prospective, multicenter, randomized trial conducted between June 6, 2003, and July 16, 2004, at 37 North American academic and community-based institutions in 396 patients with in-stent restenosis of a previously implanted bare-metal coronary stent (vessel diameter, 2.5-3.75 mm; lesion length, < or =46 mm).

INTERVENTIONS:

Patients were randomly assigned to undergo angioplasty followed by VBT with a beta source (n = 201) or paclitaxel-eluting stent implantation (n = 195). Clinical and angiographic follow-up at 9 months was scheduled in all patients.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE:

Ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization at 9 months.

RESULTS:

Diabetes mellitus was present in 139 patients (35.1%). Median reference vessel diameter was 2.65 mm and median lesion length was 15.3 mm. In the VBT group, new stents were implanted in 22 patients (10.9%) and in the paclitaxel-eluting stent group, multiple stents were required in 57 patients (29.2%), with median stent length of 24 mm. Follow-up at 9 months was complete in 194 patients in the VBT group and 191 patients in the paclitaxel-eluting stent group (96.5% and 97.9%, respectively). For VBT and paclitaxel-eluting stents, respectively, the number of events and 9-month rates for ischemic target lesion revascularization were 27 (13.9%) vs 12 (6.3%) (relative risk [RR], 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.24-0.86; P = .01); for ischemic target vessel revascularization, 34 (17.5%) vs 20 (10.5%) (RR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.36-1.00; P = .046); and for overall major adverse cardiac events, 39 (20.1%) vs 22 (11.5%) (RR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.35-0.93; P = .02), with similar rates of cardiac death or myocardial infarction (10 [5.2%] vs 7 [3.7%]; RR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.28-1.83; P = .48) and target vessel thrombosis (5 [2.6%] vs 3 [1.6%]; RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.15-2.50; P = .72). Angiographic restenosis at 9 months was 31.2% (53 of 170 patients) with VBT and 14.5% (25 of 172 patients) with paclitaxel-eluting stents (RR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.30-0.71; P<.001).

CONCLUSION:

Treatment of bare-metal in-stent restenotic lesions with paclitaxel-eluting stents rather than angioplasty followed by VBT reduces clinical and angiographic restenosis at 9 months and improves event-free survival.

TRIAL REGISTRATION:

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00287573.

PMID:
16531618
DOI:
10.1001/jama.295.11.1253
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Silverchair Information Systems
Loading ...
Support Center