+1 Recommend
1 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      The Effect of Drug-Eluting Stents on Target Lesion Revascularization in Native Coronary Arteries: Results from the NORSTENT Randomized Study


      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.


          Background: The NORSTENT trial randomized 9,013 patients to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with a drug-eluting stent (DES) or bare-metal stent (BMS) with 5-year follow-up. No difference was found in the composite primary outcome of death from any cause and nonfatal spontaneous myocardial infarction after a median of 5 years of follow-up. Secondary outcomes included repeat revascularizations, which were reduced by DES. We report the occurrence of target lesion revascularization (TLR) in time and across demographic and clinical subgroups in patients with lesions in native coronary arteries ( n = 8,782). Results: Clinically driven TLR was performed on 488 (5.6%) of the 8,782 patients during 5 years of follow-up. Male gender, older age, visible thrombus in the lesion, and larger stent diameter were associated with less TLR; multivessel disease and longer stents were associated with a higher risk of TLR. There was a substantial and highly significant reduction of the risk of any TLR after 5 years in the DES group (hazard ratio [HR] 0.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.36–0.52], p < 0.001). The effect of DES on TLR was limited in time to the first 2 years in the study with no evidence of a later rebound effect. The reduction in TLR after DES insertion was consistent across subgroups defined by gender, age, diabetes status, renal function, and lesion and stent characteristics. The number needed to treat with DES (vs. BMS) to prevent 1 TLR ranged from 4 to 110 across clinically relevant subgroups. Conclusion: DES have a time-limited effect on the rate of TLR, but with a substantial and highly significant reduction in the first 2 years after the procedure. This effect was found to be consistent across all important clinical subgroups.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 22

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          A randomized comparison of a sirolimus-eluting stent with a standard stent for coronary revascularization.

          The need for repeated treatment of restenosis of a treated vessel remains the main limitation of percutaneous coronary revascularization. Because sirolimus (rapamycin) inhibits the proliferation of lymphocytes and smooth-muscle cells, we compared a sirolimus-eluting stent with a standard uncoated stent in patients with angina pectoris. We performed a randomized, double-blind trial to compare the two types of stents for revascularization of single, primary lesions in native coronary arteries. The trial included 238 patients at 19 medical centers. The primary end point was in-stent late luminal loss (the difference between the minimal luminal diameter immediately after the procedure and the diameter at six months). Secondary end points included the percentage of in-stent stenosis of the luminal diameter and the rate of restenosis (luminal narrowing of 50 percent or more). We also analyzed a composite clinical end point consisting of death, myocardial infarction, and percutaneous or surgical revascularization at 1, 6, and 12 months. At six months, the degree of neointimal proliferation, manifested as the mean (+/-SD) late luminal loss, was significantly lower in the sirolimus-stent group (-0.01+/-0.33 mm) than in the standard-stent group (0.80+/-0.53 mm, P<0.001). None of the patients in the sirolimus-stent group, as compared with 26.6 percent of those in the standard-stent group, had restenosis of 50 percent or more of the luminal diameter (P<0.001). There were no episodes of stent thrombosis. During a follow-up period of up to one year, the overall rate of major cardiac events was 5.8 percent in the sirolimus-stent group and 28.8 percent in the standard-stent group (P<0.001). The difference was due entirely to a higher rate of revascularization of the target vessel in the standard-stent group. As compared with a standard coronary stent, a sirolimus-eluting stent shows considerable promise for the prevention of neointimal proliferation, restenosis, and associated clinical events.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A polymer-based, paclitaxel-eluting stent in patients with coronary artery disease.

            Restenosis after coronary stenting necessitates repeated percutaneous or surgical revascularization procedures. The delivery of paclitaxel to the site of vascular injury may reduce the incidence of neointimal hyperplasia and restenosis. At 73 U.S. centers, we enrolled 1314 patients who were receiving a stent in a single, previously untreated coronary-artery stenosis (vessel diameter, 2.5 to 3.75 mm; lesion length, 10 to 28 mm) in a prospective, randomized, double-blind study. A total of 652 patients were randomly assigned to receive a bare-metal stent, and 662 to receive an identical-appearing, slow-release, polymer-based, paclitaxel-eluting stent. Angiographic follow-up was prespecified at nine months in 732 patients. In terms of base-line characteristics, the two groups were well matched. Diabetes mellitus was present in 24.2 percent of patients; the mean reference-vessel diameter was 2.75 mm, and the mean lesion length was 13.4 mm. A mean of 1.08 stents (length, 21.8 mm) were implanted per patient. The rate of ischemia-driven target-vessel revascularization at nine months was reduced from 12.0 percent with the implantation of a bare-metal stent to 4.7 percent with the implantation of a paclitaxel-eluting stent (relative risk, 0.39; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.26 to 0.59; P<0.001). Target-lesion revascularization was required in 3.0 percent of the group that received a paclitaxel-eluting stent, as compared with 11.3 percent of the group that received a bare-metal stent (relative risk, 0.27; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.16 to 0.43; P<0.001). The rate of angiographic restenosis was reduced from 26.6 percent to 7.9 percent with the paclitaxel-eluting stent (relative risk, 0.30; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.19 to 0.46; P<0.001). The nine-month composite rates of death from cardiac causes or myocardial infarction (4.7 percent and 4.3 percent, respectively) and stent thrombosis (0.6 percent and 0.8 percent, respectively) were similar in the group that received a paclitaxel-eluting stent and the group that received a bare-metal stent. As compared with bare-metal stents, the slow-release, polymer-based, paclitaxel-eluting stent is safe and markedly reduces the rates of clinical and angiographic restenosis at nine months. Copyright 2004 Massachusetts Medical Society
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Outcomes associated with drug-eluting and bare-metal stents: a collaborative network meta-analysis.

              Whether the two drug-eluting stents approved by the US Food and Drug Administration-a sirolimus-eluting stent and a paclitaxel-eluting stent-are associated with increased risks of death, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis compared with bare-metal stents is uncertain. Our aim was to compare the safety and effectiveness of these stents. We searched relevant sources from inception to March, 2007, and contacted investigators and manufacturers to identify randomised controlled trials in patients with coronary artery disease that compared drug-eluting with bare-metal stents, or that compared sirolimus-eluting stents head-to-head with paclitaxel-eluting stents. Safety outcomes included mortality, myocardial infarction, and definite stent thrombosis; the effectiveness outcome was target lesion revascularisation. We included 38 trials (18,023 patients) with a follow-up of up to 4 years. Trialists and manufacturers provided additional data on clinical outcomes for 29 trials. We did a network meta-analysis with a mixed-treatment comparison method to combine direct within-trial comparisons between stents with indirect evidence from other trials while maintaining randomisation. Mortality was similar in the three groups: hazard ratios (HR) were 1.00 (95% credibility interval 0.82-1.25) for sirolimus-eluting versus bare-metal stents, 1.03 (0.84-1.22) for paclitaxel-eluting versus bare-metal stents, and 0.96 (0.83-1.24) for sirolimus-eluting versus paclitaxel-eluting stents. Sirolimus-eluting stents were associated with the lowest risk of myocardial infarction (HR 0.81, 95% credibility interval 0.66-0.97, p=0.030 vs bare-metal stents; 0.83, 0.71-1.00, p=0.045 vs paclitaxel-eluting stents). There were no significant differences in the risk of definite stent thrombosis (0 days to 4 years). However, the risk of late definite stent thrombosis (>30 days) was increased with paclitaxel-eluting stents (HR 2.11, 95% credibility interval 1.19-4.23, p=0.017 vs bare-metal stents; 1.85, 1.02-3.85, p=0.041 vs sirolimus-eluting stents). The reduction in target lesion revascularisation seen with drug-eluting stents compared with bare-metal stents was more pronounced with sirolimus-eluting stents than with paclitaxel-eluting stents (0.70, 0.56-0.84; p=0.0021). The risks of mortality associated with drug-eluting and bare-metal stents are similar. Sirolimus-eluting stents seem to be clinically better than bare-metal and paclitaxel-eluting stents.

                Author and article information

                S. Karger AG
                June 2020
                25 February 2020
                : 145
                : 6
                : 333-341
                aDepartment of Cardiology, LHL Clinics Gardermoen, Jessheim, Norway
                bDepartment of Clinical Science, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
                cUniversity Hospital of North Norway and UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway
                dDepartment of Internal Medicine, Haraldsplass Deaconess Hospital, Bergen, Norway
                eDepartment of Community Medicine, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway
                fClinic of Cardiology, St. Olav’s University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway
                gDepartment of Circulation and Medical Imaging, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
                Author notes
                *Per Mølstad, LHL-Clinics Gardermoen, NO–2067 Jessheim (Norway), PerMorten.Molstad@lhl.no
                506042 Cardiology 2020;145:333–341
                © 2020 S. Karger AG, Basel

                Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug. Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

                Page count
                Figures: 2, Tables: 4, Pages: 9
                CAD and AMI: Research Article


                Comment on this article