Key result
Expanded use of the TAXUS Express stent for broader patient and lesion characteristics was associated with higher 2-year rates of death (7.4% vs 3.5%, P=0.0003) compared to simple, on-label use.
Why the study?
What are the 2-year clinical outcomes of the TAXUS Express stent in routine clinical practice compared to randomized controlled trials?
Cohort (n=2,487)
Yes
What are the 2-year clinical outcomes of the TAXUS Express stent in routine clinical practice compared to randomized controlled trials?
Absolute Event Rate: 7.4% vs 3.5%
p-value: p=0.0003
In routine clinical practice, expanded use of the TAXUS Express stent is associated with higher adverse event rates compared to simple, on-label use, highlighting the difference between real-world and RCT populations.
Advises caution with expanded TAXUS Express use in practice; leaves open RCT confirmation of on-label safety.
BACKGROUND: It is unclear how well the long-term safety and effectiveness of drug-eluting stents observed in tightly defined randomized controlled trials (RCT) translates to expanded use in routine practice. METHODS: The FDA-mandated TAXUS Express(2) ARRIVE 1 postmarket registry was designed to consecutively enroll patients receiving > or = 1 TAXUS stent in low-, medium-, and high-volume US sites (n = 50). All cardiac events plus an additional 20% sample of records were monitored and all endpoints were independently adjudicated. RESULTS: Detailed follow-up data through 2 years were compiled for 2,487 patients (95%). Simple-use (on-label) ARRIVE 1 patients (35%) had outcomes similar to 4 pooled TAXUS RCTs for death (3.5% vs. 3.4%, respectively, P = 0.78), Q-wave myocardial infarction (QWMI, 0.7% vs. 0.9%, P = 0.72), and stent thrombosis (ST, 2.2% vs. 1.2%, P = 0.12), but lower target vessel revascularization (7.8% vs. 13.4%, P < 0.0001). Compared with simple-use, cases representing expanded use to treat broader patient/lesion characteristics showed higher 2-year rates for death (7.4% vs. 3.5%, respectively, P = 0.0003), target lesion revascularization (9.4% vs. 5.8%, P = 0.0031), and ST (3.4% vs. 2.2%, P = 0.061, concentrated early in the first year). CONCLUSIONS: By including methods usually found in RCT, ARRIVE 1 captured a broad spectrum of disease treated in standard practice with high levels of ascertainment of clinical outcomes. In the more complicated cases, expectedly higher adverse event rates were seen compared to that found in the simple-use cases or pivotal RCT. These results have now been included in the Directions for Use, to aid in physician and patient decision-making.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lasala et al. (2008) conducted a cohort in Coronary artery disease requiring stenting (n=2,487). TAXUS Express stent (expanded use) vs. TAXUS Express stent (simple-use) was evaluated on Death at 2 years (p=0.0003). Expanded use of the TAXUS Express stent for broader patient and lesion characteristics was associated with higher 2-year rates of death (7.4% vs 3.5%, P=0.0003) compared to simple, on-label use.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: