PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
June 24, 2026Journal of the American College of Cardiology210 citations

Randomized Trial of Paclitaxel- Versus Sirolimus-Eluting Stents for Treatment of Coronary Restenosis in Sirolimus-Eluting Stents

View Full Paper
JMJulinda MehilliRBRobert A. ByrneKTKlaus Tiroch

Key Points

  • To compare repeat sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) implantation with paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) implantation for SES restenosis treatment.
  • Randomized, open-label, active-controlled trial involving 450 patients with SES restenosis at 2 centers in Munich, Germany.
  • Patients pre-treated with 600 mg clopidogrel and randomly assigned to receive either SES or PES.
  • Primary endpoint: late lumen loss; secondary endpoints: binary angiographic restenosis, target lesion revascularization, death/myocardial infarction, and stent thrombosis.
  • No significant difference in late lumen loss between SES (0.40 mm) and PES (0.38 mm); p=0.85.
  • Binary restenosis rates were similar: SES 19.6%, PES 20.6%; p=0.69.
  • Safety outcomes also comparable: death/myocardial infarction 6.1% (SES) vs. 5.8% (PES); p=0.86.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: For patients with sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) restenosis requiring reintervention, we compared a strategy of repeat SES (Cypher, Cordis, Miami Lakes, Florida) implantation with paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) (Taxus, Boston Scientific, Natick, Massachusetts) implantation. BACKGROUND: Despite their high anti-restenotic efficacy, the widespread utilization of SES therapy has led to a significant absolute number of patients presenting with SES treatment failure. The optimal treatment strategy for such patients remains unclear. METHODS: The ISAR-DESIRE 2 (Intracoronary Stenting and Angiographic Results: Drug Eluting Stents for In-Stent Restenosis 2) study was a randomized, open-label, active-controlled trial conducted among 450 patients with clinically significant in-SES restenosis at 2 centers in Munich, Germany. After pre-treatment with 600 mg clopidogrel, all patients were randomly assigned to either SES or PES implantation. The primary end point was late lumen loss, based on in-stent analysis, at 6- to 8-month follow-up angiography. Secondary end points were binary angiographic restenosis (diameter stenosis >50%) at 6- to 8-month follow-up, target lesion revascularization, the composite of death or myocardial infarction, and definite stent thrombosis at 12 months. RESULTS: Regarding anti-restenotic efficacy, there were no differences between SES and PES in late loss (0.40 +/- 0.65 mm vs. 0.38 +/- 0.59 mm; p = 0.85), binary restenosis (19.6% vs. 20.6%; p = 0.69), or target lesion revascularization (16.6% vs. 14.6%; p = 0.52). In terms of safety outcomes, the rates of death/myocardial infarction (6.1% vs. 5.8%; p = 0.86) and stent thrombosis (0.4% vs. 0.4%; p > 0.99) were also similar. CONCLUSIONS: In cases of SES restenosis, treatment with either repeat SES or switch to PES was associated with a comparable degree of efficacy and safety. Drug resistance at an individual patient level may play a contributory role to the somewhat higher than expected late loss observed with the SES in the current study. (Intracoronary Stenting and Angiographic Results: Drug-Eluting Stents for In-Stent Restenosis 2 ISAR-DESIRE 2; NCT00598715).

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Mehilli et al. (2010) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a3ba10e776829d849508f03https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2010.02.009
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper