Key result
Paclitaxel-eluting stents were not noninferior to everolimus-eluting stents for target-vessel failure at 1 year (5.6% vs 2.9%; RR 1.89; 95% CI 1.20-2.99; P=0.38 for noninferiority).
Why the study?
Does a paclitaxel-eluting stent compared to an everolimus-eluting stent reduce target-vessel failure in patients with diabetes mellitus and coronary artery disease undergoing PCI?
RCT (n=1,830)
Randomized
Does a paclitaxel-eluting stent compared to an everolimus-eluting stent reduce target-vessel failure in patients with diabetes mellitus and coronary artery disease undergoing PCI?
Relative Risk: 1.89 (95% CI 1.2–2.99)
Absolute Event Rate: 5.6% vs 2.9%
p-value: p=0.38 for noninferiority
In patients with diabetes undergoing PCI, everolimus-eluting stents are superior to paclitaxel-eluting stents for reducing target-vessel failure, myocardial infarction, and stent thrombosis at 1 year.
Sirolimus-eluting stents were associated with less late loss than paclitaxel-eluting stents in diabetic PCI; leaves open optimal contemporary stent selection.
BACKGROUND: The choice of drug-eluting stent in the treatment of patients with diabetes mellitus and coronary artery disease who are undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has been debated. Previous studies comparing paclitaxel-eluting stents with stents eluting rapamycin (now called sirolimus) or its analogues (everolimus or zotarolimus) have produced contradictory results, ranging from equivalence between stent types to superiority of everolimus-eluting stents. METHODS: We randomly assigned 1830 patients with diabetes mellitus and coronary artery disease who were undergoing PCI to receive either a paclitaxel-eluting stent or an everolimus-eluting stent. We used a noninferiority trial design with a noninferiority margin of 4 percentage points for the upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval of the risk difference. The primary end point was target-vessel failure, which was defined as a composite of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target-vessel revascularization at the 1-year follow-up. RESULTS: At 1 year, paclitaxel-eluting stents did not meet the criterion for noninferiority to everolimus-eluting stents with respect to the primary end point (rate of target-vessel failure, 5.6% vs. 2.9%; risk difference, 2.7 percentage points [95% confidence interval, 0.8 to 4.5]; relative risk, 1.89 [95% confidence interval, 1.20 to 2.99]; P=0.38 for noninferiority). There was a significantly higher 1-year rate in the paclitaxel-eluting stent group than in the everolimus-eluting stent group of target-vessel failure (P=0.005), spontaneous myocardial infarction (3.2% vs. 1.2%, P=0.004), stent thrombosis (2.1% vs. 0.4%, P=0.002), target-vessel revascularization (3.4% vs. 1.2%, P=0.002), and target-lesion revascularization (3.4% vs. 1.2%, P=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with diabetes mellitus and coronary artery disease undergoing PCI, paclitaxel-eluting stents were not shown to be noninferior to everolimus-eluting stents, and they resulted in higher rates of target-vessel failure, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, and target-vessel revascularization at 1 year. (Funded by Boston Scientific; TUXEDO-India Clinical Trials Registry-India number, CTRI/2011/06/001830).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kaul et al. (2015) conducted an RCT in Diabetes mellitus and coronary artery disease (n=1,830). Paclitaxel-eluting stent vs. Everolimus-eluting stent was evaluated on Target-vessel failure (composite of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target-vessel revascularization) (RR 1.89, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.99, p=0.38 for noninferiority). Paclitaxel-eluting stents were not noninferior to everolimus-eluting stents for target-vessel failure at 1 year (5.6% vs 2.9%; RR 1.89; 95% CI 1.20-2.99; P=0.38 for noninferiority).
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: