Comparison of 5-year clinical outcomes between sirolimus-versus paclitaxel-eluting stent: Korean multicenter network analysis of 9000-patient cohort

Kyungil Park, Kyung Woo Park, Seung-Woon Rha, Jang Ho Bae, Seung Ho Hur, Jong Seon Park, Jung Han Yoon, Yangsoo Jang, Myung Ho Jeong, Hyo Soo Kim

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

11 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background-The paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) and sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) are first-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) that have been the most widely used; however, it is unclear whether there are differences in the long-term safety and efficacy between the 2 stents. The long-term effectiveness of DES in unselected people with diabetes is also currently unclear. Moreover, the possibility of late catch-up is suggested in the DES population. Methods and Results-This study is an 8-center collaborative network analysis of all comers who received SES and PES. All patients who received SES and PES from February 2003 to October 2006 were enrolled. We analyzed 9315 patients (33.3% with diabetes) treated with SES or PES in the major 8 centers representing whole area of Korea. The primary end point was a major adverse cardiac event (MACE) composite of overall death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization. All analyses were performed using multivariable, adjusted models and propensity score-matching methods. Long-term MACE for 5 years were significantly lower in the SES than the PES group (13.3% versus 15.6%; hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.71 to 0.96; P=0.01), which was mainly driven by the difference of MACE within the first year (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.90; P=0.003), but the rate of MACE between 1 and 5 years in the landmark analysis was not different between the 2 stents (1.9 versus 2.0%/yr). In the subpopulation of people with diabetes, in contrast to the whole population, PES was comparable to SES in terms of any clinical outcome, both within the first year and from 1 to 5 years (MACE for 5 years, 20.3 versus 17.9%; MACE within the first year, 9.6 versus 8.2%; MACE 1 to 5 years, 2.9 versus 2.6%/yr). Conclusions-The PES was inferior to the SES in the clinical follow-up of more than 9000 patients' cohort for 5 years, which was mainly driven by the difference in the first year. In the subpopulation of people with diabetes that showed higher MACE than people without diabetes, however, PES was comparable to SES in any clinical outcome for 5 years. Although these 2 stents are not frequently used as before, the data would be useful to expect the long-term clinical course of the current DES.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)174-184
Number of pages11
JournalCirculation: Cardiovascular Interventions
Volume5
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2012 Apr 1

Fingerprint

Sirolimus
Paclitaxel
Stents
Drug-Eluting Stents
Propensity Score
Korea

Keywords

  • Coronary restenosis
  • Diabetes mellitus
  • Drug-eluting stents
  • Paclitaxel
  • Sirolimus

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Comparison of 5-year clinical outcomes between sirolimus-versus paclitaxel-eluting stent : Korean multicenter network analysis of 9000-patient cohort. / Park, Kyungil; Park, Kyung Woo; Rha, Seung-Woon; Bae, Jang Ho; Hur, Seung Ho; Park, Jong Seon; Yoon, Jung Han; Jang, Yangsoo; Jeong, Myung Ho; Kim, Hyo Soo.

In: Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions, Vol. 5, No. 2, 01.04.2012, p. 174-184.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Park, Kyungil ; Park, Kyung Woo ; Rha, Seung-Woon ; Bae, Jang Ho ; Hur, Seung Ho ; Park, Jong Seon ; Yoon, Jung Han ; Jang, Yangsoo ; Jeong, Myung Ho ; Kim, Hyo Soo. / Comparison of 5-year clinical outcomes between sirolimus-versus paclitaxel-eluting stent : Korean multicenter network analysis of 9000-patient cohort. In: Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions. 2012 ; Vol. 5, No. 2. pp. 174-184.
@article{6c6afa2db47a417295c53b5337447364,
title = "Comparison of 5-year clinical outcomes between sirolimus-versus paclitaxel-eluting stent: Korean multicenter network analysis of 9000-patient cohort",
abstract = "Background-The paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) and sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) are first-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) that have been the most widely used; however, it is unclear whether there are differences in the long-term safety and efficacy between the 2 stents. The long-term effectiveness of DES in unselected people with diabetes is also currently unclear. Moreover, the possibility of late catch-up is suggested in the DES population. Methods and Results-This study is an 8-center collaborative network analysis of all comers who received SES and PES. All patients who received SES and PES from February 2003 to October 2006 were enrolled. We analyzed 9315 patients (33.3{\%} with diabetes) treated with SES or PES in the major 8 centers representing whole area of Korea. The primary end point was a major adverse cardiac event (MACE) composite of overall death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization. All analyses were performed using multivariable, adjusted models and propensity score-matching methods. Long-term MACE for 5 years were significantly lower in the SES than the PES group (13.3{\%} versus 15.6{\%}; hazard ratio, 0.82; 95{\%} confidence interval, 0.71 to 0.96; P=0.01), which was mainly driven by the difference of MACE within the first year (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95{\%} CI, 0.59 to 0.90; P=0.003), but the rate of MACE between 1 and 5 years in the landmark analysis was not different between the 2 stents (1.9 versus 2.0{\%}/yr). In the subpopulation of people with diabetes, in contrast to the whole population, PES was comparable to SES in terms of any clinical outcome, both within the first year and from 1 to 5 years (MACE for 5 years, 20.3 versus 17.9{\%}; MACE within the first year, 9.6 versus 8.2{\%}; MACE 1 to 5 years, 2.9 versus 2.6{\%}/yr). Conclusions-The PES was inferior to the SES in the clinical follow-up of more than 9000 patients' cohort for 5 years, which was mainly driven by the difference in the first year. In the subpopulation of people with diabetes that showed higher MACE than people without diabetes, however, PES was comparable to SES in any clinical outcome for 5 years. Although these 2 stents are not frequently used as before, the data would be useful to expect the long-term clinical course of the current DES.",
keywords = "Coronary restenosis, Diabetes mellitus, Drug-eluting stents, Paclitaxel, Sirolimus",
author = "Kyungil Park and Park, {Kyung Woo} and Seung-Woon Rha and Bae, {Jang Ho} and Hur, {Seung Ho} and Park, {Jong Seon} and Yoon, {Jung Han} and Yangsoo Jang and Jeong, {Myung Ho} and Kim, {Hyo Soo}",
year = "2012",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.111.964650",
language = "English",
volume = "5",
pages = "174--184",
journal = "Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions",
issn = "1941-7640",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of 5-year clinical outcomes between sirolimus-versus paclitaxel-eluting stent

T2 - Korean multicenter network analysis of 9000-patient cohort

AU - Park, Kyungil

AU - Park, Kyung Woo

AU - Rha, Seung-Woon

AU - Bae, Jang Ho

AU - Hur, Seung Ho

AU - Park, Jong Seon

AU - Yoon, Jung Han

AU - Jang, Yangsoo

AU - Jeong, Myung Ho

AU - Kim, Hyo Soo

PY - 2012/4/1

Y1 - 2012/4/1

N2 - Background-The paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) and sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) are first-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) that have been the most widely used; however, it is unclear whether there are differences in the long-term safety and efficacy between the 2 stents. The long-term effectiveness of DES in unselected people with diabetes is also currently unclear. Moreover, the possibility of late catch-up is suggested in the DES population. Methods and Results-This study is an 8-center collaborative network analysis of all comers who received SES and PES. All patients who received SES and PES from February 2003 to October 2006 were enrolled. We analyzed 9315 patients (33.3% with diabetes) treated with SES or PES in the major 8 centers representing whole area of Korea. The primary end point was a major adverse cardiac event (MACE) composite of overall death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization. All analyses were performed using multivariable, adjusted models and propensity score-matching methods. Long-term MACE for 5 years were significantly lower in the SES than the PES group (13.3% versus 15.6%; hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.71 to 0.96; P=0.01), which was mainly driven by the difference of MACE within the first year (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.90; P=0.003), but the rate of MACE between 1 and 5 years in the landmark analysis was not different between the 2 stents (1.9 versus 2.0%/yr). In the subpopulation of people with diabetes, in contrast to the whole population, PES was comparable to SES in terms of any clinical outcome, both within the first year and from 1 to 5 years (MACE for 5 years, 20.3 versus 17.9%; MACE within the first year, 9.6 versus 8.2%; MACE 1 to 5 years, 2.9 versus 2.6%/yr). Conclusions-The PES was inferior to the SES in the clinical follow-up of more than 9000 patients' cohort for 5 years, which was mainly driven by the difference in the first year. In the subpopulation of people with diabetes that showed higher MACE than people without diabetes, however, PES was comparable to SES in any clinical outcome for 5 years. Although these 2 stents are not frequently used as before, the data would be useful to expect the long-term clinical course of the current DES.

AB - Background-The paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) and sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) are first-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) that have been the most widely used; however, it is unclear whether there are differences in the long-term safety and efficacy between the 2 stents. The long-term effectiveness of DES in unselected people with diabetes is also currently unclear. Moreover, the possibility of late catch-up is suggested in the DES population. Methods and Results-This study is an 8-center collaborative network analysis of all comers who received SES and PES. All patients who received SES and PES from February 2003 to October 2006 were enrolled. We analyzed 9315 patients (33.3% with diabetes) treated with SES or PES in the major 8 centers representing whole area of Korea. The primary end point was a major adverse cardiac event (MACE) composite of overall death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization. All analyses were performed using multivariable, adjusted models and propensity score-matching methods. Long-term MACE for 5 years were significantly lower in the SES than the PES group (13.3% versus 15.6%; hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.71 to 0.96; P=0.01), which was mainly driven by the difference of MACE within the first year (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.90; P=0.003), but the rate of MACE between 1 and 5 years in the landmark analysis was not different between the 2 stents (1.9 versus 2.0%/yr). In the subpopulation of people with diabetes, in contrast to the whole population, PES was comparable to SES in terms of any clinical outcome, both within the first year and from 1 to 5 years (MACE for 5 years, 20.3 versus 17.9%; MACE within the first year, 9.6 versus 8.2%; MACE 1 to 5 years, 2.9 versus 2.6%/yr). Conclusions-The PES was inferior to the SES in the clinical follow-up of more than 9000 patients' cohort for 5 years, which was mainly driven by the difference in the first year. In the subpopulation of people with diabetes that showed higher MACE than people without diabetes, however, PES was comparable to SES in any clinical outcome for 5 years. Although these 2 stents are not frequently used as before, the data would be useful to expect the long-term clinical course of the current DES.

KW - Coronary restenosis

KW - Diabetes mellitus

KW - Drug-eluting stents

KW - Paclitaxel

KW - Sirolimus

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84860807816&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84860807816&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.111.964650

DO - 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.111.964650

M3 - Article

C2 - 22396583

AN - SCOPUS:84860807816

VL - 5

SP - 174

EP - 184

JO - Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions

JF - Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions

SN - 1941-7640

IS - 2

ER -