Nine-month angiographic and two-year clinical follow-up of novel biodegradable-polymer arsenic trioxide-eluting stent versus durable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stent for coronary artery disease.
- Author:
Li SHEN
;
Wei YANG
;
Jia-Sheng YIN
;
Xue-Bo LIU
;
Yi-Zhe WU
;
Ai-Jun SUN
;
Ju-Ying QIAN
;
Jun-Bo GE
1
Author Information
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- MeSH: Aged; Arsenicals; administration & dosage; therapeutic use; Coronary Angiography; Coronary Artery Disease; diagnostic imaging; surgery; Drug-Eluting Stents; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Oxides; administration & dosage; therapeutic use; Percutaneous Coronary Intervention; methods; Polymers; chemistry; Sirolimus; administration & dosage; therapeutic use
- From: Chinese Medical Journal 2015;128(6):768-773
- CountryChina
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUNDDespite great reduction of in-stent restenosis, first-generation drug-eluting stents (DESs) have increased the risk of late stent thrombosis due to delayed endothelialization. Arsenic trioxide, a natural substance that could inhibit cell proliferation and induce cell apoptosis, seems to be a promising surrogate of sirolimus to improve DES performance. This randomized controlled trial was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a novel arsenic trioxide-eluting stent (AES), compared with traditional sirolimus-eluting stent (SES).
METHODSPatients with symptoms of angina pectoris were enrolled and randomized to AES or SES group. The primary endpoint was target vessel failure (TVF), and the second endpoint includes rates of all-cause death, cardiac death or myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization (TLR) by telephone visit and late luminal loss (LLL) at 9-month by angiographic follow-up.
RESULTSFrom July 2007 to 2009, 212 patients were enrolled and randomized 1:1 to receive either AES or SES. At 2 years of follow-up, TVF rate was similar between AES and SES group (6.67% vs. 5.83%, P = 0.980). Frequency of all-cause death was significantly lower in AES group (0 vs. 4.85%, P = 0.028). There was no significant difference between AES and SES in frequency of TLR and in-stent restenosis, but greater in-stent LLL was observed for AES group (0.29 ± 0.52 mm vs. 0.10 ± 0.25 mm, P = 0.008).
CONCLUSIONSAfter 2 years of follow-up, AES demonstrated comparable efficacy and safety to SES for the treatment of de novo coronary artery lesions.