Skip Navigation



European Heart Journal Advance Access published online on June 11, 2008
European Heart Journal, doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehn253
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
29/16/1975    most recent
ehn253v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Mehilli, J.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Mehilli, J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author 2008. For permissions please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Randomized trial of three rapamycin-eluting stents with different coating strategies for the reduction of coronary restenosis

Julinda Mehilli, Robert A. Byrne, Anna Wieczorek, Raisuke Iijima, Stefanie Schulz, Olga Bruskina, Jürgen Pache, Rainer Wessely, Albert Schömig, Adnan Kastrati for the Intracoronary Stenting and Angiographic Restenosis Investigators – Test Efficacy of Rapamycin-eluting Stents with Different Polymer Coating Strategies (ISAR-TEST-3)*

Deutsches Herzzentrum and 1. Medizinische Klinik rechts der Isar, Technische Universität, Lazarettstrasse 36, 80636 Munich, Germany

Received 13 December 2007; revised 15 May 2008; accepted 23 May 2008.

* Corresponding author. Tel: +49 89 1218 4577, Fax: +49 89 1218 4053, Email: kastrati{at}dhm.mhn.de

Aims: The objective of this study was to assess the non-inferiority, in terms of anti-restenotic efficacy, of both biodegradable-polymer (BP) and polymer-free (PF) stents compared with permanent-polymer rapamycin-eluting (PP; Cypher) stent.

Methods and results: Patients with de novo coronary lesions in native vessels were randomly assigned to receive a BP stent, a PF stent or a PP stent. The primary endpoint was in-stent late lumen loss at follow-up angiogram.

A total of 605 patients were enrolled: 202 patients received BP stents, 202 were treated with PP stents, and 201 received PF stents. Repeat angiography was available for 492 patients (81.3%). Mean late lumen loss at 6–8-month angiographic follow-up was 0.17 ± 0.45 mm in the BP stent group, 0.23 ± 0.46 mm in the PP cohort, and 0.47 ± 0.56 mm in the PF stent group. The BP stent met pre-specified criteria for non-inferiority (P < 0.001), whereas the PF stent did not (P = 0.94). There were no differences in safety outcomes.

Conclusion: Both BP and PF stents have a 1-year safety profile similar to that of the PP stent. Whereas the PF stent provided an inferior efficacy, the BP stent is at least as effective as the PP stent in terms of anti-restenotic efficacy.

Key Words: Biodegradable • Coronary restenosis • Drug-eluting stents • Polymer • Rapamycin


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Eur Heart JHome page
K. O. Niemela
Biodegradable coating for drug-eluting stents--more than a facelift?
Eur. Heart J., August 2, 2008; 29(16): 1930 - 1931.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.