Five-year follow-up of the Sirolimus-Eluting Stents vs Vascular Brachytherapy for Bare Metal In-Stent Restenosis (SISR) trial.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the 5-year clinical safety and efficacy outcomes of patients treated for in-stent restenosis of bare-metal stents (BMSs). BACKGROUND: The SISR trial is a prospective, randomized trial that compared the safety and efficacy of sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) vs vascular brachytherapy (VBT) for the treatment of BMS in-stent restenosis. METHODS: A total of 384 patients with BMS in-stent restenosis were randomized to treatment with SES (n = 259) or VBT (n = 125) and were followed for 5 years. RESULTS: At 5 years, the rates of target lesion revascularization (TLR) had narrowed and were nonsignificant between the SES and VBT groups, with TLR rates of 24.7% and 31.2% (95% CI -16.3% to 2.8%, P = .179) respectively. Target vessel failure was 33.6% vs 36.8% (95% CI -13.5% to 6.7% P = .568) for SES compared with VBT. The rate of major adverse cardiac event at 5 years was 34.0% vs 36.8% (95% CI -13.1% to7.1%, P = .648) for the SES compared with VBT. There were no differences between SES and VBT in terms of survival free from TLR (72.9% vs 66.4%, log-rank P = .08) or from target vessel failure (64.4% vs 61.3%, log-rank P = .349). There were no significant differences in the rates of definite/probable stent thrombosis (5.9% vs 2.5%, 95% CI -7.9% to 1.3%, P = .182) between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: At a 5-year follow-up, no differences in safety or efficacy outcomes were observed for treatment of BMS restenosis with SES vs VBT. There were no significant differences in survival free from TLR, target vessel revascularization, or major adverse cardiac events between the 2 groups at 5 years. Sirolimus-eluting stent is a viable treatment option compared with VBT for BMS restenosis.

Safety and efficacy of the 2.25-mm sirolimus-eluting Bx Velocity stent in the treatment of patients with de novo native coronary artery lesions: the SIRIUS 2.25 trial.

Smaller reference vessel diameter is a recognized determinant of in-stent restenosis. The SIRIUS 2.25 trial was a prospective, nonrandomized study including 100 patients (mean age 63.4 years; 64% men, 40% with diabetes mellitus) assessing the safety and efficacy of the 2.25-mm sirolimus-eluting Bx Velocity stent in patients with de novo native coronary lesions. Using propensity score matching for gender, diabetes mellitus, left anterior descending artery target vessel, lesion length, and reference vessel diameter, the outcomes were compared with historical control groups (angioplasty and Palmaz-Schatz stent arms from the STRESS/BENESTENT I/II trials and the Bx Velocity bare metal stent arm from the RAVEL and SIRIUS trials having a reference vessel diameter <3 mm). Use of the 2.25-mm sirolimus-eluting Bx Velocity stent was associated with a high rate of procedural success (97%) and a low rate of in-hospital major adverse cardiac events (2%). The primary end point, 6-month in-lesion binary angiographic restenosis, occurred less frequently in patients treated with the 2.25-mm sirolimus-eluting Bx Velocity stent than in each of 3 historical controls (16.9% vs 30.6%, p = 0.12; 36.5%, p <0.001; 45.9%, p <0.001, respectively). This translated into lower rates of 6-month target lesion revascularization in the 2.25-mm sirolimus-eluting Bx Velocity stent group (4.0% vs 15.0% in each of 3 control groups, p = 0.01 to <0.001). By multivariate analysis, in-lesion binary restenosis was predicted by multiple implanted stents (odds ratio 10.4, p = 0.002). Four of 13 patients who developed restenosis (30.8%) had a diffuse pattern of restenosis. In the long lesion tertile (mean lesion length 19.5 mm), the in-lesion binary restenosis rate was 27.6%. In conclusion, use of the 2.25-mm sirolimus-eluting Bx Velocity stent was safe and provided favorable 6-month clinical outcomes. Use of multiple stents (in longer lesions) was an independent predictor of in-lesion restenosis.

3-year follow-up of the SISR (Sirolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Vascular Brachytherapy for In-Stent Restenosis) trial.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate long-term outcome of patients treated for in-stent restenosis of bare-metal stents (BMS). BACKGROUND: Treatment of restenosis of BMS is characterized by high recurrence rates. Vascular brachytherapy (VBT) improved outcome although late catch-up events were documented. Drug-eluting stents tested against VBT in this setting were found superior for at least the first year; superiority at longer follow-up is uncertain. METHODS: We evaluated 3-year outcome of the multicenter SISR (Sirolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Vascular Brachytherapy for In-Stent Restenosis) trial, which randomized patients with restenosis of BMS to either a sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) or VBT. RESULTS: Target vessel failure (cardiac death, infarction, or target vessel revascularization [TVR]) at 9 months as previously reported was significantly improved with SES. Kaplan-Meier analysis at 3 years documented that survival free from target lesion revascularization (TLR) and TVR continues to be significantly improved with SES: freedom from TLR 81.0% versus 71.6% (log-rank p = 0.018), and TVR 78.2% versus 68.8% (log-rank p = 0.022), SES versus VBT. At 3 years, target vessel failure and major adverse cardiac events (death, infarction, emergency coronary artery bypass grafting, or repeat TLR) remained improved with SES, but did not reach statistical significance. There was no statistically significant difference in definite or probable stent thrombosis (3.5% for SES, 2.4% for VBT; p = 0.758). CONCLUSIONS: At 3 years of follow-up, after treatment of in-stent restenosis of BMS, patients treated with SES have improved survival free of TLR and TVR compared with patients treated with VBT. Stent thrombosis rates are not different between the 2 groups but are higher than reported in trials of treatment of de novo lesions.