Randomized comparison of GR-II stent and Palmaz-Schatz stent for elective treatment of coronary stenoses.

BACKGROUND: This prospective multicenter randomized clinical trial was designed to evaluate the long-term angiographic and clinical outcomes of elective treatment with the GR-II stent compared with the Palmaz-Schatz (PS) stent in patients with coronary stenoses. METHODS AND RESULTS: Seven hundred fifty-five patients with myocardial ischemia and de novo native coronary stenoses in 3- to 4-mm vessels were randomly assigned to the PS (375 patients) or the GR-II stent (380 patients). The primary end point was 12-month target lesion revascularization (TLR)-free survival. Angiography was performed at baseline and at follow-up in the first 300 consecutive patients to assess the frequency of angiographic restenosis. Procedure success was 98.5% for the GR-II stent and 99.4% for the PS stent (P:=0.19). At 30 days, patients assigned to the GR-II stent had a higher stent thrombosis rate (3.9% versus 0.3% for PS stent, P:<0.001) and TLR rate (3.9% versus 0.5% for PS stent, P:<0.001). The GR-II group had a higher follow-up restenosis frequency (47.3% versus 20.6% for the PS group, P:<0.001) and a lower 12-month TLR-free survival rate (71.7% versus 83.9% for the PS group, P:<0. 001). Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified a smaller final stent minimal lumen diameter (odds ratio [OR] 2.49, 95% CI 1. 56 to 3.98; P:<0.001), diabetes mellitus (OR 2.14, 95% CI 1.42 to 3. 22; P:<0.001), and use of the GR-II stent (OR 1.78, 95% CI 1.20 to 2. 64; P:<0.01) as independent determinants of 12-month TLR. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of these long-term follow-up data, we conclude that use of the GR-II stent should be limited to the acute treatment of abrupt or threatened closure after failed conventional balloon angioplasty procedures.

The PARAGON stent study: a randomized trial of a new martensitic nitinol stent versus the Palmaz-Schatz stent for treatment of complex native coronary arterial lesions.

A new martensitic nitinol stent with improved flexibility and radiopacity was tested to evaluate whether these differences improve initial or long-term outcome. Patients who underwent percutaneous revascularization of a discrete native coronary lesion were randomly assigned to the new stent (PARAGON, n = 349) or to the first-generation Palmaz-Schatz (PS) stent (n = 339). The primary end point was target vessel failure at 6 months (a composite of cardiac or noncardiac death, any infarction in the distribution of the treated vessel, or clinically indicated target vessel revascularization). Secondary end points were, among others, device and procedural success and angiographic restenosis. Mean age was 62 years; diabetes was present in 21% of patients, prior bypass surgery in 6%, and recent infarction in 22% (p = NS for comparison between the 2 randomized arms). The PARAGON stent group had smaller reference vessels (2.97 vs 3.05 mm, p = 0.05), more prior restenosis (8.0% vs 4.5%, p = 0.07), and a longer average stent length (21.3 vs 19.4 mm, p < 0.05). Device success was significantly higher in the PARAGON arm (99.1% vs 94.3%, p < 0.05). Death and infarction at 6-month follow-up were infrequent in both groups. There was no significant difference in death (2.0% vs 1.2%, p = 0.546), but a higher rate of infarction for the PARAGON cohort (9.2% vs 4.7%, p = 0.025). Although target vessel failure (20.3% vs 12.4%, p = 0.005) and target lesion revascularization (12.0% vs 5.9%, p = 0.005) were higher in the PARAGON group, there was no significant difference in 6-month follow-up in in-stent minimal lumen diameter or in the rate of binary angiographic restenosis. Both PARAGON and PS stents are safe and associated with infrequent adverse events. The PARAGON stent can be delivered more frequently than the first-generation PS stent. Although there was no significant difference in in-stent minimal lumen diameter or the frequency of angiographic restenosis, clinical restenosis was more frequent in the PARAGON group.

Final results of a randomized trial comparing the NIR stent to the Palmaz-Schatz stent for narrowings in native coronary arteries.

The NIR stent is a novel second generation tubular stent that was designed to overcome some of the limitations of the earlier Palmaz-Schatz (PS) stent design. The NIR Vascular Advanced North American (NIRVANA) trial randomized 849 patients with single coronary lesions to treatment with the NIR stent or the PS stent. The study was an "equivalency" trial, designed to demonstrate that the NIR stent was not inferior to (i.e., equivalent or better than) the PS stent, for the primary end point of target vessel failure (defined as death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization) by 9 months. Successful stent delivery was achieved in 100% versus 98.8%, respectively, with a slightly lower postprocedural diameter stenosis (7% vs. 9%, p = 0.04) after NIR and PS stent placement, respectively. Major adverse cardiac events (death, myocardial infarction, repeat target lesion revascularization) were not different at 30 days (4.3% vs. 4.4%). The primary end point of target vessel failure at 9 months was seen in 16.0% of NIR versus 17.2% of PS patients, with the NIR proving to be equal or superior to the PS stent (p <0.001 by test for equivalency). Angiographic restudy in 71% of a prespecified cohort showed no significant difference in restenosis (19.3% vs 22.4%). Thus, the NIR stent showed excellent deliverability with slightly better acute angiographic results and equivalent or better 9-month target vessel failure rate when compared with the PS stent.

A random graph model for the final-size distribution of household infections.

In epidemiological/disease control studies, one might be interested in estimating the parameters community probability infection (CPI) and the household secondary attack rate (SAR), as introduced by Longini and Koopman. The quasi-binomial distribution I (QBD I) with parameters n, p and theta, introduced by Consul, is proposed as a model for the final-size distribution of household infections, where p (CPI) is the probability of an individual being infected from the community and theta (SAR) is the rate of secondary transmission of infection within household. An individual can be infected either from within the household or from the community. Let X be the total number of infected members in a household of size n. Then the distribution of X is given by the QBD I with the probability mass function: (formula: see text) with 0 < p < 1, theta > or = 0 such that p + n theta < 1. The epidemic model is derived from a directed random graph. Data from influenza epidemics in Asian and American households are used to test the model and a comparison is made with the Longini-Koopman model. It is shown empirically that the QBD I is as good as the L-K model in describing the household infectious disease data, and both models provide almost identical estimates for community and household transmission parameters although they are derived from different perspectives and conditions.