Resultados angiográficos e do seguimento clínico de 5 Anos após implante de stents farmacológicos com revestimento biodegradável em pacientes com alto risco de reestenose: análise de subgrupo do estudo randomizado PAINT / Angiographic and 5-year clinical follow-up after implantation of drug-eluting stents with biodegradable coating in patients at high risk of restenosis: the PAINT randomized trial

Introdução: Polímeros biodegradáveis foram desenvolvidos para reduzir a reação de hipersensibilidade associada aos polímeros duráveis dos stents farmacológicos de primeira geração, mantendo sua eficácia antiproliferativa e aumentado sua segurança. Avaliamos os resultados angiográficos de 9 meses e os resultados clínicos de longo prazo dos stents farmacológicos com polímeros biodegradáveis em pacientes com alto risco de reestenose. Métodos: Pacientes com diâmetro de referência ≤ 2,5 mm, extensão da lesão ≥ 15 mm, diabetes, ou uma combinação dessas características foram selecionados da população do estudo PAINT. Esses pacientes foram previamente randomizados e alocados para intervenção coronária percutânea recebendo os stents farmacológicos com polímeros biodegradáveis com sirolimus ou com paclitaxel ou stents metálicos, na razão 2:2:1. Resultados: Cento e setenta e oito pacientes foram tratados com stents farmacológicos com polímeros biodegradáveis (n = 142) ou stents metálicos (n = 36). No acompanhamento angiográfico de 9 meses, os primeiros mostraram menor perda tardia (0,40 ± 0,42 mm vs. 0,90 ± 0,47 mm; p < 0,01) e reestenose binária (7,4% vs. 25%; p < 0,01). No acompanhamento clínico de 5 anos, o grupo com stents farmacológicos com polímeros biodegradáveis mostrou menores taxas do desfecho combinado de morte cardíaca, infarto do miocárdio e revascularização do vaso-alvo (16,2% vs. 38,0%; p = 0,03), principalmente devido à redução da revascularização do vaso-alvo (9,9% vs. 36,1%; p < 0,01). Morte total, morte cardíaca e infarto do miocárdio não foram diferentes entre os grupos. A trombose do stent, provável ou definitiva, ocorreu em 2,8% vs. 0% (p = 0,30). Conclusões: Os stents farmacológicos com polímeros biodegradáveis eluidores de paclitaxel ou sirolimus foram eficazes na redução de reestenose angiográfica aos 9 meses e na necessidade de reintervenção por reestenose clínica em 5 anos, sem aumentar o risco de...

Background: Biodegradable polymers were developed to reduce the hypersensitivity reaction associated to durable polymers found with the first generation drug-eluting stents, while maintaining antiproliferative efficacy and increasing safety. This study evaluated the 9-month angiographic follow-up and long-term clinical outcomes of biodegradable polymer-coated drug-eluting stents compared with identical platform metallic stents in patients with high-risk for restenosis. Methods: Patients with a reference diameter ≤ 2.5 mm, lesion length ≥ 15 mm, diabetes, or a combination of these characteristics were selected from the population of the PAINT trial. These patients were previously randomized and allocated for percutaneous coronary intervention with either a sirolimus-eluting biodegradable polymer-coated stent, a paclitaxel-eluting biodegradable polymer-coated stent, or an identical metallic platform stent, at a ratio of 2:2:1. Results: One hundred and seventy-eight patients were treated with biodegradable polymer-coated drug-eluting stents (n = 142) or bare metal stents (n = 36). At the 9-month angiographic follow-up, biodegradable polymercoated drug-eluting stents had lower rates of late loss (0.40 ± 0.42 mm vs. 0.90 ± 0.47 mm; p < 0.01) and binary restenosis (7.4% vs. 25%; p <0.01). In the 5-year clinical follow-up, the group with biodegradable polymer-coated drug-eluting stents had lower rates of the composite endpoint of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization (16.2% vs. 38.0%; p = 0.03), especially due to the reduction of target vessel revascularization (9.9% vs. 36.1%; (p 0.01). Total death, cardiac death and myocardial infarction were not different among groups. 0% (p = 0.30). Conclusions: Paclitaxel or sirolimus-eluting biodegradable polymer-coated stents were effective in reducing angiographic restenosis at 9 months and the need of reintervention for clinical restenosis in 5...

Very late outcomes of drug-eluting stents coated with biodegradable polymers: insights from the 5-year follow-up of the randomized PAINT trial.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have examined the very long-term outcomes after implantation of drug-eluting stents (DES) coated with biodegradable polymers (BP). This report presents the 5-year clinical follow-up of patients treated with BP-DES in the randomized PAINT trial. METHODS: The PAINT study is a prospective, multicenter randomized controlled trial that allocated 274 patients for treatment with two BP-DES formulations [paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) or sirolimus-eluting stents (SES)] or bare metal stents (BMS) in a 1:2:2 ratio, respectively. The primary end-point of this sub-study was defined as the composite of the major cardiac adverse events (MACE) cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI) or ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization (TVR) at 5 years. RESULTS: The 5-year MACE rates were different among the groups: 35.3%, 22.5% and 16.9% for BMS, PES and SES, respectively (P<0.05 for both DES vs. bare stent comparisons). The primary end-point was mainly driven by TVR: 31.8%, 14.1% and 12.2% for bare stents, PES and SES, respectively (P<0.05 for both DES vs. bare stent comparisons). The incidence of stent thrombosis (ST) was null for BMS during the entire follow-up. There was no definite or probable ST in the SES group after the second year, while one patient (1.0%) presented with a definite ST episode in the PES group between 4 and 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: The tested biodegradable-polymer coated stents releasing either paclitaxel or sirolimus, compared with same bare metal platform, sustained their effectiveness in reducing combined major adverse cardiac events and re-intervention without an increase in ST during 5 years of follow-up.

Late clinical outcomes after implantation of drug-eluting stents coated with biodegradable polymers: 3-year follow-up of the PAINT randomised trial.

AIMS: The long-term clinical performance of drug-eluting stents (DES) coated with biodegradable polymers is poorly known. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 274 coronary patients were randomly allocated to paclitaxel-eluting stents, sirolimus-eluting stents, or bare metal stents (2:2:1 ratio). The two DES used the same biodegradable polymers and were identical except for the drug. At three years, the pooled DES population had similar rates of cardiac death or myocardial infarction (9.0% vs. 7.1; p=0.6), but lower risk of repeat interventions (10.0% vs. 29.9%; p<0.01) than controls with bare stents. The cumulative 3-year incidence of definite or probable stent thrombosis in the pooled DES group was 2.3% (first year: 1.8%; second year: 0.4%; third year: zero). There were no significant differences in outcomes between paclitaxel- and sirolimus-eluting stents. CONCLUSIONS: The biodegradable-polymer coated DES releasing either paclitaxel or sirolimus were effective in reducing the 3-year rate of re-interventions.

Fundamento e desenho do teste randomizado PAINT / Rationale and design for the PAINT randomized trial / Fundamento y diseño del test randomizado PAINT

Fundamento: Descrevemos as bases teóricas e o formato do "Estudo PAINT - Intervenção percutânea com stents com eluição de paclitaxel ou sirolimus em polímero biodegradável comparados com stents sem recobrimento no tratamento de lesões coronárias de novo". Objetivo: Avaliar duas novas formulações de stents com eluição de paclitaxel ou sirolimus em comparação com um stent de estrutura metálica idêntica, porém sem recobrimento polimérico ou eluição de droga. Métodos: O PAINT é um estudo randomizado, multicêntrico, de 3 braços, conduzido em centros terciários brasileiros, que incluiu 275 pacientes alocados para tratamento com os stents InfinniumR (paclitaxel), the SupralimusR (sirolimus) ou Milennium MatrixR (sem recobrimento) na proporção 2:2:1 ratio. Os pacientes apresentavam lesões coronarianas de novo em vasos nativos com um diâmetro entre 2,5 e 3,5 mm, passíveis de tratamento com um único stent com comprimento de 29 mm ou menos. O objetivo primário era comparar a perda tardia aos nove meses de ambos stents com paclitaxel- ou sirolimus versus a perda luminal dos stents convencionais de controle. Objetivos secundários importantes incluíam a comparação angiográfica entre os dois tipos de stents farmacológicos, bem como a análise da ocorrência de eventos clínicos adversos. Resultados e conclusões: O estudo PAINT apresenta um formato peculiar e único que permitiu a avaliação da segurança e eficácia de duas novas formulações de stents farmacológicos, com carreador polimérico biodegradável, e liberação de paclitaxel ou sirolimus, os quais foram comparados contra um stent metálico convencional (objetivo primário). Uma vez que os stents farmacológicos diferiram entre sí somente pela droga, mas eram idênticos nas suas outras características, os estudo também permitiu a comparação do efeito anti-restenótico entre sirolimus e paclitaxel (objetivo secundário).

Background: We describe the rationale and design for the "PercutAneous Intervention with biodegradable-polymer based paclitaxel-eluting or sirolimus-eluting versus bare stents for de novo coronary lesions - PAINT trial". Objectives: To evaluate two novel formulations of paclitaxel-eluting stent and the sirolimus-eluting stent against a stent with the same metallic structure but without polymer coating or drug elution. Methods: The PAINT is a multicenter 3-arm randomized trial, conducted in Brazilian tertiary institutions, which included 275 patients allocated for the InfinniumR paclitaxel-eluting stent, the SupralimusR sirolimus-eluting stent or the Milennium MatrixR bare metal stent in a 2:2:1 ratio. Patients had de novo coronary lesions in native vessels with a diameter between 2.5 and 3.5 mm, amenable for treatment with a single stent of 29 mm or less in length. The primary objetive was to compare the in-stent late loss at 9 months of both paclitaxel- and sirolimus-eluting versus the late loss of control bare metal stents. Important secondary objectives included the comparison in outcomes between sirolimus and paclitaxel stents, as well as the analysis of the incidence of major adverse cardiac events. Results amd conclusions: The PAINT trial had a unique design that allowed for the evaluation of the safety and efficacy profiles of two novel drug-eluting stent formulations, with a biodegradable-polymer carrier and releasing paclitaxel or sirolimus, which were compared against a bare metal stent (primary objective). As the drug-eluting stents differed by the drug, but were identical otherwise, the trial also allowed the comparison of the anti-restenosis effects of sirolimus versus paclitaxel (secondary objective).

Fundamento: Describimos las bases teóricas y el formato del "Estudio PAINT - Intervención percutánea con stents recubiertos de paclitaxel o sirolimus en polímero biodegradable comparados con stents no recubiertos en el tratamiento de lesiones coronarias de novo". Objetivo: Evaluar dos nuevas formulaciones de stents con liberación de paclitaxel o sirolimus en comparación con un stent de estructura metálica idéntica, pero sin recubierto polimérico o liberación de droga. Métodos: El PAINT es un estudio randomizado, multicéntrico, de 3 brazos, llevado a cabo en centros terciaros brasileños, que incluyó a 275 pacientes destinados a tratamiento con los stents InfinniumR (paclitaxel), the SupralimusR (sirolimus) o Milennium MatrixR (no recubierto) en la proporción 2:2:1. Los pacientes presentaban lesiones coronarias de novo en vasos nativos con un diámetro entre 2,5 y 3,5 mm, pasibles de tratamiento con un único stent de hasta 29 mm de longitud. El objetivo primario era comparar la pérdida luminal tardía a los nueve meses de ambos stents con paclitaxel- o sirolimus versus la pérdida luminal de los stents convencionales de control. Los objetivos secundarios importantes incluían la comparación angiográfica entre los dos tipos de stents farmacológicos, así como el análisis de la ocurrencia de eventos clínicos adversos. Resultados y conclusiones: El estudio PAINT presenta un formato peculiar y único que permitió la evaluación de la seguridad y eficacia de dos nuevas formulaciones de stents farmacológicos, con transportador polimérico biodegradable, y liberación de paclitaxel o sirolimus, los que fueron comparados con un stent metálico convencional (objetivo primario). Dado que los stents farmacológicos diferían entre sí solamente por la droga, pero eran idénticos en sus otras características, el estudio también permitió la comparación del efecto antireestenótico entre sirolimus y paclitaxel (objetivo secundario).

Randomized evaluation of two drug-eluting stents with identical metallic platform and biodegradable polymer but different agents (paclitaxel or sirolimus) compared against bare stents: 1-year results of the PAINT trial.

OBJECTIVES: We tested two novel drug-eluting stents (DES), covered with a biodegradable-polymer carrier and releasing paclitaxel or sirolimus, which were compared against a bare metal stent (primary objective). The DES differed by the drug, but were identical otherwise, allowing to compare the anti-restenosis effects of sirolimus versus paclitaxel (secondary objective). BACKGROUND: The efficacy of novel DES with biodegradable polymers should be tested in the context of randomized trials, even when using drugs known to be effective, such as sirolimus and paclitaxel. METHODS: Overall, 274 patients with de novo coronary lesions in native vessels scheduled for stent implantation were randomly assigned (2:2:1 ratio) for the paclitaxel (n = 111), sirolimus (n = 106), or bare metal stent (n = 57) groups. Angiographic follow-up was obtained at 9 months and major cardiac adverse events up to 12 months. RESULTS: Both paclitaxel and sirolimus stents reduced the 9-month in-stent late loss (0.54-0.44 mm, 0.32-0.43 mm, vs. 0.90-0.45 mm respectively), and 1-year risk of target vessel revascularization and combined major adverse cardiac events (P < 0.05 for both, in all comparisons), compared with controls. Sirolimus stents had lower late loss than paclitaxel stents (P < 0.01), but similar 1-year clinical outcomes. There were no differences in the risk of death, infarction, or stent thrombosis among the study groups. CONCLUSION: Both novel DES were effective in reducing neointimal hyperplasia and 1-year re-intervention, compared to bare metal stents. Our findings also suggest that sirolimus is more effective than paclitaxel in reducing angiographic neointima, although this effect was not associated with better clinical outcomes.

Rationale and design for the PAINT randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: We describe the rationale and design for the 'PercutAneous INTervention with biodegradable-polymer based paclitaxel-eluting or sirolimus-eluting versus bare stents for de novo coronary lesions - PAINT trial'. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate two novel formulations of paclitaxel-eluting stent and the sirolimus-eluting stent against a stent with the same metallic structure but without polymer coating or drug elution. METHODS: The PAINT is a multicenter 3-arm randomized trial, conducted in Brazilian tertiary institutions, which included 275 patients allocated for the InfinniumR paclitaxel-eluting stent, the SupralimusR sirolimus-eluting stent or the Milennium MatrixR bare metal stent in a 2:2:1 ratio. Patients had de novo coronary lesions in native vessels with a diameter between 2.5 and 3.5 mm, amenable for treatment with a single stent of 29 mm or less in length. The primary objective was to compare the in-stent late loss at 9 months of both paclitaxel- and sirolimus-eluting versus the late loss of control bare metal stents. Important secondary objectives included the comparison in outcomes between sirolimus and paclitaxel stents, as well as the analysis of the incidence of major adverse cardiac events. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The PAINT trial had a unique design that allowed for the evaluation of the safety and efficacy profiles of two novel drug-eluting stent formulations, with a biodegradable-polymer carrier and releasing paclitaxel or sirolimus, which were compared against a bare metal stent (primary objective). As the drug-eluting stents differed by the drug, but were identical otherwise, the trial also allowed the comparison of the anti-restenosis effects of sirolimus versus paclitaxel (secondary objective).

Efficacy and safety of oral sirolimus to inhibit in-stent intimal hyperplasia.

Sirolimus systemic administration has shown marked inhibition of neointimal hyperplasia (NIH) after balloon angioplasty in porcine models. In this pilot study, we tested the hypothesis that oral sirolimus is safe and effective to inhibit in-stent NIH and therefore to prevent and treat in-stent restenosis (ISR). Twelve patients (18 lesions) with high risk for ISR, including 8 ISR lesions, were admitted. One day before the procedure, patients were given a 15 mg loading dose of oral sirolimus, followed by 5 mg daily for 28 days, with weekly whole blood level measurements. The daily dose was adjusted to keep the concentration at 10-15 ng/ml. Sirolimus was well tolerated by all patients but one, who died at the end of the third week of treatment. The 4- and 8-month follow-up revealed an angiographic late loss of 0.40 +/- 0.24 and 0.67 +/- 0.45 mm (P < 0.01), respectively. At the same time points, the intravascular ultrasound in in-stent relative volumetric obstruction was 14.4% +/- 9.1% and 23.2% +/- 10.1% (P < 0.01), respectively. At 24-month clinical follow-up, adverse events were one (8.3%) death, two (11.1%) target lesion, and four (22.2%) target vessel revascularizations. In conclusion, in this small group of high-risk ISR patients, oral sirolimus inhibited NIH and therefore may be an effective strategy for the prevention and treatment of ISR.

Comparison of direct stenting versus stenting with predilation for the treatment of selected coronary narrowings.

Direct stenting may reduce costs, procedure times, and injury to the vessel wall, positively influencing acute and late results. This study was designed to demonstrate 6-month clinical outcome equivalence between direct and standard stenting techniques. Four hundred eleven patients (425 lesions) were randomized in 7 sites to undergo direct (210 patients, 216 lesions) or conventional (201 patients, 209 lesions) stent implantation. Lesions with severe calcification were excluded. Angiographic success rate was 100% in the direct stent group (2.8% requiring balloon predilation) and 98.6% in the predilation group (p = 0.12). Direct stenting was associated with decreased use of balloons (0.15 vs 1.09 balloons/lesion treated) and with a trend toward a reduction of procedure time (22.7 +/- 15.0 vs 25.6 +/- 18.2 minutes; p = 0.073). Fluoroscopy time and contrast volume were not different between groups. At 6-month follow-up, the incidences of death (direct [1.4%] vs predilation [2.5%]), myocardial infarction (5.3% vs 5.0%), and target vessel revascularization (8.2% vs 10.5%) were similar in both groups. Major adverse cardiac event-free survival rate was 87.5% for those who underwent the direct stent technique and 85.5% for patients who underwent predilation (p = 0.0002 for equivalence). In conclusion, direct stenting is at least equivalent to the standard technique in terms of 6-month clinical outcomes when performed on selected coronary lesions without significant calcification. This strategy is associated with decreased use of balloons, but, in general, does not significantly reduce procedure times.