Comparison of everolimus- versus paclitaxel-eluting stents implanted in patients with diabetes mellitus as evaluated by three-dimensional intravascular ultrasound analysis.
Author(s): Otake H, Ako J, Yamasaki M, Tsujino I, Shimohama T, Hasegawa T, Sakurai R, Waseda K, Honda Y, Sood P, Sudhir K, Stone GW, Fitzgerald PJ
Affiliation(s): Center for Cardiovascular Technology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Publication date & source: 2010-08-15, Am J Cardiol., 106(4):492-7.
Publication type: Comparative Study; Randomized Controlled Trial
Previous reports have shown the advantage of paclitaxel compared to limus-derivative drugs for the treatment of diabetics. A total of 109 diabetics (115 lesions) treated with everolimus-eluting stents (EESs, n = 58) or paclitaxel-eluting stents (PESs, n = 55) undergoing 8 to 9 months of follow-up 3-dimensional intravascular ultrasound examinations were enrolled. In addition to the standard intravascular ultrasound parameters, the percentage of neointimal volume (neointimal volume/stent volume) and maximum percentage of cross-sectional narrowing (neointimal area/stent area) was calculated. EESs showed a lower percentage of neointimal volume (7.2 +/- 7.1% vs 11.7 +/- 11.0%; p = 0.01) and maximum percentage of cross-sectional narrowing (22.5 +/- 16.3% vs 29.4 +/- 19.2%; p = 0.04) than PESs. One case of severe narrowing (lesions with maximum percentage of cross-sectional narrowing >60%) in the EES group developed and 6 cases in the PESs group (p = 0.05). The EESs showed no serial changes for vessel or peri-stent plaque during the follow-up period, and PESs showed significant increases in vessel and peri-stent plaque. PESs showed significantly greater peri-stent plaque increase, with a tendency toward greater vessel enlargement than EESs. Late acquired incomplete stent apposition was observed in 2 PES cases. The major adverse cardiac event rate was comparable < or =2 years. In conclusion, EESs showed greater neointimal suppression without significant vessel expansion than PESs in diabetic patients. In this small cohort, no significant differences were observed in the major adverse cardiac event rate < or =2 years.