 |
|
Comparison of Paclitaxel- and Sirolimus-Eluting Stents in Everyday Clinical PracticeThe SORT OUT II Randomized Trial
Anders M. Galløe, MD;
Leif Thuesen, MD;
Henning Kelbæk, MD;
Per Thayssen, MD;
Klaus Rasmussen, MD;
Peter R. Hansen, MD;
Niels Bligaard, MD;
Kari Saunamäki, MD;
Anders Junker, MD;
Jens Aarøe, MD;
Ulrik Abildgaard, MD;
Jan Ravkilde, MD;
Thomas Engstrøm, MD;
Jan S. Jensen, MD;
Henning R. Andersen, MD;
Hans E. Bøtker, MD;
Søren Galatius, MD;
Steen D. Kristensen, MD;
Jan K. Madsen, MD;
Lars R. Krusell, MD;
Steen Z. Abildstrøm, MD;
Ghita B. Stephansen, RN;
Jens F. Lassen, MD; for the SORT OUT II Investigators
JAMA. 2008;299(4):409-416.
Context Approval of drug-eluting coronary stents was based on results of relatively small trials of selected patients; however, in routine practice, stents are used in a broader spectrum of patients.
Objective To compare the first 2 commercially available drug-eluting stents—sirolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting—for prevention of symptom-driven clinical end points, using a study design reflecting everyday clinical practice.
Design, Setting, and Patients Randomized, blinded trial conducted August 2004 to January 2006 at 5 university hospitals in Denmark. Patients were 2098 men and women (mean [SD] age, 63.6 [10.8] years) treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and randomized to receive either sirolimus-eluting (n = 1065) or paclitaxel-eluting (n = 1033) stents. Indications for PCI included ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), non-STEMI or unstable angina pectoris, and stable angina.
Main Outcome Measures The primary end point was a composite clinical end point of major adverse cardiac events, defined as either cardiac death, acute myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization, or target vessel revascularization. Secondary end points included individual components of the composite end point, all-cause mortality, and stent thrombosis.
Results The sirolimus- and the paclitaxel-eluting stent groups did not differ significantly in major adverse cardiac events (98 [9.3%] vs 114 [11.2%]; hazard ratio, 0.83 [95% confidence interval, 0.63-1.08]; P = .16) or in any of the secondary end points. The stent thrombosis rates were 27 (2.5%) and 30 (2.9%) (hazard ratio, 0.87 [95% confidence interval, 0.52-1.46]; P = .60), respectively.
Conclusion In this practical randomized trial, there were no significant differences in clinical outcomes between patients receiving sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents.
Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00388934
Author Affiliations: Department of Cardiology, Gentofte University Hospital (Drs Galløe, Hansen, Abildgaard, Engstrøm, Jensen, Bligaard, Galatius, Madsen, and Abildstrøm and Ms Stephansen) and Department of Cardiology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital (Drs Kelbæk and Saunamäki), University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark; Department of Cardiology, Skejby Hospital (Drs Thuesen, Andersen, Ravkilde, Bøtker, Kristensen, Krusell, and Lassen) and Department of Cardiology, Aalborg University Hospital (Drs Rasmussen and Aarøe), University of Aarhus, Århus, Denmark; and Department of Cardiology, Odense University Hospital, University of Southern Denmark, Odense (Drs Thayssen and Junker).
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter
What's this?
RELATED LETTERS
Study Power in the SORT OUT II Trial
Hideaki Kaneda
JAMA. 2008;299(17):2021-2022.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Study Power in the SORT OUT II Trial—Reply
Anders Michael Galløe, Niels Bligaard, and Peter Riis Hansen
JAMA. 2008;299(17):2022.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
RELATED ARTICLES
Effectiveness of Drug-Eluting Stents in Real-World Patients
Debabrata Mukherjee and David J. Moliterno
JAMA. 2008;299(4):454-455.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Myocardial Infarction
Janet M. Torpy, Cassio Lynm, and Richard M. Glass
JAMA. 2008;299(4):476.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
|
In-Hospital and 1-Year Outcomes Among Unselected Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Patients Treated With Either Sirolimus- or Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents: Results From the EVENT (Evaluation of Drug Eluting Stents and Ischemic Events) Registry
Novack et al.
J Am Coll Cardiol Intv 2009;2:767-775.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Angiographic Restenosis and Clinical Recurrence After Sirolimus- and Paclitaxel-Eluting Stent Implantation
Vlaar and Zijlstra
J Am Coll Cardiol Intv 2009;2:776-778.
FULL TEXT
Drug-Eluting Stent Thrombosis in Routine Clinical Practice: Two-Year Outcomes and Predictors From the TAXUS ARRIVE Registries
Lasala et al.
Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2009;2:285-293.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
The year in interventional cardiology.
Dixon et al.
J Am Coll Cardiol 2009;53:2080-2097.
FULL TEXT
Paclitaxel Versus Sirolimus Stents in Diabetic and Nondiabetic Patients
Chiu et al.
Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2009;2:96-107.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
2-Year Clinical Outcomes After Implantation of Sirolimus-Eluting, Paclitaxel-Eluting, and Bare-Metal Coronary Stents Results From the WDHR (Western Denmark Heart Registry).
Kaltoft et al.
J Am Coll Cardiol 2009;53:658-664.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Paclitaxel versus sirolimus the battle is still ongoing.
Stefanadis and Toutouzas
J Am Coll Cardiol 2009;53:665-666.
FULL TEXT
Neointimal hyperplasia after sirolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stent implantation in diabetic patients: The Randomized Diabetes and Drug-Eluting Stent (DiabeDES) Intravascular Ultrasound Trial
Jensen et al.
Eur Heart J 2008;29:2733-2741.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Study Power in the SORT OUT II Trial
Kaneda
JAMA 2008;299:2021-2022.
FULL TEXT
Performance of Drug-Eluting Stents in Usual Clinical Practice
JWatch General 2008;2008:6-6.
FULL TEXT
All you need to read in the other general journals
BMJ 2008;336:300-301.
FULL TEXT
Effectiveness of Drug-Eluting Stents in Real-World Patients
Mukherjee and Moliterno
JAMA 2008;299:454-455.
FULL TEXT
Are Sirolimus-Eluting and Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents Equivalent?
Journal Watch Cardiology 2008;2008:3-3.
FULL TEXT
|
