Related trials
BASKET-PROVE (SES), 2010 - sirolimus eluting stent vs bare-metal stent
SPIRIT IV, 2010 - everolimus eluting stent vs paclitaxel eluting stent
ISAR-DESIRE-2, 2010 - sirolimus eluting stent vs paclitaxel eluting stent
SORT-OUT-3, 2010 - zotarolimus eluting stent vs sirolimus eluting stent
GISSOC II, 2010 - sirolimus eluting stent vs bare-metal stent
RESOLUTE, 2010 - zotarolimus eluting stent vs everolimus eluting stent
BASKET-PROVE (EES), 2010 - everolimus eluting stent vs bare-metal stent
ISAR TEST 3 (BP), 2009 - sirolimus biodegradable polymer vs sirolimus eluting stent
SYNTAX, 2009 - paclitaxel eluting stent vs CABG
ISAR-LEFT-MAIN, 2009 - sirolimus eluting stent vs paclitaxel eluting stent
STICH (ventricular reconstruction), 2009 - CABG+surgical ventricular reconstruction vs CABG
NORDISTEMI, 2009 - thrombolysis + angioplasty vs immediate thrombolysis
ZEST AMI (vs PES), 2009 - zotarolimus eluting stent vs paclitaxel eluting stent
Juwana, 2009 - sirolimus eluting stent vs paclitaxel eluting stent
DEBATER (SES vs BMS), 2009 - sirolimus eluting stent vs bare-metal stent
ISAR TEST 2 (vs ZES), 2009 - dual sirolimus, probucol eluting stent vs zotarolimus eluting stent
ZEST (vs PES), 2009 - zotarolimus eluting stent vs paclitaxel eluting stent
ENDEAVOR IV, 2009 - zotarolimus eluting stent vs paclitaxel eluting stent
BARI 2D, 2009 - CABG or PCI vs medical treatment
ZEST (vs SES), 2009 - zotarolimus eluting stent vs sirolimus eluting stent
ISAR-TEST-4 (biodegradable polymer), 2009 - sirolimus biodegradable polymer vs sirolimus eluting stent
PASEO, 2009 - drug-eluting stents vs bare-metal stent
COMPARE, 2009 - everolimus eluting stent vs paclitaxel eluting stent
ISAR TEST 2 (vs SES), 2009 - dual sirolimus, probucol eluting stent vs sirolimus eluting stent
ISAR TEST 3 (PF), 2009 - polymer free sirolimus stent vs sirolimus eluting stent
See also:
All acute myocardial infarction clinical trials
All coronary artery disease clinical trials
All clinical trials of PCI
All clinical trials of paclitaxel eluting stent
|
|
Treatments
Studied treatment |
Taxus Express2
|
Control treatment |
Express2 or Libert�
|
Patients
Patients |
Myocardial Infarction with ST-Segment Elevation |
Inclusion criteria |
acute myocardial infarction with ST-segment elevation (>20 minutes of chest pain and at least 1 mm of ST-segment elevation in at least two contiguous leads or a new left bundle-branch block), reperfusion was expected to be achieved within 6 hours after the onset of symptoms, and the native coronary artery was considered to be suitable for primary acute myocardial infarction with ST-segment elevation (>20 minutes of chest pain and at least 1 mm of ST-segment elevation in at least two contiguous leads or a new left bundle-branch block), reperfusion was expected to be achieved within 6 hours after the onset of symptoms, and the native coronary artery was considered to be suitable for primary PCI with stent implantation. |
Exclusion criteria |
thrombolytic therapy;
the infarction was caused by in-stent thrombosis
or restenosis; there was a contraindication
to aspirin, clopidogrel, or both; patients were participating
in another clinical trial; cardiogenic
shock |
Baseline characteristics |
age |
61 |
diabetes (%) |
11% |
Lesion diameter inclusion criteria |
>2.5 |
Female (%) |
24% |
|
Method and design
Randomized effectives |
310 / 309 (studied vs. control) |
Design |
Parallel groups |
Blinding |
open |
Follow-up duration |
12 months (5y) |
Number of centre |
2 |
Geographic area |
The Netherlands |
Primary endpoint |
cardiac death, AMI, TLR |
Results
Endpoint
Studied treat. n/N
Control treat. n/N
Graph
RR [95% CI]
All cause death
14 / 302
20 / 303
0,70 [0,36;1,36]
MI (fatal and non fatal)
5 / 302
6 / 303
classic
0,84 [0,26;2,71]
target lesion revascularisation
16 / 302
23 / 303
0,70 [0,38;1,29]
angiographic restenosis
NA / 310
NA / 309
4 yr MI
NA / 310
NA / 309
classic
1,49 [0,72;3,09]
4 yr TLR
NA / 310
NA / 309
0,67 [0,39;1,16]
4 yr stent thrombosis
NA / 310
NA / 309
classic
1,98 [0,67;5,84]
0
2
1.0
Relative risks
|
Endpoint |
Events (%) |
Relative Risk |
95% CI |
Endpoint definition in the trial |
Ref |
Studied treat. |
Control treat. |
All cause death
|
14 / 302 (4,6%) |
20 / 303 (6,6%) |
0,70 |
[0,36;1,36] |
|
|
MI (fatal and non fatal)
|
5 / 302 (1,7%) |
6 / 303 (2,0%) |
0,84 |
[0,26;2,71] |
|
|
target lesion revascularisation
|
16 / 302 (5,3%) |
23 / 303 (7,6%) |
0,70 |
[0,38;1,29] |
|
|
The primary endpoint (if exists) appears in blod characters
|
Reference(s) used for data extraction:
0:
|
Endpoint |
studied treat. |
control treat. |
mean diff |
Absolute risk reduction
|
Endpoint |
Events rate |
Absolute risk reduction (ARR) |
Studied treat. |
Control treat. |
All cause death |
4,64% |
6,60% |
-19,6‰
|
MI (fatal and non fatal) |
1,66% |
1,98% |
-3,2‰
|
target lesion revascularisation |
5,30% |
7,59% |
-22,9‰
|
Meta-analysis of all similar trials:
Drug eluting stent in coronary artery disease for all type of patients
Drug eluting stent in coronary artery disease for acute myocardial infarction
myocardial revascularization in acute myocardial infarction for all type of patients
myocardial revascularization in coronary artery disease for all type of patient
PCI in acute myocardial infarction for all type of patients
Reference(s)
-
Laarman GJ, Suttorp MJ, Dirksen MT, van Heerebeek L, Kiemeneij F, Slagboom T, van der Wieken LR, Tijssen JG, Rensing BJ, Patterson M.
Paclitaxel-eluting versus uncoated stents in primary percutaneous coronary intervention..
N Engl J Med 2006;355:1105-13
Pubmed
|
Hubmed
| Fulltext
-
Dirksen MT, Vink MA, Suttorp MJ, Tijssen JG, Patterson MS, Slagboom T, Kiemeneij F, Laarman GJ.
.
EuroIntervention 2008 May;4:64-70
Pubmed
|
Hubmed
| Fulltext
|