Clinical Trial Details
— Status: Terminated
Administrative data
NCT number |
NCT00422565 |
Other study ID # |
2006-0137 |
Secondary ID |
|
Status |
Terminated |
Phase |
Phase 4
|
First received |
|
Last updated |
|
Start date |
October 2006 |
Est. completion date |
September 2008 |
Study information
Verified date |
December 2022 |
Source |
CardioVascular Research Foundation, Korea |
Contact |
n/a |
Is FDA regulated |
No |
Health authority |
|
Study type |
Interventional
|
Clinical Trial Summary
The trial has the following primary objective:
To compare the safety and effectiveness of primary acute MI intervention with ABT 578-eluting
balloon expandable stent (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN) vs. sirolimus-eluting balloon
expandable stent (Cordis Johnson & Johnson, Warren, New Jersey) vs. paclitaxel-eluting stent
(Taxus Liberte, Boston Scientific).
Description:
Previous studies have documented that a slow-release polymeric sirolimus-eluting stent
(Cypher, Cordis) and paclitaxel-eluting stent (Taxus, Boston Scientific) reduce neointimal
formation and result in decrease of angiographic restenosis and target lesion
revascularization at 1-3 years in the multicenter randomized clinical trials RAVEL, SIRIUS,
and TAXUS I-VI. From these studies, the two leading drug-eluting stents (DESs) of the Cypher
and Taxus have been widely and rapidly accepted as a standard treatment of coronary lesions.
Recently, randomized studies were conducted to reveal different outcomes of the different two
DESs. These studies showed that the sirolimus-eluting stent was better than the
paclitaxel-eluting stent in terms of lower angiographic restenosis rate or the two DESs were
similar in angiographic outcomes. A recent meta-analysis supported results of the former
randomized studies. Patients receiving sirolimus-eluting stent had a significantly lower risk
of restenosis and target vessel revascularization compared with those receiving
paclitaxel-eluting stent.
With a recent approval of new DES, ABT-578-eluting stent (Endeavor, Medtronic, Minneapolis,
MN), other comparison studies have been conducted to compare Endeavor ABT-578-eluting stent
with the sirolimus-eluting stent and paclitaxel-eluting stent. The ENDEAVOR clinical trials
are currently in progress to evaluate a phosphoryl choline (PC)-coated ABT-578-eluting stent
for the prevention of restenosis. Angiographic analysis at 4 months in the 100-patient focal
de novo lesion ENDEAVOR I feasibility study demonstrated a mean in-stent percent diameter
stenosis of approximately 14% and a late lumen loss of 0.3 mm with a low frequency of target
lesion revascularization (1%). The clinical outcomes from the ENDEAVOR II (1,197 patients
randomized to ABT-578 or bare metal stent) showed superior efficacy of the PC-coated
ABT-578-eluting stent than bare-metal stent.
In patients with acute myocardial infraction (MI), routine stent implantation has been shown
to have a better procedural success rate and clinical outcome than balloon angioplasty [11].
However, restenosis and vessel reocclusion remain major challenges limiting the long-term
success of percutaneous treatment.
In a clinical study of 400 patients with stent implantation in acute MI, angiographic
restenosis occurred in 31%, considerably more than expected for patients with stable coronary
disease. There is very little information available as to the efficacy and long-term safety
of DES in acute MI. The results from the several registry and randomized trials (Cypher-AMI,
Typhoon, PASSION) demonstrated the short-term or long-term safety and efficacy of DES
compared to BMS.
The incomplete evidence to date is that implantation of SES in patients with Acute MI is safe
and effective more than BMS and results of implantation of PES are at variance with the
results of the BMS. However, up to date, there are randomized trials to compare the efficacy
and safety among commonly used DES (zotarolimus- vs. sirolimus- vs. paclitaxel-eluting
stents) for the treatment of acute MI patients. The results of large randomized trials and
larger registries will allow us to make evidence-based decisions about which stent to use in
patients with acute MI. Therefore, we designed a randomized, controlled, partially blinded
trial comparing the safety and efficacy of the zotarolimus vs. sirolimus vs. paclitaxel
stents in acute MI patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.