Drug-eluting stents: an early systematic review to inform policy

Ruaraidh A. Hilla,*, Yenal Dündara, Ameet Bakhaib,1, Rumona Dicksona and Tom Walleya

a Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group, The Sherrington Buildings, Ashton Street, Liverpool L69 3GE, UK
b Cardiology Department, Barnet General Hospital, Wellhouse Lane, Barnet EN5 3DJ, UK

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +44-151-794-5541; fax: +44-151-794-5477
E-mail address: rahill{at}liv.ac.uk

Received 15 December 2003; revised 9 March 2004; accepted 18 March 2004 See page 895 for the editorial comment on this review2.

Abstract

Aims To provide systematic assessment of the clinical effectiveness of drug-eluting stents (DES) versus non-DES to inform national guidance.

Methods and results The review was conducted according to internationally recognised methods. The search strategy identified published (7) and unpublished (7) randomised controlled trials comparing the use of DES to non-DES. Outcomes included death, acute myocardial infarction (AMI), revascularisation, event rate (composite of adverse events), and binary restenosis. Data synthesis included descriptive statistics and meta-analysis. Fourteen randomised clinical trials comparing DES to non-DES and involving 5747 patients were identified.

There were reductions in event rates between DES and non-DES; odds ratio (OR) 0.63 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.47, 0.84, ) for paclitaxel-eluting stents at 12 months, OR 0.30 (95% CI 0.22, 0.42, ) for sirolimus-eluting stents at 12 months. Combined event rates were inconsistently defined across trials and were primarily composed of revascularisations, possibly driven by protocol-required angiograms. DES reduced binary restenosis rates at angiogram compared to non-DES. No significant differences in rates of death or AMI were identified.

Conclusion The early data available indicate that DES reduce adverse cardiac events, mainly revascularisations. However, these data are limited in terms of patient numbers, length of follow-up, and method of outcome assessment. The evaluation of rapidly evolving technologies requires the inclusion of data not routinely considered for inclusion in systematic reviews of effectiveness.

Key Words: Drug-eluting stents • Stents • Interventional cardiology • Systematic review • Health technology assessment • Policy

Introduction

Bare metal stents were introduced for use during percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) to reduce the risk of restenosis. The role of stents has recently been reviewed,1,2 and guidance in the UK3 recommends their use. Registry data from Europe (in 1999) indicate the use of stents in more than 70% of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) procedures in most countries4 and more recent data from the UK indicate stent use in 85% of cases.5

Restenosis around and within stents due to neointimal proliferation causes a return of coronary symptoms and requires further procedures in 20–50% of cases, depending on the size and complexity of the lesion.6 Current estimates in the UK indicate revascularisation rates to be in the range of 14–25%.7 The rate of in-stent restenosis has been reduced with the use of intracoronary irradiation (brachytherapy),8 but this is not widely available.9 Drug-eluting stents (DES) that elute an antiproliferative agent reduce neointimal hyperplasia and the risk of restenosis without systemic toxicity.9,10 This new technology comes at a considerable additional cost, typically 1800 to 2100 for DES compared to 800 to 1300 for non-drug-eluting stents (non-DES) in the UK.11 Therefore health-care funding agencies require data on the clinical and cost effectiveness of this technology.

Rationale for the review
A number of comparative trials of DES have been completed and long-term follow-up continues while new trials are underway.12 The technology is evolving rapidly and an American College of Cardiology Expert Consensus Panel13 has stated: "The rapid evolution of stent design, deployment approaches, and adjunctive therapy have led to changes in clinical practice patterns that precede rigidly controlled supporting scientific data." Rapid changes in the technology make it difficult to evaluate the benefits and safety of DES compared to non-DES, but this is required before DES can be recommended as standard practise. As part of a wider health technology assessment of DES intended to inform policy in the UK, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of available data from randomised controlled trials comparing DES to non-DES.

Methods

Searching
To identify relevant studies, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index (Web of Science and ISI Proceedings) from January 1990 to December 2002, as well as The Cochrane Library (Issue 4, 2002). We also searched the reference lists of identified studies and hand-searched 14 cardiovascular journals (December 2001–December 2002) and abstracts from six cardiovascular conferences (January 2000–January 2003). Internet resources, including web pages supported by manufacturers, were investigated regularly during the review process. Submissions to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) for England and Wales were examined for further studies and data.14 Peer-reviewed journals, cardiovascular conferences, and Internet resources were monitored up to January 2004 for presentation of additional data or publications related to studies included in the review. Searching was limited to English-language papers. Full details of the search strategy and results are available from the authors.

Selection, validity assessment, and data abstraction
Studies were considered eligible for inclusion in the review only if they compared DES with non-DES within a randomised controlled trial. No limits were placed on the coronary artery disease state of the study participants (in terms of involvement of native or graft vessels; single or multiple vessels, or stable angina or acute coronary syndrome). In order for studies to be included in the review, data on at least one outcome of interest (composite event rate, mortality, acute myocardial infarction [AMI], or binary restenosis) had to be available in trial reports. Reports of unplanned interim or subgroup data were excluded.

Citations identified for inclusion were examined in two stages. Two reviewers independently scanned all titles and abstracts. Full-text copies of the selected papers were obtained and assessed independently by at least two reviewers for inclusion and study quality using internationally recognised guidelines.15 Data were independently extracted by one reviewer using pretested data extraction forms and were checked by a second. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion.

Study characteristics
The review was limited to the inclusion of randomised controlled trials. Details of participant characteristics (age, gender, comorbidity, disease state) and study design (location, number of centres recruiting participants) were recorded. Trial outcomes of interest included composite event rate, mortality, AMI, and angiographic binary restenosis rates. The definitions of these outcomes are discussed in detail in the Results section.

Quantitative data synthesis
Meta-analysis was conducted for event rates, mortality, AMI, and angiographic binary restenosis rates. Data in the form of odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were analysed using the Mantel–Haenszel method, fixed-effect model provided by the RevMan Analyses 1.0 application contained in RevMan 4.2.16 Heterogeneity was tested by the chi-square test in RevMan Analyses 1.0.

Results

Studies included
Fourteen studies, with data from multiple sources, met the inclusion criteria.17–30 Of these, eight (ASPECT,17 DELIVER,18,31 ELUTES,19 PATENCY,20 TAXUS I21,32,33 TAXUS II,33,34 TAXUS IV,23,35,36 and SCORE24) focused on stents eluting taxane compounds (paclitaxel, 7-hexanolytaxol), five (E-SIRIUS,25,37 FUTURE,28,38 FUTURE II,29 RAVEL,26,37,39 and SIRIUS,37,40) investigated sirolimus or everolimus-eluting stents, and one study involved actinomycin-dosed stents (ACTION30).

The majority of the studies used polymer-coated DES. In the ASPECT,17 DELIVER,18,31 and ELUTES19 trials, paclitaxel was applied directly to the stent surface, without the use of a polymer carrier. The SCORE24 study utilised a DES with a set of polymer "sleeves" that ringed the outer surface of the stent and bore the active agent.

At the time of writing, ASPECT,17 E-SIRIUS,25 RAVEL,26 SIRIUS,27 TAXUS I,21 TAXUS II,34 and TAXUS IV35 had been published in peer-reviewed journals, but with only 9–12-month data. Other data were largely obtained from conference abstracts, Internet-based sources (for example, conference reports or slide presentations), and documentation provided by manufacturers to the NICE.

Quality assessment of studies included
The limited information on trial methodology in abstracts affected our ability to assess the quality of some of the included studies. Study quality, as assessed using available reports, is presented in Table 1. The three studies investigating the CYPHERTM sirolimus-eluting stent,25–27 three studies investigating the TAXUSTM paclitaxel-eluting stent,21,34,35 and the ELUTES19 study scored well on key aspects of quality assessment (randomisation, blinding, and follow-up).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 1 Quality assessment

 
Study characteristics
The characteristics of the studies and patient populations are provided in Table 2. Patient inclusion criteria are broadly comparable. Ten studies included patients with single-vessel disease only. Three studies included patients with smaller vessels and long lesions (E-SIRIUS,41 SIRIUS,42 and TAXUS IV35). Mean age ranged from 59 to 65 years and male patients predominated in all studies. Information on past or concurrent health factors was identified for all studies. The proportion of participants with diabetes mellitus varied from 14% (ACTION30 and TAXUS II34) to 29% (DELIVER18). The FUTURE I28 study excluded diabetic patients.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 2 Study design and participants

 
A total of 5747 participants were included (3633 evaluating taxanes, 1648 sirolimus, 360 actinomycin, and 106 everolimus). The numbers randomised to DES versus non-DES were not equal due to the nature of three trials (ACTION,30 ASPECT,17 and ELUTES19), which assessed various concentrations of drug elution, but used single control groups. The TAXUS II34 trial explored two different DES "elution profiles" (one slow [SR], one moderate [MR] release) in two separate cohorts, each with its own control group. Trial size varied from 36 (FUTURE28) to more than 1000 patients (DELIVER,18 SIRIUS,42 and TAXUS IV35). All but one study (FUTURE I,28 a single-centre study based in Germany) were multicentred. We have data on follow-up beyond 1 year from only two studies (RAVEL26,37 and TAXUS I21).

Outcomes
Composite event rates (major adverse cardiac events [MACE], target vessel failure, or event-free survival) were the primary reported endpoints. The definition of "event rate" varied across studies: all included a hierarchy of death, AMI, and some measure of coronary revascularisation, usually either target vessel revascularisation or target lesion revascularisation (see Table 3). Given the varied definitions of revascularisation, it was not possible to directly compare results across trials. Revascularisation was included in the analysis event rate.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 3 Outcomes

 
All studies included angiographic follow-up (9 months, PATENCY20 and TAXUS IV;35 8 months, SIRIUS42 and E-SIRIUS;41 and 6 months for all others). Although a number of angiographic outcomes were reported, the most consistently reported was binary restenosis (percentage of lesions with greater than 50% of luminal narrowing compared to diameter at completion of the procedure).

Data synthesis
The review could not compare stents eluting different pharmaceutical agents since there are no studies that report head-to-head comparisons. In the analyses presented, however, the studies are grouped by eluted agent for convenience. Three studies (ACTION,30 ASPECT,17 and ELUTES19) evaluated the effects of differing doses of the same agent. The two cohorts of TAXUS II34 are treated as two studies in the meta-analysis.

Event rate (Fig. 1)
Adverse events were less frequent with paclitaxel and sirolimus DES than non-DES at 6 and 12 months. In the RAVEL study, the benefit of DES is maintained at 2 years.39 It is important to note that the event rates are made up primarily of revascularisations. For instance, in RAVEL, 27 of the 34 reported MACE (79%) at one year in the non-DES group were target vessel revascularisations.26 In TAXUS I (the other study reporting up to 2 years), all reported MACE were revascularisations.32



View larger version (30K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 1 Event rate.

 
Mortality (Fig. 2)
There is no difference in mortality up to 1 year between the DES and non-DES groups. The two-year data reported in RAVEL39 showed one and two cardiac deaths and five and one noncardiac deaths in the DES and non-DES arms, respectively.



View larger version (28K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 2 Mortality.

 
AMI (Fig. 3)
There was no difference in the incidence of AMI between DES and non-DES up to 12 months. The two-year RAVEL39 data also show no difference between the groups in rate of AMI. One study, SCORE,24 showed an advantage in the non-DES group at 1 year.



View larger version (26K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 3 Myocardial infarction.

 
Binary restenosis (Fig. 4)
Binary restenosis is reported at 6 months for nine of the studies in the meta-analysis, at 8 months for SIRIUS42 and E-SIRIUS, and at 9 months for PATENCY,20 DELIVER,18 and TAXUS IV.35 Analysing these data suggests a benefit of DES over non-DES in the taxane and sirolimus groups and a marginally significant benefit in the relatively small-sized everolimus subgroup. This advantage is not evident in the evaluation of actinomycin-eluting stents.



View larger version (31K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 4 Binary restenosis rate.

 
Discussion

The analysis indicates that DES can reduce event rates by 40–60% at 12 months. Event rate is heavily dependent on revascularisations and these, in turn, may be inflated by protocol-dictated angiography. This does not accurately reflect clinical practise and may bias studies in favour of the DES.1,2 Clinicians faced with a narrowed lesion on angiogram may intervene even where not strictly necessary from a clinical point of view. This was well illustrated in BENESTENT II,43 where a greater number of revascularisation procedures were reported in cohorts of patients with routine protocol angiography than in those who did not have angiographic evaluation (12.6% compared to 6%, respectively, ).

To avoid this problem, trials report "clinically driven revascularisations". This is defined by the US Food and Drug Administration as cases where there was a positive exercise ECG or nuclear perfusion scan; ischaemic ECG changes at rest in a distribution consistent with the target vessel; ischaemic symptoms and an in-lesion diameter stenosis greater than 50%; or revascularisation of a target lesion with an in-lesion diameter stenosis greater than 70%, even without ischaemic signs or symptoms. This last point assumes that such patients would soon become symptomatic and require a repeat revascularisation but, in effect, allows protocol-driven revascularisation procedures. Trial sponsors report that the 70% stenosis criterion alone was rarely invoked in practise (S. Fearn, Cordis Corporation: personal communication, 2002). Nevertheless, Kaplan–Meier plots of events in many of the included trials indicate a major increase in events at the time of the protocol-dictated angiogram.

Trial reports confuse the issue further in their reporting of clinically-driven and non-clinically-driven events. For instance, in published data for RAVEL,26 full MACE figures were reported in a table as 34/118 in the non-DES arm, but "clinically-driven" MACE were reported in the text of the article as only 23/118 (this latter figure is included in our meta-analysis). It is uncertain, therefore, how well even "clinically-driven" trial events as defined, reflect true clinical practise, and there is a clear need for randomised clinical trials with simple, truly clinical endpoints rather than the composite clinical and angiographic endpoints used in trials to date. A recent discussion of cost-effectiveness based on Medicare data in the USA indicates that the incidence of repeat revascularisation between 1 month and 1 year after initial PCI is 16.9%.44

Some patients may be at higher risk of restenosis (for example, those with diabetes). To date, no trial has been powered to evaluate the benefits within subgroups. A meta-analysis of individual patient data would help to address this limitation and guide the effective, targeted use of DES. Attempts from registry data or from limited trial data to define subsets at high risk45–47 suggest that patients with smaller vessels and longer lesions and diabetic patients are at higher risk of restenosis.

The relative benefits of stenting are assumed to be similar for each type of lesion and the absolute benefits vary depending on the background risk of restenosis. Given that studies have not been powered to demonstrate effect on mortality or myocardial infarction, issues such as the improvement in quality of life brought about by DES and their cost-effectiveness in different subsets of patients will be critical in policy decisions about using DES. However, these data are not currently available.

A number of the included trials were stopped early because of lack of effect (ACTION,30 actinomycin) or major adverse effects (SCORE,24 with the taxol derivative 7-hexanolytaxol), or refer to devices that have not been approved for use. Including these studies in the review assumes compatibility of stents. In fact, each stent design and drug/polymer combination is unique and, without direct comparative studies, it is unclear if there are significant differences between them. The use of meta-analysis here should therefore not be taken to replace careful examination of each trial and consideration of each stent individually. As comparative data become available, appropriate analysis may prove possible.

This review reports results for all DES, but from the pragmatic view of the policy maker, the only DES of interest are those awarded the CE Mark (CYPHERTM, TAXUSTM, and the DEXAMETTM dexamethasone-eluting stent). If the report were confined to trials relating to these stents only, the odds ratio for reduction in events at 12 months of DES compared to non-DES would be 0.30 (95% CI 0.22, 0.42, ) for CYPHERTM sirolimus-eluting stent, and 0.41 (95% CI 0.25, 0.67, ) for TAXUSTM paclitaxel-eluting stents. No data from randomised clinical trials evaluating the dexamethasone-eluting stents were identified for inclusion in this review.

Mortality and AMI
This analysis showed no improvement in mortality or AMI for DES compared to non-DES. However, none of the studies to date have been powered to detect changes in these endpoints. Recent reviews of stenting versus PTCA alone2,11 involving almost 10,000 and 16,000 patients also show no benefit in mortality or AMI, and such a benefit for DES over non-DES seems unlikely with currently powered trails.

Limitations of the review
The review is constrained in its ability to draw conclusions by the trial evidence available. Some studies included small numbers of participants and, importantly, have limited long-term follow-up. Limiting the review to randomised controlled trials meant that the review failed to consider the DEXAMET stent, since the license for this DES was approved on the basis of registry data. Conversely, we included data from randomised controlled trials that had either been stopped due to lack of effect or had included DES that will not be available. This information, although interesting (and essential to include in a "gold standard" review of effectiveness), is of limited use in making policy decisions.

We included data from seven trials that have only been reported in conference presentations and abstracts and were therefore not subject to full peer review. The use of these data could be criticised. We found discrepancies in published papers as well as between published papers and data reported in conference presentations and abstracts and data provided through company submissions as a part of the NICE appraisal process. Although these differences are small, so are the study populations and a difference in reporting, for instance, one death, may significantly alter findings. Furthermore, it can be difficult to investigate the nature and clinical significance of such differences. Nevertheless, the evaluation of rapidly evolving technologies to inform policy decisions requires inclusion of data that would not be considered for "gold standard" systematic reviews of effectiveness. The decisions regarding inclusion, quality assessment, and weighting of evidence offer an ongoing challenge to research groups conducting systematic reviews designed to assess both clinical effectiveness and to inform health-policy decisions.

Standards exist that guide the conduct and reporting of reviews of clinical effectiveness.48,49 However, when the purpose of the review is to inform health-policy decisions, the application of these strict standards often fails to provide data necessary to inform this decision-making process.50,51

Evidence, policy, and practise in new technologies
The potential for rapid uptake of a new technology has been demonstrated by the increase in the use of stents during PCI. By 2000, PCI included the use of stents in 80% of cases in the UK, before national guidance was issued. The use of DES is a simple adaptation of a current practise and is being adopted rapidly by enthusiastic interventional cardiologists. One survey of cardiologists in the USA52 estimated that 77% of all stenting would be with DES within a year of licensing. This same survey identified device cost as the biggest barrier to uptake, rather than lack of clinical evidence. Therefore, clear and early policies are necessary, even if based on imperfect evidence and evaluations, both clinical and economic, before DES use becomes standard clinical practise and too late to reverse.

Based on an appraisal of the evidence presented here, a related economic evaluation based on limited individual patient data from one study, and evidence from manufacturers and cardiologists, the NICE for England and Wales has recommended the use of DES in preference to non-DES for patients with lesions in small vessels (less than 3 mm), or long lesions (greater than 20 mm).53 This policy is therefore inevitably based on small numbers of patients, trial "event rate" as an endpoint, short-term follow-up, and limited subgroup analysis, and will require re-examination as new data become available. Whether this is how DES are used in practise or will actually be used in the future remains to be seen.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to acknowledge the support and contributions of colleagues involved in the larger HTA project: A. Bagust, A. Haycox, R. Mujica Mota, D.H. Roberts, P.R. Williamson (for statistical advice) as well as experts and NICE appraisal consultees who commented on drafts of the appraisal report.

In addition, the authors are most grateful for the extensive and rapid peer review of this article.

Footnotes

This review was funded by the National Co-ordinating Centre for Health Technology Assessment (NCCHTA) in the UK. It was conducted as part of an on-going programme of research designed to inform the development of national guidance through the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE).

Work on this review was conducted at: Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group, The Sherrington Buildings, Ashton Street, Liverpool, L69 3GE, UK.

1 Ameet Bakhai was formerly a member of an academic department (Harvard Clinical Research Institute, Boston, USA) which is involved in collaborations with Boston Scientific and Guidant Corporation, manufacturers of stents. No relevant competing interest exists for any other author. Back

2 10.1016/j.ehj.2004.04.004 Back

References

  1. King S. Why have stents replace balloons? Underwhelming evidence. Ann. Intern. Med. 2003;138:842–843.[Free Full Text]
  2. Brophy J, Belisle P, Joseph L. Evidence for use of coronary stents: a hierarchical Bayesian meta-analysis. Ann. Intern. Med. 2003;138:.
  3. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guidance on coronary artery stents in the treatment of ischaemic heart disease (Technology Appraisal Guidance no. 4), 2000. Available from: http://www.nice.org.uk/Embcat.asp?page=oldsite/appraisals/ihd_guide.htm&d=631.
  4. Rotter M, Pfiffner D, Maier W et al. Interventional cardiology in Europe 1991. Eur. Heart J. 2003;24:1164–1170.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  5. British Cardiovascular Intervention Society (BCIS). BCIS – Audit Section, 2002. Available from: http://www.bcis.org.uk/audit/index.html.
  6. Meads C, Cummins C, Jolly K et al. Coronary artery stents in the treatment of ischaemic heart disease: a rapid and systematic review. Health Technol. Assessment (Winchester, England). 2000;4:1–153.
  7. British Cardiac Society, British Cardiovascular Intervention Society (BCIS). Submission document for NICE re-appraisal of coronary stenting 2002/2003; 2002.
  8. Waksman R, Raizner AE, Yeung AC et al. Use of localised intracoronary [beta] radiation in treatment of in-stent restenosis: The INHIBIT randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2002;359:551–557.[CrossRef][Medline]
  9. Jenkins NP, Prendergast BD, Thomas M. Drug eluting coronary stents. BMJ. 2002;325:1315–1316.[Free Full Text]
  10. Fattori R, Piva T. Drug-eluting stents in vascular intervention. Lancet. 2003;361:247–249.[CrossRef][Medline]
  11. Hill R, Bagust A, Bakhai A et al. Coronary artery stents: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assessment, in press.
  12. Cordis. Two-Year SIRIUS Trial Follow-up Shows Sustained Outstanding Performance of CYPHER(TM) Sirolimus-eluting Coronary Stent (Press Release), 2003. Available from: http://www.crtonline.org/body2.cfm?id=205&ArticleID=252.
  13. ACC Expert Consensus Panel. ACC expert consensus document on coronary artery stents. JACC 1998;32:1471–1482.
  14. Manufacturers' and others' submissions to NICE: Drug eluting stents for prevention of restenosis, including review of coronary artery stents for ischaemic heart disease. London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence; 2002.
  15. NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Undertaking systematic reviews of research on effectiveness. York: NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination University of York; 2001.
  16. Review Manager (RevMan) [Computer program]. In: Version 4.2 for Windows ed. Oxford, England: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2003.
  17. Park S-J, Shim WH, Ho DS et al. A paclitaxel-eluting stent for the prevention of coronary restenosis. N. Engl. J. Med. 2003;348:1537–1545.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  18. Knopf W, O'Neill W, Midei M et al. The DELIVER clinical trial: 30-day safety data from a multicenter, randomized clinical evaluation of the ACHIEVE drug-eluting coronary stent system. Am. J. Card. 2002;90(suppl. 6A):70H.[CrossRef]
  19. Gershlick A, De Scheerder I, Chevalier B. Long-term follow-up in the ELUTES clinical study. Am. J. Card. 2002;90:1H.[CrossRef][Medline]
  20. Heldman A. The PATENCY Pilot Trial: First report/PATENCY PAclitaxel-coated LogicsTENt for the CYtostatic prevention of restenosis. A roll-in feasibility study. Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics (TCT), 2002. Available from: http://www.tctmd.com/display/expert/pdf/47017/Heldman-PATENCY.pdf.
  21. Grube E, Silber S, Hauptmann KE et al. TAXUS I: six- and twelve-month results from a randomized, double-blind trial on a slow-release paclitaxel-eluting stent for de novo coronary lesions. Circulation. 2003;107:38–42.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  22. Colombo A. TAXUS II Twelve month clinical follow up of TAXUS II paclitaxel-eluting stent study, 2003. Available from: http://www.tctmd.com/display/expert/pdf/67869/Colombo-TaxusII.pdf.
  23. Stone G. TAXUS-IV The pivotal, prospective, randomized trial of the slow-rate polymer-based based paclitaxel-eluting TAXUS stent. Clinical overview and subset analysis. Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics (TCT), 2003. Available from: http://www.tctmd.com/display/expert/pdf/78433/GWS-TAXUSsymp.pdf.
  24. Grube E. The SCORE randomized TRIAL QuaDDS-QP2 stent with a polymer sleeve delivery system lessons learned from a pioneering study. TCT 2002, Washington, DC, September 25–28, 2002. Available from: http://www.tctmd.com/display/expert/pdf/58043/Grube-SCOREDESS2.pdf.
  25. Schofer J, Schluter M, Gershlick AH et al. Sirolimus-eluting stents for treatment of patients with long atherosclerotic lesions in small coronary arteries: double-blind, randomised controlled trial (E-SIRIUS). The Lancet. 2003;362:1093–1099.[CrossRef][Medline]
  26. Morice MC, Serruys PW, Sousa JE et al. A randomized comparison of a sirolimus-eluting stent with a standard stent for coronary revascularization. N. Engl. J. Med. 2002;346:1773–1780.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  27. Moses JW, Leon MB, Popma JJ et al. Sirolimus-eluting stents versus standard stents in patients with stenosis in a native coronary artery. N. Engl. J. Med. 2003;349:1315–1323.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  28. Grube E. Animal and first human results with the biosensors everolimus-eluting stent (FUTURE-I) TCT 2002, Washington, DC, September 25–28, 2002. Available from: http://www.tctmd.com/display/expert/pdf/53477/Grube-Everolimus.pdf.
  29. Grube E. FUTURE II: Multicenter evaluation of the bioabsorbable polymer-based everolimus-eluting stent. Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics (TCT), 2003. Available from: http://www.tctmd.com/display/expert/pdf/80013/FUTURE.pdf.
  30. Serruys P. Final ACTION results (ActinomycinD) ACTinomycin-eluting stent improves outcomes by reducing neointimal hyperplasia – ACTION TCT 2002, Washington, DC, September 25–28, 2002. Available from: http://www.tctmd.com/expert-presentations/table-2.html?product_id=3801.
  31. Knopf W. DELIVER I: final results and afterthoughts. Drug-eluting stent summit @ Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics (TCT), 2003. Available from: http://www.tctmd.com/display/expert/pdf/79872/knopf-deliverdesstct03.pdf.
  32. Grube E. TAXUS I two year results - sustained benefit over time: Euro PCR, 2003. Available from: http://www.tctmd.com/display/expert/pdf/71176/Grube-TAXUSI.pdf.
  33. Boston Scientific Corp. Manufacturer submission to NICE: drug eluting stents for prevention of restenosis, including review of coronary artery stents for ischaemic heart disease. London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence; 2002.
  34. Colombo A, Drzewiecki J, Banning A et al. Randomized study to assess the effectiveness of slow- and moderate-release polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stents for coronary artery lesions. Circulation. 2003;108:788–794.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  35. Stone GW, Ellis SG, Cox DA et al. A polymer-based, paclitaxel-eluting stent in patients with coronary artery disease. N. Engl. J. Med. 2004;350:221–231.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  36. Wood S. TAXUS IV: dramatic reduction in restenosis [heartwirenews; September 15, 2003]. Available from: http://www.theheart.org/index.cfm?doc_id=37905&nl_id=tho15sep03.
  37. Cordis. Manufacturer submission to NICE: Drug eluting stents for prevention of restenosis, including review of coronary artery stents for ischaemic heart disease. London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence; 2002.
  38. Grube E. Clinical results from FUTURE I and "Future plans, 2003. Available from: http://www.tctmd.com/display/expert/pdf/71172/Grube-FUTURE.pdf.
  39. Cordis. RAVEL Trial – 2 year clinical follow-up. Cordis submission to NICE; 2003.
  40. Moses JW, O'Shaughnessy C, Caputo R et al. The US multicenter, randomized, double blind study of the sirolimus-eluting stent in coronary lesions: safety outcomes at 9 months. Eur. Heart J. 2002;264:.
  41. Schofer J, Breithardt G, Kuntz RE et al. A European multi-centre, randomised, double-blind study of the sirolimus-eluting stent in patients with de novo coronary artery lesions. Eur. Heart J. 2002;4:265.
  42. Moses JW, Leon MB, Popma JJ et al. A US multicenter, randomized, double-blind study of the sirolimus-eluting stent in De Novo native coronary lesions. TCT 2002. Slide presentation, 2002. Available from: http://www.tctmd.com/display/expert/pdf/44544/Moses-SIRIUSrevised.pdf.
  43. Ruygrok PN, Melkert R, Morel MA et al. Does angiography six months after coronary intervention influence management and outcome? Benestent II Investigators. JACC. 1999;34:1507–1511.[Medline]
  44. Clark MA, Bakhai A, Lacey MJ et al. Clinical and economic outcomes of percutaneous coronary interventions in the elderly: an analysis of medicare claims data. Circulation, In press.
  45. Gunn J, Morton AC, Wales C et al. Drug eluting stents: maximising benefit and minimising cost. Heart. 2003;89:127.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  46. Cutlip DE, Chauhan M, Baim D et al. Clinical restenosis after coronary stenting; perspectives from multicenter trials. JACC. 2002;40:12.
  47. Kastrati A, Mehilli J, Dirschinger J et al. Restenosis after coronary placement of various stent types. Am. J. Card. 2001;87:34–39.[Medline]
  48. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S et al. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. The Lancet. 1999;354:1896–1900.[CrossRef][Medline]
  49. Clarke M, Oxman A, editors. Cochrane Reviewers' Handbook 4.2.0 [updated March 2003]. Available from: http://www.cochrane.org/resources/handbook/handbook.pdf.
  50. Petticrew M. Why certain systematic reviews reach uncertain conclusions. BMJ. 2003;326:756–758.[Free Full Text]
  51. Dobrow M, Goel V, Upshur R. Evidence-based health policy: context and utilisation. Social Sci. Med. 2004;58:207–217.[CrossRef][Medline]
  52. Weinstein M. Industry update. Drug-Eluting Stents. Physician Survey Suggests Rapid US Adoption. New York: J.P. Morgan Securities Inc. (Equity Research); 2002 15/11/2003.
  53. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Appraisal consultation document: drug eluting stents for prevention of restenosis, including review of coronary artery stents for ischaemic heart disease, 2003. Available from: http://www.nice.org.uk/article.asp?a=76197.
  54. Knopf W, O'Neill W, Fitzgerald P. A premier presentation of DELIVER trial results at CRT 2003. CRT 2003 January 26–29, 2003, Washington. Available from: http://www.crtonline.org/body2.cfm?id=205&ArticleID=79.
  55. O'Neill WW. The DELIVER trial: a randomized comparison of paclitaxel-coated versus metallic stents for treatment of coronary lesions. American College of Cardiology (ACC) 2003. Available from: http://www.tctmd.com/display/expert/pdf/68477/DELIVER-acc03.pdf.

Related articles in EHJ:

Drug-eluting stents: the new gold standard for percutaneous coronary revascularisation
Antonio Colombo and Ioannis Iakovou
EHJ 2004 25: 895-897. [Extract] [Full Text]