Outcomes of the largest multi-center trial stratified by the presence of diabetes mellitus comparing sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) in patients with coronary artery disease. The Japan drug-eluting stents evaluation: a randomized trial (J-DESsERT)

• Published in: Cardiovascular intervention and therapeutics Vol. 30; no. 2; pp. 103 - 114
• Main Authors: Nakamura, Masato, Muramatsu, Toshiya, Yokoi, Hiroyoshi, Okada, Hisayuki, Ochiai, Masahiko, Suwa, Satoru, Hozawa, Hidenari, Kawai, Kazuya, Awata, Masaki, Mukawa, Hiroaki, Fujita, Hiroshi, Shiode, Nobuo, Asano, Ryuta, Tsukamoto, Yoshiaki, Yamada, Takahisa, Yasumura, Yoshio, Ohira, Hiroshi, Miyamoto, Akira, Takashima, Hiroaki, Ogawa, Takayuki, Matsuyama, Yutaka, Nanto, Shinsuke
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Tokyo Springer Japan 01.04.2015
• Subjects: Aged; Anti-Bacterial Agents - therapeutic use; Cardiology; Coronary Artery Disease - surgery; Coronary Restenosis - prevention & control; Diabetes Mellitus; Drug-Eluting Stents; Female; Humans; Interventional Radiology; Japan; Male; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Middle Aged; Original Article; Paclitaxel - therapeutic use; Sirolimus - therapeutic use; Treatment Outcome; Tubulin Modulators - therapeutic use; Japan; Sirolimus-eluting stent; Oculo-stenotic reflex; Randomized trial; Paclitaxel-eluting stent; Diabetes mellitus; Drug-eluting stent
• ISSN: 1868-4300; 1868-4297
• DOI: 10.1007/s12928-014-0279-z

The Japan drug-eluting stents evaluation: a randomized trial (J-DESsERT) was conducted to compare the effectiveness of 2 different drug-eluting stents (DES). It remains uncertain which is more efficacious in diabetic patients, sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) or paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES). In this trial, the largest of its kind, 3,533 patients including 1,724 diabetes mellitus (DM) patients were randomized to either SES or PES. Stratification was based on the presence or absence of DM. PES target vessel failure (TVF) non-inferiority at 8 months (primary endpoint) was not demonstrated when compared to SES (SES 4.5 % vs. PES 6.4 %, p  = 0.23). In addition, PES TVF superiority at 8 months in the DM subset (secondary endpoint) was not shown (SES 5.6 % vs. PES 7.6 %, p  = 0.10). Insulin treatment was associated with increased TVF rates, however, this was less pronounced in the PES group. At 8 months, the similar TVF rates for SES and PES up to that point diverged significantly, favoring SES out to 12 months. Patients undergoing routine angiographic follow-up demonstrated lower TVF prior to the 8-month point, and higher TVF after 8 months, as compared to those followed clinically. In conclusion, the current study failed to demonstrate the proposed superiority of PES for DM patients. In addition, the diversion of TVF at 8 months may reflect an “oculo-stenotic reflex” bias (the tendency to treat lesions found during routine, rather than clinically driven, angiographic follow-up), which could constitute an obstacle for evaluating the true clinical effect of new devices.