Cortisone or Drug Eluting Stents (DES) as Compared to Bare Metal Stents (BMS) to EliminAte Restenosis
The possibility of using the new drug eluting stents (DES) technology has significantly changed the mid-term outcome of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) in terms of reduced recurrence of angina. The way interventionalists accomplish their work is changing accordingly, with a strong trend to a wider use of DES and a consequent perceived patients' clinical benefit.
Evidences supporting the superiority of DES in reducing ischemic recurrence after PCI compared to traditional stents (BMS) are available from randomized studies. A recent meta-analyses underlines that:
DES are superior to BMS in reducing clinical recurrence of ischemia, DES and BMS offer identical results in terms of death and infarction, Rapamycin and paclitaxel DES offer similar results.
The aim of our study is to perform a multicenter, randomized study to assess the clinical efficacy and safety of the oral prednisone therapy after PCI as a possible systemic alternative to currently available BMS and DES. Furthermore, the study aims at analyzing the clinical outcome of the commercially available DES in the context of an independent research and a cost-benefit comparison with BMS and oral steroids.
|Coronary Artery Disease Ischemic Heart Disease Atherosclerosis||Drug: Prednisone Device: Drug eluting coronary stent Device: Bare metal coronary stent||Phase 2 Phase 3|
|Study Design:||Allocation: Randomized
Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment
Masking: Open Label
Primary Purpose: Treatment
|Official Title:||Clinical and Angiographic Outcome of Patients Treated With Bare Metal Stent (BMS) Implantation Compared With Drug Eluting Stents or BMS Plus Systemic Prednisone Therapy. A Randomized, Multicentre Study.|
- Incidence of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, recurrence of angina at rest or need to repeat revascularization at 12 months. [ Time Frame: 12 months ]
- Angiographic restenosis according to the late loss measurement after 6 to 9 months of the procedure. A DS% =>50 at in-segment analysis will be considered as restenosis. [ Time Frame: 9 months ]
- Cost-efficacy analysis of the study at 12 months. [ Time Frame: 12 months ]
|Study Start Date:||October 2006|
|Study Completion Date:||January 2011|
|Primary Completion Date:||October 2009 (Final data collection date for primary outcome measure)|
Sham Comparator: 1
Bare Metal Stenting
Device: Bare metal coronary stent
Stenting with BMS only
Active Comparator: 2
Stenting with DES
Device: Drug eluting coronary stent
Stenting with DES (Cypher or Taxus)
Bare metal stenting and administration of prednisone
Bare metal stenting with administration of oral prednisone as described in the protocol
Design of the study
It is very important to underline that this is a "spontaneous" study, i.e. not receiving sponsorship from pharmaceutical industries, stent manufacturers, or any other financial source. This independence from economic interests would contribute to exclude conflicts of interest that may bias the results of the study that is aimed at testing the applicability and the clinical efficacy of this therapy. Furthermore, the assessment of the DES in public hospitals, and beyond the spectrum of the industry-supported studies may offer interesting results of the real life use of these devices.
One of the purposes of the study is a cost-effectiveness analysis. Centers participating in the study should therefore perform PCI according to their common practice with no interference in their decision-making process or technical approach to PCI because of the inclusion of the patients into a randomized study; this is aimed at obtaining an as real as possible situation of the daily practice. Being an spontaneous research, neither a fee will be provided for the enrollment of patients, nor free stents will be given.
The allocation of patients into a BMS or DES treatment will be decided by randomization, and the stents implanted will be selected according to the operator's preference.
The study will include three different groups of patients:
- Control group: receiving BMS;
- DES group: receiving DES;
- Prednisone group: receiving BMS and oral prednisone
Principal objective of the study: is the comparison of the primary endpoint obtained in a control group of patients treated with BMS versus two alternative study groups:
- BMS and oral prednisone All assuming a similar adjunctive conventional medical treatment.
Secondary endpoint of the study are:
- cost-effectiveness analysis. This will be calculated considering all patients enrolled in the study and analyzed after one year of the treatment. The analysis will take into account the procedural cost of the PCI material, the cost of the medical treatment in the first year of follow-up and the number of event-free days at follow-up. The cost-efficacy analysis will be obtained from the ratio between the cost of the event-free day of follow-up and the possibility of MACE considered in the primary endpoint of the study.
- comparison of the angiographic results. This will be calculated in all patients enrolled.
Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00369356
|Istituto Clinico Humanitas|
|Milano, Italy, 20089|
|Ospedale Maggiore della Carità|
|Novara, Italy, 28100|
|Rome, Italy, 00149|
|Ospedale San Giovanni Bosco|
|Torino, Italy, 10100|
|Università di Verona|
|Verona, Italy, 37126|
|Study Chair:||Corrado Vassanelli, MD||Università di Verona|
|Study Director:||Flavio Ribichini, MD||Università di Verona|
|Principal Investigator:||Valeria Ferrero, MD||Università di Verona|