Drug-Eluting Stents vs. Bare Metal Stents In Saphenous Vein Graft Angioplasty (DIVA)
|ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01121224|
Recruitment Status : Completed
First Posted : May 12, 2010
Last Update Posted : January 12, 2017
|First Submitted Date ICMJE||May 7, 2010|
|First Posted Date ICMJE||May 12, 2010|
|Last Update Posted Date||January 12, 2017|
|Start Date ICMJE||January 2012|
|Primary Completion Date||December 2016 (Final data collection date for primary outcome measure)|
|Current Primary Outcome Measures ICMJE
||Target vessel failure (TVF), which will be defined as the composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction and target vessel revascularization. [ Time Frame: 12 months ]|
|Original Primary Outcome Measures ICMJE||Same as current|
|Change History||Complete list of historical versions of study NCT01121224 on ClinicalTrials.gov Archive Site|
|Current Secondary Outcome Measures ICMJE
|Original Secondary Outcome Measures ICMJE||Same as current|
|Current Other Outcome Measures ICMJE||Not Provided|
|Original Other Outcome Measures ICMJE||Not Provided|
|Brief Title ICMJE||Drug-Eluting Stents vs. Bare Metal Stents In Saphenous Vein Graft Angioplasty|
|Official Title ICMJE||CSP #571 - Drug-eluting Stents vs. Bare Metal Stents in Saphenous Vein Graft Angioplasty (DIVA)|
Patients who have undergone coronary bypass surgery have had a vein removed from the leg and implanted in the chest to "bypass" blockages in the coronary arteries. These veins are called saphenous vein grafts or SVGs. SVGs often develop blockages that can cause chest pain and heart attacks. SVG blockages can be opened by using small balloons and stents (metal coils that keep the artery open). Two types of stents are currently used: bare metal stents (BMS) and drug-eluting stents (DES). Both BMS and DES are made of metal. DES are also coated with a drug that releases into the wall of the blood vessel to prevent scar tissue from forming and re-narrowing the vessel. Both stents have advantages and disadvantages: DES require taking special blood thinners (called thienopyridines, such as clopidogrel or prasugrel) longer than bare metal stent and could have more bleeding but are also less likely to renarrow. Both BMS and DES are routinely being used in SVGs, but it is not known which one is better. Neither bare metal (except for an outdated model) nor drug-eluting stents are FDA approved for use in SVGs. The purpose of CSP#571 is to compare the outcomes after DES vs. BMS use in SVGs.
In CSP#571 patients who need stenting of SVG blockages will be randomized to receive DES or BMS in a 1:1 ratio. Per standard practice, patients will receive 12 months of an open label thienopyridine if they have acute coronary syndrome (ACS), or if they have another clinical reason for needing the medication. Patients without ACS who receive DES also need to take 12 months of a thienopyridine whether or not they are in the study, but non-ACS patients who receive a BMS do not. In order to make sure patients do not know which stent they received, non-ACS patients who received BMS will receive 1 month of open label thienopyridine followed by 11 months of blinded placebo, while those who received DES will receive 1 month of open label thienopyridine followed by 11 months of blinded clopidogrel, which is a thienopyridine.
All study patients will be followed in the clinic for at least 1 year after their stenting procedure to see if there is a difference in the rate of cardiac death, heart attack, or any procedure that is required in order to increase the flow of blood to and from the heart between the BMS and DES groups.
VA Cooperative Studies Program #571 is designed to prospectively evaluate the efficacy of drug-eluting stents (DES) in reducing aortocoronary saphenous vein bypass graft (SVG) failure when compared to bare metal stents (BMS) in patients undergoing stenting of de novo SVG lesions.
SVGs often develop luminal stenoses that are most commonly treated with stent implantation. Approximately 60,000-100,000 percutaneous SVG interventions are performed annually in the USA. Two types of coronary stents are currently available: bare metal stents and drug eluting stents. Bare metal stents are the standard of care for the percutaneous treatment of SVG lesions, but are limited by high rates of in-stent restenosis (as high as 51% after 12 months) often leading to repeat percutaneous or surgical SVG treatments. Drug-eluting stents have been shown to significantly reduce in-stent restenosis and the need for repeat target vessel and lesion revascularization in native coronary arteries, yet their efficacy in SVGs is not well studied, with conflicting results from various small studies. The proposed Cooperative Studies Program study will be the first large prospective, randomized, multicenter, blinded clinical trial comparing DES and BMS in SVG lesions. It will provide critical knowledge to assist the cardiac interventionalist in selecting the optimum stent type for these challenging lesions.
Patients undergoing clinically-indicated stenting of de novo SVG lesions will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to DES or BMS. To ensure blinding to the type of stent used, of the patients who do not present with an acute coronary syndrome and do not require 12 months of dual antiplatelet therapy, those who receive DES will receive 11 months of clopidogrel and those who receive BMS will receive 11 months of matching placebo. After stenting, patients will be followed clinically for a minimum of one year to determine the 12-month incidence of target vessel failure (TVF, primary study endpoint). TVF will be defined as the composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction and target vessel revascularization, and is the primary clinical endpoint used in all FDA-approved DES pivotal trials. Coronary angiography and intervention during follow-up will only be performed if clinically-indicated (no mandatory angiographic follow-up). Secondary endpoints include: 1) clinical outcomes other than TVF (procedural success; post-procedural myocardial infarction; post-procedural bleeding; all cause death and cardiac death; follow-up myocardial infarction; stent thrombosis; target lesion revascularization; target vessel revascularization; non-target vessel revascularization; the composite endpoint of death, MI, and target vessel revascularization (patient-oriented composite endpoint according to the FDA guidance document on DES studies); the composite endpoint of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization (device-oriented composite endpoint for target lesion failure); and stroke); and 2) incremental cost-effectiveness of DES relative to BMS. A tertiary endpoint is in-stent neointima proliferation as measured by intravascular ultrasonography.
Based on published studies, the investigators estimate the 12-month TVF rate in the BMS arm to be 30%. The investigators hypothesize that DES will reduce TVF to 18% (40% relative reduction). Assuming two-year accrual and one interim assessment, a total sample size of about 520 patients will be needed to detect this difference with 90% power, using a two-sided 5% significance level. Assuming an intake rate of 1 patient per month per VAMC, the investigators will need 22 participating sites. However, the investigators will begin the study with 25 sites to protect against a site dropout rate of 10%.
Percutaneous treatment of SVG lesions is of particular importance to the VA system because many Veterans have undergone and continue to undergo coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Every year, approximately 12-15% of percutaneous coronary interventions performed within the VA system are performed in SVGs, at a cost of approximately $15,000-$20,000 per procedure; DES are currently used in approximately half of SVG interventions. Because of (a) the high prevalence and high cost of SVG stenting, (b) DES cost two- to three- fold more than BMS and often require prolonged ( 12 months) thienopyridine administration to prevent late stent thrombosis, and (c) DES may have increased risk for late and very late stent thrombosis, a catastrophic complication with high mortality, the proposed study will have considerable impact on the clinical practice of SVG lesion stenting, patient satisfaction, and financial burden of health care systems (both within and outside the VA), regardless of whether the results are positive (DES offer significantly superior health benefits to patients than BMS), or negative (DES do not offer significantly superior health benefits to patients than BMS). Due to decreasing profits and increasing competition, DES manufacturers are not planning to ever fund a SVG DES study. The VA system with its Cooperative Studies Program is uniquely suited to conduct the proposed study.
|Study Type ICMJE||Interventional|
|Study Phase||Phase 4|
|Study Design ICMJE||Allocation: Randomized
Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment
Masking: Triple (Participant, Care Provider, Outcomes Assessor)
Primary Purpose: Treatment
|Condition ICMJE||Saphenous Vein Graft Atherosclerosis|
|Publications *||Not Provided|
* Includes publications given by the data provider as well as publications identified by ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier (NCT Number) in Medline.
|Recruitment Status ICMJE||Completed|
|Completion Date||December 2016|
|Primary Completion Date||December 2016 (Final data collection date for primary outcome measure)|
|Eligibility Criteria ICMJE||
|Ages||18 Years and older (Adult, Senior)|
|Accepts Healthy Volunteers||No|
|Contacts ICMJE||Contact information is only displayed when the study is recruiting subjects|
|Listed Location Countries ICMJE||United States|
|Removed Location Countries|
|NCT Number ICMJE||NCT01121224|
|Other Study ID Numbers ICMJE||571|
|Has Data Monitoring Committee||Yes|
|U.S. FDA-regulated Product||Not Provided|
|IPD Sharing Statement||
|Responsible Party||VA Office of Research and Development|
|Study Sponsor ICMJE||VA Office of Research and Development|
|Collaborators ICMJE||Not Provided|
|PRS Account||VA Office of Research and Development|
|Verification Date||January 2017|
ICMJE Data element required by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors and the World Health Organization ICTRP