Advertisement

American Journal of Drug Delivery

, Volume 2, Issue 1, pp 69–73 | Cite as

Spotlight on the sirolimus-eluting stent in coronary artery disease

  • Kate McKeageEmail author
  • David Murdoch
  • Karen L. Goa
Adis Spotlight
  • 8 Downloads

Abstract

The sirolimus-eluting stent (CYPHER™) is a metal stent coated with 140 μg/cm2 of sirolimus blended with synthetic polymers. After stent implantation, sirolimus is slowly released causing localized cytostatic inhibition of proliferation of vascular smooth muscle cells in the peri-stent arterial wall over a period of about 1 month. Only minimal amounts of sirolimus enter the bloodstream and these appear to be insufficient to be of clinical relevance.

In clinical trials that evaluated single de novo lesions and in-stent restenosis in patients with coronary artery disease, the sirolimus-eluting stent was associated with minimal neointimal hyperplasia. In four randomized trials in de novo lesions, sirolimus eluting stents produced a significantly lower incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) than that observed in patients with uncoated stents, during periods of up to 2 years (p < 0.05 for all comparisons). The lower incidence of MACE was mostly due to a reduced requirement for repeat target vessel revascularization. At angiographic follow-up at periods of up to 8 months, late luminal loss was significantly smaller in the sirolimus-eluting stent groups than in the uncoated-stent groups (p < 0.001 in all studies).

The sirolimus-eluting stent was well tolerated in clinical trials of up to 3 years’ follow-up. Because minimal blood levels of sirolimus are achieved, systemic adverse effects appear to be avoided. To date, there has been no evidence of any potential adverse effects resulting from the polymer coating or local drug toxicity. As yet, there is no evidence of an increased risk of subacute or late thrombosis, or aneurysm formation with the sirolimus-eluting stent compared with the uncoated stent. Long-term follow-up is needed to fully assess these theoretical concerns. Cost-effectiveness analyses over 12 months demonstrated a cost advantage for the sirolimus-eluting stent compared with an uncoated stent because of a reduced requirement for repeat target vessel revascularizations.

Conclusion: Initial clinical trials with the sirolimus-eluting stent in patients with de novo coronary lesions have shown a significantly reduced incidence of MACE and of restenosis compared with a standard stent. Efficacy appears to be maintained throughout follow-up periods of up to 2 years in randomized trials, and to date, systemic or local adverse effects have been avoided. If efficacy and tolerability are consistently demonstrated over the long term, the sirolimus-eluting stent will be a major advance in the control of in-stent restenosis.

Keywords

Sirolimus Stent Implantation Major Adverse Cardiac Event Late Thrombosis Late Luminal Loss 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The full text in The American Journal of Cardiovascular Drugs 2003: 3 (3): 211–230 was reviewed by: A. Bakhai, Interventional Cardiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; A. Colombo, Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory, EMO Centro Curore Columbus, Milano, Italy; J.-M. Juliard, Interventional Cardiology Department, Bichat Hospital, Paris, France; T. Lefévre, Institut Hospitalier Jacques Cartier, Massy, France; A.M. Lincoff, Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio, USA; J.W. Moses, Lenox Hill Heart and Vascular Institute and Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York, New York, USA; R. Wilensky, Experimental Interventional Cardiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.

References

  1. 1.
    Curfman GD. Sirolimus-eluting coronary stents. N Engl J Med 2002 Jun 6; 346(23): 1770–1PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Morice M-C, 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 Jun 6; 346(23): 1773–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Klugherz BD, Llanos G, Lieuallen W, et al. Twenty-eight-day efficacy and phamacokinetics of the sirolimus-eluting stent. Coron Artery Dis 2002 May; 13(3): 183–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Molnar-Kimber KL. Mechanism of action of rapamycin (sirolimus, Rapamune). Transplant Proc 1996 Apr; 28: 964–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sehgal SN. Rapamune (Rm) (RAPA, rapamycin, sirolimus): mechanism of action immunosuppressive effect results from blockade of signal transduction and inhibition of cell cycle progression. Clin Biochem 1998 Jul; 31: 335–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ingle GR, Sievers TM, Holt CD. Sirolimus: continuing the evolution of transplant immunosuppression. Ann Pharmacother 2000 Sep; 34(9): 1044–55PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sehgal SN, Camardo JS, Scarola JA, et al. Rapamycin (sirolimus, rapamune). Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens 1995 Nov; 4: 482–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sehgal SN. Rapamune (sirolimus, rapamycin): an overview and mechanism of action. Ther Drug Monit 1995 Dec; 17: 660–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Napoli KL, Taylor PJ. From beach to bedside: history of the development of sirolimus. Ther Drug Monit 2001 Oct; 23(5): 559–86PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brazelton TR, Morris RE. Molecular mechanisms of action of new xenobiotic immunosuppressive drugs: tacrolimus (FK506), sirolimus (rapamycin), mycophenolate mofetil and leflunomide. Curr Opin Immunol 1996 Oct; 8: 710–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Poon M, Badimon JJ, Fuster V. Overcoming restenosis with sirolimus: from alphabet soup to clinical reality. Lancet 2002 Feb 16; 359(9306): 619–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lohrmann JD, Franke GN, Kollum MK, et al. Paclitaxel but not rapamycin induces plasminogen activator inhibitor type-1 expression in human vascular smooth muscle cells [abstract no. 2224]. Circulation 2002 Nov 5; 106 Suppl.: II–447Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Suzuki T, Kopia G, Hayashi S, et al. Stent-based delivery of sirolimus reduces neointimal formation in a porcine coronary model. Circulation 2001 Sep 4; 104(10): 1188–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Carter AJ, Tio F, Bailey L, et al. A sirolimus eluting smart stent reduces inflammation and neointimal formation in a canine model. Circulation 2001 Oct 23; 104: 764Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Aggarwal M, Tsao PS, Kopia G, et al. Stent based delivery of sirolimus is associated with increased levels of p27kipl without long-term suppression of neointimal hyperplasia in the porcine model. Circulation 2002 Nov 5; 106 Suppl.: II–357Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kopia GA, Snead D, Faloticol R, et al. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of sirolimus-eluting stents [abstract no. 290]. Am J Cardiol 2002; 90Suppl. 6A: 115HGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kopia GA, Llanos G, Falotico R, et al. Sirolimus-eluting stents: antirestenosis efficacy versus local and systemic pharmacokinetics in a porcine coronary model [abstract no. 295]. Am J Cardiol 2002; 90Suppl. 6A: 117HGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Guyon P, Teiger E, Chevalier B, et al. Rapamycin coated stent effectiveness in high arterial injury damage: a pig model experimentation [abstract no. 2232]. Circulation 2002 Nov 5; 106 Suppl.: II–449Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lauer MA, Kovalcsik RM, DeVries JJ, et al. Sirolimus-eluting self-expanding nitinol stents dramatically reduce restenosis in a canine model of iliac stenting [abstract no. 3523]. Circulation 2002; 106(19 Suppl.): II–714Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kopia GA, Falotico R, Gallagher L, et al. Sirolimus-eluting stents: regrowth of endothelial cells after stent implantation [abstract no. 284]. Am J Cardiol 2002; 90Suppl. 6A: 113HGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Toutouzas K, Di Mario C, Falotico R, et al. Sirolimus-eluting stents: a review of experimental and clinical findings. Z Kardiol 2002; 91Suppl. 3: III/49–57Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vetrovec GW, Rizik D, Goudreau E, et al. The Sirolimus PK trial: a pharmacologic study of the sirolimus-eluting BX velocity stent in patients with de novo coronary lesions [abstract no. 1775]. Circulation 2002 Nov 5; 106 Suppl.: II–355Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mahalati K, Kahan BD. Clinical pharmacokinetics of sirolimus. Clin Pharmacokinet 2001; 40(8): 573–85PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gallant-Haidner HL, Trepanier DJ, Freitag DG, et al. Pharmacokinetics and metabolism of sirolimus. Ther Drug Monit 2000 Feb; 22(1): 31–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Anonymous. Sirolimus: AY 22989, NSC 226080, NSC 606698, rapamycin, Rapamune®. Drugs R & D 1999; 1(1): 100–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Degertekin M, Serruys PW, Foley DP, et al. Persistent inhibition of neointimal hyperplasia after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation: long-term (up to 2 years) clinical, angiographic, and intravascular ultrasound follow-up. Circulation 2002 Sep 24; 106(13): 1610–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sousa JE, Costa MA, Sousa AG, et al. Two-year angiographie and intravascular ultrasound follow-up after implantation of sirolimus-eluting stents in human coronary arteries. Circulation 2003 Jan 28; 107(3): 381–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sousa JE, Abizaid A, Abizaid A, et al. Late (three-year) follow-up from the first-in-man (FIM) experience after implantation of sirolimus-eluting stents [abstract no. 1958]. Circulation 2002 Nov 5; 106 Suppl.: II–394. Plus oral presentation at American Heart Association Meeting; 2002 Nov 17-20; ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Moses JW, Leon MB, Popma JJ, et al. A multicenter randomized clinical study of the sirolimus-eluting stent in native coronary lesions: clinical outcomes [abstract no. 1951]. Circulation 2002 Nov 5; 106 Suppl.: II–392–393. Plus oral presentation at American Heart Association Meeting; 2002 Nov 17-20; ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Schofer J, Schluter M. E-SIRIUS: 8-month efficacy results. Oral presentation at the 52nd Annual Scientific Session of the American College of Cardiology; 2003 Mar 30-Apr 2; ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Schampaert E, Cohen EA, Reeves F, et al. Results from the Canadian multicenter, randomized, double-blind study of the sirolimus-eluting stent in the treatment of patients with de novo coronary artery lesions. Oral presentation at the 52nd Annual Scientific Session of the American College of Cardiology; 2003 Mar 30-Apr 2; ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Degertekin M, Regar E, Tanabe K, et al. Sirolimus eluting stents prevent neointimal growth regardless of lesions type (de-novo, in-stent restenosis): a 3D IVUS analysis [abstract no. 3206]. J Am Coll Cardiol 2002 May 1; 39Suppl. B: 21OBGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Feres F, Munoz JS, Abizaid AA, et al. Sirolimus-eluting stent or intracoronary brachytherapy to treat in-stent restenosis [abstract no. 879-6]. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003 Mar; 41(6 Suppl. A): 83ACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Cohen DJ, Bakhai A, Shi C, et al. Cost-effectiveness of sirolimus-eluting stent for treatment of complex coronary stenoses: results from the randomized SIRIUS trial [abstract no. 805-2]. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003; 41Suppl. A: 32A. Plus oral presentation at the 52nd Annual Scientific Session of the American College of Cardiology; 2003 Mar 30-Apr 2; ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lamotte M, Annemans L, De Jong P. Drug-eluting stents in coronary artery disease: assessment of outcomes and cost effectiveness [abstract no. 810]. Eur Heart J 2002 Aug-2002 30; 23 Suppl.: 137Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Marchetti M, Tarricone R, Lamotte M, et al. Cost-effectiveness and budget impact of the sirolimus-eluting stent in the stent era [abstract no. HS1]. Value Health 2002 Nov-2002 31; 5: 457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sousa JM. 3-Year follow-up of the first-in-man sirolimus patients: are there any late concerns? Oral presentation at the 52nd Annual Scientific Session of the American College of Cardiology; 2003 Mar 30-Apr 2; ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Colombo A, Leon MB, Morice MC, et al. The BIFURCATION study: an evaluation of the CYPHER™ sirolimus-eluting stent in the treatment of patients with bifurcation lesions [abstract no. 2390]. Circulation 2002 Nov 5; 106 Suppl.: II–483–484. Plus oral presentation at the American Heart Association Meeting, 2002 Nov 17-20; ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sousa JE, Costa MA, Abizaid A, et al. Sirolimus-eluting stent for the treatment of in-stent restenosis: a quantitative coronary angiography and three-dimensional intravascular ultrasound study. Circulation 2003 Jan 7; 107(1): 24–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Serruys PW, Degertekin M, Tanabe K, et al. Intravascular ultrasound findings in the multicenter, randomized, double-blind RAVEL (RAndomized study with the sirolimus-eluting VElocity balloon-expandable stent in the treatment of patients with de novo native coronary artery lesions) trial. Circulation 2002 Aug 13; 106(7): 798–803PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ako J, Morino Y, Honda Y, et al. Late incomplete stent apposition following sirolimus-eluting stent: serial quantitative intravascular ultrasound analysis from the SIRIUS trial [abstract no. 8015-4]. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003 Mar; 41(6 Suppl. A): 33ACrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Informotion BV 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Adis International Inc.YardleyUSA

Personalised recommendations