Zotarolimus-Versus Sirolimus-Versus PacliTaxel-Eluting Stent for Acute Myocardial Infarction Patients
NCT ID: NCT00422565
Last Updated: 2022-12-07
Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
TERMINATED
PHASE4
328 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2006-10-31
2008-09-30
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
To compare the safety and effectiveness of primary acute MI intervention with ABT 578-eluting balloon expandable stent (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN) vs. sirolimus-eluting balloon expandable stent (Cordis Johnson \& Johnson, Warren, New Jersey) vs. paclitaxel-eluting stent (Taxus Liberte, Boston Scientific).
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Zotarolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Sirolimus-Eluting Stent and PacliTaxel-Eluting Stent for Coronary Lesions
NCT00418067
Efficacy of Everolimus-Eluting Versus Zotarolimus-Eluting Sten for Coronary Lesions in Acute Myocardial Infarction
NCT01347554
Vessel Wall Response of the Zotarolimus Drug-eluting Stent Implanted in AMI Assessed by Optical Coherence Tomography
NCT00704561
Sirolimus-eluting vs Zotarolimus-eluting Stents for Chronic Total Coronary Occlusions
NCT00428454
Safety and Efficacy of the ZoMaxx™ Drug-Eluting Stent System in Coronary Arteries
NCT00148356
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Recently, randomized studies were conducted to reveal different outcomes of the different two DESs. These studies showed that the sirolimus-eluting stent was better than the paclitaxel-eluting stent in terms of lower angiographic restenosis rate or the two DESs were similar in angiographic outcomes. A recent meta-analysis supported results of the former randomized studies. Patients receiving sirolimus-eluting stent had a significantly lower risk of restenosis and target vessel revascularization compared with those receiving paclitaxel-eluting stent.
With a recent approval of new DES, ABT-578-eluting stent (Endeavor, Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN), other comparison studies have been conducted to compare Endeavor ABT-578-eluting stent with the sirolimus-eluting stent and paclitaxel-eluting stent. The ENDEAVOR clinical trials are currently in progress to evaluate a phosphoryl choline (PC)-coated ABT-578-eluting stent for the prevention of restenosis. Angiographic analysis at 4 months in the 100-patient focal de novo lesion ENDEAVOR I feasibility study demonstrated a mean in-stent percent diameter stenosis of approximately 14% and a late lumen loss of 0.3 mm with a low frequency of target lesion revascularization (1%). The clinical outcomes from the ENDEAVOR II (1,197 patients randomized to ABT-578 or bare metal stent) showed superior efficacy of the PC-coated ABT-578-eluting stent than bare-metal stent.
In patients with acute myocardial infraction (MI), routine stent implantation has been shown to have a better procedural success rate and clinical outcome than balloon angioplasty \[11\]. However, restenosis and vessel reocclusion remain major challenges limiting the long-term success of percutaneous treatment.
In a clinical study of 400 patients with stent implantation in acute MI, angiographic restenosis occurred in 31%, considerably more than expected for patients with stable coronary disease. There is very little information available as to the efficacy and long-term safety of DES in acute MI. The results from the several registry and randomized trials (Cypher-AMI, Typhoon, PASSION) demonstrated the short-term or long-term safety and efficacy of DES compared to BMS.
The incomplete evidence to date is that implantation of SES in patients with Acute MI is safe and effective more than BMS and results of implantation of PES are at variance with the results of the BMS. However, up to date, there are randomized trials to compare the efficacy and safety among commonly used DES (zotarolimus- vs. sirolimus- vs. paclitaxel-eluting stents) for the treatment of acute MI patients. The results of large randomized trials and larger registries will allow us to make evidence-based decisions about which stent to use in patients with acute MI. Therefore, we designed a randomized, controlled, partially blinded trial comparing the safety and efficacy of the zotarolimus vs. sirolimus vs. paclitaxel stents in acute MI patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
RANDOMIZED
PARALLEL
TREATMENT
SINGLE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Endeavor
Zotarolimus-eluting stent
Endeavor, Medtronic
Zotarolimus-eluting stent
Cypher
Sirolimus-eluting stent
Cypher, Cordis
Sirolimus-eluting stent
Taxus
Paclitaxel-eluting stent
Taxus Liberte, Boston Scientific
Paclitaxel-eluting stent
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Endeavor, Medtronic
Zotarolimus-eluting stent
Cypher, Cordis
Sirolimus-eluting stent
Taxus Liberte, Boston Scientific
Paclitaxel-eluting stent
Other Intervention Names
Discover alternative or legacy names that may be used to describe the listed interventions across different sources.
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
2. Culprit de novo lesion in a native coronary artery with significant stenosis (\>50% by visual estimate) eligible for stent implantation (no limitation on stent length)
3. Prolonged, continuous (≥ 20 min) chest pain despite nitrate and: (1) at least 1mm ST-segment elevation in at least 2 leads or reciprocal ST-segment depression ≥ 2 contiguous precordial leads, or (2) newly developed left bundle branch block
4. Symptoms \< 12 hours
5. The patient or guardian agrees to the study protocol and the schedule of clinical and angiographic follow-up, and provides informed, written consent, as approved by the appropriate Institutional Review Board/Ethical Committee of the respective clinical site.
Exclusion Criteria
* Heparin
* Aspirin
* Both Clopidogrel and TIclopidine
* Sirolimus, paclitaxel, ABT 578
* Stainless steel and/or
* Contrast media (patients with documented sensitivity to contrast which can be effectively pre-medicated with steroids and diphenhydramine \[e.g. rash\] may be enrolled. Patients with true anaphylaxis to prior contrast media, however, should not be enrolled).
2. Systemic (intravenous) Sirolimus, paclitaxel or ABT-578 use within 12 months.
3. Female of childbearing potential, unless a recent pregnancy test is negative, who possibly plan to become pregnant any time after enrollment into this study.
4. History of bleeding diathesis or known coagulopathy (including heparin-induced thrombocytopenia), or will refuse blood transfusions.
5. Fibrinolytic therapy for current MI treatment
6. Previous coronary intervention on target vessel
7. Non-cardiac co-morbid conditions are present with life expectancy \<1 year or that may result in protocol non-compliance (per site investigator's medical judgment).
8. Patients who are actively participating in another drug or device investigational study, which have not completed the primary endpoint follow-up period.
9. Previously documented LVEF \<30%.
10. Evident cardiogenic shock before randomization
11. Patients with left main stem stenosis (\>50% by visual estimate)
12. Severe calcification or tortuosity
13. Multi-vessel disease with non-culprit vessel requiring bypass surgery
18 Years
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Cordis Corporation
INDUSTRY
CardioVascular Research Foundation, Korea
OTHER
Seung-Jung Park
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Seung-Jung Park
Professor, Cardiology, Asan Medical Center Heart Institute, Valvular Heart Disease Center, Ischemic Heart Disease Center
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Seung-Jung Park, MD, PhD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Department of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Soonchunhyang University Bucheon Hospital
Bucheon-si, , South Korea
Daegu Catholic University Medical Center
Daegu, , South Korea
Chungnam National University Hospital
Daejeon, , South Korea
Asan Medical Center
Gangneung, , South Korea
Chonnam National University Hospital
Gwangju, , South Korea
NHIC Ilsan Hospital
Ilsan, , South Korea
Pusan Natioanal University Hospital
Pusan, , South Korea
Asan Medical Center
Seoul, , South Korea
Korea University Hospital
Seoul, , South Korea
St. Mary's Catholic Medical Center
Seoul, , South Korea
Ulsan University Hospital
Ulsan, , South Korea
Yonsei University Wonju Christian Hospital
Wŏnju, , South Korea
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
2006-0137
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.