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.
COMPLETED
2506 participants
OBSERVATIONAL
2011-08-31
2015-12-31
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Therefore, the aim of this registry study is to evaluate the risk of adverse cardiovascular events, including mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, hemorrhagic stroke, and severe bleeding in relation to the timing and discontinuation of dual antiplatelet therapy in patients treated with Xience drug-eluting stents, and compare it to patients that do not discontinue dual antiplatelet therapy.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Xience Versus Synergy in Left Main PCI
NCT02303717
Assessment of Dual AntiPlatelet Therapy With Drug Eluting Stents
NCT00638794
Antiplatelet Therapy Following Stent Implantation
NCT02051361
Impact of Stent Length on Short Term Outcomes in Patients With Stable Coronary Disease Undergoing PCI
NCT03911895
Angina After PCI: a Systems Medicine Study
NCT06854302
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
The first two FDA-approved DES in the United States were the Cypher: Sirolimus-Eluting Coronary Stent and the TaxusExpress2™: Paclitaxel-Eluting Coronary Stent. Since then, the so-called 2nd generation DES which have come to market include the Xience: Everolimus-Eluting Coronary Stent and the Medtronic: Zotarolimus-Eluting Coronary Stent. Data from recent studies released in September of 2009 showed that Xience/Promus outperformed Boston's Taxus. Just prior to the release of this data, US market share was Xience 30%, Promus 24%, Taxus 22%, Endeavor 13%, and Cypher 11%. However, data was also released regarding Endeavor outperforming the Taxus stent as well, suggesting an upsurge is likely in US and world market share for Medtronic's Endeavor stent.
In the data recently presented from the SPIRIT IV trial, a randomized study between Xience and Taxus, significant benefits of Xience were found in comparison to the Taxus stent. There was a 38% reduction in target lesion failure and a 46% reduction in target lesion revascularization compared to Taxus. Notably, in this study of nearly 3700 patients, Xience had a low rate of stent thrombosis at 1-year of only 0.17%, compared to 0.85% for Taxus. The COMPARE study in higher-risk patients, also confirmed these results showing significant benefits of Xience V over Taxus Liberte at 1-year with regard to major adverse cardiac events and stent thrombosis.
These results suggest that there may be significant differences in outcomes favoring the use of 2nd generation DES, specifically as it relates to their superiority to 1st generation DES in reducing the need for repeat revascularization. There is, however, limited data examining the long-term safety of these devices when used in routine clinical practice. Furthermore, these DES have still not been fully studied in specific patient populations commonly encountered in routine clinical practice, including those with diabetes, chronic kidney disease, long-lesions, small vessels, and left main disease, among others. The outcomes revolve not only around efficacy of these stents in different clinical and angiographic scenarios, but also around the safety profiles. In particular, there has been great attention placed not only on the risk of stent thrombosis but also the timing of these events with the various DES, and how to reduce the incidence of them. The data available to date suggest favorable safety results for the Xience stent. However, in the ever changing world of dual antiplatelet therapy, and the duration of it, further understanding of these interactions are required. Currently, the majority of our efforts in reducing stent thrombosis have been channeled through more aggressive and longer duration of dual antiplatelet therapy. The effect of such strategies on other endpoints, such as bleeding complications after PCI, is unknown. These treatment strategies are based on our understanding of the need for dual antiplatelet therapy with 1st generation DES. Whether these same paradigms apply to 2nd generation DES, such as the Xience stent, is unclear. Furthermore, given that there continue to be significant questions regarding the precise rates of relatively rare clinical events, such as stent thrombosis and bleeding, strategies that allow us to estimate these rates when these devices are used in routine clinical practice, are warranted.
Specifically, the clinical impact of transient or permanent discontinuation of dual-antiplatelet therapy on these endpoints at various intervals after Xience implantation in routine clinical practice, has not been well characterized. As such, there continues to be considerable variability regarding the duration of dual antiplatelet therapy in routine clinical practice, regardless of the type of DES utilized. Therefore, a registry with rigorous long-term follow-up of patients treated with the Xience stent, that collects information on rare events, compliance with dual antiplatelet therapy, and relationships between use/non-use of dual antiplatelet therapy and adverse events would address these goals.
Accordingly, to better understand the long-term safety profile of the Xience stent in the overall population, as well as in those in whom dual antiplatelet therapy is discontinued, we propose to evaluate integrated patient data from the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) network system using two well-established institutions: the UPMC clinical sites and the University of Pittsburgh's Epidemiology Data Center (EDC). In brief, we propose to create the UPMC PCI-XIENCE registry, which will integrate the large-volume UPMC clinical sites with the well-established EDC as the data coordinating center. This will allow us to further investigate the long-term safety of the Xience stent as it is used in routine clinical practice.
Thus, the Specific Aims are to:
1. Evaluate the risk of stent thrombosis, hemorrhagic stroke, and severe bleeding in relation to the timing and discontinuation of dual anti-platelet therapy in patients treated with Xience drug-eluting stents.
2. Study the safety and efficacy of the Xience stent within specific understudied patient (diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease, women, minorities, etc) and angiographic (left main, bifurcation, saphenous vein graft, and small vessel disease) subgroups, among others.
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.
COHORT
PROSPECTIVE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
CAD treated with Xience stents
Patients with CAD who undergo successful stenting with the Xience drug-eluting stent will represent the patient population.
No interventions assigned to this group
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* Signed informed consent
Exclusion Criteria
18 Years
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Abbott
INDUSTRY
University of Pittsburgh
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Oscar Marroquin
Study Principal Investigator
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Oscar C Marroquin, MD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
University of Pittsburgh
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
University of Pittsburgh Medical Center
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
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.
0022189
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.