Trial-Results center  
Clinical trial results database Feedback    Home


Related trials

SPIRIT IV, 2010 - everolimus ES vs paclitaxel ES

ISAR-DESIRE-2, 2010 - sirolimus ES vs paclitaxel ES

SORT-OUT-3, 2010 - zotarolimus ES vs sirolimus ES

RESOLUTE, 2010 - zotarolimus ES vs everolimus ES

Thiele, 2009 - sirolimus ES vs MIDCAB

TRIANA, 2009 - primary ballon angioplasty vs tenecteplase

ZEST AMI (vs SES), 2009 - zotarolimus ES vs sirolimus ES

ISAR TEST 3 (BP), 2009 - biodegradable-polymer sirolimus stent vs sirolimus ES

DEBATER (SES vs BMS), 2009 - sirolimus ES vs bare-metal stent

STICH (ventricular reconstruction), 2009 - CABG+surgical ventricular reconstruction vs CABG

NORDISTEMI, 2009 - thrombolysis + angioplasty vs immediate thrombolysis

ENDEAVOR IV, 2009 - zotarolimus ES vs paclitaxel ES

ZEST AMI (vs PES), 2009 - zotarolimus ES vs paclitaxel ES

Juwana, 2009 - sirolimus ES vs paclitaxel ES

COMPARE, 2009 - everolimus ES vs paclitaxel ES

ISAR TEST 2 (vs ZES), 2009 - dual sirolimus, probucol ES vs zotarolimus ES

ZEST (vs PES), 2009 - zotarolimus ES vs paclitaxel ES

BARI 2D, 2009 - CABG or PCI vs medical treatment

ZEST (vs SES), 2009 - zotarolimus ES vs sirolimus ES

ISAR-TEST-4, 2009 - sirolimus biodegradable polymer vs sirolimus ES

PASEO, 2009 - drug ES vs bare-metal stent

GENIUS-STEMI, 2009 - Genous stent vs bare-metal stent

ISAR TEST 2 (vs SES), 2009 - dual sirolimus, probucol ES vs sirolimus ES

ISAR TEST 3 (PF), 2009 - polymer free sirolimus stent vs sirolimus ES

SYNTAX, 2009 - paclitaxel ES vs CABG



See also:

  • All acute myocardial infarction clinical trials
  • All coronary artery disease clinical trials
  • All clinical trials of revascularization with drug eluting stent
  • All clinical trials of sirolimus ES
  •  

    TYPHOON study, 2006

    [NCT00232830]

    Treatments

    Studied treatment Cypher or CypherSelect
    Control treatment any commerciallyavailable uncoated stent

    Patients

    Patients AMI
    Baseline characteristics
    age 59 
    diabetes (%) 16% 
    Lesion diameter inclusion criteria 2.25-3.50 
    Female (%) 22% 

    Method and design

    Randomized effectives 356 / 359 (studied vs. control)
    Design Parallel groups
    Blinding open
    Follow-up duration 12 months
    Number of centre 48
    Geographic area Worldwide (15 countries)
    Primary endpoint Combination of vesselrelateddeath, AMI, TVR


    Results

    Endpoint Studied treat.
    n/N
    Control treat.
    n/N
    Graph RR [95% CI]

    All cause death

    8 / 355
    8 / 357
    classic 1,01 [0,38;2,65]

    target-vessel revascularization

    20 / 355
    47 / 357
    0,43 [0,26;0,71]

    Stent thrombosis (any, end of follow up)

    12 / 355
    13 / 357
    classic 0,93 [0,43;2,01]
    0 2 1.0

    Relative risks
    Endpoint Events (%) Relative Risk 95% CI Endpoint definition
    in the trial
    Ref
    Studied treat. Control treat.
    All cause death 8 / 355 (2,3%) 8 / 357 (2,2%) 1,01 [0,38;2,65]    
    Stent thrombosis (any, end of follow up) 12 / 355 (3,4%) 13 / 357 (3,6%) 0,93 [0,43;2,01]    
    target-vessel revascularization 20 / 355 (5,6%) 47 / 357 (13,2%) 0,43 [0,26;0,71]    
    The primary endpoint (if exists) appears in blod characters
    Reference(s) used for data extraction:
  • 0:

  • Endpoint studied treat. control treat. mean diff

    Absolute risk reduction
    Endpoint Events rate Absolute risk
    reduction (ARR)
    Studied treat. Control treat.
    All cause death 2,25% 2,24% 0,1‰
    Stent thrombosis (any, end of follow up) 3,38% 3,64% -2,6‰
    target-vessel revascularization 5,63% 13,17% -75,3‰


    Reference(s)

    Trials register # NCT00232830
    • Spaulding C, Henry P, Teiger E, Beatt K, Bramucci E, Carri D, Slama MS, Merkely B, Erglis A, Margheri M, Varenne O, Cebrian A, Stoll HP, Snead DB, Bode C. Sirolimus-eluting versus uncoated stents in acute myocardial infarction.. N Engl J Med 2006;355:1093-104
      Pubmed | Hubmed | Fulltext

    (c) 2004-2010 TrialResults-center - All Rights Reserved

    Tweet this  |  notify a friend