The Paclitaxel‐Eluting Coroflex™ Stent Study II (PECOPS II) Acute and 6‐Month Clinical and Angiographic Follow‐Up, 1‐Year Clinical Follow‐Up

Abstract

The data of the Paclitaxel-eluting Coroflex Please stent evaluated in PECOPS II are within the range of the other currently available Paclitaxel-eluting stent.

The ‘all comer’ Coroflex Please drug-eluting stent registry in Europe and Asia – An overall and transcontinental assessment of the 10-month major adverse cardiac events

“…The data of the current study are superior to the PECOPS II RCT, which showed at six months a MACE rate of 15.5% mainly driven by a TLR rate of 14.5% in shorter lesions of 12.5 AE 4.6 mm, which were less complex (B2/C 31.8%). 6 Stent thrombosis rates were 1.6% in this registry (10 months), 1.6% (PECOPS I) and 0.8% (PECOPS II) at 6 months. The data, however, are inferior to the EVENT registry in which primarily a sirolimus-eluting stent was deployed.…”

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of paclitaxel‐eluting coroflex please stents and paclitaxel‐eluting stents in patients with coronary artery disease: A randomized PIPA trial

“…We found that the in‐segment late lumen loss in the Coroflex™ Please stent group was 0.40 ± 0.53 mm, less than that observed in the PEPCOS I trial (0.47 ± 0.60 mm) [8] but more than that observed in the PEPCOS II trial (0.21 ± 0.70 mm) [10]. The rates of in‐segment restenosis (22.2%) and TLR (7.5%) at 9 months were higher than those in the PEPCOS trial I (7.8% and 5.7%), but similar to those in the PEPCOS II (16.7% and 14.5%) at 6 months.…”

“…The pivotal trial, the Paclitaxel‐Eluting Coroflex™ Please Stent Study I (PECOPS I), showed that this stent had similar safety and efficacy as early generation paclitaxel‐eluting stents [8, 9]. The PECOPS II study showed similar findings for Coroflex™ Please stents in the treatment of longer coronary artery lesions [10]. However, these studies had several important limitations, including their single‐arm observational designs, the enrollment of patients with relatively low‐risk lesions, and the limited number of patients.…”

Comparison of efficacy between paclitaxel-eluting stents with different polymers in terms of major adverse cardiac events and stent thrombosis up to 12 months of clinical follow-up

“…Even though the PP-PES group was more hypertensive, the total MACE did not differ significantly between the 2 groups (10.3% in the PP-PES group and 7.3% in the TP-PES group, P = NS), and MACEs in both groups were within the range reported in the PECOPS I and II, and TAXUS II and IV studies, which investigated paclitaxel-eluting coronary artery stents [11][12][13][14][15][16]. We did clinical follow-up in 100% of the PP-PES and TP-PES groups.…”

“…However, the occurrence of late thrombosis secondary to delayed endothelialization, hypersensitivity to the underlying polymer, and poor technique of stent deployment has recently been debated [20][21][22]. In PECOPS II, 1 patient (0.8%) experienced late ST [14]. In PECOPS II, 1 patient (0.8%) experienced late ST [14].…”