Safety and efficacy outcomes of first and second generation durable polymer drug eluting stents and biodegradable polymer biolimus eluting stents in clinical practice: comprehensive network meta-analysis

Safety and efficacy of ultrathin strut biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent versus durable polymer drug-eluting stents: a meta-analysis of randomized trials

Background

The Orsiro biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (O-SES) is a new-generation biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stent with the thinnest strut thickness to date developed to improve the percutaneous treatment of patients with coronary artery disease. We perform a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy and safety of an ultra-thin, Orsiro biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (O-SES) compared with durable polymer drug-eluting stents (DP-DESs).

Methods

Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL databases were searched for randomized controlled trials comparing the safety and efficacy of O-SES versus DP-DES. Paired reviewers independently screened citations, assessed risk of bias of included studies, and extracted data. We used the Mantel-Haenszel method to calculate risk ratio (RR) by means of a random-effects model.

Results

Six RCTs with a total of 6949 patients were selected. All included trials were rated as low risk of bias. The O-SES significantly reduced the risk of myocardial infarction (RR 0.78, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.62–0.98; I² = 0%; 10 fewer per 1000 [from 1 fewer to 18 fewer]; high quality) compared with the DP-DES. There was no significant difference between O-SES and DP-DES in the prevention of stent thrombosis (RR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.52–1.08), cardiac death (RR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.63–1.36), target lesion revascularization (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.86–1.42) and target vessel revascularization (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.78–1.21).

Conclusion

Among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, O-SES resulted in significantly lower rates of myocardial infarction than DP-DES and had a trend toward reduction in stent thrombosis.

In vitro and in vivo Assessment of Keratose as a Novel Excipient of Paclitaxel Coated Balloons

Purpose: Drug coated balloons (DCB) are continually improving due to advances in coating techniques and more effective excipients. Paclitaxel, the current drug choice of DCB, is a microtubule-stabilizing chemotherapeutic agent that inhibits smooth muscle cell proliferation. Excipients work to promote coating stability and facilitate paclitaxel transfer and retention at the target lesion, although current excipients lack sustained, long-term paclitaxel retention. Keratose, a naturally derived protein, has exhibited unique properties allowing for tuned release of various therapeutic agents. However, little is known regarding its ability to support delivery of anti-proliferative agents such as paclitaxel. The goal of this project was to thus demonstrate the feasibility of keratose as a DCB-coating excipient to promote the release and delivery of paclitaxel. Methods: Keratose was combined with paclitaxel in vitro and the release kinetics of paclitaxel and keratose were evaluated through high performance liquid chromatograph-mass spectroscopy (HPLC-MS) and spectrophotometry, respectively. A custom coating method was developed to deposit keratose and paclitaxel on commercially available angioplasty balloons via an air spraying method. Coatings were then visualized under scanning electron microscopy and drug load quantified by HPLC-MS. Acute arterial transfer of paclitaxel at 1 h was assessed using a novel ex vivo model and further evaluated in vivo in a porcine ilio-femoral injury model. Results: Keratose demonstrated tunable release of paclitaxel as a function of keratose concentration in vitro. DCB coated via air spraying yielded consistent drug loading of 4.0 ± 0.70 μg/mm2. Under scanning electron microscopy, the keratose-paclitaxel DCB showed uniform coverage with a consistent, textured appearance. The acute drug transfer of the keratose-paclitaxel DCB was 43.60 ± 14.8 ng/mg at 1 h ex vivo. These measurements were further confirmed in vivo as the acute 1 h arterial paclitaxel levels were 56.60 ± 66.4 ng/mg. Conclusion: The keratose-paclitaxel coated DCB exhibited paclitaxel uptake and achieved acute therapeutic arterial tissue levels, confirming the feasibility of keratose as a novel excipient for DCB.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of biodegradable polymer versus durable polymer drug-eluting stents incorporating real-world evidence

AIM

Compared with second-generation durable polymer drug-eluting stents (DP-DES), the cost-effectiveness of biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents (BP-DES) remains unclear in the real-world setting. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of BP-DES in patients with coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

METHODS

We developed a decision-analytic model to compare the cost-effectiveness of BP-DES to DP-DES over 1 year and 5 years from healthcare payer perspective. Relative treatment effects during the first year post-PCI were obtained from a real-world population analysis while clinical event risks in the subsequent 4 years were derived from a meta-analysis of published studies.

RESULTS

At 1 year, based on the clinical data analysis of 497 propensity-score matched pairs of patients, BP-DES were associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of USD20 503 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. At 5 years, BP-DES yielded an ICER of USD4062 per QALY gained. At the willingness-to-pay threshold of USD50 400 (one gross domestic product per capita in Singapore in 2015), BP-DES were cost-effective. Sensitivity analysis showed that the cost of stents had a significant impact on the cost-effectiveness of BP-DES. Threshold analysis demonstrated that if the cost difference between BP-DES and DP-DES exceeded USD493, BP-DES would not be cost-effective in patients with 1 year of follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents were cost-effective compared with DP-DES in patients with coronary artery disease at 1 year and 5 years after PCI. It is worth noting that the cost of stents had a significant impact on the findings.

Comparison of short-term clinical outcomes between Resolute Onyx zotarolimus-eluting stents and everolimus-eluting stent in patients with acute myocardial infarction: Results from the Korea Acute Myocardial infarction Registry (KAMIR)

BACKGROUND

There are few studies which compare the efficacy and safety of the Resolute Onyx zotarolimus-eluting stent (O-ZES) and everolimus-eluting stent (EES) in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Therefore, the present study aimed to compare clinical outcomes of O-ZES and EES in patients with AMI undergoing successful percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

METHODS

From January 2016 to December 2016, the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry (KAMIR) enrolled 3,364 consecutive patients. Among them, O-ZES was used in 402 patients and EES was used in 1,084 patients. The primary endpoint was target lesion failure (TLF), as defined by composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction (TV-MI), and ischemic driven-target lesion revascularization (ID-TLR) at 6 month clinical follow-up.

RESULTS

At 6 months, the incidence of TLF was not significantly different between O-ZES and EES group (4.0% vs. 3.9%, adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.17, 95% confidential interval [CI] 0.58-2.35, p = 0.665). O-ZES also showed similar results of cardiac death (3.7% vs. 3.4%, adjusted HR 1.25, 95% CI 0.59-2.63, p = 0.560), TV-MI (0.2% vs. 0.6%, adjusted HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.07-4.85, p = 0.600), ID-TLR (0.0% vs. 0.3%, p = 0.524), and definite or probable stent thrombosis (0.2% vs. 0.3%, adjusted HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.06-6.41, p = 0.696) when compared with EES.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study shows that implantation of O-ZES or EES provided similar clinical outcomes with similar risk at 6-month of TLF and definite/probable ST in patients with AMI undergoing successful PCI.

Effect of Gender on Unplanned Readmissions After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (from the Nationwide Readmissions Database)

Women who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are at higher risk of adverse outcomes compared with men, but it is unknown whether gender affects early unplanned rehospitalization. We analyzed 832,753 patients who underwent PCI from 2013 to 2014 in the Nationwide Readmissions Database. We compared gender differences in incidences, predictors, causes, and cost of unplanned 30-day readmissions and examined the effect of co-morbidity. A total of 832,753 men and women who survived the index PCI and were not admitted for a planned readmission were included in the analysis. Overall, 9.4% of patients had an unplanned readmission within 30 days. Thirty-day readmission rates were higher in women compared with men (11.5% vs 8.4%, p <0.001) even after multivariate adjustment (odds ratio 1.19, 95% confidence interval 1.16 to 1.22, p <0.001), although women had significantly lower costs associated with the readmission ($11,927 vs $12,758, p <0.001). The cause of readmission for women and men were similar and the majority of the readmissions were due to noncardiac causes (58% vs 55%), the most common of which were nonspecific chest pain, gastrointestinal disease, and infections. In contrast, for cardiac readmissions, women are more likely to be readmitted for heart failure (29.64% vs 22.34%), whereas men are more likely to be readmitted for coronary artery disease, including angina (33.47% vs 28.54%). In conclusion, gender disparities exist in rates of unplanned rehospitalization after PCI, where more than 1 in 10 women who undergo PCI are readmitted within 30 days. Gender differences were not observed for causes of noncardiac readmissions, whereas important differences were observed for cardiovascular causes.

Stent-mediated gene and drug delivery for cardiovascular disease and cancer: A brief insight

This review concisely recapitulates the different existing modes of stent-mediated gene/drug delivery, their considerable advancement in clinical trials and a rationale for other merging new technologies such as nanotechnology and microRNA-based therapeutics, in addition to addressing the limitations in each of these perpetual stent platforms. Over the past decade, stent-mediated gene/drug delivery has materialized as a hopeful alternative for cardiovascular disease and cancer in contrast to routine conventional treatment modalities. Regardless of the phenomenal recent developments achieved by coronary interventions and cancer therapies that employ gene and drug-eluting stents, practical hurdles still remain a challenge. The present review highlights the limitations that each of the existing stent-based gene/drug delivery system encompasses and therefore provides a vision for the future with respect to discovering an ideal stent therapeutic platform that would circumvent all the practical hurdles witnessed with the existing technology. Further study of the improvisation of next-generation drug-eluting stents has helped to overcome the issue of restenosis to some extent. However, current stent formulations fall short of the anticipated clinically meaningful outcomes and there is an explicit need for more randomized trials aiming to further evaluate stent platforms in favour of enhanced safety and clinical value. Gene-eluting stents may hold promise in contributing new ideas for stent-based prevention of in-stent restenosis through genetic interventions by capitalizing on a wide variety of molecular targets. Therefore, the central consideration directs us toward finding an ideal stent therapeutic platform that would tackle all of the gaps in the existing technology.

Drug-Eluting Balloon versus New-Generation Drug-Eluting Stent for the Treatment of In-Stent Restenosis: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Currently, drug-eluting balloon (DEB) appears to be an attractive alternative option for the treatment of in-stent restenosis (ISR). Nevertheless, the clinical outcomes of DEB have seldom been compared to those of new-generation drug-eluting stent (DES). Thus, this meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of DEB compared to those of new-generation DES in the treatment of ISR.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of electronic databases including PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library up to November 2, 2017 was performed to identify pertinent articles comparing DEB to new-generation DES for the treatment of ISR. In addition, conference proceedings for the scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, European Society of Cardiology, Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics, and EuroPCR were also searched. The primary endpoint was target lesion revascularization (TLR) at the longest follow-up. Dichotomous variables were presented as risk ratios (RR s) with 95% confidence intervals (CI s), while the overall RR s were estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model.

RESULTS

Five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and eight observational studies involving 2743 patients were included in the present meta-analysis. Overall, DEB was comparable to new-generation DES in terms of TLR (RR = 1.24, 95% CI: 0.89-1.72, P = 0.21), cardiac death (RR = 1.55, 95% CI: 0.89-2.71, P = 0.12), major adverse cardiovascular event (RR = 1.21, 95% CI: 0.98-1.48, P = 0.07), myocardial infarction (RR = 1.12, 95% CI: 0.72-1.76, P = 0.62), and stent thrombosis (RR = 0.95, 95% CI: 0.38-2.42, P = 0.92). However, DEB was associated with higher risk of all-cause mortality than new-generation DES (RR = 1.65, 95% CI: 1.09-2.50, P = 0.02). This was especially true in the real-world observational studies (RR = 1.79, 95% CI: 1.12-2.88, P = 0.02). In RCTs, however, no significant difference was found between the two treatment strategies in the risk of all-cause mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

The current meta-analysis showed that DEB and new-generation DES had comparable safety and efficacy for the treatment of ISR in RCTs. However, treatment with DEB was associated with higher risk of all-cause mortality in the real-world nonrandomized studies.

Relative efficacy and safety of topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for osteoarthritis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and observational studies

Objectives

To compare the efficacy and safety of topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), including salicylate, for the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA).

Methods

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched from 1966 to January 2017. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing topical NSAIDs with placebo or each other in patients with OA and observational studies comparing topical NSAIDs with no treatment or each other irrespective of disease were included. Two investigators identified studies and independently extracted data. Bayesian network and conventional meta-analyses were conducted. The primary outcomes were pain relief for RCTs and risk of adverse effects (AEs) for observational studies.

Results

43 studies, comprising 36 RCTs (7 900 patients with OA) and seven observational studies (218 074 participants), were included. Overall, topical NSAIDs were superior to placebo for relieving pain (standardised mean difference (SMD)=−0.30, 95% CI −0.40 to –0.20) and improving function (SMD=−0.35, 95% CI −0.45 to –0.24) in OA. Of all topical NSAIDs, diclofenac patches were most effective for OA pain (SMD=−0.81, 95% CI −1.12 to –0.52) and piroxicam was most effective for functional improvement (SMD=−1.04, 95% CI −1.60 to –0.48) compared with placebo. Although salicylate gel was associated with higher withdrawal rates due to AEs, the remaining topical NSAIDs were not associated with any increased local or systemic AEs.

Conclusions

Topical NSAIDs were effective and safe for OA. Diclofenac patches may be the most effective topical NSAID for pain relief. No serious gastrointestinal and renal AEs were observed in trials or the general population. However, confirmation of the cardiovascular safety of topical NSAIDs still warrants further observational study.

New-generation stents compared with coronary bypass surgery for unprotected left main disease: A word of caution

BACKGROUND

With the advent of bare metal stents and drug-eluting stents, percutaneous coronary intervention has emerged as an alternative to coronary artery bypass grafting surgery for unprotected left main disease. However, whether the evolution of stents technology has translated into better results after percutaneous coronary intervention remains unclear. We aimed to compare coronary artery bypass grafting with stents of different generations for left main disease by performing a Bayesian network meta-analysis of available randomized controlled trials.

METHODS

All randomized controlled trials with at least 1 arm randomized to percutaneous coronary intervention with stents or coronary artery bypass grafting for left main disease were included. Bare metal stents and drug-eluting stents of first- and second-generation were compared with coronary artery bypass grafting. Poisson methods and Bayesian framework were used to compute the head-to-head incidence rate ratio and 95% credible intervals. Primary end points were the composite of death/myocardial infarction/stroke and repeat revascularization.

RESULTS

Nine randomized controlled trials were included in the final analysis. Six trials compared percutaneous coronary intervention with coronary artery bypass grafting (n = 4654), and 3 trials compared different types of stents (n = 1360). Follow-up ranged from 6 months to 5 years. Second-generation drug-eluting stents (incidence rate ratio, 1.3; 95% credible interval, 1.1-1.6), but not bare metal stents (incidence rate ratio, 0.63; 95% credible interval, 0.27-1.4), and first-generation drug-eluting stents (incidence rate ratio, 0.85; 95% credible interval, 0.65-1.1) were associated with a significantly increased risk of death/myocardial infarction/stroke when compared with coronary artery bypass grafting. When compared with coronary artery bypass grafting, the highest risk of repeat revascularization was observed for bare metal stents (hazard ratio, 5.1; 95% confidence interval, 2.1-14), whereas first-generation drug-eluting stents (incidence rate ratio, 1.8; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-2.4) and second-generation drug-eluting stents (incidence rate ratio, 1.8; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-2.4) were comparable.

CONCLUSIONS

The introduction of new-generation drug-eluting stents did not translate into better outcomes for percutaneous coronary intervention when compared with coronary artery bypass grafting.

A propensity score-matched comparison of biodegradable polymer vs second-generation durable polymer drug-eluting stents in a real-world population

AIMS

The safety and efficacy of BP-DES compared to second-generation DP-DES remain unclear in the real-world setting. We compared the clinical outcomes of biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents (BP-DES) with second-generation durable polymer drug-eluting stents (DP-DES) in an all-comer percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) registry.

METHODS/RESULTS

The study included a cohort of 1065 patients treated with either BP-DES or DP-DES from January 2009 through October 2015. Propensity score matching was performed to account for potential confounders and produced 497 matched pairs of patients. The primary endpoint was target lesion failure (TLF) at one-year follow-up. The rates of TLF were comparable between BP-DES and DP-DES (8.7% vs 9.1%, P = .823) at 1 year. The rates of stent thrombosis at 30 days (0.4% vs 0.4%, P = 1.00) and 1 year (0.8% vs 0.8%, P = 1.00) did not differ between BP-DES and DP-DES. There were no significant differences in other clinical outcomes including target vessel failure (8.9% vs 9.5%, P = .741), in-stent restenosis (1.8% vs 1.0%, P = .282), and cardiac death (6.4% vs 7.4%, P = .533) at 1 year. Multivariate cox regression analysis showed that the risk of TLF at one-year did not differ significantly between BP-DES and DP-DES (hazard ratio 0.94, P = .763).

CONCLUSIONS

Efficacy and safety of BP-DES were not better than DP-DES at one-year follow-up.

Comparative efficacy and safety of anticoagulant strategies for acute coronary syndromes

International guidelines differ in strengths of recommendation for anticoagulation strategies in acute coronary syndromes (ACS). We performed a comprehensive network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to investigate the comparative efficacy and safety of parenteral anticoagulants in ACS. MEDLINE, Cochrane, EM-BASE, Google Scholar, major cardiology websites, and abstracts/presentations were searched. Six treatments were identified: 1) unfractionated heparin (UFH) + glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor (GPI) [UFH+GPI], 2) UFH±GPI, 3) bivalirudin, 4) low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs), 5) otamixaban, and 6) fondaparinux. Prespecified outcomes (death, myocardial infarction [MI], revascularisation, major bleeding [MB], minor bleeding, and stent thrombosis [ST]) were evaluated up to 30 days. Forty-two RCTs involving 117,353 patients were included. No significant differences in mortality rates were found among strategies. Compared to UFH+GPI, bivalirudin reduced the odds of MB but increased the odds of ST and MI. LMWHs vs bivalirudin reduced MI risk at the price of MB excess. UFH±GPI significantly increased the odds of MI vs LMWHs, of ST vs UFH+GPI, and of MB vs bivalirudin. Reduced ST risk with otamixaban vs UFH±GPI and vs bivalirudin was offset by a marked 2.5- to four-fold MB excess. Fondaparinux showed an intermediate profile. Results for ST-segment elevation MI were consistent with the overall findings. Early anticoagulant strategies for ACS differ in efficacy and safety, with UFH+GPI and LMWHs reducing ischaemic but increasing bleeding risk, and bivalirudin reducing MB but increases MI and ST. The findings support individualised therapy based on patients´ bleeding and ischaemic risks.

Stent Polymers: Do They Make a Difference?

The necessity of polymers on drug-eluting stent (DES) platforms is dictated by the need of an adequate amount and optimal release kinetic of the antiproliferative drugs for achieving ideal DES performance. However, the chronic vessel wall inflammation related to permanent polymer persistence after the drug has been eluted might trigger late restenosis and stent thrombosis. Biodegradable polymers have the potential to avoid these adverse events. A variety of biodegradable polymer DES platforms have been clinically tested, showing equal outcomes with the standard-bearer permanent polymer DES within the first year of implantation. At longer-term follow-up, promising lower rates of stent thrombosis have been observed with the early generation biodegradable polymer DES platforms compared to first-generation DES. Whether this safety benefit still persists with newer biodegradable polymer DES generations against second-generation permanent polymer DES needs to be explored.

Immediate and 1-year follow-up with the novel nanosurface modified COBRA PzF stent

BACKGROUND

The COBRA PzF coronary stent, which has a unique nano-coating of Polyzene-F, was developed to reduce the risk of stent thrombosis.

AIMS

To report procedural and 1-year clinical outcomes following COBRA PzF coronary stent implantation in a real-world percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) registry.

METHODS

All patients assigned to treatment with the COBRA PzF in the GCS Axium Rambot Center, Aix-en-Provence, France between February 2013 to June 2014 were prospectively enrolled.

RESULTS

Among 100 patients (71% men, mean±standard error age 71.4±11.0 years), 38% had acute coronary syndromes. The population was consistent with real-world experience and included patients with multiple co-morbidities and 26% with diffuse multivessel disease. A total of 151 lesions were treated with 166 stents, including 26% of lesions with a type B2 or C classification. Pre- and post-procedural quantitative coronary angiography analyses showed a mean acute gain of 2.2±0.2mm. Angiographic success was achieved in all cases. One-year follow-up was available for all patients and the target vessel failure (composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction or target vessel revascularization) rate was 12%, including 2% mortality (end-stage cardiomyopathy), 5% myocardial infarction (five periprocedural myocardial infarctions with isolated troponin elevation without chest pain or Q waves) and 5% target lesion revascularization. There were no cases of definite stent thrombosis.

CONCLUSION

The COBRA PzF stent was safe and effective in routine practice. One-year follow-up was associated with excellent clinical outcomes and compared favourably with current devices. These results are very promising in a real-world population of complex patients, and further study is warranted.

Second-generation drug-eluting stents versus drug-coated balloons for the treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The benefit of drug-eluting stents (DES) versus drug-coated balloons (DCB) in coronary artery in-stent restenosis (ISR) for the prevention of target lesion revascularization (TLR), stent thrombosis, and mortality remains uncertain. Our aim was to synthesize the available evidence from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies that directly compare second-generation drug-eluting stents (SG-DES) and DCB for the treatment of coronary ISR.

METHODS

Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central were searched for RCTs or observational studies, published up to March 15, 2017. A random effects model meta-analysis investigating clinical and angiographic outcomes was conducted for RCTs and observational studies that compared SG-DES versus DCB for the treatment of ISR.

RESULTS

Ten studies and 2,173 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The two treatment strategies were proven equal with regards to TLR, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, and cardiac mortality in both randomized and observational studies. No difference was found among RCTs for all-cause mortality, while in observational studies, patients who were treated with SG-DES had a lower mortality compared to DCB (OR: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.27-0.83). In the pooled analysis also (RCTs and observational studies), SG-DES were associated with lower all-cause mortality compared to DCB. Patients treated with SG-DES were also superior in terms of minimal lumen diameter (standardized mean difference: 0.39; 95% CI: 0.12-0.66).

CONCLUSIONS

The two treatment strategies are equal for the treatment of ISR, while the difference in all-cause mortality might be potentially explained by baseline differences in the two groups among real-world studies.

Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials Comparing Biodegradable Polymer Drug-Eluting Stent to Second-Generation Durable Polymer Drug-Eluting Stents

OBJECTIVES

The authors sought to perform a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing the safety and efficacy of biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents (BP-DES) to second-generation durable polymer drug-eluting stents (DP-DES).

BACKGROUND

Prior meta-analyses have established the superiority of BP-DES over bare-metal stents and first-generation DP-DES; however, their advantage compared with second-generation DP-DES remains controversial.

METHODS

The authors searched PubMed and Scopus databases for RCTs comparing BP-DES to the second-generation DP-DES. Outcomes included target vessel revascularization (TVR) as efficacy outcome and cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), and definite or probable stent thrombosis (ST) as safety outcomes. In addition, we performed landmark analysis for endpoints beyond 1 year of follow-up and a subgroup analysis based on the stent characteristics.

RESULTS

The authors included 16 RCTs comprising 19,886 patients in the meta-analysis. At the longest available follow-up (mean duration 26 months), we observed no significant differences in TVR (p = 0.62), cardiac death (p = 0.46), MI (p = 0.98), or ST (risk ratio: 0.83, 95% confidence interval: 0.64 to 1.09; p = 0.19). Our landmark analysis showed that BP-DES were not associated with a reduction in the risk of very late ST (risk ratio: 0.87, 95% confidence interval: 0.49 to 1.53; p = 0.62). Similar outcomes were seen regardless of the eluting drug (biolimus vs. sirolimus), the stent platform (stainless steel vs. alloy), the kinetics of polymer degradation or drug release (<6 months vs. >6 months), the strut thickness of the BP-DES (thin <100 μm vs. thick >100 μm), or the DAPT duration (≥6 months vs. ≥12 months).

CONCLUSIONS

BP-DES have similar safety and efficacy profiles to second-generation DP-DES.

Clinical implications of blood-material interaction and drug eluting stent polymers in review

INTRODUCTION

Despite advances in drug-eluting stent (DES) technology, stent thrombosis (ST) remains the most feared complication with high morbidity and mortality. Areas covered: Stent related factors certainly play a role in the pathophysiology of ST and more recent data suggest coating technologies have the potential to favorable modify this risk though blood material interactions. Of the polymer coatings used in DES, fluorinated polymers in particular have shown significant promise in modifying the risk of ST through their preferential interactions with albumin which is believed to prevent the adhesion and aggregation of platelets to the stent surface and thus minimize thrombus formation. Preclinical data from the porcine arteriovenous fistula model and clinical data from large network meta-analysis support a role for fluorinated polymers in reducing ST. Expert commentary: The search for more biocompatible anti-thrombotic polymer coatings continues and it is likely that further modification of stent based surfaces will revolutionize the field of interventional cardiology by one day obviating the need for systemic anti-platelet therapies in patients receiving intravascular devices.

Clinical outcomes of biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting BioMatrix stents versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting Xience stents

There are limited data about clinical outcomes of biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting BioMatrix stents (BP-BES) and durable polymer everolimus-eluting Xience stents (DP-EES) in real world practice. We sought to compare the clinical outcomes of BP-BES and DP-EES in real world cohorts of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. A prospective multicenter registry enrolled 999 patients treated with BP-BES and 1,000 patients treated with DP-EES. The primary outcome was target lesion failure, defined as a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization. Definite or probable stent thrombosis was also compared in total and propensity score-matched cohorts. The median follow-up duration was 24 months, and mean age was 65 years (interquartile range, 56-72 years). Patients receiving BP-BES had a lower prevalence of acute coronary syndrome, prior myocardial infarction, multi-vessel disease, bifurcation lesions, and left anterior descending artery lesions than those receiving DP-EES. After propensity score matching (692 pairs), target lesion failure occurred in 22 patients receiving BP-BES and in 25 patients receiving DP-EES (3.2% versus 3.6%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53 to 1.60; p = 0.77). The risk of definite or probable stent thrombosis did not differ between the 2 groups (0.4% versus 0.4%; adjusted HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.21 to 4.98; p = 0.97). The results were consistent across various subgroups. In the propensity score-matched analysis of real world cohorts, BP-BES showed similar clinical outcomes compared to DP-EES. We need to investigate about whether differences in clinical outcome emerge during long-term follow-up.

Comparison of Coronary Artery Bypass Graft-First and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention-First Approaches for 2-Stage Hybrid Coronary Revascularization

BACKGROUND

Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) was developed to combine the advantages of coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, it is still controversial whether it is more optimal to perform CABG or PCI first. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of these 2 approaches.

METHODS

Eighty patients who underwent HCR from May 2010 to December 2015 were enrolled in this retrospective analysis. The CABG-first group comprised 12 patients and the PCI-first group comprised 68 patients. Outcomes of interest included in-hospital perioperative factors, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs), and the incidence of repeated revascularization, especially for the target vessel lesion.

RESULTS

No significant difference was found in the amount of postoperative bleeding (p=0.239). The incidence of MACCEs was similar between the CABG-first and PCI-first groups (1 of 12 [8.3%] vs. 5 of 68 [7.4%], p>0.999). Repeated revascularization was performed on 3 patients (25%) in the CABG-first and 9 patients (13.2%) in the PCI-first group (p=0.376).

CONCLUSION

There were no significant differences in postoperative and medium-term outcomes between the CABG-first and PCI-first groups. Based on these results, it can be inferred that it is safe to opt for either CABG or PCI as the primary procedure in 2-stage HCR.

Adverse cardiovascular events associated with biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents and durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 10 randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Controversies have been observed among network meta-analyses comparing biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents (BP-DES) with durable polymer drug-eluting stents (DP-DES). We aimed to compare the adverse cardiovascular events associated with BP-DES and durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP-EES) using a large number of patients obtained from randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for randomized trials comparing BP-DES with DP-EES. Adverse cardiovascular outcomes observed between 6 months and 3 years were considered as the clinical endpoints in this analysis. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated and the pooled analyses were performed with RevMan 5.3 software. All authors had full access to the data, and they have read and agreed to the manuscript as written.

RESULTS

Ten trials involving a total number of 13,218 patients (7451 patients treated by BP-DES and 5767 patients treated by DP-EES) were included. No significant difference was observed when analyzing mortality and myocardial infarction between BP-DES and DP-EES with OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.87-1.34, P = .47 and OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.84-1.28, P = .72 respectively. Target vessel revascularization, target lesion revascularization, major adverse cardiac events, and stroke were also not significantly different with OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.92-1.33, P = .28; OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.94-1.33, P = .22; OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.99-1.27; P = .07; and OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.69-1.84; P = .62 respectively. In addition, total stent thrombosis (ST) was similarly reported between BP-DES and DP-EES with OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.59-1.21; P = .37. However, even if BP-DES were associated with a higher rate of definite ST with OR 1.69, 95% CI 0.92-3.08, P = .09 and DP-EES were associated with a higher rate of probable ST with OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.38-1.17, P = .16, these results were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Between 6 months and 3 years, BP-DES were similar in terms of cardiovascular outcomes compared to DP-EES. However, further long-term follow-up research is recommended.

Perioperative Management of Dual-Antiplatelet Therapy in Patients With New-Generation Drug-Eluting Metallic Stents and Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds Undergoing Elective Noncardiac Surgery

Dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is considered mandatory after new-generation drug-eluting coronary stent implantation to reduce ischemic complications such as stent thrombosis, but the need for DAPT makes the timing of elective surgery difficult. Interrupting DAPT places patients at risk for stent thrombosis, and surgery in the setting of DAPT may lead to bleeding. The 2016 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guideline recommends delaying elective noncardiac surgery for a minimum 6-month period to reduce ischemic risks after the implantation of a second-generation metallic drug-eluting stent (DES). However, the guideline fails to appropriately stratify surgical patients based on the indication for second-generation metallic DES implantation and other patient characteristics. The Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (Abbott Vascular, Abbott Park, IL), which has a higher propensity for stent thrombosis compared with second-generation metallic DES, also produces DAPT management challenges in patients presenting for elective noncardiac surgery. Due to the novelty of bioresorbable vascular scaffold therapy, there are no guidelines available for the management of patients undergoing elective noncardiac surgery. This review addresses DAPT management in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery less than 12 months after new-generation metallic DES or bioresorbable vascular scaffold implantation and provides further guidance for anesthesiologists who encounter these challenging cases.

Is the Future of Coronary Arterial Revascularization a Hybrid Approach?

Objective

Hybrid coronary revascularization offers and combines the advantages of both surgical and percutaneous revascularization and eliminates at the same time the disadvantages of both procedures. The objective of this study was to assess graft and stent patency at 6 months, rate of bleeding, intensive care unit and hospital stay, rate of reintervention, and long-term clinical follow-up.

Methods

From March 2004 to November 2015, a total of 203 patients underwent robotic-assisted minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass graft of the left internal thoracic artery to the left anterior descending artery and PCI of a non-left anterior descending vessel in a single or two stage, at three different centers. Patients underwent 6-month angiographic follow-up. The mean ± SD clinical follow-up was 77.82 ±41.4 months.

Results

Successful hybrid coronary revascularization occurred in 196 of the 203 patients. One hundred forty-six patients underwent simultaneous surgical and percutaneous intervention. Nineteen patients underwent PCI before surgery, and 38 patient underwent PCI after surgery. No in-hospital mortality occurred. The mean ± SD ICU stay was 1 ± 1 days and the mean ± SD hospital stay was 5 ± 2 days. Only 13.3% of the patients required a blood transfusion. Six-month angiographic follow-up has been performed in the 95 patients, and it demonstrated a left internal thoracic artery anastomotic patency of 97.9% and stent patency of 92.6%. A total of 77.8 ± 41.4-month clinical follow-up demonstrated 95.1% survival, 92.6% freedom from angina, and 90.7% freedom from any form of coronary revascularization.

Conclusions

Hybrid coronary revascularization seems to be a promising and safe revascularization strategy. It provides selected patients with an alternative, functionally complete revascularization with minimal surgical trauma and good long-term clinical outcomes.

Prevention of contrast-induced acute kidney injury in patients undergoing cardiovascular procedures-a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Background

Interventional diagnostic and therapeutic procedures requiring intravascular iodinated contrast steadily increase patient exposure to the risks of contrast-induced acute kidney injury (CIAKI), which is associated with death, nonfatal cardiovascular events, and prolonged hospitalization. The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy of pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments for CIAKI prevention in patients undergoing cardiovascular invasive procedures with iodinated contrast.

Methods and findings

MEDLINE, Google Scholar, EMBASE and Cochrane databases as well as abstracts and presentations from major cardiovascular and nephrology meetings were searched, up to 22 April 2016. Eligible studies were randomized trials comparing strategies to prevent CIAKI (alone or in combination) when added to saline versus each other, saline, placebo, or no treatment in patients undergoing cardiovascular invasive procedures with administration of iodinated contrast. Two reviewers independently extracted trial-level data including number of patients, duration of follow-up, and outcomes. Eighteen strategies aimed at CIAKI prevention were identified. The primary outcome was the occurrence of CIAKI. Secondary outcomes were mortality, myocardial infarction, dialysis and heart failure. The data were pooled using network meta-analysis. Treatment estimates were calculated as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% credible intervals (CrI). 147 RCTs involving 33,463 patients were eligible. Saline plus N-acetylcysteine (OR 0.72, 95%CrI 0.57–0.88), ascorbic acid (0.59, 0.34–0.95), sodium bicarbonate plus N-acetylcysteine (0.59, 0.36–0.89), probucol (0.42, 0.15–0.91), methylxanthines (0.39, 0.20–0.66), statin (0.36, 0.21–0.59), device-guided matched hydration (0.35, 0.12–0.79), prostaglandins (0.26, 0.08–0.62) and trimetazidine (0.26, 0.09–0.59) were associated with lower odds of CIAKI compared to saline. Methylxanthines (0.12, 0.01–0.94) or left ventricular end-diastolic pressure-guided hydration (0.09, 0.01–0.59) were associated with lower mortality compared to saline.

Conclusions

Currently recommended treatment with saline as the only measure to prevent CIAKI during cardiovascular procedures may not represent the optimal strategy. Vasodilators, when added to saline, may significantly reduce the odds of CIAKI following cardiovascular procedures.

Bioresorbable Scaffolds for Coronary Artery Disease

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this review is to present an overview of the recent evidence regarding the use of bioresorbable scaffolds in percutaneous coronary intervention.

RECENT FINDINGS

Bioresorbable scaffolds represent a potentially unique engineering solution to the problems associated with metallic stents. The Absorb everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold has been the most extensively tested of this class and is currently Food and Drug Administration-approved for use in the USA. While early studies suggested that it has comparable overall efficacy as compared to drug-eluting metallic stents, they also demonstrated a significantly increased risk of stent thrombosis. Bioresorbable scaffolds may be comparable to drug-eluting stents, though associated with an increased risk of stent thrombosis. They are a nascent technology with several competitive product designs in development and continued iterative technological improvements are expected over the next several years.

Survival Benefits of Invasive Versus Conservative Strategies in Heart Failure in Patients With Reduced Ejection Fraction and Coronary Artery Disease

Background—

Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction caused by ischemic heart disease is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. It remains unclear whether revascularization by either coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) carries benefits or risks in this group of stable patients compared with medical treatment.

Methods and Results—

We performed a meta-analysis of available studies comparing different methods of revascularization (PCI or CABG) against each other or medical treatment in patients with coronary artery disease and left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40%. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality; myocardial infarction, revascularization, and stroke were also analyzed. Twenty-one studies involving a total of 16 191 patients were included. Compared with medical treatment, there was a significant mortality reduction with CABG (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.61–0.72; P <0.001) and PCI (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.62–0.85; P <0.001). When compared with PCI, CABG still showed a survival benefit (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.75–0.90; P <0.001).

Conclusions—

The present meta-analysis indicates that revascularization strategies are superior to medical treatment in improving survival in patients with ischemic heart disease and reduced ejection fraction. Between the 2 revascularization strategies, CABG seems more favorable compared with PCI in this particular clinical setting.

Efficacy and safety of everolimus and zotarolimus-eluting stents versus first-generation drug-eluting stents in patients with diabetes: A meta-analysis of randomized trials

INTRODUCTION

Patients with diabetes and coronary artery disease remain at high risk for adverse cardiovascular events after percutaneous coronary intervention. The efficacy and safety of the various drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients with diabetes is unclear.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials comparing first-generation DES [paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) and sirolimus-eluting stents (SES)] with everolimus-eluting stents (EES) and zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZES) in diabetic patients were systematically searched. Efficacy [target vessel revascularization (TVR) and target lesion revascularization (TLR)] and safety [major adverse cardiac events (MACE), all-cause and cardiac mortality, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis] outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

Eighteen randomized controlled trials comprising of 8095 patients (17,000 patient-years of follow-up) were included. Compared to first-generation DES, EES significantly decreased MACE by 18% (relative risk [RR]: 0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.70-0.96), myocardial infarction by 43% (RR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.39-0.84) and stent thrombosis by 46% (RR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.35-0.82) in patients with diabetes. Moreover EES showed a trend towards reduction in rates of TLR and TVR (p=0.05). ZES was associated with 89% increased risk for TLR (RR: 1.89, 95% CI: 1.10-3.22) compared to first-generation DES. Furthermore, meta-regression analysis showed a greater magnitude of benefit of EES over first-generation DES for MACE (p=0.037) and stent thrombosis (p=0.036) in diabetic patients requiring Insulin.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with diabetes and coronary artery disease undergoing stenting, EES is the most efficacious and safe DES. The outcomes data for ZES in diabetes patients were limited and further trials are needed.

Safety of 6-month duration of dual antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes: Rationale and design of the Smart Angioplasty Research Team-safety of 6-month duration of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes (SMART-DATE) prospective multicenter randomized trial

BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is a fundamental treatment that optimizes clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention, especially in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Although current international guidelines recommend DAPT for at least 12 months after implantation of a drug-eluting stent in patients with ACS, these recommendations are not based on randomized controlled trials dedicated to ACS population.

STUDY DESIGN

The SMART-DATE trial is a prospective, multicenter, randomized, and open-label study to demonstrate the noninferiority of 6-month DAPT compared with 12 months or longer DAPT in patients with ACS undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. A total of 2,700 patients will undergo prospective, random assignment to either of the DAPT duration groups. To minimize the bias from different stent devices, the type of stents will be randomly assigned (everolimus-eluting stents, zotarolimus-eluting stents, or biolimus A9-eluting stents). The primary end point is a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and cerebrovascular events at 18 months after the index procedure. The major secondary end points are definite/probable stent thrombosis defined by the Academic Research Consortium and bleeding defined by Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 2-5.

CONCLUSIONS

The SMART-DATE randomized trial is the first study exploring the safety of 6-month DAPT compared with conventional 12-month or longer DAPT dedicated to patients with ACS after second-generation drug-eluting stent implantation.

Very thin strut biodegradable polymer everolimus-eluting and sirolimus-eluting stents versus durable polymer zotarolimus-eluting stents in allcomers with coronary artery disease (BIO-RESORT): a three-arm, randomised, non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

In patients with coronary artery disease, treated with durable polymer-coated drug-eluting stents, the life-long presence of the polymer might delay arterial healing. Novel very thin strut biodegradable polymer stents, which leave only a bare metal stent after polymer resorption, might improve long-term outcome. We investigated in allcomers the safety and efficacy of three stents eluting either everolimus, sirolimus, or zotarolimus, often clinically used but never compared, of which the biodegradable polymer everolimus-eluting stent was never before assessed in allcomers.

METHODS

The large-scale, investigator-initiated, multicentre, assessor and patient blinded, three-arm, randomised, BIO-RESORT non-inferiority trial was done at four clinical sites in the Netherlands. All-comer patients were aged 18 years or older, capable of providing informed consent, and required a percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stent implantation according to clinical guidelines or the operators' judgment. Exclusion criteria were: participation in another randomised drug or device study before reaching the primary endpoint of that study; planned surgery necessitating interruption of dual antiplatelet therapy within the first 6 months; known intolerance to components of the investigational product or medication required; uncertainty about the adherence to follow-up procedures or an assumed life expectancy of less than 1 year; or known pregnancy. Web-based computer-generated allocation sequences randomly assigned patients (1:1:1) to treatment with very thin strut biodegradable polymer everolimus-eluting or sirolimus-eluting stents (which differ substantially in type, amount, distribution, and resorption speed of their respective coating), or thin strut durable polymer zotarolimus-eluting stents. The primary endpoint was a composite of safety (cardiac death or target vessel-related myocardial infarction) and efficacy (target vessel revascularisation) at 12 months of follow up with a very thin strut biodegradable polymer of either everolimus-eluting or sirolimus-eluting stents, compared with durable polymer zotarolimus-eluting stents, analysed by intention to treat (non-inferiority margin 3·5%). This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01674803.

FINDINGS

From Dec 21, 2012, to Aug 24, 2015, 3514 patients were enrolled and analysed, of whom 2449 (70%) had acute coronary syndromes, which included 1073 (31%) ST-elevation myocardial infarctions. 12 month follow-up of 3490 (99%) patients (three lost to follow-up; 21 withdrawals) was available. The primary endpoint was met by 55 (5%) of 1172 patients assigned to everolimus-eluting stents, 55 (5%) of 1169 assigned to sirolimus-eluting stents and 63 (5%) of 1173 assigned to zotarolimus-eluting stents. Non-inferiority of the everolimus-eluting stents and sirolimus-eluting stents compared with zotarolimus-eluting stents was confirmed (both -0·7% absolute risk difference, 95% CI -2·4 to 1·1; upper limit of one sided 95% CI 0·8%, p_{non-inferiority}<0·0001). Definite stent thrombosis (defined by the Academic Research Consortium) occurred in four (0·3%) of 1172 patients who were allocated to everolimus-eluting stents, four (0·3%) of 1169 patients who were allocated to sirolimus-eluting stents, and three (0·3%) of 1173 patients who were allocated to zotarolimus-eluting stents (log-rank p=0·70 for both comparisons with zotarolimus-eluting stents).

INTERPRETATION

At 12 month follow-up, both very thin strut drug-eluting stents with dissimilar biodegradable polymer coatings (eluting either everolimus or sirolimus) were non-inferior to the durable polymer stent (eluting zotarolimus) in treating allcomers with a high proportion of patients with acute coronary syndromes. The absence of a loss of 1 year safety and efficacy with the use of these two biodegradable polymer-coated stents is a prerequisite before assessing their potential longer-term benefits.

FUNDING

Biotronik, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic.