Clinical Outcomes and Prognostic Factors in Complex, High-Risk Indicated Procedure (CHIP) and High-Bleeding-Risk (HBR) Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Implantation: 4-Year Results

We aimed to characterize the performance and safety of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in complex, high-risk indicated procedure (CHIP) and high-bleeding-risk (HBR) patients at a 4-year follow up. We included all consecutive patients who underwent PCI with the sirolimus-eluting coronary stent Alex Plus (Balton, Poland) between July 2015 and March 2016. We analyzed various baseline demographic and clinical characteristics, laboratory data, and clinical outcomes. We enrolled 232 patients in whom 282 stents were implanted, including 81 patients meeting the CHIP criteria and 76 patients meeting the HBR criteria. In the whole population, the mean age was 68 ± 11 years, and 23.7% were females. Most procedures were performed from radial access (83.2%) using a 6F guiding catheter (95.7%). The lesions were mostly predilated (61.6%), and postdilatation was performed in 37.9%. The device success was 99.6% (in one case, a second stent was required due to heavy calcifications). Additional stents were deployed in 39% of cases due to edge dissection (6.9%), side branch stenting (5.2%), or diffuse disease (26.9%). Myocardial infarction (MI) type 4a was revealed in 2.2% of cases. At 4 years, the MACE rates for the whole population and for CHIP and HBR patients were 23.3%, 29.6%, and 27.6%, respectively. CHIP patients had a higher risk of MACEs (29.6% vs. 19.9%, HR 1.69, p = 0.032) and cardiac death (11.1% vs. 4.6%, HR 2.50, p = 0.048). There were no differences for MI (7.4% vs. 6.6%, p = 0.826) and TLR (18.5% vs. 12.6%, p = 0.150). HBR patients were also characterized by a higher risk of MACEs (27.6% vs. 21.2%, HR 1.84, p = 0.049) and cardiac death (17.1% vs. 1.9%, HR 9.61, p < 0.001). There were no differences for MI (7.9% vs. 6.4%, p = 0.669) and TLR (11.8% vs. 16.0%, p = 0.991). PCI in CHIP and HBR patients is feasible with a low rate of periprocedural complications. Nevertheless, CHIP and HBR patients are at a high risk of future adverse events and require strict surveillance to improve outcomes.

A meta-analysis of everolimus-eluting stents versus sirolimus-eluting stents and paclitaxel-eluting stents in diabetic patients

Objective

We performed this meta-analysis to determine which stent among everolimus eluting stents (EES), sirolimus eluting stents (SES) and paclitaxel eluting stents (PES) should be preferred for the treatment of DM patients.

Methods

A systematic search of publications about randomized controlled trials (RCTs) focused on diabetic patients received EES, SES or PES was conducted. We evaluated the following indicators: target vessel revascularization (TVR), target lesion revascularization (TLR), late luminal loss (LLL), stent thrombosis (ST), myocardial infarction (MI), all-cause mortality and cardiac mortality.

Results

EES showed obvious advantages over SES for DM patients, as it induced the lowest rate of target vessel revascularization and target lesion revascularization (TLR) (p = 0.04). In addition, EES induced lower in-segment LLL than PSE and SES and lower in-stent LLL than PES in DM patients (all p < 0.05). Moreover, EES effectively reduced all-cause mortality compared to SES (RR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.52–0.99, p = 0.04) and MI rates compared to PES (RR = 0.44, 95% CI: 0.26–0.73, p = 0.0002). Furthermore, EES could reduce the ST rate compared with both SES (RR = 0.53, 95% CI: 0.28–0.98, p = 0.04) and PES (RR = 0.18, 95% CI: 0.07–0.51, p = 0.001).

Conclusion

Among those three types of stents, EES should be the first recommended stent for DM patients.

Durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents: history, current status and future prospects

INTRODUCTION

Coronary percutaneous interventions have evolved from plain old balloon angioplasty (POBA) to stent implantation, which itself evolved from bare-metal stents (BMS) to the new biodegradable stents which try to restore endothelial function. Currently, the most commonly used stent is the everolimus-eluting stent.

AREAS COVERED

This review will cover the current status of durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent, its history, and future perspectives. Nowadays, the everolimus-eluting stent is the most used device in the acute and chronic settings due to its safety and efficacy.

EXPERT OPINION

Durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent, supported by much evidence, has demonstrated its efficacy and safety, not only in de novo artery lesions, but in multiples scenarios, such as the acute setting and diabetic population, becoming one of the most polyvalent stents available. Nowadays, research is focused on the reduction of antiplatelet treatment duration. Similar rates of stent thrombosis with short dual antiplatelet treatment regimens of 1 to 3 months compared to pronged treatment have been observed. However, specific studies should be performed to evaluate this possibility.

Long-term impact of diabetes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: Insights from the EXAMINATION randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Long-term outcomes of diabetic patients suffering from ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and treated with second-generation drug-eluting stent have been scarcely evaluated. The aim of this posthoc subanalysis of the EXAMINATION trial was to compare 5-year outcomes according to the presence of diabetes mellitus.

METHODS

From a total of 1,497 patients included in the trial, 258 were diabetics (n = 137, received everolimus-eluting stent (EES) and n = 121 bare-metal stent (BMS); whereas 1,239 were nondiabetics (n = 613 treated with EES and n = 626 with BMS). Patient-oriented combined endpoint (POCE) defined as all-cause death, any MI or any revascularization, and other clinical parameters were collected up to 5-years. All results were adjusted for various potential confounders.

RESULTS

At 5-years, patients with diabetes showed similar rates of POCE between diabetics treated with EES and those treated with BMS (32.8% vs. 32.2%; p = 0.88). However, rates of TLR were significantly lower in the EES group (4.4% vs. 9.9%; HR 0.52 (0.29-0.94); P = 0.03). In non-diabetics, the use of EES was associated with a significant improvement in all-clinical parameters except for MI rate: POCE: [10.0% vs. 12.6%; HR 0.78(0.62-0.98); P = 0.038], all cause death: [7.0% vs. 12.1%; HR 0.62(0.42-0.90); P = 0.014], and [TLR: 4.2 vs. 6.7; HR 0.60 (0.37-0.98); P = 0.04]. Overall, diabetics showed higher rate of POCE at 5-years (32.6% vs. 21.5% in nondiabetics HR1.45[1.03-2.04];p = 0.03) driven by increased rates of MI and the need for revascularization that occurred in coronary segments remote from target lesions [2.7% vs. 1.1%; HR: 2.27 (1.12-5.23); P = 0.02 and 14% vs. 6.2%; HR: 2.11 (1.38-3.22); P = 0.001, respectively].

CONCLUSIONS

Diabetics had worse clinical outcomes than nondiabetics after STEMI mainly due to atherosclerosis progression. At 5-years, the treatment with EES did not reduce the rate of POCE in diabetics but reduced the need for revascularization compared with BMS.

Safety and efficacy of zotarolimus-eluting stents in the treatment of diabetic coronary lesions in Chinese patients: The RESOLUTE-DIABETES CHINA Study

BACKGROUND

The RESOLUTE-DIABETES CHINA study was specifically designed to investigate the safety and efficacy of Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZES; Medtronic, Santa Rosa, CA, USA) in the treatment of diabetic coronary lesions in the Chinese population.

METHODS

In all, 945 patients with de novo native coronary lesions and type 2 diabetes mellitus were recruited at 32 cardiac centers across the Chinese mainland and were implanted with Resolute ZES. The primary endpoint was target vessel failure (TVF); secondary endpoints were clinical outcomes, namely all-cause death, stroke, bleeding, target lesion revascularization (TLR), target vessel revascularization (TVR), non-TVR, and stent thrombosis (ST). The follow-up period for all endpoints was 12 months after the procedure.

RESULTS

In all, 933 patients (98.73%) had clinical follow-up at 12 months. The rate of TVF was 11.60%, whereas the rate of occurrence of secondary endpoints was 5.47%, with four patients (0.43%) having subacute or late ST. There were no significant differences in TVF rates comparing patients with different HbA1c levels or receiving different glucose control treatments (all P > 0.05). Patients with multivessel lesions had higher TVF rates (95% confidence intervals) than those with single-vessel lesions (16.76% [12.10%-22.97%) vs 9.72% [7.79%-12.11%], respectively; P = 0.006). There were no significant differences in TVF rates in patients with or without small vessels, bifurcated lesions, or chronic total occlusions (all P > 0.05). [Correction added on 17 January 2019, after first online publication: in the second sentence of Results section, "TLF" was changed to "TVF".].

CONCLUSIONS

Resolute ZES may perform well in the Chinese diabetic population, especially in those with poor glucose control, complex lesions, and certain unfavorable clinical features. Further studies are needed to determine why ZES perform well in this population.

Clinical outcomes of patients with diabetes mellitus treated with Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffolds: a subanalysis of the European Multicentre GHOST-EU Registry

BACKGROUND

Data on the clinical performance of bioresorbable scaffolds in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) are still limited. The present study reported 1-year clinical outcomes associated with the use of everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (Absorb BVS; Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA) in DM patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This was a subanalysis from the GHOST-EU (Gauging coronary Healing with biOresorbable Scaffolding plaTforms in Europe) multicenter retrospective registry including patients treated with Absorb BVS between November 2011 and September 2014. In this study, a comparative analysis stratified according to DM was performed. The primary endpoint was target lesion failure (TLF), defined as the combination of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction (MI) and clinically-driven target-lesion revascularization (TLR). A total of 1,477 patients were treated with 2,224 Absorb BVS; 381 (25.8%) and 1,096 (74.2%) patients were with and without DM, respectively. The 1-year rate of TLF was higher among patients with DM (7.8%) than those without DM (4.3%); the increase in TLF was driven by TLR (6.5% vs. 3.3%, P = 0.009); no significant differences in cardiac death (1.1% vs. 0.9%, P = 0.68) and target-vessel MI (3.1% vs. 2.2%, P = 0.38) were observed, respectively. Definite/probable scaffold thrombosis rate tended to be higher among patients with DM than those without DM (3.0% vs. 1.7%, P = 0.14, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Absorb BVS use in patients with DM was associated with increased 1-year TLF and scaffold thrombosis compared with non-diabetes patients.

A randomized multicenter trial comparing the XIENCE everolimus eluting stent with the CYPHER sirolimus eluting stent in the treatment of female patients with de novo coronary artery lesions: The SPIRIT WOMEN study

Background

The comparative performance of different drug-eluting stents (DES) among female patients has not been assessed in a randomized manner.

Objectives

The SPIRIT Women Clinical Evaluation trial compared the durable polymer everolimus-eluting XIENCE stent (DP-EES) with the durable polymer sirolimus-eluting Cypher stent (DP-SES) in women undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

Methods

A total of 455 female patients with stable CAD were randomly assigned to receive DP-EES (n = 304) or DP-SES (n = 151). The powered angiographic outcome of the trial was in-stent late lumen loss (LLL) at 9 months after the index procedure. Secondary angiographic end points included in-segment LLL, in-stent and in-segment binary restenosis and percent diameter stenosis. The primary clinical outcome was a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI) or target vessel revascularization (TVR).

Results

At 9-month follow-up, in-stent LLL was 0.19±0.38 mm and 0.11±0.37 mm in patients assigned to DP-EES and DP-SES, respectively. The one-sided upper 95% CI of the difference in in-stent LLL between the groups of 0.08 mm was 0.15 and therefore within the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.17 mm (p for non-inferiority = 0.013). However, the test for superiority showed a borderline significant difference in terms of LLL between DP-EES and DP-SES (p for superiority = 0.044). There were no significant differences in binary restenosis (2.0% vs. 0.72%, p = 0.44) and percent diameter stenosis (14.97±12.17 vs. 13.36±10.82, p = 0.19). The rate of definite stent thrombosis at 12 months was lower in patients treated with DP-EES (0% vs. 2.0%, p = 0.036).

Conclusions

Among women undergoing PCI, DP-EES was associated with a small but probably clinically relevant increase in in-stent LLL at 9 months as compared to DP-SES and with a lower risk of definite stent thrombosis at 12 months.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01182428.

https://clinicaltrials.gov/

Initial and late efficacy of everolimus-eluting stents for small and non-small coronary lesions from evaluating delayed late loss study

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the long-term outcomes at 2 years in patients in whom everolimus-eluting stents (EESs) were implanted in small and non-small vessels. A small vessel is an important risk factor for restenosis with BMSs, even in the first generation DESs. The 690 patients with 690 lesions implanted with an EES were enrolled and divided into two groups by vessel reference diameter (RD): >2.5 mm for non-small vessels (Non-S-group) and ≤2.5 mm for small vessels (S-group). Two years later, the 365 patients with no restenosis at 8 months who underwent angiography were enrolled into the late catch-up study. At the initial 8-month follow-up, the rates of restenosis and target lesion revascularization (TLR) of both groups were not significantly different (restenosis 3.9 vs 6.5%, p = 0.17; TLR 3.9 vs 6.5%, p = 0.17). At the late 2-year follow-up, there were no significant differences in the late loss (0.36 ± 0.66 vs 0.34 ± 0.50 mm, p = 0.14), net gain (1.50 ± 0.75 vs 1.26 ± 0.60 mm, p = 0.39), late catch-up restenosis rate (5.1 vs 3.4%, p = 0.38), TLR (4.9 vs 2.7%, p = 0.40), and delayed late loss (0.14 ± 0.58 vs 0.15 ± 0.49 mm, p = 0.10) between both groups. There is no correlation between delayed late loss and RD in all patients(r = -0.009) and in AMI patients (r = -0.004). These results demonstrate that the initial and late catch-up restenosis rates of small coronary vessels with EES placement were excellent, the same as for non-small coronary vessels. We suggest that involvement of small coronary arteries may not be a risk factor for restenosis and results of stenting for small coronary arteries with EES placement were excellent.

Midterm angiographic outcomes with sirolimus- and everolimus-eluting stents for small vessels in diabetic patients: propensity-score-matched comparisons in three different vessel diameters

We conducted propensity-score-matched comparisons of midterm angiographic follow-up outcomes of sirolimus- versus everolimus-eluting stents (SES, EES) after elective placements for de novo coronary stenosis in small vessels (SV) in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM), because the angiographic efficacy of EES over SES for those cohorts remained unclear. The study was a non-randomized, retrospective, lesion-based, multicenter study, examining lesions followed up angiographically within 550 days, extracted from the unified database of 6 institutes. The endpoint (binary restenosis) was defined as the percentage of subjects having >50% diameter stenosis at follow-up. Propensity-score-matched analyses were conducted in 3 different vessel-size cohorts, defined by a preprocedural reference diameter (RD) <2.10, <2.35, and <2.60 mm, yielding group sizes of n = 107, 183, and 312 baseline-adjusted lesions in each of the 2 stent arms. The frequency of binary restenosis decreased significantly with increasing vessel size, at 16.8, 12.6, and 12.2%, in the SES group. However, it remained almost the same across vessel-size groups in the EES group (8.0, 6.0, and 7.5%). The p values for the significance of the differences in binary restenosis between EES and SES in each vessel size increased with the decrease in vessel size [p = 0.002, 0.040, and 0.063 (the last still nearly significant)]. Thus, in patients with DM, EES showed increasingly superior efficacy over SES for SV stenosis as the vessel size became smaller, i.e., the risk for binary restenosis became greater.

Third generation drug eluting stent (DES) with biodegradable polymer in diabetic patients: 5 years follow-up

Objective

To report the long-term safety and efficacy data of a third generation drug eluting stent (DES) with biodegradable polymer in the complex patient population of diabetes mellitus after a follow-up period of 5 years.

Background

After percutaneous coronary intervention patients with diabetes mellitus are under higher risk of death, restenosis and stent thrombosis (ST) compared to non-diabetic patients.

Methods

In 126 centers worldwide 3067 patients were enrolled in the NOBORI 2 registry, 888 patients suffered from diabetes mellitus (DM), 213 of them (14%) being insulin dependent (IDDM). Five years follow-up has been completed in this study.

Results

At 5 years, 89.3% of the patients were available for follow-up. The reported target lesion failure (TLF) rates at 5 years were 12.39% in DM group and 7.34% in non-DM group; (p < 0.0001). In the DM group, the TLF rate in patients with IDDM was significantly higher than in the non-IDDM subgroup (17.84 vs. 10.67%; p < 0.01). The rate of ST at 5 years was not different among diabetic versus non-diabetic patients or IDDM versus NIDDM. Only 10 (<0.4%) very late stent thrombotic events beyond 12 months occurred.

Conclusions

The Nobori DES performed well in patients with DM. As expected patients with DM, particularly those with IDDM, had worse outcomes. However, the very low rate of very late stent thrombosis in IDDM patients might have significant clinical value in the treatment of these patients.

Clinical trial registration ISRCTN81649913; http://www.controlled-trials.com/isrctn/search.html?srch=81649913&sort=3&dir=desc&max=10

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.

Stent thrombosis and adverse cardiovascular outcomes observed between six months and five years with sirolimus-eluting stents and other drug-eluting stents in patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus complicated by coronary artery disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis

This study aimed to compare 6 months to 5 years stent thrombosis (ST) and adverse cardiovascular outcomes associated with sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) and other drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).Electronic databases were searched for studies comparing SES with other DES in patients with T2DM. Total ST, definite ST, probable ST, and other adverse cardiovascular outcomes reported between 6 months and 5 years were considered as the clinical end points in this study. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for categorical variables and the pooled analyses were performed with RevMan 5.3 software.Twenty-nine studies involving a total number of 25,729 patients with diabetes were included in this meta-analysis. SES were not associated with significantly higher total, definite, and probable STs with OR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.77-1.17, P = 0.62; OR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.65-1.37, P = 0.76; and OR: 1.05, 95% CI: 0.77-1.45, P = 0.74, respectively. SES were also noninferior to the other non-sirolimus eluting drug eluting stents (non-SE DES) in terms of all-cause mortality, cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and stroke with OR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.82-1.03, P = 0.16; OR: 1.09, 95% CI: 0.88-1.35, P = 0.44; OR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.80-1.06, P = 0.26; and OR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.49-1.28, P = 0.43, respectively. Target vessel revascularization, target lesion revascularization, and major adverse cardiac events were also similarly reported between SES and non-SE DES with OR: 1.04, 95% CI: 0.83-1.31, P = 0.72; OR: 1.25, 95% CI: 0.95-1.64, P = 0.11; and OR: 1.06, 95% CI: 0.90-1.25, P = 0.49, respectively.During this particular follow-up period, SES were not associated with any increase in ST among these patients with T2DM. Mortality and other adverse cardiovascular outcomes were also not significantly different between these 2 groups. Hence, SES should be considered neither superior nor inferior to other DES. They are expected to be equally effective and safe to use in patients with T2DM.