Two-year clinical outcomes after large coronary stent (4.0 mm) placement: comparison of bare-metal stent versus drug-eluting stent

Optimising Percutaneous Coronary Interventions: The Impact of Stent Type and Diameter on Long-Term Clinical Outcomes in Large Coronary Arteries

Background and Objectives: Our study aimed to reveal the effect of using 4 mm bare-metal stents (BMS), 4 mm drug-eluting stents (DES), or 3 mm DES with 4 mm diameter balloon post-dilation strategies on long-term clinical outcomes and endpoints for large-diameter coronary artery percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Materials and Methods: In our study, patients who had undergone PCI were retrospectively screened between January 2014 and July 2020. The study included 350 patients and was divided into three groups; Group I (n = 134) included patients with direct 4.0 mm BMS implantation, Group II (n = 109) included patients with direct 4.0 DES implantation, and Group III (n = 107) included patients with 4mm NC post-dilatation after 3 mm DES implantation. Primary endpoints were determined as target lesion revascularisation, cardiac mortality, and myocardial infarction associated with the target vessel. Our secondary endpoint was all-cause mortality. Results: No differences were observed between the groups in terms of the baseline variables. Stent length was the highest in Group II and the shortest in Group III. There were no significant differences between the groups regarding major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Conclusions: Our study suggests that in percutaneous coronary interventions for non-complex lesions, there is no significant difference in MACE outcomes when directly implanting a 4 mm diameter DES, a 4 mm diameter BMS, or a 3 mm diameter DES, followed by post-dilation with an appropriately sized NC balloon when the target vessel diameter is in the range of 4 to 4.4 mm.

Nine-year clinical outcomes of drug-eluting stents vs. bare metal stents for large coronary vessel lesions

Objectives

To evaluate the very long-term safety and effectiveness of drug-eluting stents (DES) compared to bare-metal stents (BMS) for patients with large coronary vessels.

Methods

From April 2004 to October 2006, 2407 consecutive patients undergoing de novo lesion percutaneous coronary intervention with reference vessel diameter greater than or equal to 3.5 mm at Fu Wai Hospital in Beijing, China, were prospectively enrolled into this study. We obtained 9-year clinical outcomes including death, myocardial infarction (MI), thrombosis, target lesion revascularization (TLR), target vessel revascularization (TVR), and major adverse cardiac events (MACE, the composite of death, MI, and TVR). We performed Cox's proportional-hazards models to assess relative risks of all the outcome measures after propensity match.

Results

After propensity scoring, 514 DES-treated patients were matched to 514 BMS-treated patients. The patients treated with BMS were associated with higher risk of TLR (HR: 2.55, 95%CI: 1.520–4.277, P = 0.0004) and TVR (HR: 1.889, 95%CI: 1.185–3.011, P = 0.0075), but the rates of death/MI and MACE were not statistically different. All Academic Research Consortium definition stent thrombosis at 9-year were comparable in the two groups.

Conclusions

During long-term follow-up through nine years, use of DES in patients with large coronary arteries was still associated with significant reductions in the risks of TLR and TVR.

Long-term outcomes of intravascular ultrasound-guided implantation of bare metal stents versus drug-eluting stents in primary percutaneous coronary intervention

BACKGROUND/AIMS

While drug-eluting stents (DESs) have shown favorable outcomes in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) compared to bare metal stents (BMSs), there are concerns about the risk of stent thrombosis (ST) with DESs. Because intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guidance may help optimize stent placement and improve outcomes in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) patients, we evaluated the impact of IVUS-guided BMS versus DES implantation on long-term outcomes in primary PCI.

METHODS

In all, 239 STEMI patients received DES (n = 172) or BMS (n = 67) under IVUS guidance in primary PCI. The 3-year incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) including death, myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularization (TVR), and ST was evaluated.

RESULTS

There was no difference in all cause mortality or MI. However, the incidence of TVR was 23.9% with BMS versus 9.3% with DES (p = 0.005). Thus, the number of MACEs was significantly lower with DES (11.0% vs. 29.9%; p = 0.001). The incidence of definite or probable ST was not different (1.5% vs. 2.3%; p = 1.0). IVUS-guided DES implantation (hazard ratio [HR], 0.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.08 to 0.78; p = 0.017), stent length (HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.06; p = 0.046), and multivessel disease (HR, 3.01; 95% CI, 1.11 to 8.15; p = 0.030) were independent predictors of MACE.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients treated with primary PCI under IVUS guidance, the use of DES reduced the incidence of 3-year TVR versus BMS. However, all cause mortality and MI were similar between the groups. The incidence of ST was low in both groups.

Bare-metal stent versus drug-eluting stent in large coronary arteries: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Uncertainties exist with regard to the efficacy of drug-eluting stent (DES) versus bare-metal stent (BMS) in large coronary arteries.

OBJECTIVE AND METHODS

The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy of BMS versus DES in terms of clinical events in large coronary vessels (≥3.0 mm) by performing a meta-analysis of all relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

RESULTS

Six RCTs with 4,399 patients were included in this study. Overall, there were no significant between-group differences in the risks of the composite of cardiac death and nonfatal myocardial infarction (cardiac death/MI), cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and stent thrombosis, however, DES was associated with significant reduction in the risk of target vessel revascularization (TVR) compared with BMS [0.48 (0.33, 0.70)] with consistent benefits among patients with reference vessel diameter ≥ 3.5 mm, reference vessel diameter ≥ 4.0 mm, stent length ≤ 15 mm, first-generation DES or second-generation DES. In patients with ≥ 3-year follow-up, there were no significant between-group differences in the risk of cardiac death/MI, TVR, cardiac death, myocardial infarction or stent thrombosis.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis suggests that DES is superior to BMS in terms of adverse cardiac events in large coronary arteries at the mid-term follow-up. The long-term efficacy of newer-generation DES versus BMS in larger coronary arteries is still worth further evaluation.