Would SYNTAX have been a positive trial if XIENCE V had been used instead of TAXUS?: A meta-analysis of a first-generation vs. a second-generation drug-eluting stent system

Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Versus Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients with Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction

PURPOSE

There is a paucity of comparative data examining the optimal revascularization strategy in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVD).

METHODS

We performed an aggregate data meta-analysis of clinical outcomes comparing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary artery bypass (CABG) in patients with LVD (left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) of ≤ 40%), using the random effects model. Effects size is reported as odds ratio (OR) and a 95% confidence interval. Outcomes included all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, repeat revascularization, and a composite of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) at 30-day, 3-year, and long-term (6.3 ± 0.9 years) follow-ups. Seventeen studies (16 observational, 1 randomized) and 18,599 patients (CABG 9651; PCI 8948) were included.

RESULTS

PCI and CABG had comparable all-cause mortality at 30 days (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.49-1.23) and 3 years (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.91-1.21); however, PCI was associated with increased long-term morality after a mean follow-up of 6.3 ± 0.9 years (31.6% vs. 24.3%, OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.21-1.64). A similar mortality trend was observed in the subgroup of patients with EF ≤ 35%. PCI had a higher rate of repeat revascularization at 3-year and long-term follow-ups. The long-term rates of stroke and MI were comparable. PCI, on the other hand, had lower rates of stroke at 30-day and 3-year follow-ups.

CONCLUSION

CABG was associated with lower rates of long-term mortality and revascularization but higher rate of upfront stroke in patients with LVD. However, the data included consisted predominantly of observational studies, highlighting the paucity and need for randomized trials.

Classical determinants of coronary artery disease as predictors of complexity of coronary lesions, assessed with the SYNTAX score

Background

We need new biomarkers that can predict cardiovascular disease to improve both diagnosis and therapeutic strategies. The CIRCULATING CELLS study was designed to study the role of several cellular mediators of atherosclerosis as biomarkers of coronary artery disease (CAD). An objective and reproducible method for the quantification of CAD extension is required to establish relationships with these potential biomarkers. We sought to analyse the correlation of the SYNTAX score with known CAD risk factors to test it as a valid marker of CAD extension.

Methods and results

A subgroup of 279 patients (67.4% males) were included in our analysis. Main exclusion criteria were a history of previous percutaneous coronary intervention or surgical revascularisation that prevent an accurate assessment of the SS. Diabetes mellitus, smoking, renal insufficiency, body mass index and a history of CAD and myocardial infarction were all positively and strongly associated with a higher SYNTAX score after adjustment for the non-modifiable biological factors (age and sex). In the multivariate model, age and male sex, along with smoking and renal insufficiency, remain statistical significantly associated with the SYNTAX score.

Conclusion

In a selected cohort of revascularisation-naive patients with CAD undergoing coronary angiography, non-modifiable cardiovascular risk factors such as advanced age, male sex, as well as smoking and renal failure were independently associated with CAD complexity assessed by the SYNTAX score. The SYNTAX score may be a valid marker of CAD extension to establish relationships with potential novel biomarkers of coronary atherosclerosis.

Are all stents equal - Need for scoring system to evaluate stents?

Currently drug eluting stents (DES) have reached a high degree of sophistication where there seems very little scope of improvement. Even so every year or so there is some advancement in technology and a new version is released, which is claimed to be a new generation (rather than pipeline innovation). It is really important to define what pipeline extension is and what is new innovation (generation)? This classification would not only be useful from regulatory perspective but also determining the true value of a product allowing for a correct pricing, which should ideally be able to mark-up for a real innovation.

Comparison of cost-effectiveness of oral rapamycin plus bare-metal stents versus first generation of drug-eluting stents (from the Randomized Oral Rapamycin in Argentina [ORAR] 3 trial)

The aim of this study was to compare 5-year cost-effectiveness and clinical outcomes of patients with oral rapamycin (OR) plus bare-metal stent versus the drug-eluting stent (DES) strategy. During 2006 to 2007, a total of 200 patients were randomized to OR (n = 100) and DES (n = 100). Primary end point was to compare costs of initial procedure and cost-effectiveness of both revascularization strategies. Safety was evaluated by the composite of death, myocardial infarction, and cerebrovascular accident. Efficacy was assessed by target vessel and target lesion revascularizations. The 2 groups had similar baseline demographic, clinical, and angiographic characteristics. In the DES group, paclitaxel-, zotarolimus-, and sirolimus-eluting stents were used. Five-year clinical follow-up was accomplished in 99% patients. The DES group had significantly higher procedural (p <0.001), discharge to first-year (p = 0.02), and 1- to 5-year costs (p <0.001) compared with the OR group. At 5 years, the composite end point of death, myocardial infarction, and cerebrovascular accident (12% in the OR group vs 25% in the DES group, p = 0.01) was significantly less in the OR group. Target vessel revascularization (14.5% in the OR group vs 21% in the DES group, p = 0.16) and target lesion revascularization (10% in the OR group vs 17.6% in the DES group, p = 0.05) were not significantly different. In conclusion, a strategy of OR plus bare-metal stent was cost saving than a first-generation DES.

Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Versus Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Unprotected Left Main Disease - A Review

There have been over a dozen studies in the drug-eluting stent era comparing the effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery for the treatment of unprotected left main disease. These studies have been both randomised and observational in nature. While both methodologies provide important insights, careful consideration of their respective strengths and limitations is imperative in generalising their findings.

Clinical and angiographic outcomes of patients treated with everolimus-eluting stents or first-generation Paclitaxel-eluting stents for unprotected left main disease

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this study was to compare the outcomes of patients treated with everolimus-eluting stents (EES) with outcomes of patients treated with first-generation paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) for unprotected left main disease (ULMD).

BACKGROUND

No data exist about the comparison of these 2 types of stents in ULMD.

METHODS

The primary endpoint of the study was a 1-year composite of cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, and stroke (MACE). Secondary endpoints were 1-year target vessel failure (TVF) and 9-month angiographic in-segment restenosis >50%.

RESULTS

From 2004 to 2010, a total of 390 patients underwent ULMD percutaneous coronary intervention (224 received PES and 166 EES). The 1-year MACE rate was 21.9% in the PES group and 10.2% in the EES group (p = 0.002). TVF rate was 20.5% in the PES group and 7.8% in the EES group (p < 0.001). The in-segment restenosis rate was 5.2% in the EES group and 15.6% in the PES group (p = 0.002). EES and EuroSCORE were the only variables related to the risk of MACE. EES (odds ratio: 0.32; p = 0.007) was also independently related to the risk of restenosis.

CONCLUSIONS

EES implantation for ULMD is associated with a reduced incidence of 1-year MACE, TVF, and restenosis as compared with PES implantation.

Changes in the safety paradigm with percutaneous coronary interventions in the modern era: Lessons learned from the ASCERT registry

In the past, comparative effectiveness trials evaluating percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI), using either balloon angioplasty or bare metal stent (BMS) implantation, versus coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) found similar survival rates at long-term follow-up with both revascularization strategies. Two major meta-analyses of these trials reported 5- and 6-year comparative effectiveness between PCI and CABG: one included only four trials that compared PCI with BMS implantation versus CABG whereas the largest one also included trials using balloon angioplasty. In these studies, the authors observed no survival differences between groups although a significant survival advantage was seen in diabetics treated with CABG and this benefit was also perceived in elderly patients. In both reports, number of involved vessels, presence of left anterior descending artery stenosis or poor left ventricular ejection fraction were no predictors of poor survival with PCI. Therefore, extent of the coronary artery disease (CAD) was not associated with poor outcome after PCI in the pre-drug eluting stent (DES) era. Recently, the ASCERT (Database Collaboration on the Comparative Effectiveness of Revascularization Strategies) registry found higher mortality rate with PCI in patients ≥ 65 years old in comparison with CABG, and advantages of surgery were seen in all subgroups including those at low risk. In this registry, PCI was accomplished by implantation of the first type of DES designs in 78% of cases. The intriguing observation of high mortality rate with PCI, including for non-diabetics and patients with two-vessel CAD, meaning a lack of clinical benefit with DES implantation, had not been seen previously. The study was not randomized, although its results are largely strengthened by its sample size. In this manuscript, the authors describe other registries and randomized trials reporting similar results supporting the findings of the aforementioned study and explore the reasons for these results, while also searching for potential solutions.

Revascularization for left main and multivessel coronary artery disease in the drug-eluting stent era: integration of recent drug-eluting stent trials

As older patients comprise a greater proportion of the population, the incidence of multivessel and left main coronary artery disease is increasing. Given the improvements in percutaneous coronary intervention, more patients are suitable for this revascularization strategy. However, the optimal revascularization strategy remains a moving target. Numerous trials, extending from the bypass surgery versus medical therapy era to the most current drug-eluting stent versus bypass surgery era, provide information to select the most appropriate revascularization strategy. The objective of this review is to summarize these data.

Impact of lesion length and vessel size on clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention with everolimus- versus paclitaxel-eluting stents pooled analysis from the SPIRIT (Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System) and COMPARE (Second-generation everolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents in real-life practice) Randomized Trials

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of reference vessel diameter (RVD) and lesion length (LL) on the relative safety and efficacy of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES).

BACKGROUND

Lesion length and RVD are well-known predictors of adverse events after percutaneous coronary intervention.

METHODS

Patient-level data were pooled from the randomized SPIRIT (Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System) II, III, IV and COMPARE (Second-generation everolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents in real-life practice) trials. Quantitative angiographic core laboratory data were available for 6,183 patients randomized to EES (n = 3,944) or PES (n = 2,239). Long lesions and small vessels were defined as LL >median (13.4 mm) and RVD ≤median (2.65 mm), respectively. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (consisting of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization) were assessed at 2 years, according to stent type in 3 groups: short lesions in large vessels (group A, n = 1,297); long lesions or small vessels but not both (group B, n = 2,981); and long lesions in small vessels (group C, n = 1,905).

RESULTS

The pooled 2-year MACE rates were 5.6%, 8.2%, and 10.4% in Groups A, B, and C, respectively (p < 0.0001). There was no significant interaction between lesion group and stent type (p = 0.64), indicating lower MACE with EES compared with PES regardless of LL and RVD. However, the absolute difference was largest in Groups B and C. In Group A, 2-year MACE rates were not significantly different between EES and PES (4.8% vs. 7.0%, respectively, p = 0.11). In contrast, EES was associated with lower 2-year rates of MACE in Group B (6.6% vs. 11.2%, p < 0.01) and in Group C (9.1% vs. 12.7%, p = 0.008) as well as lower rates of myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization, and stent thrombosis. Multivariable analysis confirmed EES versus PES as an independent predictor of freedom from MACE in Groups B and C.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with short lesions in large vessels have low rates of MACE at 2 years after treatment with either EES or PES. In higher-risk patients with long lesions and/or small vessels, EES results in significant improvements in both clinical safety and efficacy outcomes. (A Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Patients With de Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions; NCT00180310; SPIRIT III: A Clinical Evaluation of the Investigational Device XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System [EECSS] in the Treatment of Subjects With de Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions; NCT00180479; SPIRIT IV Clinical Trial: Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Subjects With de Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions; NCT00307047; A Randomized Controlled Trial of Everolimus-eluting Stents and Paclitaxel-eluting Stents for Coronary Revascularization in Daily Practice: The COMPARE Trial; NCT01016041).

Would SYNTAX have been a positive trial if XIENCE V had been used instead of TAXUS?: A meta-analysis of a first-generation vs. a second-generation drug-eluting stent system

Treatment options for coronary revascularisation include percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). In the 'synergy between PCI with TAXUS and cardiac surgery (SYNTAX)' trial, PCI and CABG using state-of-the-art techniques (using paclitaxel-eluting stents and arterial grafts, respectively) were compared in the treatment of complex coronary artery disease. In Syntax, PCI was inferior to CABG at one year, entirely due to an increased repeat intervention rate. We hypothesised that the use of a superior drug-eluting stent system could reduce the need for repeat intervention. (Neth Heart J 2010;18:451-3.).