Comparison between on-label versus off-label use of drug-eluting coronary stents in clinical practice: results from the German DES.DE-Registry

Comparison between treatment of "established" versus complex "off-label" coronary lesions with Absorb® bioresorbable scaffold implantation: results from the GABI-R® registry

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of patients treated with bioresorbable scaffold (BRS) for off-label versus approved indications.

BACKGROUND

The BRS promised some advantages in terms of complete biodegradation within 2-4 years, restored vascular physiology, and absence of potential stent-related long-term complications. However, the implication of BRS for off-label indications and further long-term follow-up of this particular patient group is not well described.

METHODS

The short- and long-term outcome after implantation of an everolimus-eluting, poly-L-lactic acid-based bioresorbable scaffold system (ABSORB, Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA, USA) was evaluated in the prospective, non-interventional, multicenter real-world German-Austrian ABSORB RegIstRy (GABI-R).

RESULTS

A total of 3188 patients were enrolled. Patients were divided into two groups: on-label BRS use (33.0%) and off-label use (66.9%) if at least one off-label use criteria was met. The incidence of scaffold thrombosis in confirmed cases was significantly higher in off-label group (1.3% versus 0.5%, p = 0.04; OR 2.41 (95% CI 1.00-5.82) with also a trend toward higher myocardial infarction rate (2.3% versus 1.4%, p = 0.077; OR 1.70 (95% CI 0.95-3.03) and cardiovascular death (1.2% versus 1.1%, p = 0.76, OR 1.11 (95% CI 0.56-2.21) at 6-month follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

In a real-world setting, the majority patients were treated with BRS for off-label indications. The off-label use of BRS compared to confirmed indications appears to be associated with a higher rate of clinical endpoints considering more complex lesions and higher morbidity in this patients' group. Comparison between treatment of "established" versus complex "off-label" coronary lesions with Absorb^® bioresorbable scaffold implantation: results from the GABI-R^® registry.

Twelve-month results of a prospective, multicentre trial to assess the everolimus-eluting coronary stent system (PROMUS Element): the PLATINUM PLUS all-comers randomised trial

AIMS

The aim of the study was to compare the safety and efficacy of the platinum-chromium-based everolimus-eluting stent (EES) with a cobalt-chromium EES.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We performed a prospective, multicentre, single-blind non-inferiority all-comers study randomising patients with stable or unstable coronary artery disease (2:1) to treatment with the platinum-chromium EES (n=1,952) or the control cobalt-chromium EES (n=1,028) in Europe (PLATINUM PLUS trial). The primary endpoint was target vessel failure (TVF) at 12 months, a composite of target vessel-related cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), and ischaemia-driven target vessel revascularisation (TVR). Among 2,980 patients, 33% presented with acute coronary syndromes, and 48% with multivessel disease. At 12 months, the intention-to-treat analysis determined that the platinum-chromium EES was non-inferior to the cobalt-chromium EES for the primary endpoint (86 [4.6%] patients vs. 32 [3.2%], absolute difference 1.4%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.1-2.9; upper limit of the one-sided 95% CI: 2.57%; non-inferiority p=0.012; superiority analysis: hazard ratio [HR] 1.44, 95% CI: 0.96-2.16, p=0.08). In the per protocol analysis, however, the primary endpoint was significantly more common in the platinum-chromium EES (HR 1.64, 95% CI: 1.05-2.55, p=0.03). There were no significant differences in the rates of cardiac death (1.1% vs. 1.0%, p=0.78), MI (1.6% vs. 0.8%, p=0.09), or ischaemia-driven TLR (2.0% vs. 1.6%, p=0.49). The rates of ARC definite or probable stent thrombosis were comparable between platforms (0.8% vs. 0.5%, p=0.44).

CONCLUSIONS

At one year, the platinum-chromium EES satisfied the pre-specified criteria for non-inferiority relative to the control cobalt-chromium EES in this all-comers trial.

Five-year clinical outcomes of drug-eluting stents according to on-label and off-label use

BACKGROUND/AIMS

To compare the clinical outcomes of 'on-label' and 'off-label' drug-eluting stents (DESs) over a 5-year follow-up period.

METHODS

A total of 929 patients that underwent percutaneous coronary intervention with DESs were enrolled. Patients were divided into two groups according to on-label (n = 449) and off-label (n = 480) indications. Off-label use was defined as implantation of DESs for acute myocardial infarction (MI), very small vessel, a long stenotic lesion, chronic total occlusion, a bifurcation lesion, an ostial lesion, left main coronary artery disease, multivessel disease, a saphenous vein graft lesion, and a lesion with thrombus. Endpoints were composite of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), which included all-cause death, ischemic-driven target vessel revascularization (Id-TVR), MI, and stent thrombosis (ST). Clinical outcomes in the two groups were compared for up to 5 years postimplantation.

RESULTS

At 1 year postimplantation, the off-label group had higher incidences of total MACEs (8.2% vs. 3.7%, p = 0.005), Id-TVR (5.0% vs. 1.6%, p = 0.004), and ST (1.7% vs. 0.3%, p = 0.042), and at 5 years postimplantation, the off-label group continued to have higher incidences of total MACEs (17.5% vs. 9.4%, p < 0.001), Id-TVR (13.1% vs. 5.8%, p = 0.024), and ST (2.1% vs. 0.3%, p = 0.021). Multivessel disease and diabetes were found to be independent risk factors of MACE in patients with an off-label indication.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients treated with an on-label DES had better long-term clinical outcomes than those treated with an off-label DES.

Safety and efficacy of everolimus-eluting stents compared with first-generation drug-eluting stents in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention

OBJECTIVE

To assess the safety and efficacy everolimus-eluting stents (EES) compared with first-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

BACKGROUND

EES have been associated with improved clinical outcomes compared to paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) and with similar outcomes compared to sirolimus-eluting stents (SES).

METHODS

A total of 520 patients who presented with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) from 2003 to 2013, who underwent primary PCI with DES, were retrospectively analyzed. Of these, 247 received SES, 136 PES, and 137 EES. Patients were followed up to 2 years for major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Univariate and multivariate models detected correlates to outcome.

RESULTS

EES implantation, compared with PES and SES, resulted in comparable rates of MACE (8.8% vs. 16.2%, p=0.06 and 8.8% vs. 12.6%, respectively, p=0.26), stent thrombosis, MI, and target lesion revascularization. Patients who received EES had lower rates of all-cause mortality (3.7% vs. 12.6% vs. 9.4%, p=0.03) at 1-year follow up. However, in the univariate and multivariate analyses, stent type was not independently associated with the primary outcome or with all-cause mortality. Diabetes mellitus and number of stents implanted were independently associated with the primary outcome.

CONCLUSION

While EES seem to be associated with better outcome when compared to PES, the main correlates of STEMI patients are the presence of diabetes and number of stents implanted, and not the type of stent used for intervention.

Current application and bioavailability of drug-eluting stents

INTRODUCTION

Drug-eluting stents (DES) were developed to reduce the restenosis rate of bare metal stents (BMS) and comprises three main components: i) a metallic scaffold; ii) an antiproliferative drug to reduce or abolish the formation of the neointima; and iii) the polymer, which both enables and controls drug elution into the vessel wall. Over the years, growing evidence has been reported on the safety and efficacy for different indications of DES.

AREAS COVERED

Since the introduction of first-generation DES, the technology has been refined, including changes in the alloy, stent design, polymer, drug and drug dose. In 2014, we will usher in a third generation of DES, which will include biodegradable polymers, polymer-free DES and bioabsorbable scaffolds.

EXPERT OPINION

In recent years, considerable progress has been made in DES development. The BMS platform set the groundwork for the development of metal scaffolds with drug-eluting capability to prevent restenosis. Importantly, extensive research has shown long-term safety and efficacy of the newer generation DES. Available data suggest that DES can be safely and effectively used to treat a complex subset of patients and lesions, including patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction, lesions in saphenous vein grafts, chronic total occlusions, multivessel disease, small vessels, long lesions and bifurcations. One of the safety targets is to eliminate stent thrombosis.

Prognosis of patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention receiving drug eluting stents

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is increasingly prevalent in elderly patients and adversely affects clinical outcomes after coronary artery bypass grafting, non-cardiac surgery or myocardial infarction. Aim of the present analysis was to investigate the prognostic impact of AF in patients undergoing drug eluting stent (DES) implantation during a 1-year follow-up.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

5,772 consecutive patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention were enrolled into the German Drug Eluting Stent Registry (DES.DE) and were followed for 12 months. Of these 455 had AF and 5,317 in sinus rhythm served as controls. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to determine the risk of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) and bleeding complications.

RESULTS

Patients with AF were older (71.3 ± 7.6 vs. 64.7 ± 10.5 years) and had a higher prevalence of diabetes, hypertension, renal insufficiency as well as more prior bypass surgery, stroke and peripheral arterial disease. Cardiogenic shock (2.9 vs. 1.4 %; p < 0.05), left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40 % (21.0 vs. 11.4 %; p < 0.0001) and triple vessel disease (44.4 vs. 37.9 %; p < 0.01) were more frequent in patients with AF than in controls. MACCE (OR 2.08, 95 % CI 1.56-2.77), total mortality (OR 3.27, 95 % CI 2.32-4.62) and non-fatal stroke (OR 2.03, 95 % CI 1.03-4.00) as well as bleeding complications (OR 1.88, 95 % CI 1.13-3.12) during the 1-year follow-up were more frequent in patients with AF (univariate analysis). In multivariate analyses adjusting for covariates determined to be relevant at baseline, the risk for total mortality remained elevated (OR 1.63, 95 % CI 1.05-2.52).

CONCLUSIONS

AF is an important predictor of long-term mortality in patients undergoing DES implantation.