Medikamente freisetzende Koronarstents und mit Medikamenten beschichtete Ballonkatheter

Drug-eluting stents in clinical routine: a 1-year follow-up analysis based on German health insurance administrative data from 2008 to 2014

OBJECTIVES

To describe the use of drug-eluting stents (DESs) in the largest population of statutory health insurance members in Germany, including newly developed bio-resorbable vascular scaffolds (BVSs), and to evaluate 1-year complication rates of DES as compared with bare metal stents (BMSs) in this cohort.

DESIGN

Routine data analysis of statutory health insurance claims data from the years 2008 to 2014.

SETTING

The German healthcare insurance Allgemeine Ortskrankenkasse covers approximately 30% of the German population and is the largest nationwide provider of statutory healthcare insurance in Germany.

PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS

We included all patients with a claims record for a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with either DES or BMS and additionally, from 2013, BVS. Patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) were excluded.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

major adverse cerebrovascular and cardiovascular event (MACCE, defined as mortality, AMI, stroke and transient ischaemic attack), bypass surgery, PCI and coronary angiography) at 1 year after the intervention.

RESULTS

A total of 243 581 PCI cases were included (DES excluding BVS: 143 765; BVS: 1440; BMS: 98 376). The 1-year MACCE rate was 7.42% in the DES subgroup excluding BVS and 11.29% in the BMS subgroup. The adjusted OR for MACCE was 0.72 (95% CI 0.70 to 0.75) in patients with DES excluding BVS as compared with patients with BMS. In the BVS group, the proportion of 1-year MACCE was 5.0%.

CONCLUSION

The analyses demonstrate a lower MACCE rate for PCI with DES. BVSs are used in clinical routine in selected cases and seem to provide a high degree of safety, but data are still sparse.

[Antithrombocytic therapy and PCI. Duration of therapy after DCB/stents/scaffolds]

The duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) depends on the type of intervention and the clinical situation of the patient. After angioplasty alone (plain old balloon angioplasty, POBA) DAPT is not yet established but does, however, make sense to continue for 4 weeks. The duration of DAPT after placement of bare metal stents (BMS) is 4 weeks, after drug-eluting stents (DES) 6 months, after bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) systems 6-12 months and after drug-coated balloon catheters (DCB) without a new implant 4 weeks.

Use of drug-eluting stents in acute myocardial infarction with persistent ST-segment elevation: results of the ALKK PCI-registry

BACKGROUND

Drug-eluting stents (DES) reduce the rate of in-stent restenosis (ISR) and target vessel revascularization significantly when compared with bare metal stents (BMS). Their beneficial effects have been demonstrated in patients with acute myocardial infarction also, but the use of DES in the latter population seems to be still limited in clinical practice.

METHODS AND RESULTS

From January 2006 to December 2011, 25,424 patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction were enrolled in the German ALKK PCI-registry. In 5,467 patients (21.5 %), a DES was implanted in the culprit segment, in 16,911 patients (66.5 %) a BMS, and 2,959 patients (11.6 %) received neither DES nor BMS. The rates of DES for typical subgroups were 31.7 % in patients with diabetes, 36.6 % in unprotected left main stenosis, 32.4 % in ostial lesions, 32.0 % for a stent length >15 mm, 26.2 % for a stent diameter ≤3 mm, and 58.5 % for ISR. There was a wide range in the use of DES between the different ALKK hospitals with a minimum of 2.3 % and a maximum of 58.3 % for the total study period (median 22.0 %, quartiles 14.6 and 37.5 %).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite convincing data for the use of DES in patients with STEMI, there is still an underuse of DES in this clinical setting in Germany. This is particularly worrying for the subgroups of patients and lesions with a high risk of restenosis. Further efforts are needed to reduce the skepticism about DES and to improve guideline adherent treatment.

Short-term outcome of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) treated with an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate safety and efficacy of the everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold (BVS) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).

BACKGROUND

According to the current guidelines, drug-eluting stents are the treatment of choice in patients with STEMI. BVS represents a new technology capable to restore the native vessel vasomotion and potentially avoiding long-term limitations such as stent thrombosis.

METHODS

From October 2012 to May 2013, patients with evidence of STEMI eligible for BVS implantation were included in this study. Exclusion criteria were not defined.

RESULTS

A total of 25 patients, respectively 31 lesions, were treated. Procedural success was achieved in 97%. Two major adverse cardiac events occurred during hospitalization and follow-up: one patient with cardiogenic shock at the index procedure subsequently died. One patient suffered from instable angina with need for interventional revascularization of a previously untreated vessel. One target vessel failure as a consequence of an intra-procedural dissection was seen. However, no target lesion failure was noted. During 132.7 ± 68.7 days of follow-up none of the patients died.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that implantation of BVS in STEMI patients is feasible in this small cohort of highly selected patients. Further evaluation in randomized-controlled trials is needed.

[Characteristics of therapy of acute myocardial infarction in diabetes]

Therapy of acute myocardial infarction (STEMI and NSTEMI) in diabetics does not principally differ from that of non-diabetic patients. Due to the higher mortality in diabetics reperfusion measures, such as direct percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), should be rapidly performed. An intensive drug treatment with thrombocyte aggregation inhibitors, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and beta-receptor blocking agents must be carried out according to the current guidelines. An important factor is the high risk of renal failure due to the contrast dye administered during PCI in the presence of pre-existing diabetic kidney damage which should be limited to 100 ml if possible. Direct PCI should be limited to the infarcted vessel. After stabilization a comprehensive strategy to cure coronary artery disease, whether with PCI or coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) should be finalized. If severe coronary 3-vessel disease is present, CABG should be favored in diabetic patients. After surviving an acute myocardial infarction differentiated metabolic monitoring is mandatory.

Cost-effectiveness of paclitaxel-coated balloon angioplasty and paclitaxel-eluting stent implantation for treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis in patients with stable coronary artery disease

BACKGROUND

Recent studies have demonstrated the safety and efficacy of drug-coated balloon (DCB) angioplasty for the treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis (ISR). The cost-effectiveness of this practice is unknown.

METHODS

A Markov state-transition decision analytic model accounting for varying procedural efficacy rates, complication rates, and cost estimates was developed to compare DCB angioplasty with drug-eluting stent (DES) placement in patients with bare-metal stent (BMS)-ISR. Data on procedural outcomes associated with both treatment strategies were derived from the literature, and the cost analysis was conducted from a health care payer perspective. Effectiveness was expressed as life-years gained.

RESULTS

In the base-case analysis, initial procedure costs amounted to €3,604.14 for DCB angioplasty and to €3,309.66 for DES implantation. Over a 12-month time horizon, the DCB strategy was found to be less costly (€4,130.38 vs. €5,305.30) and slightly more effective in terms of life expectancy (0.983 vs. 0.976 years) than the DES strategy. Extensive sensitivity analyses indicated that, in comparison with DES implantation, the cost advantage of the DCB strategy was robust to clinically plausible variations in the values of key model input parameters. The variables with the greatest impact on base-case results were the duration of dual antiplatelet therapy with acetylsalicylic acid and clopidogrel after DCB angioplasty, the use of generic clopidogrel, and variations in the costs associated with the DCB device.

CONCLUSION

DCB angioplasty is a cost-effective treatment option for coronary BMS-ISR. The higher initial costs of DCB are more than offset by later cost-savings, predominantly as a result of reduced medication costs.