Comparison of everolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents in dialysis patients

Drug-coated balloons versus drug-eluting stents for coronary de novo lesions in dialysis patients

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of drug-coated balloon (DCB) angioplasty with drug-eluting stent (DES) angioplasty in the treatment of de novo coronary artery lesions in dialysis patients.

METHOD

We retrospectively enrolled 400 consecutive dialysis patients with 464 coronary de novo lesions treated by DCB or DES from five participating institutions in Japan. The primary endpoint was target lesion revascularization (TLR) at 12 months. We performed serial coronary angiographic analysis.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in the rate of TLR between the groups in either crude or propensity score-matched analysis (DES 14.1% vs. DCB 14.7%, P = 0.864, DES 12.1% vs. 12.1%, P = 1.00). Target lesion thrombosis was not observed in the DCB group; however, stent thrombosis was observed in 7 patients (2.2%) in the DES group. The rate of binary restenosis was similar in both groups (DES, 20.9% vs. DCB, 22.8%; P = 0.749). The late lumen loss at follow-up was significantly greater in the DES group than in the DCB group (0.61 ± 0.76 mm vs 0.22 ± 0.48 mm; P < 0.001). Late lumen enlargement was observed in 38.6% of patients in the DCB group.

CONCLUSION

The efficacy of DCB angioplasty for de novo coronary artery lesions in dialysis patients was similar to that of DES angioplasty in the real world. Drug-coated balloon angioplasty can be an acceptable treatment for de novo coronary artery lesions in dialysis patients.

Comparison between biodegradable- and durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stents in hemodialysis patients with coronary artery disease

To investigate the clinical outcomes after biodegradable-polymer (BP) and durable-polymer (DP) everolimus-eluting stent (EES) implantation in hemodialysis (HD) patients with coronary artery disease. We enrolled 221 consecutive HD patients successfully treated with EES implantation for coronary lesions. Over the following 2 years, we assessed the incidence of target lesion revascularization (TLR) and major adverse cardiac event (MACE), defined as the composite endpoint of TLR, all-cause mortality, or myocardial infarction. We performed a propensity-score matching analysis and collected follow-up coronary angiography data. There were 91 patients in the BP-EES group and 130 in the DP-EES group. Male sex and diabetes rates were significantly lower in the BP-EES group than in the DP-EES group. A debulking device was less frequently used in the BP-EES group than in the DP-EES group (7.6% vs. 21.5%, p = 0.006). TLR occurred in 38 patients, while stent thrombosis was observed in 3 patients; 19 patients died. TLR and MACE rates at 2 years were comparable between the two groups (19.2% in the BP-EES group vs. 20.4% in the DP-EES group, p = 0.73 and 26.9% vs. 34.2%, p = 0.93, respectively). In the propensity-score-matched cohort, TLR and MACE rates were similar between the two groups (19.2% in the BP-EES group vs. 18.1% in the DP-EES group, p = 0.69, and 26.9% vs. 30.2%, p = 0.66, respectively). Restenosis rates at follow-up angiography were similar between the two groups (p = 0.79). In hemodialysis patients, BP-EES and DP-EES showed similar 2-year clinical outcomes.

Long-Term Clinical Outcome of Drug-Eluting vs. Bare-Metal Stent Implantation After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in End-Stage Renal Disease Patients on Hemodialysis - Nationwide Cohort Study in Taiwan

BACKGROUND

Data on clinical outcome after drug-eluting stent (DES) vs. bare-metal stent (BMS) implantation in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) under hemodialysis are limited and controversial.Methods and Results:We identified 4,970 patients under chronic hemodialysis from Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD) who had their first coronary stenting between 1 January 2007 and 31 December 2012. After 1:1 propensity score matching, we evaluated clinical outcomes for 1,151 patients in the DES group and 1,151 patients in the matched BMS group. We used ICD-9 CM codes or operation code to identify all outcomes in the study cohort after the index procedure. Primary outcomes including composite endpoints of mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), non-fatal stroke, and revascularization after the index procedure were similar in both groups (HR, 0.94; 95% CI: 0.81-1.09; P=0.399). The results were consistent in various generations of DES vs. BMS groups. Secondary outcomes including mortality, non-fatal MI, non-fatal stroke, revascularization, cardiovascular death, hospitalization for heart failure, peptic ulcer bleeding or blood transfusion were similar in both groups, except for a lower risk of peptic ulcer disease in the DES group (HR, 0.59; 95% CI: 0.41-0.83; P=0.003) than the BMS group.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients on chronic hemodialysis, implantation of DES did not have a better clinical outcome than BMS.

Everolimus Eluting Stents in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus and Chronic Kidney Disease: Insights from the TUXEDO Trial

BACKGROUND

Patients with diabetes and those with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are at increased risk of cardiovascular events. Everolimus eluting stents (EES) have been shown to be superior to paclitaxel eluting stents (PES) in patients with diabetes. However, it is not known if EES is as beneficial in diabetic patients with CKD compared with those without CKD.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients enrolled in the TUXEDO-India trial, which is a clinical trial of patients with diabetes and coronary artery disease (CAD) randomly assigned to EES vs. thin-strut PES (Taxus Element), with data on baseline renal function were selected. CKD was defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <60 ml/min/1.73 m² using the Cockcroft-Gault formula. Primary outcome was target vessel failure (TVF-defined as cardiac death, TV myocardial infarction (MI) or ischemia driven TV revascularization) at 1 year. Various secondary outcomes including stent thrombosis were evaluated. Among the 1821 patients with diabetes included in this analysis, 344 (19%) had CKD. In a propensity score adjusted analysis, patients with CKD had a significant increase in MACE (HR = 2.02; 95% CI 1.17-3.50; P = 0.01); death/MI/TVR (HR = 1.99; 95% CI 1.18-3.34; P = 0.009); death/MI (HR = 2.31; 95% CI 1.30-4.08; P = 0.004); cardiac death/MI (HR = 2.40; 95% CI 1.31-4.42; P = 0.005); death (HR = 2.88; 95% CI 1.35-6.13; P = 0.006) driven by an increase in cardiac death (HR = 3.33; 95% CI 1.42-7.83; P = 0.006) when compared with those without CKD. However, stent related events (TV-MI, TVR, TLR and stent thrombosis) were not different between CKD and non CKD groups. A significant interaction between CKD status and stent type (EES vs. PES) was noted for the outcomes of TVF (P_interaction = 0.046), MACE (P_interaction = 0.02), cardiac death or MI (P_interaction = 0.05), non-target vessel related MI (P_interaction = 0.04), non-Q-wave MI (P_interaction = 0.03) and deaths/MI/TVR (P_interaction = 0.04) such that EES was superior to PES in the non-CKD cohort but not in the CKD cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

In subjects with diabetes, CKD is an independent predictor of adverse cardiovascular outcomes including increased risk of death driven largely by non-stent related events. While EES was superior to PES in patients without CKD, this was not the case in those with CKD (Clinical Trials Registry-India number, CTRI/2011/06/001830).

Comparison of Limus-Eluting and Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents for Coronary Intervention in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients have worse adverse cardiovascular outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Clinical outcomes comparing a limus-eluting stent (LES) to a paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) in patients with CKD remain controversial.A systematic search was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library. A pooled odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were used to calculate original data. We conducted heterogeneity, quality assessment, and publication bias analyses.A total of 17 trials involving 10,724 patients were included. No significant differences were found regarding target vessel revascularization, target lesion revascularization (TLR), stent thrombosis (ST), myocardial infarction (MI), all-cause mortality, and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) between first-generation LES implantation and PES implantation. Second-generation LES implantation was associated with lower rates of all-cause mortality (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.39-0.82; P = 0.003), MACE (OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.38-0.97; P = 0.04), and ST (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.26-0.77; P = 0.004) compared with PES implantation. In all, the long-term all-cause mortality rate was significantly lower after LES implantation than after PES implantation in patients with CKD (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.66-0.93; P = 0.004). However, second-generation LES implantation resulted in a higher rate of TLR (OR, 2.23; 95% CI, 1.53-3.25; P < 0.001) than PES implantation in dialysis patients.In patients with CKD, first-generation LES and PES implantation had comparable mortality and morbidity. Second-generation LES implantation was superior to PES in reducing long-term mortality, MACE, and ST. However, PES may be more effective than LES in dialysis patients.

First-generation versus second-generation drug-eluting stents in patients with chronic kidney disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients are associated with very high rate of adverse cardiovascular outcomes after drug-eluting stents (DES) implantation. The clinical outcomes of second-generation DES versus first-generation DES in CKD patients remain controversial.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the current study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the safety and efficacy of second-generation DES versus first-generation DES in CKD patients.

METHODS

A systematical search of databases of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library was conducted for eligible studies comparing the clinical outcomes of first-generation DES versus second-generation DES. Sirolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents were classified as first-generation DES, and everolimus-eluting, zotarolimus-eluting, and biolimus-eluting stent (BES) were classified as second-generation DES. A pooled odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were used to summary the estimates. Heterogeneity, subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis and publication bias were also performed.

RESULTS

We identified 14 trials involving 9,542 patients with CKD undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. First-generation DES implantation was associated with higher risk of long-term all-cause mortality (OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.02-1.69; P = 0.04; I² = 0%), in stent restenosis (OR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.14-2.49; P = 0.008; I² = 49%) and stent thrombosis (OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.00-2.69; P = 0.05; I² = 49%) compared with second-generation DES implantation. First-generation DES and second-generation DES showed similar efficacy in decreasing risk of repeat revascularization, myocardial infarction (MI), or major adverse cardiac events (MACE) between first-generation and second-generation DES implantation.

CONCLUSIONS

In CKD patients, the use of second-generation DES was associated with lower risk of long-term all-cause mortality, in stent restenosis and stent thrombosis as compared with first-generation DES. No differences were found regarding repeat revascularization, MI, and MACE.

Five-year clinical outcomes of everolimus-eluting stents from the post marketing study of CoCr-EES (XIENCE V/PROMUS) in Japan

The Cobalt Chromium Everolimus-Eluting Stent (CoCr-EES) Post Marketing Surveillance (PMS) Japan study is a prospective multicenter registry designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of XIENCE V/PROMUS everolimus-eluting stents in routine clinical practice at 47 centers representative of the clinical environment in Japan. We enrolled 2010 consecutive patients (2649 lesions) who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention using CoCr-EES. Clinical outcomes were evaluated through 5 years. Mean age was 68.8 years, 41.9% had diabetes, 4.9% received hemodialysis. Five-year clinical follow up was available for 1704 (84.8%) patients. Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) occurred in 10.7% of patients, including cardiac death (3.8%), myocardial infarction (1.8%), and clinically driven target lesion revascularization (TLR) (6.0%). Beyond 1 year, annual incidence of clinically driven TLR was 0.5-0.8%. Definite or probable stent thrombosis occurred in 9 (0.5%) patients at 5 years. After 1 year, definite stent thrombosis occurred in only 1 patient. Significant predictors for MACE were dialysis (ODDs ratio 4.58, 95% CI 2.75-7.64), prior cardiac intervention (ODDs ratio 2.47, 95% CI 1.75-3.49), total stent length (ODDs ratio 1.01, 95% CI 1.01-1.02), and number of diseased vessels (ODDs ratio 1.66, 95% CI 1.08-2.55). Five-year clinical outcomes from the CoCr-EES PMS Japan study demonstrated a low incidence of clinical events in the daily practice up to 5 years.Clinical Trial Registration Information: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01086228 .

Cardiovascular Disease in Patients with End-Stage Renal Disease on Hemodialysis

Cardiovascular disease is a major concern for patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD), especially those on hemodialysis. ESRD patients with coronary artery disease often do not have symptoms or present with atypical symptoms. Coronary lesions in ESRD patients are characterized by increased media thickness, infiltration and activation of macrophages, and marked calcification. Several studies showed worsened clinical outcomes after coronary revascularization, which were dependent on the severity of renal dysfunction. ESRD patients on hemodialysis have the most severe renal dysfunction; thus, the clinical outcomes are worse in these patients than in those with other types of renal dysfunction. Medications for primary or secondary cardiovascular prevention are also insufficient in ESRD patients. Efficacy of drug-eluting stents is inferior in ESRD patients, compared to the excellent outcomes observed in patients with normal renal function. Unsatisfactory outcomes with trials targeting cardiovascular disease in patients with ESRD emphasize a large potential to improve outcomes. Thus, optimal strategies for diagnosis, prevention, and management of cardiovascular disease should be modified in ESRD patients.

Are Everolimus-Eluting Stents Associated With Better Clinical Outcomes Compared to Other Drug-Eluting Stents in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus?: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Controversies still exist with the use of Everolimus-Eluting Stents (EES) compared to other Drug-Eluting Stents (DES) in patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM). Therefore, in order to solve this issue, we aim to compare the 1-year adverse clinical outcomes between EES and non-EE DES with a larger number of patients with T2DM.Medline, EMBASE, PubMed databases, as well as the Cochrane library were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (OS) comparing EES and non-EE DES in patients with T2DM. One-year adverse outcomes were considered as the clinical endpoints in this study. Odd ratios (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were used to express the pooled effect on discontinuous variables and the pooled analyses were performed with RevMan 5.3.Ten studies consisting of a total of 11,981 patients with T2DM (6800 patients in the EES group and 5181 in the non-EE DES group) were included in this meta-analysis. EES were associated with a significantly lower major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) with OR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.70-0.98, P = 0.03. Revascularization including target vessel revascularization (TVR) and target lesion revascularization (TLR) were also significantly lower in the EES group with OR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.40-0.94, P = 0.03 and OR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.57-0.95, P = 0.02, respectively. Also, a significantly lower rate of stent thrombosis with OR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.46-0.86, P = 0.003 was observed in the EES group. However, a similar mortality rate was reported between the EES and non-EE DES groups.During this 1-year follow-up period, EES were associated with significantly better clinical outcomes compared to non-EE DES in patients suffering from T2DM. However, further research comparing EES with non-EE DES in insulin-treated and noninsulin-treated patients with T2DM are recommended.