“Off-Label” Stent Therapy

Bleeding risk associated with eptifibatide (Integrilin) bridging in thoracic surgery patients

Antiplatelet use for treatment of coronary artery disease (CAD) is common amongst thoracic surgery patients. Perioperative management of antiplatelet agents requires balancing the opposing risks of myocardial ischemia and excessive bleeding. Perioperative bridging with short-acting intravenous antiplatelet agents has shown promise in preventing myocardial ischemia, but may increase bleeding. We sought to determine whether perioperative bridging with eptifibatide increased bleeding associated with thoracic surgery. After Institutional Review Board approval, we identified thoracic surgery patients receiving eptifibatide at our institution (n = 30). These patients were matched 1:2 with control patients with CAD who did not receive eptifibatide from an institutional database of general thoracic surgery patients. The primary endpoint for our study was the number of units of blood transfused perioperatively. There were no differences in our primary endpoint, number of units of blood products transfused. There were also no differences noted between groups in intraoperative blood loss, chest tube duration, or postoperative length of stay (LOS). While there were no difference noted in overall complications, including our outcome of perioperative MI or death, composite cardiovascular events were more common in the eptifibatide group. In our retrospective exploratory analysis, eptifibatide bridging in patients with high-risk or recent PCI was not associated with an increased need for perioperative transfusion, bleeding, or increased LOS. In addition, we found a similar rate of perioperative mortality or myocardial infarction in both groups, though the ability of eptifibatide to protect against perioperative myocardial ischemia is unclear given different baseline CAD characteristics.

Clinical results with the Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stent in total coronary occlusions

AIMS

We conducted a pooled post hoc analysis (RESOLUTE All Comers and RESOLUTE International) of patients who had the Resolute® zotarolimus-eluting stent (R-ZES) implanted in revascularised total occlusions (TO) compared with patients treated with R-ZES for non-occluded lesions.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients were divided into three groups: chronic TO (CTO; n=256), non-chronic TO (n=292), and no occlusion (n=2,941). Clinical and safety outcomes assessed through two years included target lesion failure (TLF: cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically driven target lesion revascularisation) and Academic Research Consortium definite or probable stent thrombosis. The rate of TLF at two years was not significantly different among patients in the CTO (9.1%), TO (9.8%), and no occlusion (10.4%) groups (log-rank p=0.800); neither were the components of TLF. Definite or probable stent thrombosis occurred more frequently in the TO group (2.8% vs. 1.2% in the CTO and 1.1% in the group with no occlusion, p=0.027). There were 10 late and six very late stent thrombosis events.

CONCLUSIONS

Apart from a higher rate of stent thrombosis in patients with TO, patients with totally occluded coronary arteries who receive revascularisation with an R-ZES have clinical outcomes comparable to those who receive a similar stent in non-occluded lesions.

Comparison of outcomes using the sirolimus-eluting stent in calcified versus non-calcified native coronary lesions in patients on- versus not on-chronic hemodialysis (from the j-Cypher registry)

The impact of lesion calcium on long-term outcomes after drug-eluting stent implantation has not been adequately addressed. In 10,595 patients (16,803 lesions) who were exclusively treated with sirolimus-eluting stents in the j-Cypher registry, 5-year outcomes were compared between patients with ≥1 lesion with moderate or severe calcification (the calcium group) and those with noncalcified lesions only (the noncalcium group). Analyses were stratified by hemodialysis (HD) status (non-HD stratum [calcium n = 3,191, noncalcium n = 6,824] and HD stratum [calcium n = 415, noncalcium n = 165]). Adjusted risk in the calcium group for death and target lesion revascularization was significant in the non-HD stratum (hazard ratio [HR] 1.34, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.18 to 1.52, p <0.0001, and HR 1.2, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.36, p = 0.003) and the HD stratum (HR 1.4, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.86, p = 0.02, and HR 2.25, 95% CI 1.51 to 3.36, p <0.0001). Risk for definite stent thrombosis tended to be higher in the calcium group in the HD stratum (HR 5.05, 95% CI 0.66 to 38.9, p = 0.12) but not in then non-HD stratum (HR 1.16, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.67, p = 0.41). The use of rotational atherectomy in patients with severe calcification did not have a significant impact on the cumulative incidence of target lesion revascularization in the non-HD stratum (17.7% [n = 268] with vs 18.2% [n = 588] without rotational atherectomy, p = 0.68) and the HD stratum (54.7% [n = 115] with vs 51.9% [n = 118] without rotational atherectomy, p = 0.19). In conclusion, regardless of HD status, patients with calcified lesions have increased long-term risk for death and target lesion revascularization after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation.

Risk factors for coronary drug-eluting stent thrombosis: influence of procedural, patient, lesion, and stent related factors and dual antiplatelet therapy

The complication of stent thrombosis (ST) emerged at a rate of 0.5% annually for first-generation drug-eluting stents (DES), often presenting as death or myocardial infarction. Procedural factors such as stent underexpansion and malapposition are risk factors for ST in patients. The type of lesion being treated and lesion morphology also influence healing after treatment with DES and can contribute to ST. Second-generation DES such as the XIENCE V everolimus-eluting stent differ from the first-generation stents with respect to antiproliferative agents, coating technologies, and stent frame. Improvements in stent structure have resulted in a more complete endothelialization, thereby decreasing the incidence of ST. Bioresorbable scaffolds show promise for restoring vasomotor function and minimizing rates of very late ST. Post-PCI treatment with aspirin and clopidogrel for a year is currently the standard of care for DES, but high-risk patients may benefit from more potent antiplatelet agents. The optimal duration of DAPT for DES is currently unclear and will be addressed in large-scale randomized clinical trials.

Clinical outcomes in real-world patients with acute myocardial infarction receiving XIENCE V® everolimus-eluting stents: one-year results from the XIENCE V USA study

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this analysis was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of XIENCE V in acute myocardial infarction (AMI).

BACKGROUND

The XIENCE V(®) Everolimus-eluting coronary stent was superior to the TAXUS(®) paclitaxel-eluting stent in angiographic and clinical outcomes in the SPIRIT II, III, and IV randomized controlled trials, but patients with AMI were excluded.

METHODS

XIENCE V USA is a large, prospective, multicenter, real-world single-arm postmarket surveillance trial. Consecutive patients undergoing PCI with XIENCE V were enrolled. For this analysis, clinical outcomes in 673 patients presenting with AMI (STEMI, n = 125) were as compared to patients without AMI (n = 3528) at 1 year.

RESULTS

At 1 year, ARC-defined stent thrombosis (ST) rates were 1.08% in AMI vs. 0.85% in the non-AMI group (P = 0.4987). The late ST (30 days-1 year) rates were 0.31% vs. 0.47% (AMI vs. non-AMI, P = 0.7551). Rates of target lesion revascularization (TLR) were 4.1% vs. 4.6% (P = 0.6104), and rates of target lesion failure (TLF) were 9.1% vs. 8.5%, (P = 0.5964). With the historical WHO definition of MI, 1 year TLF rates were 7.0% vs. 6.7% (P = 0.8001). Improvements in quality of life, angina frequency, angina stability, and physical limitations occurred at 6 months (each P < 0.0001) and were sustained at 1 year in both groups. There were no significant differences in clinical outcomes between STEMI and non-STEMI patients.

CONCLUSIONS

At 1 year, AMI patients treated with XIENCE V had low rates of ST, TLR, and TLF, similar to non-AMI patients. Marked improvements in patients' health status in this subgroup were also demonstrated.

Safety and effectiveness of drug-eluting stents in Chinese patients with coronary artery disease with off- and on-label indications: results from a single-centre registry

Background

Off-label use of drug-eluting stents (DES) is more common than on-label use and may be associated with a persistently higher rate of adverse angiographic and clinical outcomes.

Objective

To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of unrestricted use of DES in everyday practice in a Chinese population.

Methods

Between January 2004 and May 2009, we retrospectively enrolled 1209 consecutive patients who received DES in our single centre. 84.7% of patients were treated with sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) and 15.3% of patients were treated with paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES).

Results

59.0% of patients (n=713) were treated for off-label indications, with a significantly higher proportion of patients with previous coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) (6.2% vs 0.6%, p<0.001). There were no differences in coronary risk factors. During 6–66 months’ follow-up, the rate of repeat target vessel revascularisation (TVR) was significantly higher in the off-label group (14.6% vs 9.7%, p=0.011). The risk of death and myocardial infarction were not statistically different with off-label from standard use. Multivariate logistic regression showed that the independent predictors of TVR were stent type (SES vs PES, HR=0.567, 95% CI 0.395 to 0.813), previous CABG (HR=2.393, 95% CI 1.440 to 3.977), the treatment of chronic total occlusion (HR=2.786, 95% CI 1.731 to 4.484) and the treatment of left main lesion (HR=1.854, 95% CI 1.022 to 3.363).

Conclusions

In our local unselected cohort of Chinese people, off-label use of DES was safe in comparison with on-label use and associated with an excellent procedural success rate, but higher TVR.

Clinical performance of a drug-eluting stent with a biodegradable polymer in an unselected patient population: the NOBORI 2 study

AIMS

Previous studies for approved indications (on-label) have shown the good safety and efficacy profiles of the Nobori DES. We conducted a prospective, multicentre study to validate the clinical performance of this stent in a real-world setting.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 3,067 consecutive patients undergoing a percutaneous coronary intervention with the Nobori DES were enrolled in the NOBORI 2 registry. At one and two years, 97% and 95% of patients, respectively, were available for follow-up. The rates of target lesion failure (TLF), cardiac death, myocardial infarction and target lesion revascularisations were: 3.9%, 1.2%, 1.9% and 2.2% at one year and 5.1%, 1.6%, 2.4% and 3.0% at two years. Overall, 2,242 patients (73%) were treated for at least one off-label indication. When comparing off-label and on-label groups, the results were: TLF 4.5% vs. 2.2%, p=0.003 at one year and 5.9% vs. 2.8%, p=0.001 at two years. The rate of stent thrombosis was 0.68%, and 0.80% at one and two years, respectively with no difference between the off-label and on-label groups (0.76% vs. 0.48%, p=0.6 and 0.89% vs. 0.61%, p=0.5).

CONCLUSIONS

The promising results previously observed in lower risk patients can be replicated in daily practice. As expected, in off-label indications, rates of adverse events were higher. Nevertheless, our results suggest the good and sustained performance of this stent system in high-risk patients with significant comorbidities and/or complex lesions.

Perioperative management of patients on clopidogrel (Plavix) undergoing major lung resection

BACKGROUND

Management of patients requiring antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel (Plavix) and major lung resection must balance the risks of bleeding and cardiovascular events. We reviewed our experience with patients treated with clopidogrel perioperatively to examine outcomes, including results of a new strategy for high-risk patients.

METHODS

Patients who underwent major lung resection and received perioperative clopidogrel between January 2005 and September 2010 were reviewed. Initially, clopidogrel management consisted of discontinuation approximately 5 days before surgery and resumption immediately after surgery. After July 2010, high-risk patients (drug-eluting coronary stent placement within prior year or previous coronary event after clopidogrel discontinuation) were admitted 2 to 3 days preoperatively and bridged with the intravenous glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitor eptifibatide (Integrilin) according to a multidisciplinary cardiology/anesthesiology/thoracic surgery protocol. Outcomes were compared with control patients (matched for preoperative risk factors and extent of pulmonary resection) who did not receive perioperative clopidogrel.

RESULTS

Fifty-four patients who had major lung resection between January 2005 and September 2010 and received clopidogrel perioperatively were matched with 108 control subjects. Both groups had similar mortality, postoperative length of stay, and no differences in the rates of perioperative transfusions, reoperations for bleeding, myocardial infarctions, and strokes. Seven of the 54 clopidogrel patients were admitted preoperatively for an eptifibatide bridge. Two of these patients received perioperative transfusions, but there were no deaths, reoperations, myocardial infarctions, or stroke.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients taking clopidogrel can safely undergo major lung resection. Treatment with an eptifibatide bridge may minimize the risk of cardiovascular events in higher risk patients.

The impact of patient and lesion complexity on clinical and angiographic outcomes after revascularization with zotarolimus- and everolimus-eluting stents: a substudy of the RESOLUTE All Comers Trial (a randomized comparison of a zotarolimus-eluting stent with an everolimus-eluting stent for percutaneous coronary intervention)

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of patient and lesion complexity on outcomes with newer-generation zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZES) and everolimus-eluting stents (EES).

BACKGROUND

Clinical and angiographic outcomes of newer-generation stents have not been described among complex patients.

METHODS

Patients enrolled in the RESOLUTE All Comers trial (A Randomized Comparison of a Zotarolimus-Eluting Stent With an Everolimus-Eluting Stent for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) were stratified into "complex" and "simple."

RESULTS

Of 2,292 patients, 1,520 (66.3%) were complex and treated with ZES (n = 764) or EES (n = 756). Event rates were higher among complex patients, and results did not differ between ZES and EES, regardless of complexity. At 1 year, target lesion failure was 8.9% in ZES- and 9.7% in EES-treated complex patients (p = 0.66) and 6.8% in ZES- and 5.7% in EES-treated simple patients (p = 0.55). Rates of cardiac death (1.3% vs. 2.2%, p = 0.24), target-vessel myocardial infarction (4.3% vs. 4.4%, p = 0.90), and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization (4.4% vs. 4.0%, p = 0.80) were similar for both stent types among complex patients. Definite or probable stent thrombosis occurred in 20 (1.3%) complex patients with no difference between ZES (1.7%) and EES (0.9%, p = 0.26). Angiographic follow-up showed similar results for ZES and EES in terms of in-stent percentage diameter stenosis (22.2 ± 15.4% vs. 21.4 ± 15.8%, p = 0.67) and in-segment binary restenosis (6.6% vs. 8.0%, p = 0.82) in the complex group.

CONCLUSIONS

In this all-comers randomized trial, major adverse cardiovascular events were more frequent among complex than simple patients. The newer-generation ZES and EES proved to be safe and effective, regardless of complexity, with similar clinical and angiographic outcomes for both stent types through 1 year. (RESOLUTE-III All Comers Trial: A Randomized Comparison of a Zotarolimus-Eluting Stent With an Everolimus-Eluting Stent for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention; NCT00617084).

Drug-eluting stents in patients at high risk of restenosis: assessment for France

BACKGROUND

In unselected patients, the incidence of restenosis is lower after placement of drug-eluting stents (DES) than bare-metal stents (BMS) without difference in safety at a time horizon of 4 years. However, DES appears less effective in "off label" patients.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to assess available evidence of DES efficacy and safety by patient category to establish when DES placement may be recommended for reimbursement by the French national health insurance.

METHODS

Based on a systematic review by patient category (January 2002 to August 2009), two health technology assessment (HTA) reports and thirty-eight clinical studies not covered by the HTA reports (eleven meta-analysis including ours, eleven randomized trials and sixteen cohort studies) were selected. After assessment of the methodological quality, the studies mostly comparing DES with BMS were reviewed by a panel of health professionals who defined a priori the most relevant end points of safety and efficacy.

RESULTS

Seven to fourteen patients treated with DES were needed to avoid one target lesion revascularization (TLR) in patients with lesions >15 mm long, vessel diameter <3 mm, or diabetes, and with some complex lesions (total coronary occlusion, BMS in-stent restenosis multivessel disease, unprotected left main stenosis). DES appeared as safe as other alternatives over a follow-up of up to 4 years when dual antiplatelet therapy was continued for at least 1 year, but statistical power remains limited to conclude for some clinical features.

CONCLUSIONS

For reimbursement, DES use should be limited to certain categories of patients. Treatment of particular cases requires a multidisciplinary approach.

Cost-effectiveness of drug-eluting stents versus bare metal stents in clinical practice

BACKGROUND

Drug-eluting stents (DES) reduce the need for repeat target revascularization (TVR) compared with bare metal stents (BMS) but are more costly. The objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of DES versus BMS.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We evaluated clinical outcomes and costs of care over 3 years in 1147 undergoing BMS before the availability of DES and 1247 DES patients at Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center from 2002 to 2005. Costs for index stenting, TVR, and clopidogrel use were assessed. The 2 groups were well matched for baseline characteristics. Index stenting costs were $1846 higher per patient for DES versus BMS ($1737 more to $1950 more). At 3 years, absolute TVR rates were 15.2 per 100 DES patients and 24.1 per 100 BMS patients, and as a result, cumulative TVR-related costs were $2065 less per patient for DES versus BMS ($3001 less to $1134 less). Including the cost of clopidogrel, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per TVR avoided with DES was $4731 through 1 year, $4703 through 2 years, and $6379 through 3 years.

CONCLUSIONS

At 3 years, the higher index cost of DES versus BMS was completely offset by lower TVR-related costs. However, because of extended clopidogrel use for DES, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per TVR avoided ranged from $4703 to $6379 over 3 years. These unadjusted observational findings provide support for the continued use of DES in routine practice but highlight the important impact of prolonged dual antiplatelet use on the cost-effectiveness of this technology.

Potential difficulty for accurate categorization of drug-eluting stent thrombosis without coronary angiography: unignorable involvement of the cases with new onset acute myocardial infarction occurred in target vessels

Very late stent thrombosis (VLST) is a major unresolved problem of drug-eluting stent (DES) implants. However, its actual incidence with respect to the distribution of DES-target vessel and accuracy of adjudicating stent thrombosis according to the ARC definition has not been yet adequately evaluated. We studied 720 patients who had completed over 1 year from elective DES implantation. In this cohort, we extracted patients who present acute coronary syndrome (ACS) (n = 3, 0.4%). The timing of ACS events was 17, 19, and 24 months after DES implantation. At the time of presentation, VLST was strongly suspected as the initial diagnosis, however, coronary angiography (CAG) confirmed the different culprit lesion from DES and clearly no thrombus within the DES. According to ARC definition, three probable stent thromboses in this cohort before CAG, however, no stent thrombosis was confirmed after the CAG. Thus, no stent thrombosis was confirmed among this study population. In the very late phase after DES implantation, new onset ACS is not at all extraordinary occurrence in the target vessels of previous DES implantation. However, stent thrombosis is often assumed without angiographic confirmation. The clinical possibility that non-stent thrombosis is incidentally diagnosed with stent thrombosis without angiographic confirmation should be considered within the current accepted definition of stent thrombosis.

Long-term outcomes with cobalt-chromium bare-metal vs. drug-eluting stents: the REgistro regionale AngiopLastiche dell'Emilia-Romagna registry

OBJECTIVE

To compare the long-term efficacy of cobalt-chromium bare-metal stents (CCSs) with that of first-generation drug-eluting stents (DESs) in patients within a large real-world multicentre registry.

METHODS

The incidence of major adverse cardiac events [death, acute myocardial infarction, and target-vessel revascularization (TVR)] and angiographic stent thrombosis were assessed in consecutive patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with CCS (n = 1103) or DES (n = 5195) during 2-year follow-up. Propensity score-adjusted outcomes, overall and in patients with low (≤ 10%), intermediate (10-15%), and high (>15%) 1-year restenosis risk, were estimated.

RESULTS

DES-treated patients had significantly higher rates of diabetes, longer lesions, and smaller vessel diameters than CCS-treated patients (all P < 0.0001). However, CCS patients were older and presented a higher rate of hypertension, previous myocardial infarction, and heart failure (all P < 0.01). At 2 years, adjusted rates of myocardial infarction, death, and cumulative-stent thrombosis were similar for DES and CCS. DES provided statistically significant (P < 0.01) reductions in TVR and adjusted major adverse cardiac event rates (9.7 and 17.2%, respectively) compared with CCS (13.2 and 21.2%, respectively). In patients at highest and intermediate risk of restenosis, adjusted TVR rates were significantly (P < 0.01) lower with DES (12.2 and 8.9%, respectively) than CCS (19.9 and 17.1%, respectively), but rates were similar in low-risk patients.

CONCLUSION

DESs were more effective than CCSs in lowering TVR rates in patients with an intermediate-high baseline restenosis risk.

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

BACKGROUND

Observational studies from the USA have demonstrated that off-label use of drug-eluting stents (DES) is common. Data on off-label use in Western Europe are limited.

METHODS

We analyzed the data of consecutive patients receiving DES prospectively enrolled in the multicenter German DES.DE registry (Deutsches Drug-Eluting Stent Register) between October 2005 and October 2006. Off-label use was defined in the presence of one of the following criteria: ST-elevation myocardial infarction, in-stent stenosis, chronic total occlusion, lesions in a bypass graft, in bifurcation or left main stem, stent length per lesion ≥32 mm, and vessel diameter <2.5 or >3.5 mm.

RESULTS

Overall, 4,295 patients were included in this analysis and divided into two groups: 2,366 (55.1%) received DES for off-label and 1,929 (44.9%) for on-label indications. There were substantial differences in the rates of off-label use at the participating hospitals. Patients with off-label DES more often presented with high-risk features such as acute coronary syndrome, cardiogenic shock, congestive heart failure, and more complex coronary anatomy. Among hospital survivors, the incidence of the composite endpoint of death, myocardial infarction and stroke (MACCE) (9.2 vs. 7.4%, p < 0.05), and target vessel revascularization (TVR) (11.3 vs. 9.1%, p < 0.05) was increased in the off-label group at the 1-year follow-up. However, in the multivariate analysis off-label use was not linked with an elevated risk for MACCE (hazard ratio 0.86, 95% confidence interval 0.62-1.18) and TVR (hazard ratio 1.05, 95% confidence interval 0.78-1.42).

CONCLUSIONS

In clinical practice, DES was very frequently used off-label. After adjustment for confounding variables, off-label use was not associated with an increase of adverse events.

Acceptance, panic, and partial recovery the pattern of usage of drug-eluting stents after introduction in the U.S. (a report from the American College of Cardiology/National Cardiovascular Data Registry)

OBJECTIVES

Review the use of drug-eluting stents (DES) to evaluate changes in use.

BACKGROUND

The DES were approved after several small studies in carefully selected patients showed dramatic reduction in in-stent restenosis. The DES were then rapidly adopted into routine practice. In 2006, 3 years after introduction, serious concerns regarding long-term safety were raised.

METHODS

We queried the American College of Cardiology/National Cardiovascular Data Registry (ACC/NCDR) CathPCI Registry. The percentage of DES used through mid-2009 was reviewed overall and in subgroups of patients categorized by lesion type, clinical factors, insurance, and hospital characteristics. Multivariable logistic models relating these covariates to DES usage were constructed for 3 relevant time intervals.

RESULTS

A total of 2,247,647 coronary stent procedures were analyzed. By 2005 over 90% of first stents placed were DES. Safety concerns arising in 2006 reduced DES use to 64% of first stent placed. After publication of salutary outcomes data in 2008, usage increased to 76% by mid-2009. The logistic models demonstrated decreased likelihood of DES usage in patients with: 1) ST-segment elevation myocardial infarctions; and 2) no medical insurance. The DES usage increased for in-stent restenosis. Hospital characteristics were not associated with significant differences in DES usage.

CONCLUSIONS

There was rapid adoption of DES into U.S. clinical practice. Concern for late stent thrombosis in 2006 significantly altered DES use with reductions seen in subgroups at risk for thrombosis and patients with no insurance. These rapid cyclic changes after DES introduction reinforce the need for continuous, timely reporting of outcomes data after the introduction of new technologies.

Comparison of everolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting coronary stents in patients with two treated vessels: 2-year results from the SPIRIT III randomised trial

AIMS

To examine the two year clinical outcomes in dual-vessel disease from the SPIRIT III trial comparing the XIENCE V(r) everolimus-eluting stent (EES) to the TAXUS Express2(tm) paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES).

METHODS AND RESULTS

From a total of 1,002 randomised subjects, 103 and 51 patients in the EES and PES groups respectively underwent stenting of two lesions in two vessels (one lesion per epicardial vessel). Two-year event rates were lower in one compared to two-vessel treated patients regardless of stent type. For EES vs. PES, major adverse cardiac events (MACE=cardiac death, MI or TLR) was clinically reduced 35.0% in the single vessel patients (6.5% vs. 9.6%, p=0.09) and was significantly reduced 64% in dual vessel patients (11.9% vs. 30.1%, p=0.006). There was no significant interaction between stent type (EES vs. PES) and the number of stented vessels (two vs. single) for either 2-year TVF and MACE (interaction p values were 0.69 and 0.16, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

In the SPIRIT III randomised trial, patients with both single and dual vessel treatment with EES showed improved clinical outcomes at two years compared to those treated with PES. Follow-up to five years is ongoing.

Comparison of haemodialysis patients and non-haemodialysis patients with respect to clinical characteristics and 3-year clinical outcomes after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation: insights from the Japan multi-centre post-marketing surveillance registry

AIMS

Long-term outcomes after sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) implantation in haemodialysis (HD) patients have remained controversial. We investigated the impact of HD on outcomes after SES implantation.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We analysed the data on 2050 patients who underwent SES implantation in a multi-centre prospective registry in Japan. Three-year clinical outcomes were compared between the HD group (n = 106) and the non-haemodialysis (NH) group (n = 1944). At the 3-year clinical follow-up, the rates of unadjusted cardiac mortality (HD: 16.3 vs. NH: 2.3%) and target-lesion revascularization (TLR) (HD: 19.4 vs. NH: 6.6%) were significantly higher in the HD group than the NH group (P < 0.001). Although HD group had a numerically higher stent thrombosis rate, the difference in stent thrombosis between the two groups (HD: 2.0 vs. NH: 0.7%) did not reach statistical significance. Using Cox's proportional-hazard models with propensity score adjustment for baseline differences, the HD group had higher risks of TLR [HD: 16.3 vs. NH: 6.1%; hazard ratio, 2.83; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.62-4.93, P = 0.0003] and cardiac death (HD: 12.3 vs. NH: 2.3%; hazard ratio, 5.51; 95% CI: 2.58-11.78, P < 0.0001). The consistent results of analyses, whether unadjusted or adjusted for other baseline clinical and procedural differences, identify HD as an independent risk factor for cardiac death and TLR.

CONCLUSIONS

Percutaneous coronary intervention with SES in HD patients has a higher incidence of repeat revascularization and mortality compared with those in NH patients. Haemodialysis appears to be strongly associated with mortality and repeat revascularization even after SES implantation.

Decision-making: stenting in acute myocardial infarction

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) plays a pivotal role in the management of patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Rapid revascularization of the patient with evolving AMI results in reduced rates of mortality, reinfarction and greater myocardial salvage with smaller infarct size. Since the performance of the first balloon angioplasty in 1977, remarkable advances have improved the safety and efficacy of PCI. Advances in stent technology and adjunct pharmacology have improved the outcomes for patients with AMI undergoing primary PCI. Drug-eluting stents result in a significant reduction in the clinical and angiographic rates of restenosis. Early concerns of stent thrombosis in the AMI setting have been allayed by recent results from numerous randomized clinical trials and observational studies. Reduced ischemic and hemorrhagic complications from new antithrombin and antiplatelet agents have further reduced mortality and improved event-free survival after primary PCI.

Percutaneous coronary intervention in chronic stable angina

Although the therapeutic advantage of percutaneous coronary intervention in acute coronary syndromes have been proved in numerous studies, its position in the treatment of stable angina remains a controversial issue. The results of the recent studies did not lead into definite answers for the proper treatment of chronic coronary artery disease. The identification of the patients that will benefit from the interventional approach is necessary and is probably based on the proper screening for myocardial ischemia with noninvasive diagnostic techniques. In this review article, we mention the most recent studies for the treatment of chronic stable angina with respect to clinical outcome and economical consequences.

Effect of stent thrombosis on the risk-benefit balance of drug-eluting stents and bare metal stents

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

To determine the difference in the risk of stent thrombosis between drug-eluting stents (DES) and bare-metal stents (BMS) and to assess the clinical implications.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of two cohorts of patients treated at our center with either > or =1 paclitaxeleluting stents (PES) (n=430) or > or =1 BMSs (n=1230) during 2003-2004 was carried out using propensity score methods to compare the adjusted risks of stent thrombosis, instent restenosis, cardiovascular death, acute myocardial infarction (AMI), and target-lesion revascularization with the two stent types.

RESULTS

After a median follow-up of 46 months, there was a higher risk of stent thrombosis in PESs (hazard ratio [HR]=3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-7.1] though the risk of in-stent restenosis was lower (HR=0.3; 95% CI, 0.2-0.7]. There was no difference in the risk of cardiovascular death, AMI or target-lesion revascularization. With PESs, the risks of target-lesion revascularization (HR=0.33; 95% CI, 0.2-0.7) and in-stent restenosis (HR=0.32; 95% CI, 0.2-0.7) were reduced during the first year of follow-up. After this time, the risks of target-lesion revascularization (HR=1.8; 95% CI, 1-3.2) and very late stent thrombosis (HR=12.8; 95% CI, 3-55.1) both increased.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings indicate that the balance of risks and benefits of PESs compared with BMSs is different in the early and late periods after stent implantation. The greatly increased risk of very late stent thrombosis in PESs could cancel out the clinical benefits associated with the reduction in in-stent restenosis observed in PESs relative to BMSs.

Factors that affect mass transport from drug eluting stents into the artery wall

Coronary artery disease can be treated by implanting a stent into the blocked region of an artery, thus enabling blood perfusion to distal vessels. Minimally invasive procedures of this nature often result in damage to the arterial tissue culminating in the re-blocking of the vessel. In an effort to alleviate this phenomenon, known as restenosis, drug eluting stents were developed. They are similar in composition to a bare metal stent but encompass a coating with therapeutic agents designed to reduce the overly aggressive healing response that contributes to restenosis. There are many variables that can influence the effectiveness of these therapeutic drugs being transported from the stent coating to and within the artery wall, many of which have been analysed and documented by researchers. However, the physical deformation of the artery substructure due to stent expansion, and its influence on a drugs ability to diffuse evenly within the artery wall have been lacking in published work to date. The paper highlights previous approaches adopted by researchers and proposes the addition of porous artery wall deformation to increase model accuracy.

Evidence-based management of patients undergoing PCI: stent controversies

Drug-eluting stents reduce restenosis, particularly in uncomplicated lesions. Despite limited on-label indications, drug-eluting stents have been universally adopted. However, there have been early sporadic reports of stent thrombosis. This article will review the risk factors for stent thrombosis and will briefly discuss recent trials comparing the safety, efficacy, and mortality for bare-metal and drug-eluting stents.

Effectiveness and safety of drug-eluting stents in vein grafts: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The use of drug-eluting stents (DES) in degenerative vein grafts is currently an off-label indication. Recent studies have had conflicting results regarding the effectiveness and safety of this practice. The objective of this meta-analysis was to compare DES to bare-metal stents for the treatment of vein graft stenosis.

METHODS

PubMed and the Cochrane clinical trials database were systematically searched to identify all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies examining DES for vein graft stenosis published in English between 2003 and 2009. Inclusion criteria included follow-up duration > or =6 months. Data were stratified by study design and pooled using random effects models.

RESULTS

Twenty studies were found to meet our inclusion criteria. Eighteen studies were observational and 2 were RCTs. In observational studies, DES were associated with a reduction in major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (odds ratio [OR] 0.50, 95% CI 0.35-0.72), death (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.53-0.91), target vessel revascularization (TVR) (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.37-0.79), and target lesion revascularization (TLR) (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.37-0.78). The incidence of myocardial infarction was similar between groups. In the RCTs, pooled results were inconclusive because of small sample sizes.

CONCLUSIONS

Although data from observational studies suggest that the use of DES for vein graft stenosis has favorable effects on MACE, death, TVR, and TLR, these data should be interpreted with caution due to their observational nature. Corresponding RCT data are inconclusive. There remains a need for large multicenter RCTs to address the effectiveness and safety of DES for vein graft stenosis.

Drug-eluting stents: a study of international practice

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to analyze trends in drug-eluting stents (DES) use in four international health care and regulatory settings.

BACKGROUND

Accounts suggest a differential approach to DES internationally and recent reductions in use following reports of late stent thrombosis. Current studies of clinical practice are limited in their scope.

METHODS

Data were pooled from angioplasty registries in Alberta (Canada), Belgium, Mayo Clinic (Rochester, MN), and Scotland (UK) that have routinely recorded consecutive patients treated since 2003. Trend analysis was performed to examine variations in DES use over time and by clinical subgroup.

RESULTS

A total of 178,504 lesions treated between January 2003 and September 2007 were included. In the Mayo Clinic Registry, rapid adoption to a peak of 91% DES use for all lesions by late 2004 was observed. In contrast, Alberta and Scotland showed delayed adoption with lower peak DES use, respectively, 56% and 58% of lesions by early 2006. Adoption of DES in Belgium was more gradual and peak use of 35% lower than other registries. Reductions in DES use were seen in all data sets during 2006, although this varied in absolute and relative terms and by clinical subgroup.

CONCLUSION

Adoption and use of DES showed wide variation in four countries. The determinants of use are complex, and it is likely that nonclinical factors predominate. Recent reductions in use may be as a consequence of publicity and concerns regarding late stent thrombosis. The optimum application of DES in clinical practice is unclear and is reflected in the degree of international variation demonstrated.

Comprehensive meta-analysis on drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents during extended follow-up

BACKGROUND

Several observational reports have documented both increased and decreased cardiac mortality or Q-wave myocardial infarction with drug-eluting stents compared with bare-metal stents.

METHODS

We sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of drug-eluting stents compared with bare-metal stents early after intervention (<1 year) and late (>1 year) among a broad population of patients, using a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

RESULTS

We identified 28 trials with a total of 10,727 patients and a mean follow-up of 29.6 months. For early outcomes (<1 year), all-cause mortality for drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents was 2.1% versus 2.4% (risk ratio [RR] 0.91, [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.70-1.18]; P=.47), non-Q-wave myocardial infarction was 3.3% versus 4.4% (RR 0.78 [95% CI, 0.61-1.00]; P=.055), target lesion revascularization was 5.8% versus 18.4% (RR 0.28 [95% CI, 0.21-0.38]; P <.001), and stent thrombosis was 1.1% versus 1.3% (RR 0.87 [95% CI, 0.60-1.26]; P=.47). For late outcomes (>1 year), all-cause mortality for drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents was 5.9% versus 5.7% (RR 1.03 [95% CI, 0.83-1.28]; P=.79), target lesion revascularization was 4.0% versus 3.3% (RR 1.22 [95% CI, 0.92-1.60]; P=.16), non-Q-wave myocardial infarction was 1.6% versus 1.2% (RR 1.36 [95% CI, 0.74-2.53]; P=.32) and stent thrombosis was 0.7% versus 0.1% (RR 4.57 [95% CI, 1.54-13.57]; P=.006).

CONCLUSIONS

There was no excess mortality with drug-eluting stents. Within 1 year, drug-eluting stents appear to be safe and efficacious with possibly decreased non-Q-wave myocardial infarction compared with bare-metal stents. After 1 year, drug-eluting stents still have similar mortality, despite increased stent thrombosis. The reduction in target lesion revascularization with drug-eluting stents mainly happens within 1 year, but is sustained thereafter.

Comparison of long-term outcomes of bare metal or drug-eluting stent implantation in standard versus off-label coronary narrowings

Previous studies have shown impressive short- and medium-term outcomes from drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation in coronary artery disease. We assessed long-term outcomes from DES versus bare metal stent (BMS) implantation in standard and off-label lesions. In 2,345 patients who survived event-free for > or = 30 days after stent implantation for standard (n = 1,540, 66%) or off-label (805, 34%) lesions, we assessed time to occurrence of death, myocardial infarction (MI), death or MI, stent thrombosis, target vessel revascularization (TVR), and major adverse cardiovascular events (defined as composite of all study outcomes). Comparisons were made between standard and off-label lesion subsets and between DES and BMS in lesion subsets. Multivariable differences in outcomes between DES versus BMS were assessed using propensity-adjusted proportional hazards regression. Median follow-up duration was 3.4 years. Stenting of off-label lesions was associated with uniformly worse outcomes than stenting of standard lesions. After adjustment for lesion classification, propensity to receive DES, and baseline differences, DES implantation was associated with statistically significant decreases in death (adjusted hazard ratio 0.71, 95% confidence interval 0.51 to 0.98), TVR (hazard ratio 0.58, 95% confidence interval 0.39 to 0.85 for off-label subset; hazard ratio 0.33, 95% confidence interval 0.24 to 0.46 for standard subset), and major adverse cardiovascular events (hazard ratio 0.51, 95% confidence interval 0.42 to 0.61), without increase in MI, death/MI, or stent thrombosis. Elective TVR occurred in 272 patients and resulted in only 1 early death. In conclusion, compared with BMS, use of DES is associated with clinical benefit in standard and off-label lesions at late follow-up. Decrease in elective TVR does not explain the apparent mortality benefit from DES implantation.

Chronic kidney disease and dipstick proteinuria are risk factors for stent thrombosis in patients with myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND

Kidney failure (stage 5 chronic kidney disease [CKD]) is an independent risk factor for stent thrombosis (ST). Moderate (stage 3-4) CKD and proteinuria are both associated with adverse cardiovascular events, including worse outcomes after myocardial infarction (MI). Whether moderate CKD and proteinuria increase the risk of ST after MI is not known. This study evaluated the risk of ST associated with moderate CKD and dipstick proteinuria.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed clinical and laboratory data from 956 non-stage 5 CKD patients who were admitted with MI and received intracoronary stenting. Clinical follow-up was collected at 1 year for definite or probable ST, as well as for all-cause mortality, nonfatal MI or death, and target vessel revascularization or coronary artery bypass graft surgery.

RESULTS

After adjustment for multiple clinical and biochemical covariates, patients with both estimated glomerular filtration rate (GFR) of 15 to 59 mL min(-1) 1.73 m(-2) and > or =30 mg/dL dipstick proteinuria had increased cumulative incidence of ST (hazard rate [HR] 3.69, 95% CI 1.54-8.89), all-cause mortality (HR 2.68, 95% CI 1.34-5.37), and nonfatal MI or death (HR 3.20, 95% CI 1.77-5.81) at 1 year. In addition, estimated GFR of 15 to 59 mL min(-1) 1.73 m(-2) was a significant independent predictor of ST (HR 2.61, 95% CI 1.33-5.10). Dipstick proteinuria > or =30 mg/dL was associated with a trend toward increased risk for all outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

In an acute MI population, moderate CKD was identified as a novel prognostic marker for ST. In addition, patients with both decreased GFR and proteinuria had higher incidences of all-cause mortality and nonfatal MI or death than patients with either condition alone.