Safety and Effectiveness of Drug-Eluting Versus Bare-Metal Stents in Saphenous Vein Bypass Graft Percutaneous Coronary Interventions

Utilization of Non-Drug-Eluting Devices for Inpatient Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in the United States

There is a paucity of data on the contemporary use of non-drug-eluting devices (balloon angioplasty or bare-metal stents) in contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the United States. We utilized the Nationwide Readmissions Database to identify patients hospitalized to undergo PCI with non-drug-eluting devices from 2016 to 2019. The main outcome of interest was the trends in utilization over the study years. Among 1,870,262 PCI procedures, 127,810 (6.8%) were performed with non-drug-eluting devices; 72% of these were in the setting of acute myocardial infarction (MI). The use of non-drug-eluting devices decreased throughout the study period from 12.9% of all PCI in the first quarter of 2016 to 3.4% in the last quarter of 2019 (p <0.001). Factors associated with their use included advanced age and high bleeding risk. Only a small percentage were used as a bridge to coronary artery bypass graft surgery (2%) and for treatment of in-stent restenosis (3%). The in-hospital mortality was 5.8% for the entire cohort and 6.6% when the indication for use was an acute MI. In patients presenting with an acute MI, reinfarction within 30 days was common and occurred in 18% of the patients. In conclusion, the use of non-drug-eluting devices in PCI in the United States decreased from 2016 to 2019. Factors associated with their use included old age and high bleeding risk. Due to suboptimal outcomes in patients currently being treated with non-drug-eluting devices, there remains an unmet clinical need for alternative treatment options.

Drug-Eluting Stent Restenosis: Modern Approach to a Classic Challenge

In-stent restenosis (ISR) is a recognized complication following percutaneous coronary intervention in which the luminal diameter is narrowed through neointimal hyperplasia and vessel remodeling. Although rates of ISR have decreased in most recent years owing to newer generation drug-eluting stents, thinner struts, and better intravascular imaging modalities, ISR remains a prevalent dilemma that proves to be challenging to manage. Several factors have been proposed to contribute to ISR formation, including mechanical stent characteristics, technical factors during the coronary intervention, and biological aspects of drug-eluting stents. Presentation of ISR can range from asymptomatic to late myocardial infarction and could be difficult to differentiate from acute thrombus formation. No definite guidelines are present on the management of ISR. In this review, we will discuss the mechanisms underlying ISR and provide insight into patient-related and procedural risk factors contributing to ISR, in addition to highlighting common treatment approaches utilized in the management of ISR.

Drug-Eluting Stents Versus Bare-Metal Stents in Saphenous Vein Graft Intervention

Background Percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents (DES) has been increasingly used for revascularization of saphenous vein graft stenosis without strong clinical evidence favoring their use. Randomized controlled trials comparing DES versus bare-metal stents (BMS) in saphenous vein graft-percutaneous coronary intervention have been inconclusive. Methods and Results We performed a comprehensive literature search through May 15, 2018, for all eligible studies comparing DES versus BMS in patients with saphenous vein graft stenosis in PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Clinical outcomes included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, and target vessel revascularization. Six randomized controlled trials were eligible and included 1582 patients, of whom 797 received DES and 785 received BMS. The follow-up period ranged from 18 months to 60 months. There was no statistically significant difference between DES and BMS for all-cause mortality (risk ratio [RR],1.11; 95% CI, 0.0.77-1.62; P=0.57), cardiovascular mortality (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.64-1.57; P=0.99), major adverse cardiovascular events (RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.63-1.10; P=20), target vessel revascularization (RR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.48-1.11; P=0.14), myocardial infarction (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.48-1.16; P=0.19), or stent thrombosis (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.42-2.65; P=0.90). Conclusions In patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for saphenous vein graft lesions, our results showed that there was no significant difference between DES and BMS for mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events, target vessel revascularization, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis.

Repeat Coronary Bypass Surgery or Percutaneous Coronary Intervention After Previous Surgical Revascularization

OBJECTIVE

To assess long-term survival with repeat coronary artery bypass grafting (RCABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with previous CABG.

METHODS

From January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2013, 1612 Mayo Clinic patients underwent RCABG (n=215) or PCI (n=1397) after previous CABG. The RCABG cohort was grouped by use of saphenous vein grafts only (n=75), or with additional arterial grafts (n=140); the PCI cohort by, bare metal stents (BMS; n=628), or drug-eluting stents (DES; n=769), and by the treated target into native coronary artery (n=943), bypass grafts only (n=338), or both (n=116). Multivariable regression and propensity score analysis (n=280 matched patients) were used.

RESULTS

In multivariable analysis, the 30-day mortality was increased in RCABG versus PCI patients (hazard ratio [HR], 5.32; 95%CI, 2.34-12.08; P<.001), but overall survival after 30 days improved with RCABG (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.55-0.94; P=.01). Internal mammary arteries were used in 61% (129 of 215) of previous CABG patients and improved survival (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69-0.98; P=.03). Patients treated with drug-eluting stent had better 10-year survival (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.59-0.91; P=.001) than those with bare metal stent alone. In matched patients, RCABG had improved late survival over PCI: 48% vs 33% (HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.35-0.91; P=.02). Compared with RCABG, patients with PCI involving bypass grafts (n=60) had increased late mortality (HR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.10-2.37; P=.01), whereas those having PCI of native coronary arteries (n=80) did not (HR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.75-1.59; P=.65).

CONCLUSION

RCABG is associated with improved long-term survival after previous CABG, especially compared with PCI involving bypass grafts.

Site Variation and Outcomes for Antithrombotic Therapy in Atrial Fibrillation Patients After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Background:

Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) require multiple antithrombotic therapies. The optimal strategy is debated suggesting increased treatment variation. This study sought to characterize site-level variation in antithrombotic therapies in AF patients after PCI and determine the association with outcomes.

Methods:

Using the retrospective TREAT-AF study (The Retrospective Evaluation and Assessment of Therapies in AF) from the Veterans Health Administration, patients with newly diagnosed, nonvalvular AF between 2004 and 2015 followed by a PCI with a P2Y 12 -antagonist prescription were identified. Patients were grouped according to the therapy dispensed 7 days before until 30 days after the PCI: oral anticoagulation plus platelet inhibition (OAC+PI) or platelet inhibition only. A combined outcome of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or major bleeding was assessed 1 year after PCI and Cox regression was performed to estimate hazard ratios.

Results:

Of 230 762 patients with newly diagnosed AF, 4042 (1.8%) underwent PCI and received a P2Y 12 -antagonist during the observation period (age, 67±9 years; CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc, 2.7±1.7; HAS-BLED, 2.6±1.2). Among these, 47% were prescribed OAC+PI, and 53% platelet inhibition only 7 days before until 30 days after the PCI. Across 63 sites, the use of OAC+PI ranged from 19% to 66%. Prescription of OAC+PI was independently associated with a reduction in the combined outcome of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or major bleeding compared with platelet inhibition only (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.73–0.99; P =0.033).

Conclusions:

In patients with established AF undergoing PCI, the use of OAC+PI varied substantially across sites in the 30 days post-PCI. Anticoagulation appeared to be underutilized but was associated with improved outcomes. Strategies to promote OAC+PI and minimize site variation may be useful, particularly in light of recent randomized trials.

New-generation drug eluting stent vs. bare metal stent in saphenous vein graft - 1 year outcomes by a propensity score ascertainment (SVG Baltic Registry)

BACKGROUND

Data regarding the efficacy of the percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with new-designed drug-eluting stent (new-DES) vs. bare metal stent (BMS) of saphenous vein grafts (SVG) stenosis is scarce. The primary objective was to compare one-year clinical outcomes of PCI in stenosis of SVG using new-DES vs. BMS in a real-world population.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We carried out a multi-center registry comparing new-DES with BMS in all consecutive patients undergoing PCI of SVG. The primary composite endpoint was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) at 1 year. This observation included 792 consecutive patients (mean age 69 ± 8.9y), treated with either new-DES (n = 379, 47.9%) or BMS (n = 413, 52.1%). Among patients treated with new-DES compared with BMS, there was a lower risk of MACCE (21.4% vs. 28.3%, HR = 0.69, 95% CI 0.50-0.95, p = 0.025) as well as myocardial infarction (MI) (6.3% vs. 12.1%; HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30-0.82, p = 0.005) at 1 year. After propensity score adjustment, the similar, significant reduction in MACCE and MI was observed in favor of new-DES (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.46-0.96, p = 0.030; and HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.31-0.92, p = 0.020, respectively).

CONCLUSION

In patients undergoing PCI of SVG, the use of new-DES is associated with a reduced 1-year rate of MACCE and MI compared to BMS.

A comprehensive meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing drug-eluting stents with bare-metal stents in saphenous vein graft interventions

BACKGROUND

Several large randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have proven the superiority of drug-eluting stents (DESs) over bare-metal stents (BMSs) for native coronary stenosis. However, RCTs comparing DESs with BMSs for SVG lesions have predominantly been small in size and have yielded conflicting results. Therefore, we conducted an updated comprehensive meta-analysis of RCTs comparing DESs versus BMSs for SVG interventions using the largest sample size to date.

METHODS

Scientific databases and websites were searched to find RCTs. Data from six RCTs involving 1,582 patients were included. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) were calculated using random-effects models. The primary outcome of this meta-analysis was target vessel revascularization (TVR). The secondary outcomes were major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), myocardial infarction (MI), stent thrombosis, all-cause mortality, and cardiac mortality.

RESULTS

Data from six RCTs involving 1,582 patients were included. Saphenous vein graft interventions with DESs reduced TVR (RR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.30-0.88; P = 0.017) and MACE rate (RR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.42-0.87; P = 0.007) compared to BMSs. No difference between the stents were found in rates of MI (RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.43-1.10; P = 0.123), stent thrombosis (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.27-1.41; P = 0.255), all-cause mortality (RR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.74-1.71; P = 0.554), or cardiac mortality.

CONCLUSION

For SVG intervention, the MACE rate was lower for DESs compared to BMSs, driven primarily by decreased non-MI-related TVR. Rates of MI, all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, and stent thrombosis were not different between the stents.

Fractional flow reserve to guide and to assess coronary artery bypass grafting

The aim of this review is to highlight the role of invasive functional evaluation in patients in whom coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) is indicated, and to examine the clinical evidence available in favour of fractional flow reserve (FFR) adoption in these patients, outline appropriate use, as well as point out potential pitfalls. FFR after CABG will also be reviewed, highlighting its correct interpretation and adoption when applied to both native coronary arteries and bypass grafts. Practice European guidelines support the use of FFR to complement coronary angiography with the highest degree of recommendation (Class IA) for the assessment of coronary stenosis before undertaking myocardial revascularization when previous non-invasive functional evaluation is unavailable or not conclusive. As a result, FFR has been adopted in routine clinical practice to guide clinicians decision as to whether or not perform a revascularization. Of note, due to the increasing confidence of the interventional cardiologists, FFR guidance is also being implemented to indicate or guide CABG. This is in anticipation of supportive clear-cut evidence, since recommendations for FFR adoption were based on randomized clinical trials investigating percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) strategies in which patients with typical indications for CABG were excluded (e.g. left main disease, valvular disease, and coronary anatomy unsuitable for PCI). Based on the critical appraisal of the literature, FFR can play an important role in risk stratification and determining management strategy of patients either before or after CABG.

The short- and long-term outcomes of percutaneous intervention with drug-eluting stent vs bare-metal stent in saphenous vein graft disease: An updated meta-analysis of all randomized clinical trials

The use of drug-eluting stents (DES) vs bare-metal stents (BMS) in saphenous vein graft (SVG) lesions remains controversial. We conducted a meta-analysis of all randomized clinical trials comparing the outcomes of DES with BMS in SVG percutaneous coronary interventions. A search of PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, and Clinicaltrials.gov was performed for all randomized clinical trials. We evaluated the short- and long-term clinical outcomes of the following: all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), definite/probable stent thrombosis, target lesion revascularization (TLR), and target-vessel revascularization (TVR). From a total of 1582 patients in 6 randomized clinical trials, 797 had DES and 785 had BMS. Patients with DES had lower short-term MACE, TLR, and TVR in comparison with BMS (odds ratio [OR]: 0.56, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.35-0.91, P = 0.02; OR: 0.43, 95% CI: 0.19-0.99, P = 0.05; and OR: 0.45, 95% CI: 0.22-0.95, P = 0.04, respectively). However, there were no different outcomes for all-cause mortality (P = 0.63) or stent thrombosis (P = 0.21). With long-term follow-up, there were no significant reductions of MACE (P = 0.20), TLR (P = 0.57), TVR (P = 0.07), all-cause mortality (P = 0.29), and stent thrombosis (P = 0.76). The use of DES in SVG lesions was associated with lower short-term MACE, TLR, and TVR in comparison with BMS. However, there were no significant differences with long-term follow-up.

Rationale and design of the Drug-Eluting Stents vs Bare-Metal Stents in Saphenous Vein Graft Angioplasty (DIVA) Trial

VA Cooperative Studies Program #571 (DIVA) was designed to evaluate the efficacy of drug-eluting stents (DES) for reducing aortocoronary saphenous vein bypass graft (SVG) failure when compared with bare-metal stents (BMS) in participants undergoing stenting of de novo SVG lesions. Participants undergoing clinically indicated stenting of de novo SVG lesions were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to DES or BMS. Randomization was stratified by presence/absence of diabetes mellitus and the number of target SVG lesions (1 vs ≥2) within each participating site. At sites that did not routinely administer 12-months of dual antiplatelet therapy after SVG stenting participants without acute coronary syndromes received 1 month of open-label clopidogrel, followed by 11 months of clopidogrel for those assigned to DES and 11 months of placebo for those assigned to BMS. The primary endpoint was the 12-month incidence of target-vessel failure (defined as the composite of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or target-vessel revascularization). Secondary endpoints included the incidence of other clinical endpoints and the incremental cost-effectiveness of DES relative to BMS. Due to lower-than-anticipated target-vessel failure rates, target enrollment was increased from 519 to 762. The study had randomized 599 participants when recruitment ended in December 2015. The DIVA trial will provide clarity on the appropriate stent type for de novo SVG lesions.

Fractional flow reserve to guide surgical coronary revascularization

Coronary angiography has traditionally been used as the final diagnostic tool in the evaluation of coronary artery disease (CAD). However, conventional angiography identifies anatomically obstructive coronary disease, but it is limited in its ability to identify hemodynamically significant lesions. The emergence of fractional flow reserve (FFR) technology, in conjunction with angiography, offers a functional, as well as anatomic, assessment of epicardial coronary obstructions. Several pivotal studies have demonstrated that FFR-guided coronary revascularization is a safe and effective in patients with single and multivessel CAD. There are emerging data to suggest that FFR may also play an integral role in planning surgical revascularization and in the evaluation of post-coronary artery bypass patients and their graft patency. This review will explore the physiologic underpinnings of FFR methodology, its clinical value and limitations, and its applications in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery.

Choice of Stent for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention of Saphenous Vein Grafts

Background—

There are limited data on comparison of contemporary drug-eluting stent (DES) platforms, previous generation DES, and bare-metal stents (BMS) for percutaneous coronary intervention in saphenous vein grafts (SVG). We aimed to assess clinical outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention to SVG in patients receiving bare-metal stents (BMS), first-generation DES, and newer generation DES in a large unselected national data set from the BCIS (British Cardiovascular Intervention Society).

Methods and Results—

Patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention to SVG in the United Kingdom from January 2006 to December 2013 were divided into 3 groups according to stent use: BMS, first-generation DES, and newer generation DES group. Study outcomes included in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular events, 30-day mortality, and 1-year mortality. Patients (n=15 003) underwent percutaneous coronary intervention to SVG in England and Wales during the study period. Of these, 38% received BMS, 15% received first-generation DES, and 47% received second-generation DES. The rates of in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular events were significantly lower in patients treated with second-generation DES (odds ratio, 0.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.38–0.68; P <0.001), but not with first-generation DES, compared with BMS-treated patients. Similarly, 30-day mortality (odds ratio, 0.43; 95% confidence interval, 0.32–0.59; P <0.001) and 1-year mortality (odds ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.51–0.71; P <0.001) were lower in patients treated with second-generation DES, but not with first-generation DES, compared with the patients treated with BMS.

Conclusions—

Patients receiving second-generation DES for the treatment SVG disease have lower rates of in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular events, 30-day mortality, and 1-year mortality, compared with those receiving BMS.

Prasugrel Use Following PCI and Associated Patient Outcomes: Insights From the National VA CART Program

BACKGROUND

Prasugrel is more effective than clopidogrel in preventing thrombotic complications after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) among patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS), but it increases the risk of bleeding in subgroups of patients. There is limited data on whether prasugrel use in routine practice is targeted to clinical settings with greatest anticipated patient benefit.

METHODS

In a national cohort of 11 617 veterans who underwent PCI between 2010 and 2013 at Veterans Administration hospitals nationwide, we assessed overall trends in the use of prasugrel and the frequency of prasugrel use in patients with contraindications (prior transient ischemic attack or cerebrovascular accident), higher bleeding risk (age ≥75 or weight <60 kg), and nonindicated settings (non-acute coronary syndrome [non-ACS]). We then evaluated the association between prasugrel use and 1-year risk-adjusted mortality, myocardial infarction, and major bleeding rates.

RESULTS

Overall, 1040 (9.0%) patients who received prasugrel after PCI were included. Prasugrel was infrequently used in contraindicated (2.4%) or higher-bleeding-risk (1.8%) settings. Additionally, 35.8% of patients received prasugrel in settings that lack evidence of clinical benefit (ie, non-ACS). Compared with clopidogrel, there were no significant differences in risk-adjusted mortality, myocardial infarction, or major bleeding outcomes with prasugrel therapy at 1-year follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Prasugrel use after PCI in the Veterans Administration is low and prasugrel was rarely used in contraindicated or high-bleeding-risk settings. However, a third of patients received prasugrel for off-label non-ACS indications that lack efficacy data.

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Native Coronary Arteries Versus Bypass Grafts in Patients With Prior Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery: Insights From the Veterans Affairs Clinical Assessment, Reporting, and Tracking Program

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to examine the frequency, associations, and outcomes of native coronary artery versus bypass graft percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with prior coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in the Veterans Affairs (VA) integrated health care system.

BACKGROUND

Patients with prior CABG surgery often undergo PCI, but the association between PCI target vessel and short- and long-term outcomes has received limited study.

METHODS

A national cohort of 11,118 veterans with prior CABG who underwent PCI between October 2005 and September 2013 at 67 VA hospitals was examined, and the outcomes of patients who underwent native coronary versus bypass graft PCI were compared. Logistic regression with generalized estimating equations was used to adjust for correlation between patients within hospitals. Cox regressions were modeled for each outcome to determine the variables with significant hazard ratios (HRs).

RESULTS

During the study period, patients with prior CABG represented 18.5% of all patients undergoing PCI (11,118 of 60,171). The PCI target vessel was a native coronary artery in 73.4% and a bypass graft in 26.6%: 25.0% in a saphenous vein graft and 1.5% in an arterial graft. Compared with patients undergoing native coronary artery PCI, those undergoing bypass graft PCI had higher risk characteristics and more procedure-related complications. During a median follow-up period of 3.11 years, bypass graft PCI was associated with significantly higher mortality (adjusted HR: 1.30; 95% confidence interval: 1.18 to 1.42), myocardial infarction (adjusted HR: 1.61; 95% confidence interval: 1.43 to 1.82), and repeat revascularization (adjusted HR: 1.60; 95% confidence interval: 1.50 to 1.71).

CONCLUSIONS

In a national cohort of veterans, almost three-quarters of PCIs performed in patients with prior CABG involved native coronary artery lesions. Compared with native coronary PCI, bypass graft PCI was significantly associated with higher incidence of short- and long-term major adverse events, including more than double the rate of in-hospital mortality.