The PASEO (PaclitAxel or Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Bare Metal Stent in Primary Angioplasty) Randomized Trial

Five-Year Efficacy and Safety of TiNO-Coated Stents Versus Drug-Eluting Stents in Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Meta-Analysis

(1) Background: Percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) are performed with titanium-nitride-oxide-coated stents (TiNOSs) or drug-eluting stents (DESs). The initial completion of this prospective systematic literature review (SLR) of prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) showed that TiNOSs are non-inferior to DESs in major adverse cardiac event (MACE) rates and present a lower risk of recurrent myocardial infarction (MI) at 1-year follow-up. This iteration of the SLR protocol performs the critical assessment of 5-year follow-up outcomes with clinical validity and generalizability assessments. (2) Methods: The previously described SLR and meta-analysis protocol, per PRISMA, Cochrane methods, and GRADE, was applied to 5-year follow-up outcomes. (3) Results: Three RCTs were eligible, comprising 1620 patients with TiNOS vs. 1123 with DES. The pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals were MACE 0.82 [0.68, 0.99], MI 0.58 [0.44, 0.78], cardiac death (CD) 0.46 [0.28, 0.76], ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (TLR) 1.03 [0.79, 1.33], probable or definite stent thrombosis (ST) 0.32 [0.21, 0.59], and all-cause mortality (TD) 0.84 [0.63, 1.12]. The evidence certainty was high in MACE, CD, MI, and ST, and moderate in TLR and TD. (4) Conclusions: TiNOSs in ACS at 5-year follow-up appear safer than DESs and equally efficacious. The pooled RRs stratified by clinical presentation and stent type will be required to test this meta-analysis's clinical validity and generalize its results to patient populations with varying proportions of clinical presentations and DES options.

Ten-year survival of patients undergoing coronary angioplasty with first-generation sirolimus-eluting stents and bare-metal stents

INTRODUCTION

Compared to bare-metal stents (BMS), drug-eluting stents reduce stent restenosis and improve subsequent revascularization rates. The impact on patients' survival has been the subject of debate.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the long-term (10-year) survival of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with first-generation sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) in comparison with BMS.

METHODS

In a single-center registry, 600 consecutive patients who underwent successful PCI with SES between April 2002 and February 2003 were compared to 594 patients who underwent PCI with BMS between January 2002 and April 2002, just before the introduction of SES. Clinical and procedural data were collected at the time of intervention and 10-year survival status was assessed via the national life status database.

RESULTS

All baseline characteristics were similar between groups except for smaller stent diameter (2.84±0.38 vs. 3.19±0.49 mm; p<0.001), greater stent length (18.50±8.2 vs. 15.96±6.10 mm; p<0.001) and higher number of stents per patient (1.95 vs. 1.46, p<0.001) in the SES group. Overall five- and 10-year all-cause mortality was 9.6% (n=110) and 22.7% (n=272), respectively. The adjusted HR for 10-year mortality in patients undergoing PCI with SES was 0.74 (95% CI 0.58-0.94; p=0.013), corresponding to a relative risk reduction of 19.8%. Other than PCI with BMS, older age, chronic kidney disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and lower ejection fraction were independent predictors of 10-year mortality.

CONCLUSION

To date, this is the longest follow-up study ever showing a potential survival benefit of first-generation sirolimus-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents, supporting prior observations on their sustained efficacy and safety relative to contemporary BMS.

Long-term safety of bioresorbable scaffolds: insights from a network meta-analysis including 91 trials

AIMS

The aim of this study was to investigate the long-term safety and efficacy of biodegradable scaffolds and metallic stents.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We analysed a total of 91 randomised controlled trials with a mean follow-up of 3.7 years in 105,842 patients which compared two or more coronary metallic stents or biodegradable scaffolds and reported the long-term clinical outcomes (≥2 years). Network meta-analysis showed that patients treated with the Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) had a significantly higher risk of definite or probable scaffold thrombosis (ScT) compared to those treated with metallic DES. The risk of very late ScT was highest with the Absorb BVS among comparators. Pairwise conventional meta-analysis demonstrated that the elevated risk of ScT with Absorb BVS compared to cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents was consistent across the time points of ≤30 days (early), 31 days - 1 year (late) and >1 year (very late) ScT. In addition, target lesion failure rates were significantly higher in the Absorb BVS cohort, driven by both increased risk of target vessel myocardial infarction and ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularisation.

CONCLUSIONS

Absorb BVS implantation was associated with increased risk of long-term and very late ScT compared to current-generation metallic DES. The risk of ScT occurred with a rising trend beyond one year.

Drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents for acute coronary syndrome

BACKGROUND

Approximately 3.7 million people died from acute coronary syndrome worldwide in 2012. Acute coronary syndrome, also known as myocardial infarction or unstable angina pectoris, is caused by a sudden blockage of the blood supplied to the heart muscle. Percutaneous coronary intervention is often used for acute coronary syndrome, but previous systematic reviews on the effects of drug-eluting stents compared with bare-metal stents have shown conflicting results with regard to myocardial infarction; have not fully taken account of the risk of random and systematic errors; and have not included all relevant randomised clinical trials.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents in people with acute coronary syndrome.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, SCI-EXPANDED, and BIOSIS from their inception to January 2017. We also searched two clinical trials registers, the European Medicines Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration databases, and pharmaceutical company websites. In addition, we searched the reference lists of review articles and relevant trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials assessing the effects of drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents for acute coronary syndrome. We included trials irrespective of publication type, status, date, or language.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed our published protocol and the methodological recommendations of Cochrane. Two review authors independently extracted data. We assessed the risks of systematic error by bias domains. We conducted Trial Sequential Analyses to control the risks of random errors. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, major cardiovascular events, serious adverse events, and quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were angina, cardiovascular mortality, and myocardial infarction. Our primary assessment time point was at maximum follow-up. We assessed the quality of the evidence by the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 25 trials randomising a total of 12,503 participants. All trials were at high risk of bias, and the quality of evidence according to GRADE was low to very low. We included 22 trials where the participants presented with ST-elevation myocardial infarction, 1 trial where participants presented with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction, and 2 trials where participants presented with a mix of acute coronary syndromes.Meta-analyses at maximum follow-up showed no evidence of a difference when comparing drug-eluting stents with bare-metal stents on the risk of all-cause mortality or major cardiovascular events. The absolute risk of death was 6.97% in the drug-eluting stents group compared with 7.74% in the bare-metal stents group based on the risk ratio (RR) of 0.90 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 1.03, 11,250 participants, 21 trials/22 comparisons, low-quality evidence). The absolute risk of a major cardiovascular event was 6.36% in the drug-eluting stents group compared with 6.63% in the bare-metal stents group based on the RR of 0.96 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.11, 10,939 participants, 19 trials/20 comparisons, very low-quality evidence). The results of Trial Sequential Analysis showed that we did not have sufficient information to confirm or reject our anticipated risk ratio reduction of 10% on either all-cause mortality or major cardiovascular events at maximum follow-up.Meta-analyses at maximum follow-up showed evidence of a benefit when comparing drug-eluting stents with bare-metal stents on the risk of a serious adverse event. The absolute risk of a serious adverse event was 18.04% in the drug-eluting stents group compared with 23.01% in the bare-metal stents group based on the RR of 0.80 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.86, 11,724 participants, 22 trials/23 comparisons, low-quality evidence), and Trial Sequential Analysis confirmed this result. When assessing each specific type of adverse event included in the serious adverse event outcome separately, the majority of the events were target vessel revascularisation. When target vessel revascularisation was analysed separately, meta-analysis showed evidence of a benefit of drug-eluting stents, and Trial Sequential Analysis confirmed this result.Meta-analyses at maximum follow-up showed no evidence of a difference when comparing drug-eluting stents with bare-metal stents on the risk of cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.09, 9248 participants, 14 trials/15 comparisons, very low-quality evidence) or myocardial infarction (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.18, 10,217 participants, 18 trials/19 comparisons, very low-quality evidence). The results of the Trial Sequential Analysis showed that we had insufficient information to confirm or reject our anticipated risk ratio reduction of 10% on cardiovascular mortality and myocardial infarction.No trials reported results on quality of life or angina.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The current evidence suggests that drug-eluting stents may lead to fewer serious adverse events compared with bare-metal stents without increasing the risk of all-cause mortality or major cardiovascular events. However, our Trial Sequential Analysis showed that there currently was not enough information to assess a risk ratio reduction of 10% for all-cause mortality, major cardiovascular events, cardiovascular mortality, or myocardial infarction, and there were no data on quality of life or angina. The evidence in this review was of low to very low quality, and the true result may depart substantially from the results presented in this review.More randomised clinical trials with low risk of bias and low risks of random errors are needed if the benefits and harms of drug-eluting stents for acute coronary syndrome are to be assessed properly. More data are needed on the outcomes all-cause mortality, major cardiovascular events, quality of life, and angina to reduce the risk of random error.

Everolimus eluting stent vs first generation drug-eluting stent in primary angioplasty: A pooled patient-level meta-analysis of randomized trials

BACKGROUND

Several concerns have emerged about the higher risk of very late stent thrombosis (ST) with first generation drug-eluting stent (DES) especially among STEMI patients. Newer generation DES has demonstrated to reduce ST at mid-term follow-up. Therefore, the aim of the present study is to perform an individual patient's data meta-analysis of trials comparing 1st generation DES vs. 2nd generation DES (everolimus-eluting stent, EES) in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for STEMI.

METHODS

We performed a formal search of electronic databases (MEDLINE and CENTRAL) and scientific session presentations from January 2010 to June 2016. We included all completed randomized trials comparing 1st vs. EES for patient presenting with STEMI.

RESULTS

Individual patients data were obtained from 3 trials, including a total of 1581 patients (686 or 43.4% randomized to 1st generation DES and 895 or 56.4% randomized to EES). At long-term follow-up (1584±588days), EES did not significantly reduce mortality (7.8.% vs 11.7%, HR [95%CI]=0.77 [0.52, 1.13], p=0.18, p_{heterogeneity}=0.93), cardiac mortality (6.2% vs 7.6%, HR [95%CI]=0.90 [0.56, 1.44], p=0.65, p_{heterogeneity}=0.85), and reinfarction (8.1% versus 11.2%, respectively; HR [95%CI]=0.74 [0.51, 1.07], p=0.11, p_{heterogeneity}=0.52). However, EES significantly reduced the occurrence of ST (3.4% versus 6.1% respectively, HR [95%CI]=0.56 [0.32, 0.97], p=0.04, p_{heterogeneity}=0.42) and target vessel revascularization (TVR) (14.2% versus 20.1%; HR [95%CI]=0.63 [0.42, 0.96], p=0.03, p_{heterogeneity}=0.55). Landmark analysis showed more consistent benefits in ST with EES within 1year, whereas benefits in TVR were mostly observed later than 1year.

CONCLUSIONS

The present pooled patient-level meta-analysis demonstrates that among STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI, EES as compared to 1st generation DES is associated with a significant reduction in ST and TVR at long-term follow-up.

Comparing the Clinical Outcomes between Drug Eluting Stents and Bare Metal Stents in Patients with Insulin-Treated Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 10 Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

Several studies have shown Drug Eluting Stents (DES) to be better compared to Bare Metal Stents (BMS) in patients with type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM). Since, the adverse clinical outcomes in patients with Insulin-Treated Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (ITDM) implanted with DES and BMS have not been previously studied, we aim to compare the clinical outcomes in similar patients with cardiovascular diseases, treated with DES and BMS.

Methods

Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) comparing patients treated with DES and BMS were searched from PubMed and EMBASE databases. Outcome data for the patients with ITDM were carefully extracted. Major Adverse Cardiac Events (MACEs), mortality, Target Vessel Revascularization (TVR), Target Lesion Revascularization (TLR), Myocardial Infarction (MI) and Stent Thrombosis (ST) were considered as the clinical endpoints for this analysis. Odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated and the pooled analyses were performed with RevMan 5.3 software.

Results

Ten RCTs consisting of 830 patients with ITDM (477 patients in the DES group and 353 patients in the BMS group) from a total number of 9,141 patients were included in this analysis. During a follow-up period from one month to one year, MACEs were not increased with the use of DES in these patients with ITDM. At 9 months, MACEs were significantly lower in the DES group with OR: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.23–0.72; P = 0.002 with no increase in mortality. TVR and TLR also favored the DES group with OR: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.22–0.88, P = 0.02 and OR: 0.28, 95% CI: 0.14–0.53; P = 0.0001 respectively at 9 months, and OR: 0.46, 95% CI: 0.23–0.94, P = 0.03 and OR: 0.28, 95% CI: 0.14–0.55; P = 0.0003 respectively at one year. Results for MI, and ST were not statistically significant.

Conclusion

Compared to BMS, DES were associated with a significantly lower rate of repeated revascularization, without any increase in MACEs or mortality in these patients with ITDM during a follow up period of one year. However, due to the very small population size, further studies with a larger number of randomized patients are required to completely solve this issue.

Clinical outcomes of drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND

To investigate the cardiovascular (CV) outcomes of drug-eluting stents (DESs) versus bare-metal stents (BMSs) in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS).

METHODS

Data from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database was analyzed between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2011. A total of 3051 AMI patients in CS were selected as the study cohort. Their clinical outcomes were evaluated by comparing 1017 subjects who used DESs to 2034 matched subjects who used BMSs.

RESULTS

The risk of the primary composite outcome (i.e., death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and coronary revascularization) was significantly lower in the DES group compared with the BMS group [56.1% vs. 66.2%, hazard ratio (HR), 0.74; 95% CI, 0.67-0.81] with a mean follow-up of 1.35years. The patients who received DESs had a lower risk of coronary revascularization (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.67-0.91) and death (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.62-0.79) than those who used BMSs. However, the risks of myocardial infarction (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.66-1.18), ischemic stroke (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.67-1.53) and major bleeding (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.56-1.14) were similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with CS complicating AMI, DES implantation significantly reduced the risk of percutaneous coronary revascularization and death compared to BMS implantation.

Atherectomy Devices for the Treatment of Calcified Coronary Lesions

The presence of moderate and severe coronary artery calcification (CAC) is associated with higher rates of angiographic complications during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), as well as higher major adverse cardiac events compared with noncalcified lesions. Diabetes mellitus, a risk factor for CAC, is increasing in the United States. Vessel preparation before PCI with atherectomy can facilitate successful stent delivery and expansion that may otherwise not be possible. We review here CAC prevalence, risk factors, and impact on PCI, as well as the currently available coronary atherectomy devices including rotational atherectomy, orbital atherectomy, and laser atherectomy.

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.

Can the optimal type of stent be predicted based on clinical risk factors? A subgroup analysis of the randomized BASKET-PROVE trial

BACKGROUND

The randomized BASKET-PROVE study showed no significant differences between sirolimus-eluting stents (SES), everolimus-eluting stents (EES), and bare-metal stents (BMS) with respect to the primary end point, rates of death from cardiac causes, or myocardial infarction (MI) at 2 years of follow-up, in patients requiring stenting of a large coronary artery. Clinical risk factors may affect clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary interventions. We present a retrospective analysis of the BASKET-PROVE data addressing the question as to whether the optimal type of stent can be predicted based on a cumulative clinical risk score.

METHODS

A total of 2,314 patients (mean age 66 years) who underwent coronary angioplasty and implantation of ≥1 stents that were ≥3.0 mm in diameter were randomly assigned to receive SES, EES, or BMS. A cumulative clinical risk score was derived using a Cox model that included age, gender, cardiovascular risk factors (hypercholesterolemia, hypertension, family history of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, smoking), presence of ≥2 comorbidities (stroke, peripheral artery disease, chronic kidney disease, chronic rheumatic disease), a history of MI or coronary revascularization, and clinical presentation (stable angina, unstable angina, ST-segment elevation MI).

RESULTS

An aggregate drug-eluting stent (DES) group (n = 1,549) comprising 775 patients receiving SES and 774 patients receiving EES was compared to 765 patients receiving BMS. Rates of death from cardiac causes or nonfatal MI at 2 years of follow-up were significantly increased in patients who were in the high tertile of risk stratification for the clinical risk score compared to those who were in the aggregate low-mid tertiles. In patients with a high clinical risk score, rates of death from cardiac causes or nonfatal MI were lower in patients receiving DES (2.4 per 100 person-years, 95% CI 1.6-3.6) compared with BMS (5.5 per 100 person-years, 95% CI 3.7-8.2, hazard ratio 0.45, 95% CI 0.26-0.80, P = .007). However, they were not significantly different between receivers of DES and BMS in patients in the low-mid risk tertiles.

CONCLUSIONS

This exploratory analysis suggests that, in patients who require stenting of a large coronary artery, use of a clinical risk score may identify those patients for whom DES use may confer a clinical advantage over BMS, beyond lower restenosis rates.

Is There Any Significant Difference in Stent Thrombosis Between Sirolimus and Paclitaxel Eluting Stents?: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Several meta-analyses have shown no significant difference in stent thrombosis (ST) between sirolimus eluting stents (SES) and paclitaxel eluting stents (PES). However, other meta-analyses have found SES to be superior to PES. Therefore, to solve this issue, we aim to compare the clinical outcomes between SES and PES during a follow-up period of about 1 or more years.We have searched Medline and EMBASE for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SES with PES. These RCTs have been carefully analyzed and then different types of ST including ST defined by the Academic Research Consortium (ARC), acute ST, late and very late ST have all been considered as the clinical endpoints in this study. A follow-up period of about 1 year, between 1 and 2 years as well as a longer follow-up period between 1 and 5 years have been considered. Data were retrieved and combined by means of a fixed-effect model because of a lower heterogeneity observed among the results. Odd ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated and the pooled analyses were performed with RevMan 5.3 software.Twenty-nine studies from 19 RCTs comprising of 16,724 patients (8115 patients in the SES group and 8609 patients in the PES group) satisfied the inclusion criteria and were included in this meta-analysis. No significant differences in ST have been observed between SES and PES. Results were as follow: definite ST with OR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.64-1.18, P = 0.36; probable ST with OR:0.72; 95% CI: 0.42-1.21, P = 0.21; definite, probable and/or possible ST with OR: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.75-1.17, P = 0.57; acute ST with OR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.38-2.56, P = 0.98; subacute ST with OR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.41-1.25, P = 0.25; early ST with OR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.53-1.25, P = 0.34; late ST with OR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.39-1.34, P = 0.30; very late ST with OR: 1.02; 95% CI: 0.72-1.44, P = 0.92; and any ST with OR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.69-1.07, P = 0.18. Long-term ST between 1 and 5 years with OR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.71-1.22, P = 0.60 was also not significantly different.No significant difference in ST has been observed between patients treated with either SES or PES. Hence SES and PES can both be considered almost equally effective.

WITHDRAWN: Drug-eluting stents versus bare metal stents for angina or acute coronary syndromes

This review 'topic' has been included in work being carried out as part of a Health Technology Assessment commissioned by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence in England and Wales. Details of this research is available via www.nice.org.uk.

The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the HTA programme, NICE, NIHR, NHS or the Department of Health.

The review has been split into 2 reviews that will be published as "Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for stable ischaemic heart disease" and "Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome".

The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication.

Chinese Herbal Medicines Might Improve the Long-Term Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome after Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Results of a Decision-Analytic Markov Model

Aims. The priority of Chinese herbal medicines (CHMs) plus conventional treatment over conventional treatment alone for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was documented in the 5C trial (chictr.org number: ChiCTR-TRC-07000021). The study was designed to evaluate the 10-year effectiveness of CHMs plus conventional treatment versus conventional treatment alone with decision-analytic model for ACS after PCI. Methods and Results. We constructed a decision-analytic Markov model to compare additional CHMs for 6 months plus conventional treatment versus conventional treatment alone for ACS patients after PCI. Sources of data came from 5C trial and published reports. Outcomes were expressed in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the model. The model predicted that over the 10-year horizon the survival probability was 77.49% in patients with CHMs plus conventional treatment versus 77.29% in patients with conventional treatment alone. In combination with conventional treatment, 6-month CHMs might be associated with a gained 0.20% survival probability and 0.111 accumulated QALYs, respectively. Conclusions. The model suggested that treatment with CHMs, as an adjunctive therapy, in combination with conventional treatment for 6 months might improve the long-term clinical outcome in ACS patients after PCI.

Impact of diabetes on fibrinogen levels and its relationship with platelet reactivity and coronary artery disease: A single-centre study

BACKGROUND

Previous reports have suggested an association between elevated fibrinogen and CAD. Few studies have so far investigated the impact of diabetes on fibrinogen levels and its association with coronary artery disease (CAD) and platelet reactivity in diabetic patients that are therefore the aims of the current study.

METHODS

We measured fibrinogen in 3280 consecutive patients undergoing coronary angiography. Samples were collected at admission for fibrinogen levels assessment. Coronary disease was defined for at least 1 vessel stenosis >50% as evaluated by QCA.

RESULTS

Diabetes was observed in 1201 out of 3280 patients. Diabetic patients were older with more hypercholesterolemia, hypertension, higher BMI, more renal failure, previous MI or coronary revascularization (p<0.001, respectively) and smoking (p=0.001). Diabetic patients were more often on ACE-inhibitors, ARBs, b-blockers, calcium-antagonists, diuretics, statins (p<0.001, respectively), and ASA (p=0.004). Diabetic patients displayed higher glycaemia and HbA1c (p<0.001), higher creatinine and triglycerides (p<0.001) but lower total and HDL cholesterol (p<0.001) and haemoglobin (p<0.001). Diabetic patients had higher fibrinogen levels (p=0.003), however neither diabetes nor glucose homeostasis parameters resulted as independent predictors of hyperfibrinogenemia. Furthermore, among diabetic patients, higher fibrinogen levels did not affect platelet reactivity and were not associated with the prevalence of CAD (adjusted OR[95%CI]=0.99 [0.82-1.19], p=0.9). Similar results were found for severe CAD (adjusted OR[95%CI]=0.94 [0.82-1.08], p=0.40).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study showed that diabetes and glycaemic control are not independent predictors of hyperfibrinogenemia. Among diabetic patients, elevated fibrinogen is not associated with platelet reactivity and the prevalence and extent of CAD.

Impact of diabetes on the benefits from everolimus-eluting stent as compared to first-generation drug-eluting stent in patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND

Drug-eluting stent has been shown to reduce the risk of repeated revascularization. However, as shown for first-generation drug-eluting stent, they may be counterbalanced by a potential higher risk of stent thrombosis, especially among ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients. In addition, diabetes has been shown to be an independent predictor of poor survival and repeated target vessel revascularization. No data have been reported so far on the long-term benefits and safety of new-generation drug-eluting stent in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction according to diabetes. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate whether diabetes may impact on the benefits from everolimus-eluting stent versus first-generation drug-eluting stent in patients undergoing primary angioplasty.

METHODS

We combined data from two randomized trials (PaclitAxel or Sirolimus-Eluting Stent vs Bare-Metal Stent in Primary Angioplasty and randomized comparison of everolimus-eluting stents and sirolimus-eluting stents in patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction) including consecutive ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients admitted within 12 h of symptom onset undergoing primary angioplasty and stent implantation at a tertiary centre with 24-h primary percutaneous coronary intervention capability. Primary endpoint of this study was major adverse cardiac events at 3-year follow-up. Secondary endpoints were as follows: (1) death, (2) reinfarction, (3) definite or probable ST and (4) target vessel revascularization at 3-year follow-up. No patient was lost to follow-up.

RESULTS

Our population is represented by 680 ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients treated with drug-eluting stent (180 enrolled in the PaclitAxel or Sirolimus-Eluting Stent vs Bare-Metal Stent in Primary Angioplasty trial, treated with first-generation drug-eluting stent, and 500 patients in the randomized comparison of everolimus-eluting stents and sirolimus-eluting stents in patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction, randomized to everolimus-eluting stent or sirolimus-eluting stent). Diabetes was observed in a total of 178 patients (26.1%) and associated with higher major adverse cardiac events, mortality, reinfarction, stent thrombosis and target vessel revascularization. Similar outcome was observed in terms of overall major adverse cardiac events, mortality, recurrent myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, with everolimus-eluting stent as compared to first-generation drug-eluting stent in both diabetic and non-diabetic patients, whereas everolimus-eluting stent was associated with a significantly lower rate of stent thrombosis only in diabetic patients (1.6% vs 9.6%, hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) = 0.15 (0.02-0.98), p = 0.04) whereas no difference was observed in non-diabetic patients.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that among ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients undergoing primary angioplasty, diabetes is associated with a significantly worse outcome at 3-year follow-up. A similar outcome was observed between everolimus-eluting stent and first-generation drug-eluting stent in non-diabetic patients, whereas among diabetic patients everolimus-eluting stent was associated with a significant reduction in stent thrombosis.

Primary percutaneous coronary intervention by drug-eluting balloon angioplasty: the nonrandomized fourth arm of the DEB-AMI (drug-eluting balloon in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction) trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate a paclitaxel drug-eluting balloon (DEB) only strategy in primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI), aiming at a comparison with bare metal stent (BMS) alone, DEB followed by BMS, and paclitaxel eluting stent (PES), as assessed in the randomized Drug Eluting Balloon in Acute ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction (DEB-AMI) trial.

BACKGROUND

DEB-only seems an attractive strategy in PPCI, as it obviates the risk of stent thrombosis.

METHODS

This study is a prospective registry with the same inclusion/exclusion criteria used in the DEB-AMI trial, as it constitutes the fourth, nonrandomized, treatment arm of this trial. Patients presenting with ST-elevation myocardial infarction were allocated to DEB-only (DIOR II, Eurocor GmbH, Bonn, Germany) after successful thrombus aspiration and predilatation. Primary endpoint was 6-month angiographic in-balloon/stent late-luminal loss (LLL). Secondary endpoints were in-balloon/stent binary restenosis and major adverse cardiac events (MACE: death, myocardial infarction, target-vessel revascularization).

RESULTS

Forty patients underwent PPCI by DEB-only. Procedural success was achieved in 97.5% with bail-out stenting required in 10.0% of procedures. In DEB-only, LLL was 0.51 ± 0.59 mm as compared to 0.74 ± 0.57 mm in BMS (P = 0.44), 0.64 ± 0.56 mm in DEB+BMS (P = 0.88) and 0.21 ± 0.32 mm in PES (P < 0.01); in-balloon/stent binary restenosis rates were 22.2%, 23.8% (P = 0.67), 28.6% (P = 0.97), and 4.5% (P = 0.07), respectively; and MACE rates were 17.5%, 23.5% (P = 0.20), 20.0% (P = 0.26), and 4.1% (P = 0.90), respectively. No acute or late thrombotic events occurred in the DEB-only group.

CONCLUSIONS

PPCI by DEB-only in selected patients yielded an angiographic outcome comparable to BMS alone and DEB followed by BMS. PES proved angiographic superiority to DEB-only. DEB-only is therefore a potential treatment alternative during PPCI in patients with contra-indications to drug-eluting stents.

Bivalirudin as compared to unfractionated heparin in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary revascularization: A meta-analysis of 22 randomized trials

Bivalirudin has gained ground against unfractionated heparin (UFH) in percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI), due to a reported better safety profile. However, whether bivalirudin may provide also advantages in clinical outcome beyond the known benefits in major bleedings, is still a debated matter and was, therefore, the aim of present meta-analysis of randomized trials, evaluating efficacy and safety of bivalirudin as compared with UFH in PCI.

METHODS AND STUDY OUTCOMES

Literature archives (Pubmed, EMBASE, Cochrane) and main scientific sessions were scanned. Primary endpoint was overall mortality. Secondary endpoints were: 1) mortality within 30-days; 2) overall and within 30-days non fatal myocardial infarction; 3) overall and within 30-days stent thrombosis. Safety endpoints were major bleedings (per protocol definition or TIMI classification). A prespecified analysis was conducted according to clinical presentation (Elective, ACS, STEMI).

RESULTS

A total of 22 randomized clinical were finally included, involving 40156 patients randomized to bivalirudin (52.9%) or to UFH (47.1%). Death occurred in 1100 (2.8%) of patients, with no difference between bivalirudin and UFH (2.7% vs 2.8% OR[95%C]=0.94[0.83,-.06], p=0.32, phet=0.48). The results did not change according to clinical presentation. By meta-regression analysis, the effects on mortality were not related to patients risk profile (r=-0.38(-0.89-0.14), p=0.15) or the reduction in bleeding complications (r=-0.008(-0.86-0.85), p=0.98). A significant increase in short-term stent thrombosis was observed with bivalirudin (OR[95%CI]=1.42 [1.10-1.83], p=0.006). However, Bivalirudin significantly reduced bleedings according to both study protocol definition (OR[95%CI]=0.62[0.56-0.69],p<0.00001; phet=0.0003) or TIMI major criteria (OR[95%CI]=0.65[0.53-0.79],p<0.0001, phet=0.95).

CONCLUSIONS

In present meta-analysis, among patients undergoing PCI, bivalirudin, as compared with UFH, is associated with a significant reduction in major bleeding complications that, however, does not translate into mortality benefits. Furthermore, bivalirudin is associated with higher rate of 30-days stent thrombosis and recurrent MI among STEMI patients.

Safety and efficacy of first-generation and second-generation drug-eluting stents in the setting of acute coronary syndromes

Drug-eluting stents (DESs) are known to reduce in-stent restenosis rate, compared with bare metal stents (BMSs). Stent thrombosis, one of the most dangerous complications of DES, has emerged as a major concern. This issue has limited the use of DES in unstable coronary artery disease till recent years. In fact, acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and the subsequent activation of the hemocoagulative pathway could represent a prothrombotic environment, thus limiting the use of DES in this situation. Nowadays, there is increasing evidence in literature of similar stent thrombosis rates both for BMS and DES in ACS, and most interventional cardiologists are confident with the use of DES in ACS. The aim of this article is to review the current literature on this topic in order to compare first-generation and second-generation DES vs. BMS as concerns safety and efficacy.

Effect of diabetes mellitus on periprocedural myocardial infarction in patients undergoing coronary stent implantation

BACKGROUND

Diabetic patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions are still regarded as a very high risk category because of an increased platelet reactivity and risk of complications, especially in patients with inadequate glycaemic control. However, although its prognostic effect on long-term outcome is well-defined, still unclear is the effect of diabetes on the risk of periprocedural myocardial infarction in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions, which was therefore the aim of our study.

METHODS

Myonecrosis biomarkers were dosed at intervals from 6 to 48 h after nonemergent percutaneous coronary interventions. Periprocedural myocardial infarction was defined as creatine kinase-MB increase by three times the upper limit normal or by 50% of an elevated baseline value, whereas periprocedural myonecrosis as troponin I increase by three times the upper limit normal or 50% of baseline.

RESULTS

Of 1311 patients, diabetes mellitus was found in 458 patients (34.9%) and associated with age (p = 0.03), hypertension (p < 0.001), renal failure (p = 0.01), previous MI (p = 0.03), previous coronary revascularization (p < 0.001), higher fasting glycaemia and lower haemoglobin (p < 0.001), more severe coronary disease (p < 0.001), multivessel percutaneous coronary interventions (p = 0.03), coronary calcification (p = 0.003) and in-stent restenosis (p < 0.001) but lower presence of thrombus (p = 0.03). Diabetic patients were receiving significantly more frequent specific pharmacological treatment at admission. Diabetic status did not influence the risk of periprocedural myocardial infarction or periprocedural myonecrosis [adjusted OR(95%CI) = 0.90(0.64-1.27), p = 0.57 and adjusted OR(95%CI) = 0.92(0.70-1.21), p = 0.55]. Amongst diabetic patients, we did not observe any effect of chronic glycaemic control on periprocedural myocardial infarction.

CONCLUSIONS

Diabetic status, independent of chronic glycaemic control, is not associated with increased risk of periprocedural myocardial infarction and myonecrosis in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions.

Benefits from new ADP antagonists as compared with clopidogrel in patients with stable angina or acute coronary syndrome undergoing invasive management: a meta-analysis of randomized trials

AIMS

New P2Y12 receptor inhibitors have provided new and more potent antiplatelet strategies, although raising several concerns on possible increase of bleedings. The aim of current meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of new adenosine diphosphate (ADP) receptor antagonists as compared with clopidogrel in elective or ACS patients managed invasively.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Literature archives (Pubmed, EMBASE, Cochrane) and main scientific sessions abstracts were scanned for randomized trials comparing new ADP antagonists with clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes or stable angina. Primary endpoint was mortality. Secondary endpoints were: (1) nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), (2) recurrent ischemia symptoms or ischemia-driven revascularization (RI/IDR), (3) stent thrombosis (ST), and (4) safety endpoints, defined as for TIMI major bleeding criteria. A total of 8 randomized clinical trials were finally included, for a total population of 67,851 patients. Mean follow-up was 7.6 months, ranging from 48 hours to 30 months. New ADP antagonists significantly reduced mortality {3.1% vs. 3.6%, odds ratio [OR] [95% confidence interval (CI)], 0.86 [0.79-0.94], P = 0.0008, P(het) = 0.18}, with greater impact of oral drugs. Similar benefits were found for MI [6.1% vs. 7%; OR (95% CI) (random-effect model) = 0.88 (0.79-0.98), P = 0.01, P(het) = 0.02], RI [2.7% vs. 3.1%; OR (95% CI) = 0.85 (0.77-0.93), P = 0.0005, P(het) = 0.09], or ST [1.1% vs. 1.7%; OR (95% CI) = 0.60 (0.51-0.71), P < 0.00001, P(het) = 0.13]. By meta-regression analysis, no relationship was observed between benefits in mortality, new MI, RI, and ST with new ADP antagonists and patients' risk profile [beta (95% CI) = -0.01 [-0.30 to 0.27], P = 0.94; beta (95% CI) = -0.05 [-1.49 to 1.43], P = 0.96); beta (95% CI) = 0.19 (-0.18 to 0.57), P = 0.31, and beta (95% CI) = -0.08 (-0.86 to 0.70), P = 0.84, respectively].

CONCLUSIONS

Present meta-analysis shows that the new ADP antagonists prasugrel, ticagrelor, and cangrelor are associated to significant reduction of mortality, reinfarction, RI, and ST respect to clopidogrel alone, without significant increase in bleeding complications.

Drug-Eluting Stents versus Bare-Metal Stents in Taiwanese Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome: An Outcome Report of a Multicenter Registry

BACKGROUND

The study aims to compare cardiovascular outcomes of using bare-metal stents (BMS) and drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) through analysis of the database from the Taiwan ACS registry. Large domestic studies comparing outcomes of interventional strategies using DES and BMS in a Taiwanese population with ACS are limited.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Collected data regarding characteristics and cardiovascular outcomes from the registry database were compared between the BMS and DES groups. A Cox regression model was used in an unadjusted or adjusted manner for analysis. Baseline characteristics apparently varied between DES group (n = 650) and BMS group (n = 1672) such as ACS types, Killip's classifications, or coronary blood flows. Compared with the BMS group, the DES group was associated with significantly lower cumulative incidence of all-cause mortality (3.4% vs. 5.8%, p = 0.008), target vessel revascularization (TVR) (5.2% vs. 7.4%, p = 0.035), or major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (10.2% vs. 15.6%, p < 0.001) at 1 year in a real-world setting. Cox regression analysis showed the BMS group referenced as the DES group had significantly higher risk-adjusted total mortality [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.85, p = 0.026], target vessel revascularization (TVR) (HR = 1.59, p = 0.035), and MACE (HR = 1.68, p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The data show use of DES over BMS provided advantages to patients with ACS in terms of lower 1-year mortality, TVR, and MACE. The study suggests implantation of DES compared with BMS in Taiwanese patients with ACS is safe and beneficial in the real-world setting.

KEY WORDS

Acute coronary syndrome; Bare-metal stent; Cardiovascular outcome; Drug-eluting stent; Percutaneous coronary intervention.

Impact of hypertension on infarct size in ST elevation myocardial infarction patients undergoing primary angioplasty

BACKGROUND

Hypertension is a well known risk factor for atherosclerosis. However, data on the impact of hypertension in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) are inconsistent, and mainly related to studies performed in the thrombolytic era, with very few data on patients undergoing primary angioplasty. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the impact of hypertension on scintigraphic infarct size in STEMI patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

METHOD

Our population is represented by 830 STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI. Infarct size was evaluated at 30 days by technetium-99m-sestamibi.

RESULTS

Hypertension was associated with more advanced age (P<0.001), a larger prevalence of diabetes (P=0.001), female sex (P<0.001), but lower prevalence of smoking (P<0.001) and anterior infarction (P=0.042). No difference was observed in ischemia time, cardiogenic shock at presentation, in preprocedural thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) flow, and collateral circulation. Hypertension did not affect the rate of postprocedural TIMI 3 flow. Hypertension did not affect infarct size [12.5% (4.1-23.8%) vs. 12.8% (4.3-24.7%), P=0.38]. Similar results were observed in subanalyses in major high-risk subgroups. No impact of hypertension on infarct size was confirmed when the analysis was conducted according to the percentage of patients with infarct size above the median [adjusted odds ratio (95% CI)=0.97 (0.72-1.33), P=0.92].

CONCLUSION

This study shows that among STEMI patients, undergoing primary PCI hypertension does not affect scintigraphic infarct size.

Long-term outcomes of drug-eluting versus bare-metal stent for ST-elevation myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND

Long-term outcomes of drug-eluting stents (DES) versus bare-metal stents (BMS) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) remain uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate long-term outcomes of drug-eluting stents (DES) versus bare-metal stents (BMS) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).

METHODS

We performed search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane library, and ISI Web of Science (until February 2013) for randomized trials comparing more than 12-month efficacy or safety of DES with BMS in patients with STEMI. Pooled estimate was presented with risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) using random-effects model.

RESULTS

Ten trials with 7,592 participants with STEMI were included. The overall results showed that there was no significant difference in the incidence of all-cause death and definite/probable stent thrombosis between DES and BMS at long-term follow-up. Patients receiving DES implantation appeared to have a lower 1-year incidence of recurrent myocardial infarction than those receiving BMS (RR = 0.75, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.00, p= 0.05). Moreover, the risk of target vessel revascularization (TVR) after receiving DES was consistently lowered during long-term observation (all p < 0.01). In subgroup analysis, the use of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) was associated with reduced risk of stent thrombosis in STEMI patients (RR = 0.37, p=0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

DES did not increase the risk of stent thrombosis in patients with STEMI compared with BMS. Moreover, the use of DES did lower long-term risk of repeat revascularization and might decrease the occurrence of reinfarction.

Impact of hypertension on clinical outcome in STEMI patients undergoing primary angioplasty with BMS or DES: insights from the DESERT cooperation

BACKGROUND

Hypertension is a well known risk factor for atherosclerosis. However, data on the prognostic impact of hypertension in patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) are inconsistent and mainly related to studies performed in the thrombolytic era, with very few data in patients undergoing primary angioplasty. Therefore, the aim of the current study was to evaluate the impact hypertension on clinical outcome in STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI with BMS or DES.

METHODS

Our population is represented by 6298 STEMI patients undergoing primary angioplasty included in the DESERT database from 11 randomized trials comparing DES vs BMS for STEMI.

RESULTS

Hypertension was observed in 2764 patients (43.9%), and associated with ageing (p<0.0001), female gender (p<0.001), diabetes (p<0.0001), hypercholesterolemia (p<0.0001), previous MI (p=0.002), previous revascularization (p=0.002), longer time-to-treatment (p<0.001), preprocedural TIMI 3 flow, and with a lower prevalence of smoking (41% vs 53.9%, p<0.001) and anterior MI (42% vs 45.9%, p=0.002). Hypertension was associated with impaired postprocedural TIMI 0-2 flow (Adjusted OR [95% CI]=1.22 [1.01-1.47], p=0.034). At a follow-up of 1,201 ± 440 days, hypertension was associated with higher mortality (adjusted HR [95% CI]=1.24 [1.01-1.54], p=0.048), reinfarction (adjusted HR [95% CI]=1.31 [1.03-1.66], p=0.027), stent thrombosis (adjusted HR [95% CI]=1.29 [0.98-1.71], p=0.068) and TVR (adjusted HR [95% CI]=1.22 [1.04-1.44], p=0.013).

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that among STEMI patients undergoing primary angioplasty with DES or BMS, hypertension is independently associated with impaired epicardial reperfusion, mortality, reinfarction and TVR, and a trend in higher ST.

Current application and bioavailability of drug-eluting stents

INTRODUCTION

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

AREAS COVERED

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

EXPERT OPINION

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

Advances in mechanisms, imaging and management of the unstable plaque

Post-mortem observations demonstrated that plaque fissure was the final event leading to coronary thrombosis and occlusion in about two-thirds of cases of sudden coronary death. Plaques prone to fissure have, therefore, been defined "vulnerable plaques" and are identified by specific anatomic features including thin inflamed fibrous cap, large lipidic core and positive remodeling. Accordingly, elegant imaging modalities have been developed in order to identify this "holy grail". However, the results of prognostic studies based on the identification of vulnerable plaques have not been encouraging because of the low positive predictive value for major cardiovascular events. This observation is not surprising as the pathogenesis of acute coronary syndromes is complex and multifactorial. In this review we propose a pathogenetic classification of acute coronary syndromes in the attempt to identify homogeneous groups of patients with a common mechanism of coronary instability which can be identified by using specific biomarkers and imaging techniques, and become a specific therapeutic target.

Platelet-larger cell ratio and the risk of periprocedural myocardial infarction after percutaneous coronary revascularization

Periprocedural myocardial infarction (PMI) represents a frequent complication in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary revascularization. Despite great attention focused on pharmacological prevention of periprocedural damage, very little is known about using biomarkers to potentially predict the risk of PMI. Larger platelets have been associated with enhanced reactivity, increased cardiovascular risk, and higher rates of complications after coronary stenting. The platelet-larger cell ratio (P-LCR) identifies the largest-sized fraction of platelets, the proportion potentially more closely related to thrombotic events. The present study evaluated the relationship between P-LCR and PMI. We included 1,285 patients undergoing PCI. Myonecrosis biomarkers were dosed at intervals from 6 to 48 h after PCI. Periprocedural myonecrosis was defined as troponin I increase by three times the upper limit of normal (ULN) or by 50 % of an elevated baseline value, whereas PMI was defined as an increase in creatine kinase MB by 3 × ULN or 50 % of baseline. We grouped patients according to tertile values of P-LCR (<27.5; ≥35.1). Higher P-LCR was associated with age (P = 0.01), diabetes (P = 0.001), previous cerebrovascular accidents (P = 0.007), therapy with statins (P < 0.001), angiotensin receptor blockers (P < 0.001), aspirin (P = 0.002), and nitrates (P = 0.01). P-LCR was related to hemoglobin levels (P < 0.001), and inversely related to platelet count (P < 0.001) and glycemia (P = 0.05). Patients with higher P-LCR had a lower presence of coronary thrombus (P = 0.003). Higher P-LCR values did not increase the risk of PMI (P = 0.10; adjusted odds ratio (OR) (95 % confidence interval (CI)) = 0.97 (0.69-1.38)), P = 0.89) or periprocedural myonecrosis (P = 0.96; adjusted OR (95 % CI) = 1.003 (0.76-1.32), P = 0.99). Results were confirmed even in higher-risk subgroups of patients. P-LCR does not increase the risk of periprocedural myocardial infarction and myonecrosis in patients undergoing coronary stenting.

Stent thrombosis with second-generation drug-eluting stents compared with bare-metal stents: network meta-analysis of primary percutaneous coronary intervention trials in ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction [corrected]

BACKGROUND

The relative safety of drug-eluting stents (DESs) and bare-metal stents (BMSs) with respect to stent thrombosis (ST) continues to be debated. There are limited data comparing safety and efficacy of second-generation DES to BMS. We compared the clinical outcomes between second-generation DES and BMS for primary percutaneous coronary intervention using network meta-analysis.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Randomized controlled trials comparing stent types (first-generation DES, second-generation DES or BMS) were considered for inclusion. A search strategy used Medline, Embase, Cochrane databases, and proceedings of the international meetings. Information about study design, inclusion criteria, and sample characteristics were extracted. Network meta-analysis was used to pool direct (comparison of second-generation DES to BMS) and indirect evidence (first-generation DES with BMS and second-generation DES) from the randomized trials. Twenty-one trials comparing all stents types, including 12 866 patients randomly assigned to treatment groups, were analyzed. A significantly lower incidence of ST was noted with the use of second-generation DES as early as 30 days (odds ratio [OR], 0.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.15-0.82) and between 31 days and 1 year (OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.30-0.79) when compared with BMS. Second-generation DES was associated with significantly lower incidence of definite ST at 1 year (OR, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.11-0.83) and myocardial infarction (OR, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.17-0.54) and target vessel revascularization at 1 year (OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.80-0.98) when compared with BMS. There was no difference in mortality at 30 days (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.45-1.59) or 1 year (OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.56-1.14) with the use of second-generation DES versus BMS. The small number of events may influence the precision of the analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Network meta-analysis of randomized trials of primary percutaneous coronary intervention demonstrated lower incidence of ST, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization with second-generation DES when compared with BMS. The use of second-generation DES for percutaneous coronary intervention in ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction was not associated with adverse events when compared with BMS.

Impact of hypertension on distal embolization, myocardial perfusion, and mortality in patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary angioplasty

Hypertension is a well-known risk factor for atherosclerosis. However, data on the impact of hypertension in patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) are inconsistent and mainly related to studies performed in the thrombolytic era, with very few data on patients undergoing primary angioplasty. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the impact of hypertension on distal embolization, myocardial perfusion, and mortality in patients with STEMI undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Our population is represented by 1,662 patients undergoing primary angioplasty for STEMI included in the Early Glycoprotein IIb-IIIa inhibitors in Primary angioplasty database. Myocardial perfusion was evaluated by myocardial blush grade and ST segment resolution. Follow-up data were collected within 1 year after primary angioplasty. Hypertension was observed in 700 patients (42.1%). Hypertension was associated with more advanced age (p <0.001), female gender (p <0.001), diabetes (p <0.001), hypercholesterolemia (p <0.001), previous revascularization (p <0.001), anterior myocardial infarction (p = 0.006), longer ischemia time (p = 0.03), more extensive coronary artery disease (p = 0.002), more often treated with abciximab (p <0.001), and less often smokers (p <0.001). Hypertension was associated with impaired postprocedural myocardial blush grade 2 to 3 (68.2% vs 74.2%, p = 0.019) and complete ST segment resolution (51.7% vs 61.1%, p = 0.001). By a mean follow-up of 206 ± 158 days, 70 patients (4.3%) had died. Hypertension was associated with a greater mortality (6.2% vs 2.9%, hazard ratio 2.31, 95% confidence interval 1.42 to 3.73, p <0.001), confirmed after correction for baseline confounding factors (hazard ratio 1.82, 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 3.22, p <0.001). In conclusion, this study showed that among patients with STEMI undergoing primary angioplasty, hypertension is associated with impaired reperfusion and independently predicts 1-year mortality.

Drug-eluting stents for acute coronary syndrome: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Drug-eluting stents (DES) are increasingly used for treatment of acute coronary syndrome (ACS). However, clinical efficacy and safety of various types of DES is not well established in these subjects. We therefore evaluated clinical utility of second-generation and first-generation DES in patients with ACS by conducting a meta-analysis.

METHODS

A search of Medline, Embase, the Cochrane databases, and Web of Science was made. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which compared second-generation DES (everolimus-eluting stents [EES] or zotarolimus-eluting stents [ZES]) versus first-generation DES (sirolimus-eluting stents [SES] or paclitaxe-eluting stents [PES]) in patients with ACS and provided data on clinical efficacy or safety endpoints were included. Pooled estimates were calculated using random-effects model.

RESULT

A total of 2,757 participants with ACS in 6 RCTs were included. Compared with first-generation one, second-generation DES trended to be associated with the decreased incidence of definite or probable stent thrombosis in ACS patients (risk ratio [RR]  = 0.60, 95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.33 to 1.07, p = 0.09). However, the rate of target lesion revascularization (TLR) significantly increased in second-generation DES (RR = 2.08, 95%CI 1.25 to 3.47, p = 0.005). There were no significant differences in the incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), all-cause death, cardiac death, and recurrent myocardial infarction between the two arms (all p>0.10). The second-generation EES showed a tendency towards lower risk of MACEs (p = 0.06) and a beneficial effect on reducing stent thrombosis episodes (p = 0.009), while the second-generation ZES presented an increased occurrence of MACEs (p = 0.02) and TLR (p = 0.003).

CONCLUSION

Second-generation DES, especially EES, appeared to present a lower risk of stent thrombosis, whereas second-generation ZES might increase the need for repeat revascularization in ACS patients. During coronary interventional therapy, DES class should be adequately considered in order to maximize clinical benefit of DES implantation in these specific subjects.

Adverse events after coronary revascularization procedures in California 2000 to 2010

Public reporting of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) mortality in California was initiated in 2003. Drug-eluting stents were widely introduced in the same year. Adverse events after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and CABG were analyzed to study the impact of these events. Annual California hospital discharge data were collected from 2000 through 2010. In-hospital mortality and hospital readmission for adverse events <1 year were determined for patients undergoing isolated CABG, PCI for acute coronary syndrome (PCI-ACS), and all other PCIs (PCI-noACS). CABG volume peaked in 2000 and subsequently decreased by 58%; PCI volume peaked in 2005 and subsequently decreased by 20%. After 2003, in-hospital mortality and 1-year mortality for CABG decreased whereas mortality after PCI remained unchanged. Event rates for acute myocardial infarction and stroke varied little over the decade; acute myocardial infarction at 1 year was 2.5% to 2.8% (CABG), 4.5% to 5.4% (PCI-ACS), and 4.6% to 5.8% (PCI-noACS); stroke rate was 1.4% to 1.7% (CABG), 1.2% to 1.6% (PCI-ACS), and 1.0% to 1.2% (PCI-noACS). Reintervention for PCI decreased markedly, from 18.8% to 12.8% (PCI-ACS) and 22.5% to 13.3% (PCI-noACS). Multiple adverse cardiovascular and cerebral events rate at 1 year decreased from 10.8% to 9.4% (CABG), 26.5% to 21.2% (PCI-ACS), and 26.8% to 18.4% (PCI-noACS). Excluding reinterventions, multiple adverse cardiovascular and cerebral events rate at 1 year was 8.3% (CABG), 14.6% (PCI-ACS), and 10.1% (PCI-noACS) in 2010. In conclusion, the volume of coronary interventions in California decreased whereas adverse event rates decreased after the introduction of public reporting and drug-eluting stents. Lower procedure volume combined with improved outcomes resulted in an annual decrease of >6,000 adverse events by the end of the decade.

Outcomes with various drug-eluting or bare metal stents in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction: a mixed treatment comparison analysis of trial level data from 34 068 patient-years of follow-up from randomized trials

BACKGROUND

The efficacy and safety of drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is controversial. Consequently, DES implantation has a class IIa indication in the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and the European Society of Cardiology STEMI guidelines.

METHODS AND RESULTS

PUBMED, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched for randomized clinical trials, until March 2013, comparing any of the 5 Food and Drug Administration-approved durable stent and polymer DES (sirolimus eluting stent, paclitaxel eluting stent, everolimus-eluting stent [EES], zotarolimus-eluting stent, and zotarolimus-eluting stent resolute), against each other or bare metal stents (BMS), and enrolling ≥ 50 patients with STEMI. Efficacy (target vessel revascularization) and safety (death, myocardial infarction, and stent thrombosis) outcomes at the longest reported follow-up times were evaluated. Twenty-eight randomized clinical trials with 34 068 patient-years of follow-up on subjects with STEMI fulfilled the inclusion criteria. When compared with BMS (reference rate ratio [RR] of 1), sirolimus eluting stent (RR, 0.46; 95% credibility interval [CrI], 0.36-0.56), paclitaxel eluting stent (RR, 0.69; 95% CrI, 0.53-0.87), and EES (RR, 0.42; 95% CrI, 0.26-0.62) were associated with a statistically significant reduction in rate of target vessel revascularization, with the point estimate for zotarolimus-eluting stent resolute trending in a similar direction. There was no increase in the risk of death, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis with any DES compared with BMS. Moreover, EES was associated with a statistically significant reduction in the rate of stent thrombosis when compared with sirolimus eluting stent (RR, 0.38; 95% CrI, 0.21-0.74), paclitaxel eluting stent (RR, 0.39; 95% CrI, 0.21-0.73), and even BMS (RR, 0.42; 95% CrI, 0.23-0.76). There was a 74% probability that EES had the lowest rate of any stent thrombosis when compared with all other stent types (no data on zotarolimus-eluting stent resolute). There was no increase in very late stent thrombosis with EES versus BMS (RR, 0.89; 95% CrI, 0.09-8.67).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with STEMI, DES versus BMS was associated with substantial decrease in the risk of target vessel revascularization without compromising safety. EES had the added advantage of substantial reduction in the risk of stent thrombosis when compared with first-generation DES and BMS with no increase in very late stent thrombosis.

Impact of diabetes on long-term outcome after primary angioplasty: insights from the DESERT cooperation

OBJECTIVE

Diabetes has been shown to be associated with worse survival and repeat target vessel revascularization (TVR) after primary angioplasty. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the impact of diabetes on long-term outcome in patients undergoing primary angioplasty treated with bare metal stents (BMS) and drug-eluting stents (DES).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Our population is represented by 6,298 ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients undergoing primary angioplasty included in the DESERT database from 11 randomized trials comparing DES with BMS.

RESULTS

Diabetes was observed in 972 patients (15.4%) who were older (P < 0.001), more likely to be female (P < 0.001), with higher prevalence of hypertension (P < 0.001), hypercholesterolemia (P < 0.001), and longer ischemia time (P < 0.001), and without any difference in angiographic and procedural characteristics. At long-term follow-up (1,201 ± 441 days), diabetes was associated with higher rates of death (19.1% vs. 7.4%; P < 0.0001), reinfarction (10.4% vs. 7.5%; P < 0.001), stent thrombosis (7.6% vs. 4.8%; P = 0.002) with similar temporal distribution--acute, subacute, late, and very late--between diabetic and control patients, and TVR (18.6% vs. 15.1%; P = 0.006). These results were confirmed in patients receiving BMS or DES, except for TVR, there being no difference observed between diabetic and nondiabetic patients treated with DES. The impact of diabetes on outcome was confirmed after correction for baseline confounding factors (mortality, P < 0.001; repeat myocardial infarction, P = 0.006; stent thrombosis, P = 0.007; TVR, P = 0.027).

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that among STEMI patients undergoing primary angioplasty, diabetes is associated with worse long-term mortality, reinfarction, and stent thrombosis in patients receiving DES and BMS. DES implantation, however, does mitigate the known deleterious effect of diabetes on TVR after BMS.