Outcomes of Drug-Eluting Stent Thrombosis After Treatment for Acute Versus Chronic Coronary Syndrome

Ten-year clinical outcomes after drug-eluting stents implantation according to clinical presentation-Insights from the DECADE cooperation

BACKGROUND

Investigations of very long-term outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES) according to clinical presentation are scarce. Here, we investigated the 10-year clinical outcomes of patients undergoing DES-PCI according to clinical presentation.

METHODS

Patient-level data from five randomized trials with 10-year follow-up after DES-PCI were pooled. Patients were dichotomized into acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) groups as per clinical presentation. The primary outcome was all-cause death. Secondary outcomes were cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), definite stent thrombosis (ST) and repeat revascularization involving the target lesion (TLR), target vessel (TVR) or non-target vessel (nTVR).

RESULTS

Of the 9700 patients included in this analysis, 4557 presented with ACS and 5143 with CCS. Compared with CCS patients, ACS patients had a higher risk of all-cause death and nTVR in the first year, but comparable risk thereafter. In addition, ACS patients had a higher risk of MI [adjusted hazard ratio 1.21, 95% confidence interval (1.04-1.41)] and definite ST [adjusted hazard ratio 1.48, 95% confidence interval (1.14-1.92)], while the risk of TLR and TVR was not significantly different up to 10-year follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to CCS patients, ACS patients treated with PCI and DES implantation have an increased risk of all-cause death and repeat revascularization of remote vessels up to 1 year, with no significant differences thereafter and up to 10-year follow-up. ACS patients have a consistently higher risk of MI and definite ST. Whether these differences persist with current antithrombotic and secondary prevention therapies requires further investigation.

Long-term outcomes of titanium-nitride-oxide coated stents and drug-eluting stents in acute coronary syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In severe cases of coronary artery disease, percutaneous coronary intervention provide promising results. The stent used could be a drug-eluting stent (DES) or a titanium-nitride-oxide coated stent (TiNOS).

AIM

To compare the 5-year effectiveness and safety of the two stent types.

METHODS

The following systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis guidelines, and PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane Central were searched from inception till August 2023. Primary outcomes were major adverse cardiac events (MACE), cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), cardiac death or MI, and ischemia-driven total lesion revascularization (ID-TLR).

RESULTS

Four randomized controlled trials (RCT), which analyzed a sum total of 3045 patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) after a median follow-up time of 5 years were included. Though statistically insignificant, an increase in the ID-TLR was observed in patients receiving TiNOSs vs DESs. In addition, MI, cardiac death and MI, and definite stent thrombosis (DST) were significantly decreased in the TiNOS arm. Baseline analysis revealed no significant results with meta-regression presenting non-ST elevated MI (NSTEMI) as a statistically significant covariate in the outcome of MACE.

CONCLUSION

TiNOS was found to be superior to DES in terms of MI, cardiac death or MI, and DST outcomes, however, the effect of the two stent types on ID-TLR and MACE was not significant. A greater number of studies are required to establish an accurate comparison of patient outcomes in TiNOS and DES.

Long-Term Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Outcomes in Chronic Versus Acute Coronary Syndromes (TARGET All Comers Trial)

In the Targeted therapy with a localised abluminal coated, low-dose sirolimus-eluting, biodegreadable polymer coronary stent (TARGET; NCT02520180) All Comers trial the biodegradable polymer (BP) sirolimus-eluting FIREHAWK stent was noninferior to the durable polymer (DP) everolimus-eluting XIENCE stent with respect to target lesion failure (TLF) at 1 and 5 years; however, the long-term safety and efficacy in the setting of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) are not known. We sought to assess the long-term outcomes in ACS versus chronic coronary syndromes (CCS) with BP sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) versus DP everolimus-eluting stent (EES). The TARGET AC study was a multicenter, open-label, noninferiority trial of all comer patients randomly allocated 1:1 to BP SES or DP EES (stratified by ST-elevation myocardial infarction and study site). In this predefined substudy, the outcomes were compared based on clinical presentation (ACS vs CCS) and treatment allocation. A total of 1,653 patients were enrolled (728 with ACS and 922 with CCS), with 94% completing the 5-year follow-up. The baseline characteristics were well-matched between the 2 stent types; however, co-morbidities were more prevalent in the CCS than in the ACS population. TLF (15.5% vs 17.7%, p = 0.24), patient-oriented outcomes (32.0% vs 34.4%, p = 0.31), and stent thrombosis (4.1% vs 3.3%, p = 0.40) were similar between patients with ACS and patients with CCS. In the ACS cohort, the outcomes at 5 years for BP SES versus DP EES were similar for TLF (16.0% vs 14.9%, p = 0.70), ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (5.6% vs 8.3%, p = 0.17), and definite/probable stent thrombosis (2.7% vs 4.6%, p = 0.18). The same was true for the CCS cohort, with 5-year outcomes for BP SES versus DP EES for TLF (18.0% vs 17.4%, p = 0.82), ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (6.4% vs 5.0%, p = 0.37), and definite/probable stent thrombosis (3.0% vs 1.8%, p = 0.26). In conclusion, in the TARGET AC trial, 1 in 3 patients had a major adverse event at 5 years, irrespective of CCS or ACS presentation. Long-term, the BP sirolimus-eluting FIREHAWK stent was as safe and effective as the DP everolimus-eluting XIENCE stent across the spectrum of clinical presentations.

Cardiovascular Outcomes after Paclitaxel-Coated Balloon Angioplasty versus Drug-Eluting Stent Placement for Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the feasibility of paclitaxel-coated balloon (PCB) angioplasty for de novo lesions in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) by comparing with drug-eluting stent (DES) placement. Methods: By a systematic literature search, nine (five randomized controlled, two retrospective propensity-score matched, and two retrospective baseline-balanced) studies comparing the midterm clinical and angiographic outcomes after PCB angioplasty and DES placement were included, yielding 974 and 1130 ACS cases in PCB and DES groups, respectively. Major adverse cardiac event (MACE) was defined as a composite of cardiac mortality (CM), all-cause mortality (ACM), myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularization (TVR), and target lesion revascularization (TLR). Late luminal loss (LLL) and bleeding events (BLD) were also estimated. Results: The frequencies of MACE in PCB and DES groups were 8.42% and 10.62%, respectively. PCB angioplasty had no significant impacts on all of MACE (risk ratio: 0.90, 95%CI: 0.68-1.18, p = 0.44), CM, ACM, MI, TVR, TLR, BLD, and LLL, compared to DES placement in random-effects model. Conclusions: The present systematic review and meta-analysis showed the feasibility of PCB angioplasty for the de novo lesions in patients with ACS in comparison with DES placement by the emergent procedures.

Natural History and Clinical Outcomes After ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Without Stent Insertion

After restoration of coronary perfusion in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), discrete severe stenotic coronary lesions are not always apparent. There remains ambiguity whether drug-eluting stent (DES) insertion or initial medical management is best practice. We sought to assess short-term clinical outcomes in patients presenting with STEMI without initial stent insertion. Patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention for STEMI between 2014 and 2020 were prospectively enrolled and assessed for inclusion. Patients presenting with in-stent restenosis or stent thrombosis, or who did not survive to hospital discharge were excluded. Of 13,871 patients presenting, 456 (3.3%) were treated without initial stenting. These patients were older than those treated with DES (66.1 ± 13.6 vs 62.3 ± 12.4 years, p <0.001), had higher rates of diabetes (23.5% vs 16.0%, p <0.001) and previous revascularization with either percutaneous coronary intervention (14.0% vs 7.3%, p <0.001) or coronary artery bypass graft (3.5% vs 1.8%, p = 0.008). Thirty-day mortality was elevated in patients treated without stenting compared to those receiving DES (4.2% vs 0.9%, p <0.001), as were rates of myocardial infarction (1.3% vs 0.5%, p = 0.026) and major adverse cardiac events (10.5% vs 2.4%, p <0.001). After propensity matching, a trend toward increased mortality remained (4.2% vs 2.0%, p = 0.055). In conclusion, a no-stenting initial strategy, compared with DES insertion, is associated with increased 30-day mortality in those presenting with STEMI without severe stenosis. These data suggest when appropriate, current-generation DES insertion should be undertaken.

One-Month Dual Antiplatelet Therapy in Patients With Chronic and Acute Coronary Syndromes Treated With Bioresorbable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stents

There is a paucity of data regarding the safety of a 1-month dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients at high bleeding risk (HBR) presenting with acute coronary syndromes (ACS). We aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of patients at HBR with chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) or ACS treated with PCI using bioresorbable polymer everolimus-eluting stent (BP-EES) followed by 1-month DAPT. Patients at HBR who underwent PCI with BP-EES were prospectively enrolled in 10 Italian centers. All patients were treated with 1-month DAPT. In case of need for anticoagulation, patients received an oral anticoagulant in addition to a P2Y12 inhibitor for 1 month, followed by oral anticoagulation only after that. The primary end point was a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or definite/probable stent thrombosis at 12 months. Overall, 263 patients (59.4%) with CCS and 180 patients (40.6%) with ACS were enrolled. No significant difference was evident between patients with CCS and ACS for the primary end point (4.3% vs 5.6%, respectively, p = 0.497) and for each isolated component. The risk for Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 1 to 5 or type 3 to 5 bleedings was also similar between patients with CCS and ACS (4.3% vs 5.2%, p = 0.677, and 1.6% vs 2.9%, p = 0.351, respectively). In conclusion, among HBR patients with ACS who underwent PCI with BP-EES, a 1-month DAPT strategy is associated with a similar risk of ischemic and bleeding events compared with those with CCS.