Role of the paclitaxel-eluting stent and tirofiban in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing postfibrinolysis angioplasty: the GRACIA-3 randomized clinical 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.

Fibrinolytic Strategy for ST-Segment–Elevation Myocardial Infarction

The ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has resulted in additional challenges for systems designed to perform expeditious primary percutaneous coronary intervention for patients presenting with ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction. There are 2 important considerations: the guideline-recommended time goals were difficult to achieve for many patients in high-income countries even before the pandemic, and there is a steep increase in mortality when primary percutaneous coronary intervention cannot be delivered in a timely fashion. Although the use of fibrinolytic therapy has progressively decreased over the last several decades in high-income countries, in circumstances when delays in timely delivery of primary percutaneous coronary intervention are expected, a modern fibrinolytic-based pharmacoinvasive strategy may need to be considered. The purpose of this review is to systematically discuss the contemporary role of an evidence-based fibrinolytic reperfusion strategy as part of a pharmacoinvasive approach, in the context of the emerging coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.

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.

Reperfusion Options for ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction Patients with Expected Delays to Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is the preferred reperfusion strategy for ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). However, only one-third of hospitals in the US have PCI availability 24/7. For non-PCI hospitals, transfer remains the optimal strategy. For expected delays of greater than 120 minutes, a pharmacoinvasive strategy is recommended. In patients with evidence of failed reperfusion or hemodynamic instability, immediate rescue PCI should be performed. All other patients should undergo routine cardiac catheterization and PCI within 24 hours after fibrinolysis. A pharmacoinvasive strategy is best implemented within an organized regional STEMI system with prospective standardized transfer protocols.

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.

Coronary artery disease in the military patient

Ischaemic heart disease is the most common cause of sudden death in the UK, and the most common cardiac cause of medical discharge from the Armed Forces. This paper reviews current evidence pertaining to the diagnosis and management of coronary artery disease from a military perspective, encompassing stable angina and acute coronary syndromes. Emphasis is placed on the limitations inherent in the management of acute coronary syndromes in the deployed environment. Occupational issues affecting patients with coronary artery disease are reviewed. Consideration is also given to the potential for coronary artery disease screening in the military, and the management of modifiable cardiovascular disease risk factors, to help decrease the prevalence of coronary artery disease in the military population.

Drug-eluting stents and acute myocardial infarction: A lethal combination or friends?

Primary percutaneous coronary intervention is the preferred reperfusion strategy for patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). First generation drug-eluting stents (DES), (sirolimus drug-eluting stents and paclitaxel drug-eluting stents), reduce the risk of restenosis and target vessel revascularization compared to bare metal stents. However, stent thrombosis emerged as a major safety concern with first generation DES. In response to these safety issues, second generation DES were developed with different drugs, improved stent platforms and more biocompatible durable or bioabsorbable polymeric coating. This article presents an overview of safety and efficacy of the first and second generation DES in STEMI.

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.

Efficacy and safety of a routine early invasive strategy after fibrinolysis stratified by glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor use during percutaneous coronary intervention: a pre-specified subgroup analysis of the TRANSFER-AMI randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the efficacy and safety of an early invasive strategy post-fibrinolysis in relation to glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa inhibitor use.

METHODS

The Trial of Routine Angioplasty and Stenting after Fibrinolysis to Enhance Reperfusion in Acute Myocardial Infarction (TRANSFER-AMI) randomised 1059 ST elevation myocardial infarction patients to an early invasive strategy or standard therapy post-fibrinolysis. The primary end point was the composite of death, reinfarction, recurrent ischaemia, new or worsening heart failure, or cardiogenic shock at 30 days. In this pre-specified analysis, we examined efficacy and safety outcomes of an early invasive strategy after stratification by GPIIb/IIIa inhibitor use, which was permitted during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) at the discretion of the treating physician.

RESULTS

A total of 695 patients (65.6%) received GPIIb/IIIa inhibitors. There was significant heterogeneity (p<0.001) in the efficacy of an early invasive strategy compared to standard therapy, between the strata with GPIIb/IIIa inhibitor use (primary end point 9.6% vs 22.3% respectively, p<0.001) and without GPIIb/IIIa inhibitor use (primary end point 14.8% vs 10.4% respectively, p=0.21). Patients who received GPIIb/IIIa inhibitors had lower Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) risk scores compared to those without GPIIb/IIIa inhibitor use (median 121 vs 130, p<0.001). After adjusting for the interaction between GRACE risk score and treatment assignment, the heterogeneity in the efficacy of an early invasive strategy with respect to GPIIb/IIIa inhibitor use was no longer significant (p interaction=0.08).

CONCLUSIONS

The apparent difference in the efficacy of an early invasive strategy between GPIIb/IIIa inhibitor strata likely reflects an association between GPIIb/IIIa inhibitor use and baseline risk. GPIIb/IIIa inhibitor use during PCI at the discretion of the treating physician does not appear to modulate the efficacy of an early invasive strategy post-fibrinolysis.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00164190, NCT00164190.

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.

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.

Clinical outcomes and cost implications of routine early PCI after fibrinolysis: one-year follow-up of the Trial of Routine Angioplasty and Stenting after Fibrinolysis to Enhance Reperfusion in Acute Myocardial Infarction (TRANSFER-AMI) study

BACKGROUND

In patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction treated with fibrinolysis, routine early percutaneous coronary intervention (r-PCI) improves clinical outcomes at 30 days compared with a more standard approach of performing early PCI only for failed fibrinolysis (s-PCI).

METHODS

We report prespecified secondary clinical outcomes and cost implications of r-PCI compared with s-PCI from the Canadian TRANSFER-AMI trial. Average cost per patient in each arm was calculated based on a microcosting approach. Bootstrap method (5,000 samples) was used to calculate standard errors and 95% CI.

RESULTS

At 1 year, rates of death or reinfarction (10.3% vs 11.6%, P = .50), hospital readmission (15.4% vs 16.5%, P = .64) and subsequent revascularization after index hospitalization (6.9% vs 8.7%, P = .30) were similar between the r-PCI and s-PCI arms. The difference in cost per patient between r-PCI and s-PCI was CAD $1,003 (95% CI, -$247 to $2,211). Since a greater proportion of patients were transported by air (vs land) in the r-PCI arm (9.4% vs 3%), and the ratio of abciximab to eptifibatide use was higher in the r-PCI arm compared with s-PCI (2:1 vs 4:5), we undertook additional post hoc cost scenario analyses. In a scenario where patients are transported by land only and eptifibatide is used as the sole GPIIb/IIIa inhibitor, the difference in cost per patient between r-PCI and s-PCI was estimated to be CAD $108 (95% CI, -$1,114 to $1,344).

CONCLUSIONS

At 1 year, there is no difference in the clinical composite outcome of death or reinfarction between r-PCI and s-PCI strategies. Greater cost with r-PCI, although statistically insignificant, is economically important.

Coronary stent choice in patients with acute myocardial infarction

A prompt reperfusion with primary percutaneous coronary intervention represents the current gold standard treatment for patients with acute myocardial infarction. In this setting, coronary stents have been shown to improve outcomes compared to plain angioplasty and are routinely used. However, the stent selection among patients with acute myocardial infarction is still a matter of some debate. An increased risk of very late (>1-year) stent thrombosis has been associated with the use of early-generation drug-eluting stents (DES), leading to concerns regarding the long-term safety of these devices. Newer-generation DES were developed with the aim of addressing this safety issue, and were recently investigated in a few randomized studies in patients with acute myocardial infarction. The objective of the present review is to summarize the accumulated evidence, to guide the stent selection in patients with acute myocardial infarction.

Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes Editors' Picks

The following are highlights from the new series, Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes Topic Review. This series will summarize the most important manuscripts, as selected by the editors, that have published in the Circulation portfolio. The objective of this new series is to provide our readership with a timely, comprehensive selection of important papers that are relevant to the quality and outcomes and general cardiology audience. The studies included in this article represent the most significant research in the area of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction care and address improvements in the timeliness of care, strategies for initial treatment—particularly with respect to reperfusion therapies—and trends.

Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions Editors' Picks

The following are highlights from the series, Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions Topic Review. This series summarizes the most important manuscripts, as selected by the editors, that have published in the Circulation portfolio. The studies included in this article represent the most noteworthy research in the area of antiplatelet therapy.