Midterm outcomes of bare-metal stenting after primary stenting for ST-segment elevated myocardial infarctions in the drug-eluting stent era: a propensity score-matched comparison with sirolimus-eluting stent

We performed a propensity score-matching comparison of the midterm clinical and angiographic outcomes after primary stenting between using bare-metal stents (BMSs) and sirolimus-eluting stent (SES; Cypher Bx Velocity) for ST-segment elevated myocardial infarction (STEMI), because, in the drug-eluting stent era, the indication of the BMSs when a large balloon diameter is required remained to be controversial. This was a single-center, nonrandomized, retrospective study investigated in October 2013 by enrolling STEMI patients treated with primary stenting using either SES (n = 468) or BMS (n = 171) between September 2004 and December 2011. In 204 patients, the baseline-adjusted values produced similar mean maximum balloon sizes (BMS 3.67 ± 0.47 mm; SES 3.70 ± 0.56 mm; p = 0.477), and the incidence rates of binary in-stent restenosis (% diameter stenosis >50 % on secondary angiography) after SES placement (7.8 %) was significantly lower than that after BMS placement (23.5 %; p = 0.002). In baseline-adjusted 300 patients, the incidence of the clinical endpoints comprising cardiac death, nonfatal recurrent MI, and definite stent thrombosis after SES placement (11.3 %; 1241 ± 786 days; p = 0.557) was not significantly different from after BMS placement (8.7 %; mean follow-up period, 549 ± 486 days; p = 0.557). SES was not significantly related to the clinical endpoint [hazard ratio 2.31; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.88-6.08; p = 0.089). BMS did not offset the SES's angiographic efficacy for primary stenting for STEMI patients, despite placed using a large-sized balloon.

Comparison of everolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents in patients with acute and stable coronary syndromes: pooled results from the SPIRIT (A Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System) and COMPARE (A Trial of Everolimus-Eluting Stents and Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents for Coronary Revascularization in Daily Practice) Trials

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to compare the clinical outcomes of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) versus paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and stable coronary artery disease (CAD).

BACKGROUND

Although randomized trials have shown superiority of EES to PES, the safety and efficacy of EES in ACS is unknown.

METHODS

We performed a patient-level pooled analysis from the prospective, randomized SPIRIT (Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System) II, III, IV, and COMPARE (A Trial of Everolimus-Eluting Stents and Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents for Coronary Revascularization in Daily Practice) trials in which 2,381 patients with ACS and 4,404 patients with stable CAD were randomized to EES or to PES. Kaplan-Meier estimates of death, myocardial infarction (MI), ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization, and stent thrombosis were assessed at 2 years and stratified by clinical presentation (ACS vs. stable CAD).

RESULTS

At 2 years, patients with ACS compared with stable CAD had higher rates of death (3.2% vs. 2.4%, hazard ratio [HR]: 1.37 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.02 to 1.85], p = 0.04) and MI (4.9% vs. 3.4%, HR: 1.45 [95% CI: 1.14 to 1.85], p = 0.02). In patients with ACS, EES versus PES reduced the rate of death or MI (6.6% vs. 9.3%, HR: 0.70 [95% CI: 0.52 to 0.94], p = 0.02), stent thrombosis (0.7% vs. 2.9%, HR: 0.25 [95% CI: 0.12 to 0.52], p = 0.0002), and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (4.7% vs. 6.2%, HR: 0.69 [95% CI: 0.48 to 0.99], p = 0.04). In patients with stable CAD, EES reduced the rate of death or MI (4.5% vs. 7.1%, HR: 0.62 [95% CI: 0.48 to 0.80], p = 0.0002), stent thrombosis (0.7% vs. 1.8%, HR: 0.34 [95% CI: 0.19 to 0.62], p = 0.0002), and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (3.9% vs. 6.9%, HR: 0.55 [95% CI: 0.42 to 0.73], p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with EES versus PES provides enhanced safety and efficacy regardless of the acuity of the clinical syndrome being treated and appears to mitigate the increased risk of stent thrombosis associated with ACS. (A Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Patients With de Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions [SPIRIT II]; NCT00180310; SPIRIT III: A Clinical Evaluation of the Investigational Device XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System [EECSS] in the Treatment of Subjects With de Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions [SPIRIT III]; NCT00180479; SPIRIT IV Clinical Trial: Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Subjects With de Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions [SPIRIT IV]; NCT00307047; A Trial of Everolimus-Eluting Stents and Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents for Coronary Revascularization in Daily Practice: the COMPARE Trial [COMPARE]; NCT01016041).

Three-year follow-up of sirolimus-eluting stents vs. bare metal stents for acute myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND

The long-term safety and efficacy of drug-eluting stents for patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) remain controversial.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 143 consecutive patients who presented between August 2004 and July 2006 with AMI and who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using sirolimus-eluting stents (SES), were compared with a historical control cohort of 129 consecutive patients who presented between August 2002 and July 2004 and who underwent primary PCI using bare metal stents (BMS). The rate of major adverse cardiovascular events at 3 years was significantly lower in the SES group than in the BMS group (20.3% vs. 33.1%, respectively; P=0.01). This reduction was mainly driven by a decrease in the rate of target vessel revascularization (12.3% vs. 22.4%, respectively; P=0.02). There was no significant difference in the rate of cardiovascular death (4.5% vs. 5.7%, respectively; P=0.67), non-fatal myocardial infarction (4.5% vs. 9.2%, respectively; P=0.16), coronary artery bypass grafting (2.3% vs. 2.5%, respectively; P=0.93), stroke (2.4% vs. 0.8%, respectively; P=0.35), and stent thrombosis (2.9% vs. 2.3%, respectively; P=0.80) between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

SES can be used safely and effectively in patients with AMI.

Percutaneous treatment in acute coronary syndromes

Both ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (ACS) are the result of an acute thrombotic lesion obstructing blood flow in the coronary vasculature. Percutaneous treatment has shown to improve clinical outcome in this clinical setting by resolving coronary obstruction with different devices directed to restore coronary blood flow. In comparison with balloon alone angioplasty, implantation of bare metal stents reduced the rate of restenosis and cardiac events, but high rates of restenosis remained, leading to further investigations to develop drug-eluting stents with different pharmacological coatings that reduced restenosis rates and clinical events. In this review, we discuss the current treatment of ACS, reviewing recent randomized clinical trials and advances in medical treatment, including new antiplatelet agents and recent guideline recommendations.

Long-term effectiveness and safety of sirolimus drug-eluting stents

The root cause of coronary artery disease is atherosclerosis, ie, intraluminal narrowing (stenosis) of the arteries that supply blood to tissues of the heart. The introduction of the drug-eluting stent over the past decade has revolutionized the field of interventional cardiology. It is used extensively in clinical practice for the treatment of coronary artery disease. The first drug-eluting stent to receive US Food and Drug Administration approval was the sirolimus-eluting stent. Recently, two other stent analogs of sirolimus were approved, ie, the zotarolimus-eluting stent and the everolimus-eluting stent. However, concern has arisen in recent years about the long-term safety and efficacy of drug-eluting stents, due to the occurrence of late adverse clinical events, such as stent thrombosis. This review focuses on clinical studies that have been performed with the sirolimus-eluting stent or its analogs. We discuss the pharmacology, safety, and various therapeutic options that exist when choosing stents for coronary artery disease. Our aim is to provide a thorough review of the long-term efficacy and safety of sirolimus drug-eluting stents, and also to discuss currently approved and promising investigational drug-eluting stents, in an effort to provide insight into how these stents are currently evolving and generate further investigation in this area.

Comparison of paclitaxel-, sirolimus-, and zotarolimus-eluting stents in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and metabolic syndrome

BACKGROUND

The purpose of the present study was to compare the efficacy and safety of paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES), sirolimus-eluting stent (SES), and zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) in primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) with metabolic syndrome (MS).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Using data from Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry (KAMIR; November 2005-December 2007), a total of 1,768 MS patients with STEMI who underwent primary PCI were enrolled: The PES group was 634, SES group, 906, and ZES group, 228. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac event (all-cause death, re-myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization) during 12 months follow-up. At 12 months, the cumulative incidence of primary endpoint in the PES, SES, and ZES groups was 10.9%, 9.1%, and 11.0%, respectively (P=0.086). Incidence of death, recurrent myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization did not differ among the 3 groups. There were 7 episodes of acute (0.3% in PES group, 0.4% in SES group, and 0.4% in ZES group, respectively, P=0.773) and 18 episodes of cumulative stent thrombosis including late stent thrombosis (0.9% in PES group, 1.0% in SES group, and 1.3% in ZES group, respectively, P=0.448).

CONCLUSIONS

Implantation of SES, PES, and ZES in MS patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI provided comparable clinical outcomes in patients enrolled in KAMIR.