Hybrid strategy of a bare metal stent combined with a drug-eluting stent versus exclusive drug-eluting stent implantation for multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention

Adjunctive Bare-Metal Stenting Associated With Improved Outcomes in Patients With Multivessel Disease Treated With Drug-Eluting Stents

BACKGROUND

The use of both bare-metal stents (BMSs) and drug-eluting stents (DESs) in the setting of multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) continues because of cost considerations.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of patients with ≥ 2 coronary arteries with angiographic stenoses of ≥ 70% severity who were treated with multivessel PCI and ≥ 2 stents between April 2007 and March 2011 was performed using a prospective single-centre PCI registry. Follow-up data were obtained from the Discharge Abstract Database of the Canadian Institute for Health Information and the Registered Persons Database. We performed propensity matching of the DES + BMS and DES-only groups, as well as Cox multiple regression analyses to determine the independent predictors of adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 1299 patients (514 in the DES + BMS group and 785 in the DES group) fulfilled the study criteria. Death or repeated revascularization at 5 years occurred less frequently in the DES + BMS group than in the DES group (23.9% ± 2.6% vs 33.1% ± 2.4%; P = 0.01), and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) tended to be less common in the DES + BMS group (31.1% ± 3.0% vs 36.7% ± 2.4%; P = 0.056). Kaplan-Meier estimates revealed an adjusted benefit with the DES + BMS strategy for death (11.4 ± 2.9 vs 14.9 ± 2.8; P = 0.035) and for death and repeated revascularization (25.6 ± 3.5 vs 32.4 ± 3.4; P = 0.034).

CONCLUSIONS

A DES + BMS PCI strategy is associated with a lower incidence of repeated revascularization and MACE at 5-year follow up. For patients undergoing multivessel PCI who have favourable anatomy and clinical features, a combined approach using DES and BMS appears to be a viable option for contemporary PCI practice.

Selective versus exclusive use of drug-eluting stents in treating multivessel coronary artery disease: a real-world cohort study

There have been attempts to find new approaches to the treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease without increasing adverse events. Deployment of drug-eluting stents (DES) for complex lesions and bare-metal stents (BMS) for simpler lesions, although already in wide use, has not been well supported by clinical study. A cohort of 1,658 patients who underwent multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention from March 2003 through June 2011 was studied for 1 year. These patients were divided into 3 groups: BMS only (599 patients); DES only (481 patients); and hybrid stenting (578 patients). Baseline characteristics were similar except for hyperlipidemia and moderate-to-severe mitral regurgitation, which were more frequent in the DES and hybrid groups, respectively. Lesion characteristics were more complex in the DES group, compared with the other groups: more B2/C type lesions, longer stents, and smaller reference-vessel diameters (P <0.001). The rates of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 1 year were similar between the groups (BMS=5.2%, hybrid=3.9%, and DES=3.4%; P=0.248). Subgroup analysis yielded no differences in death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, target-vessel revascularization, or target-lesion revascularization. On multivariable analysis, the strongest predictors of 1-year MACE were percutaneous intervention complicated by dissection, renal failure, left ventricular ejection fraction below 0.40, mean lesion length, reference vessel diameter, and percutaneous intervention on the left circumflex coronary artery. The latter two had inverse relationships with MACE. In conclusion, implanting the DES for more complex lesions and the BMS for simpler lesions seems more sensible than the exclusive use of the DES or the BMS.