Ultrathin biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent versus contemporary durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent for percutaneous coronary intervention: a meta-analysis of randomized trials

INTRODUCTION

Improvements in coronary drug-eluting stent technology has focused on reducing the long-term complications associated with the effects of the residual footprint on the vessel wall. Although many of the newer stents have exhibited noninferiority to the durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent (DP-EES), they have yet to exhibit clear superiority. We compared the performance of the latest ultrathin strut biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (BP-SES) to DP-EES.

METHODS

We searched the electronic databases for randomized controlled trials comparing BP-SES to DP-EES. A random effect meta-analysis was performed using the Poisson regression model. The primary end point was target lesion failure (TLF), a composite of target vessel myocardial infarction (TVMI), cardiac death and target lesion revascularization (TLR).

RESULTS

There was no difference between the stents in stent thrombosis [incidence rate ratio (IRR) = 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58-1.06), TLR (IRR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.57-1.38), TVMI (IRR = 0.79, 95% CI 0.61-1.01), cardiac death (IRR = 0.99, 95% CI 0.76-1.29) and target vessel failure (IRR = 0.82, 95% CI 0.64-1.06). In addition, there was no difference in TLF (IRR = 0.82, 95% CI 0.64-1.06). There was evidence of reduced TLF in small vessels with BP-SES based on definition used (defined as ≤2.75 mm; IRR 0.64, 95% CI 0.46-0.91 versus ≤3 mm; IRR 1.11, 95% CI 0.90-1.36).

CONCLUSION

In our study, the performance of the latest generation BP-SES was comparable to DP-EES but failed to show superiority. The possible benefit in patients with small vessels should be explored future trials.

Invasive therapy versus conservative therapy for patients with stable coronary artery disease: An updated meta-analysis

Background

Heart disease remains the leading cause of death in the United States. Although there are clear indications for revascularization in patients with acute coronary syndromes, there is debate regarding the benefits of revascularization in stable ischemic heart disease. We sought to perform a comprehensive meta‐analysis to assess the role of revascularization compared to conservative medical therapy alone in patients with stable ischemic heart disease.

Hypothesis

There is no significant difference in all‐cause mortality or cardiovascular mortality between invasive and medical arms.

Methods

We performed a systematic literature search from January 2000 to June 2020. Our literature search yielded seven randomized controlled trials. We analyzed a total of 12 013 patients (6109 in revascularization arm and 5904 in conservative medical therapy arm). Primary outcome was all‐cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (death, myocardial infarction [MI], or stroke), cardiovascular mortality, MI, and stroke. Additional subgroup analysis for all‐cause mortality was performed comparing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with bare metal stent versus conservative therapy; and PCI with drug eluting stent versus conservative therapy.

Results

There was no statistically significant difference in primary outcome of all‐cause mortality between either arm (odds ratio [OR] = 0.95; 95% CI [confidence interval], 0.83 to 1.08; p = .84). There were statistically significant lower rates of MACE (death, MI or stroke) in the revascularization arm when compared to conservative arm.

Conclusions

Our analysis did not show any survival advantage of an initial invasive strategy over conservative medical therapy in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD).

Does the Presence of Significant Mitral Regurgitation prior to Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation for Aortic Stenosis Impact Mortality? – Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

Background: Mitral regurgitation (MR) is commonly encountered in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). However, its independent impact on mortality in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has not been established. Methods: We performed a systematic search for studies reporting characteristics and outcome of patients with and without significant MR and/or adjusted mortality associated with MR post-TAVI. We conducted a meta-analysis of quantitative data. Results: Seventeen studies with 20,717 patients compared outcomes and group characteristics. Twenty-one studies with 32,257 patients reported adjusted odds of mortality associated with MR. Patients with MR were older, had a higher Society of Thoracic Surgeons score, lower left ventricular ejection fraction, a higher incidence of prior myocardial infarction, atrial fibrillation, and a trend towards higher NYHA class III/IV, but had similar mean gradient, gender, and chronic kidney disease. The MR patients had a higher unadjusted short-term (RR = 1.46, 95% CI 1.30–1.65) and long-term mortality (RR = 1.40, 95% CI 1.18–1.65). However, 16 of 21 studies with 27,777 patients found no association between MR and mortality after adjusting for baseline variables. In greater than half of the patients (0.56, 95% CI 0.45–0.66) MR improved by at least one grade following TAVI. Conclusion: The patients with MR undergoing TAVI have a higher burden of risk factors which can independently impact mortality. There is a lack of robust evidence supporting an increased mortality in MR patients, after adjusting for other compounding variables. MR tends to improve in the majority of patients post-TAVI.

Meta-Analysis Comparing Double Versus Triple Antithrombotic Therapy in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Coronary Artery Disease

Atrial fibrillation (AF) and concomitant coronary artery disease (CAD) create a therapeutic dilemma as the risk of bleeding with triple antithrombotic therapy (TATT) must be balanced against the risk of ischemic events with double antithrombotic therapy (DATT). The aim of this meta-analysis is to compare the efficacy and safety of DATT versus TATT in AF and CAD. MEDLINE, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched for relevant articles published from inception to May 1, 2019. Studies comparing the safety and efficacy of DATT versus TATT in patients with AF and CAD were included. Among 9 studies, where 6,104 patients received DATT and 7,333 patients received TATT, there was no statistically significant difference in the outcomes of mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, and stroke. There was a lower rate of major bleeding in DATT (risk ratio [RR] 0.64 [95% confidence interval [CI] 0.54 to 0.75]; p <0.001). There was no significant difference in stent thrombosis (RR 1.52 [95% CI 0.97 to 2.38]; p = 0.07). However, subgroup analysis of trials with direct oral anticoagulant use demonstrated a borderline higher rate of stent thrombosis in DATT (RR 1.66 [95% CI 1.01 to 2.73]; p = 0.05). In conclusion, DATT showed no difference in the outcomes of mortality, stroke, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and stent thrombosis compared with TATT. DATT demonstrated a lower rate of major bleeding. DATT demonstrated a borderline higher rate of stent thrombosis in the subgroup analysis of trials with direct oral anticoagulant which needs to be evaluated in further studies.

Meta-Analysis Comparing Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Versus Single Antiplatelet Therapy Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

The present American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines (Grade IIb, level of evidence C) recommend dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and clopidogrel for 6 months followed by lifelong aspirin after transcathter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). However, studies that have compared DAPT to single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) after TAVI have questioned this recommendation as DAPT has been associated with more bleeding events compared with SAPT. We performed a meta-analysis of all the trials that compared DAPT to SAPT in patients who underwent TAVI. Three randomized trials and 4 nonrandomized studies were included. The primary endpoint was the rate of ischemic stroke. Secondary end points were the rates of myocardial infarction, life threatening bleeding (LTB), significant bleeding (LTB and major bleeding), and death. The Mantel-Haenszel random effects model was used to calculate the combined odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for outcomes at 30days and up to 6 to 12months follow-up. The LTB (OR 2.73, 95% CI 1.31 to 5.69, p = 0.007) and significant bleeding rates (OR 2.76, 95% CI 1.57 to 4.85, p = 0.0004) were significantly higher in DAPT arm at 30days. Significant bleeding (OR 2.24, 95% CI 1.33 to 3.79, p = 0.002) was still significantly higher in the DAPT arm but there was only a nonsignificant trend toward higher LTB (OR 1.93 95% CI 0.61 to 6.03, p = 0.26) at 6 to 12 month follow up. There was no difference in mortality, ischemic stroke and myocardial infarction at 30days or 6 to 12month follow up. In conclusion, our meta-analysis shows that DAPT after TAVI does not confer any additional benefit over SAPT in TAVI.

Inpatient mortality and its predictors after pericardiocentesis: An analysis from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample 2009-2013

BACKGROUND

National registries have provided data on in-hospital outcomes for several cardiac procedures. The available data on in-hospital outcomes and its predictors after pericardiocentesis are mostly derived from single center studies. Furthermore, the outcomes after pericardiocentesis for iatrogenic pericardial effusion and the impact of procedural volume on in-hospital outcomes in the United States are largely unknown.

METHODS

We used national inpatient database files for the years 2009-2013 to estimate the inpatient outcomes after pericardiocentesis in all-comers and in the subgroups with iatrogenic effusion. We also studied the impact of hospital procedural volume, among other predictors, on inpatient mortality.

RESULTS

About 64,070 (95%CI 61 008-67 051) pericardiocentesis were performed in the United States during 2009-2013. Of these, 57.15% (56.02-58.26%) of the pericardiocentesis were in hemodynamically unstable patients. Percutaneous cardiac procedures were performed in 17.7% of patients (percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) 4.02%, electrophysiologic procedures 13.58%, and structural heart intervention (SHI) 0.76%). Overall inpatient mortality was 12.30% (95%CI 11.66-12.96%). Inpatient mortality after PCI, electrophysiologic procedures, SHI and cardiac surgery were 27.67% (95%CI 24-31.67%), 7.8% (95%CI 6.67-9.31%), 22.36% (95%CI 15.06-31.85%) and 18.97% (95%CI 15.84-22.57%), respectively. There was an inverse association between hospital procedural volume and inpatient mortality, with a mortality of 14.01% (12.84-15.26%) at the lowest and 10.82% (9.44-12.37%) at highest quartile hospitals by procedure volume (p_trend = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The inpatient mortality after pericardiocentesis is high, particularly when associated with PCI and SHI.

A Meta-Analysis Comparing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Drug-Eluting Stents Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Unprotected Left Main Disease

Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is the preferred revascularization strategy for unprotected left main disease (UPLMD). Multiple small-scale trials and registry data showed that percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES) is a noninferior strategy with a Class IIa American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association recommendation in patients with high surgical risk and favorable anatomy. However, 2 recent large-scale randomized trials showed conflicting evidence. We conducted a meta-analysis of the existing data to compare outcomes of PCI with DES versus CABG for UPLMD. Four randomized and 8 nonrandomized trials involving 10,284 patients were included. Primary end point was composite of death, stroke, or myocardial infarction (MI) at 3 years or longer. Secondary end points were MACCE (Major Adverse Cardiac and Cerebrovascular Events) and its individual components (death, stroke, MI, or repeat revascularization). Mantel-Haenszel random effects model was used to calculate combined odds ratio for outcomes. A separate analysis of randomized data was also performed. There was no significant difference in primary composite outcome between PCI and CABG. However, MACCE was significantly higher in PCI, primarily driven by significantly high repeat revascularization. A subgroup analysis stratified by Synergy between PCI with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) score showed that MACCE and repeat revascularization were not significantly different between PCI and CABG in low to intermediate SYNTAX score (<33), whereas they were significantly higher in PCI with higher SYNTAX score. Thus, although CABG remains the preferred method of treatment in UPLMD, PCI with DES can be considered as a reasonable alternative in patients with favorable anatomy and high surgical risk.

Coronary revascularization in diabetic patients: Current state of evidence

Although diabetic patients constitute an increasing number of individuals undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and surgical revascularization, they experience worse outcomes than nondiabetic patients. The optimal coronary revascularization strategy in the diabetic population remains unclear in view of advancements in pharmacotherapy and technology of both PCI and surgical revascularization. Data to guide decision making are limited regarding the current choice between coronary artery bypass graft surgery and PCI using drug-eluting stents and newer antiplatelet agents in diabetic patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. The present article summarizes the current state of evidence for coronary revascularization in the diabetic population.