Stent thrombosis with drug-eluting and bare-metal stents: evidence from a comprehensive network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The relative safety of drug-eluting stents and bare-metal stents, especially with respect to stent thrombosis, continues to be debated. In view of the overall low frequency of stent thrombosis, large sample sizes are needed to accurately estimate treatment differences between stents. We compared the risk of thrombosis between bare-metal and drug-eluting stents.

METHODS

For this network meta-analysis, randomised controlled trials comparing different drug-eluting stents or drug-eluting with bare-metal stents currently approved in the USA were identified through Medline, Embase, Cochrane databases, and proceedings of international meetings. Information about study design, inclusion and exclusion criteria, sample characteristics, and clinical outcomes was extracted.

FINDINGS

49 trials including 50,844 patients randomly assigned to treatment groups were analysed. 1-year definite stent thrombosis was significantly lower with cobalt-chromium everolimus eluting stents (CoCr-EES) than with bare-metal stents (odds ratio [OR] 0·23, 95% CI 0·13-0·41). The significant difference in stent thrombosis between CoCr-EES and bare-metal stents was evident as early as 30 days (OR 0·21, 95% CI 0·11-0·42) and was also significant between 31 days and 1 year (OR 0·27, 95% CI 0·08-0·74). CoCr-EES were also associated with significantly lower rates of 1-year definite stent thrombosis compared with paclitaxel-eluting stents (OR 0·28, 95% CI 0·16-0·48), permanent polymer-based sirolimus-eluting stents (OR 0·41, 95% CI 0·24-0·70), phosphorylcholine-based zotarolimus-eluting stents (OR 0·21, 95% CI 0·10-0·44), and Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stents (OR 0·14, 95% CI 0·03-0·47). At 2-year follow-up, CoCr-EES were still associated with significantly lower rates of definite stent thrombosis than were bare-metal (OR 0·35, 95% CI 0·17-0·69) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (OR 0·34, 95% CI 0·19-0·62). No other drug-eluting stent had lower definite thrombosis rates compared with bare-metal stents at 2-year follow-up.

INTERPRETATION

In randomised studies completed to date, CoCr-EES has the lowest rate of stent thrombosis within 2 years of implantation. The finding that CoCr-EES also reduced stent thrombosis compared with bare-metal stents, if confirmed in future randomised trials, represents a paradigm shift.

FUNDING

The Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

The pathology of neoatherosclerosis in human coronary implants bare-metal and drug-eluting stents

OBJECTIVES

Human coronary bare-metal stents (BMS) and drug-eluting stents (DES) from autopsy cases with implant duration >30 days were examined for the presence of neointimal atherosclerotic disease.

BACKGROUND

Neointimal atherosclerotic change (neoatherosclerosis) after BMS implantation is rarely reported and usually occurs beyond 5 years. The incidence of neoatherosclerosis after DES implantation has not been reported.

METHODS

All available cases from the CVPath stent registry (n = 299 autopsies), which includes a total of 406 lesions-197 BMS, 209 DES (103 sirolimus-eluting stents [SES] and 106 paclitaxel-eluting stents [PES])-with implant duration >30 days were examined. Neoatherosclerosis was recognized as clusters of lipid-laden foamy macrophages within the neointima with or without necrotic core formation.

RESULTS

The incidence of neoatherosclerosis was significantly greater in DES lesions (31%) than BMS lesions (16%; p < 0.001). The median stent duration with neoatherosclerosis was shorter in DES than BMS (DES, 420 days [interquartile range [IQR]: 361 to 683 days]; BMS, 2,160 days [IQR: 1,800 to 2,880 days], p < 0.001). Unstable lesions characterized as thin-cap fibroatheromas or plaque rupture were more frequent in BMS (n = 7, 4%) than in DES (n = 3, 1%; p = 0.17), with relatively shorter implant durations for DES (1.5 ± 0.4 years) compared to BMS (6.1 ± 1.5 years). Independent determinants of neoatherosclerosis identified by multiple logistic regression included younger age (p < 0.001), longer implant durations (p < 0.001), SES usage (p < 0.001), PES usage (p = 0.001), and underlying unstable plaques (p = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

Neoatherosclerosis is a frequent finding in DES and occurs earlier than in BMS. Unstable features of neoatherosclerosis are identified for both BMS and DES with shorter implant durations for the latter. The development of neoatherosclerosis may be yet another rare contributing factor to late thrombotic events.

Everolimus-eluting versus paclitaxel-eluting stents in coronary artery disease

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have established the superiority of coronary everolimus-eluting stents over paclitaxel-eluting stents with respect to angiographic findings. However, these trials were not powered for superiority in clinical end points.

METHODS

We randomly assigned 3687 patients at 66 U.S. sites to receive everolimus-eluting stents or paclitaxel-eluting stents without routine follow-up angiography. The primary end point was the 1-year composite rate of target-lesion failure (defined as cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization).

RESULTS

Everolimus-eluting stents were superior to paclitaxel-eluting stents with respect to the primary end point of target-lesion failure (4.2% vs. 6.8%; relative risk, 0.62; 95% confidence interval, 0.46 to 0.82; P=0.001). Everolimus-eluting stents were also superior with respect to the major secondary end point of the 1-year rate of ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization (P=0.001) and were noninferior with respect to the major secondary end point of the 1-year composite rate of cardiac death or target-vessel myocardial infarction (P<0.001 for noninferiority; P=0.09 for superiority). The 1-year rates of myocardial infarction and stent thrombosis were also lower with everolimus-eluting stents than with paclitaxel-eluting stents (1.9% vs. 3.1%, P=0.02 for myocardial infarction; 0.17% vs. 0.85%, P=0.004 for stent thrombosis). Target-lesion failure was consistently reduced with everolimus-eluting stents as compared with paclitaxel-eluting stents in 12 prespecified subgroups, except in the subgroup of patients with diabetes (6.4% vs. 6.9%, P=0.80).

CONCLUSIONS

Everolimus-eluting stents, as compared with paclitaxel-eluting stents, resulted in reduced rates of target-lesion failure at 1 year, results that were consistent in all patients except those with diabetes, in whom the results were nonsignificantly different. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00307047.)

Platelet reactivity and clinical outcomes after coronary artery implantation of drug-eluting stents (ADAPT-DES): a prospective multicentre registry study

BACKGROUND

The relation between platelet reactivity and stent thrombosis, major bleeding, and other adverse events after coronary artery implantation of drug-eluting stents has been incompletely characterised. We aimed to determine the relation between platelet reactivity during dual therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel and clinical outcomes after successful coronary drug-eluting stent implantation.

METHODS

ADAPT-DES was a prospective, multicentre registry of patients successfully treated with one or more drug-eluting stents and given aspirin and clopidogrel at 10-15 US and European hospitals. We assessed platelet reactivity in those patients after successful percutaneous coronary intervention using VerifyNow point-of-care assays, and assigned different cutoffs to define high platelet reactivity. The primary endpoint was definite or probable stent thrombosis; other endpoints were all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and clinically relevant bleeding. We did a propensity-adjusted multivariable analysis to determine the relation between platelet reactivity and subsequent adverse events. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00638794.

FINDINGS

Between Jan 7, 2008, and Sept 16, 2010, 8665 patients were prospectively enrolled at 11 sites, of which 8583 were eligible. At 1-year follow-up, stent thrombosis had occurred in 70 (0·8%) patients, myocardial infarction in 269 (3·1%), clinically relevant bleeding in 531 (6·2%), and death in 161 (1·9%) patients. High platelet reactivity on clopidogrel was strongly related to stent thrombosis (adjusted HR 2·49 [95% CI 1·43-4·31], p=0·001) and myocardial infarction (adjusted HR 1·42 [1·09-1·86], p=0·01), was inversely related to bleeding (adjusted HR 0·73 [0·61-0·89], p=0·002), but was not related to mortality (adjusted HR 1·20 [0·85-1·70], p=0·30). High platelet reactivity on aspirin was not significantly associated with stent thrombosis (adjusted HR 1·46 [0·58-3·64], p=0·42), myocardial infarction, or death, but was inversely related to bleeding (adjusted HR 0·65 [0·43-0·99], p=0·04).

INTERPRETATION

The findings from this study emphasise the counter-balancing effects of haemorrhagic and ischaemic complications after stent implantation, and suggest that safer drugs or tailored strategies for the use of more potent agents must be developed if the benefits of greater platelet inhibition in patients with cardiovascular disease are to be realised.

FUNDING

Boston Scientific, Abbott Vascular, Medtronic, Cordis, Biosensors, The Medicines Company, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Volcano, and Accumetrics.

Polymer-free Drug-Coated Coronary Stents in Patients at High Bleeding Risk

BACKGROUND

Patients at high risk for bleeding who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) often receive bare-metal stents followed by 1 month of dual antiplatelet therapy. We studied a polymer-free and carrier-free drug-coated stent that transfers umirolimus (also known as biolimus A9), a highly lipophilic sirolimus analogue, into the vessel wall over a period of 1 month.

METHODS

In a randomized, double-blind trial, we compared the drug-coated stent with a very similar bare-metal stent in patients with a high risk of bleeding who underwent PCI. All patients received 1 month of dual antiplatelet therapy. The primary safety end point, tested for both noninferiority and superiority, was a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis. The primary efficacy end point was clinically driven target-lesion revascularization.

RESULTS

We enrolled 2466 patients. At 390 days, the primary safety end point had occurred in 112 patients (9.4%) in the drug-coated-stent group and in 154 patients (12.9%) in the bare-metal-stent group (risk difference, -3.6 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -6.1 to -1.0; hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.91; P<0.001 for noninferiority and P=0.005 for superiority). During the same time period, clinically driven target-lesion revascularization was needed in 59 patients (5.1%) in the drug-coated-stent group and in 113 patients (9.8%) in the bare-metal-stent group (risk difference, -4.8 percentage points; 95% CI, -6.9 to -2.6; hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.69; P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients at high risk for bleeding who underwent PCI, a polymer-free umirolimus-coated stent was superior to a bare-metal stent with respect to the primary safety and efficacy end points when used with a 1-month course of dual antiplatelet therapy. (Funded by Biosensors Europe; LEADERS FREE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01623180.).

Stent thrombogenicity early in high-risk interventional settings is driven by stent design and deployment and protected by polymer-drug coatings

BACKGROUND

Stent thrombosis is a lethal complication of endovascular intervention. Concern has been raised about the inherent risk associated with specific stent designs and drug-eluting coatings, yet clinical and animal support is equivocal.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We examined whether drug-eluting coatings are inherently thrombogenic and if the response to these materials was determined to a greater degree by stent design and deployment with custom-built stents. Drug/polymer coatings uniformly reduce rather than increase thrombogenicity relative to matched bare metal counterparts (0.65-fold; P=0.011). Thick-strutted (162 μm) stents were 1.5-fold more thrombogenic than otherwise identical thin-strutted (81 μm) devices in ex vivo flow loops (P<0.001), commensurate with 1.6-fold greater thrombus coverage 3 days after implantation in porcine coronary arteries (P=0.004). When bare metal stents were deployed in malapposed or overlapping configurations, thrombogenicity increased compared with apposed, length-matched controls (1.58-fold, P=0.001; and 2.32-fold, P<0.001). The thrombogenicity of polymer-coated stents with thin struts was lowest in all configurations and remained insensitive to incomplete deployment. Computational modeling-based predictions of stent-induced flow derangements correlated with spatial distribution of formed clots.

CONCLUSIONS

Contrary to popular perception, drug/polymer coatings do not inherently increase acute stent clotting; they reduce thrombosis. However, strut dimensions and positioning relative to the vessel wall are critical factors in modulating stent thrombogenicity. Optimal stent geometries and surfaces, as demonstrated with thin stent struts, help reduce the potential for thrombosis despite complex stent configurations and variability in deployment.

A bioabsorbable everolimus-eluting coronary stent system (ABSORB): 2-year outcomes and results from multiple imaging methods

BACKGROUND

Drug-eluting metallic coronary stents predispose to late stent thrombosis, prevent late lumen vessel enlargement, hinder surgical revascularisation, and impair imaging with multislice CT. We assessed the safety of the bioabsorbable everolimus-eluting stent (BVS).

METHODS

30 patients with a single de-novo coronary artery lesion were followed up for 2 years clinically and with multiple imaging methods: multislice CT, angiography, intravascular ultrasound, derived morphology parameters (virtual histology, palpography, and echogenicity), and optical coherence tomography (OCT).

FINDINGS

Clinical data were obtained from 29 of 30 patients. At 2 years, the device was safe with no cardiac deaths, ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularisations, or stent thromboses recorded, and only one myocardial infarction (non-Q wave). 18-month multislice CT (assessed in 25 patients) showed a mean diameter stenosis of 19% (SD 9). At 2-year angiography, the in-stent late loss of 0.48 mm (SD 0.28) and the diameter stenosis of 27% (11) did not differ from the findings at 6 months. The luminal area enlargement on OCT and intravascular ultrasound between 6 months and 2 years was due to a decrease in plaque size without change in vessel size. At 2 years, 34.5% of strut locations presented no discernible features by OCT, confirming decreases in echogenicity and in radiofrequency backscattering; the remaining apparent struts were fully apposed. Additionally, vasomotion occurred at the stented site and adjacent coronary artery in response to vasoactive agents.

INTERPRETATION

At 2 years after implantation the stent was bioabsorbed, had vasomotion restored and restenosis prevented, and was clinically safe, suggesting freedom from late thrombosis. Late luminal enlargement due to plaque reduction without vessel remodelling needs confirmation.

Ticagrelor plus aspirin for 1 month, followed by ticagrelor monotherapy for 23 months vs aspirin plus clopidogrel or ticagrelor for 12 months, followed by aspirin monotherapy for 12 months after implantation of a drug-eluting stent: a multicentre, open-label, randomised superiority trial

BACKGROUND

We hypothesised that ticagrelor, in combination with aspirin for 1 month, followed by ticagrelor alone, improves outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention compared with standard antiplatelet regimens.

METHODS

GLOBAL LEADERS was a randomised, open-label superiority trial at 130 sites in 18 countries. Patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with a biolimus A9-eluting stent for stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes were randomly assigned (1:1) to 75-100 mg aspirin daily plus 90 mg ticagrelor twice daily for 1 month, followed by 23 months of ticagrelor monotherapy, or standard dual antiplatelet therapy with 75-100 mg aspirin daily plus either 75 mg clopidogrel daily (for patients with stable coronary artery disease) or 90 mg ticagrelor twice daily (for patients with acute coronary syndromes) for 12 months, followed by aspirin monotherapy for 12 months. Randomisation was concealed, stratified by centre and clinical presentation (stable coronary artery disease vs acute coronary syndrome), and blocked, with randomly varied block sizes of two and four. The primary endpoint at 2 years was a composite of all-cause mortality or non-fatal centrally adjudicated new Q-wave myocardial infarction as assessed by a core lab in a blinded manner. The key secondary safety endpoint was site-reported bleeding assessed according to the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium criteria (grade 3 or 5). Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01813435, and is closed to new participants, with follow-up completed.

FINDINGS

Between July 1, 2013, and Nov 9, 2015, 15 968 participants were randomly assigned, 7980 to the experimental group and 7988 to the control group. At 2 years, 304 (3·81%) participants in the experimental group had died or had a non-fatal centrally adjudicated new Q-wave myocardial infarction, compared with 349 (4·37%) participants in the control group (rate ratio 0·87 [95% CI 0·75-1·01]; p=0·073]). There was no evidence for a difference in treatment effects for the primary endpoint across prespecified subgroups of acute coronary syndromes and stable coronary artery disease (p=0·93). Grade 3 or 5 bleeding occurred in 163 participants in the experimental group and 169 in the control group (2·04% vs 2·12%; rate ratio 0·97 [95% CI 0·78-1·20]; p=0·77).

INTERPRETATION

Ticagrelor in combination with aspirin for 1 month followed by ticagrelor alone for 23 months was not superior to 12 months of standard dual antiplatelet therapy followed by 12 months of aspirin alone in the prevention of all-cause mortality or new Q-wave myocardial infarction 2 years after percutaneous coronary intervention.

FUNDING

AstraZeneca, Biosensors, and The Medicines Company.

Second-generation everolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents in real-life practice (COMPARE): a randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Everolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents, compared with bare metal stents, reduced the risk of restenosis in clinical trials with strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. We compared the safety and efficacy of the second-generation everolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents in real-life practice.

METHODS

We randomly assigned 1800 consecutive patients (aged 18-85 years) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention at one centre to treatment with everolimus-eluting or paclitaxel-eluting stents. The primary endpoint was a composite of safety and efficacy (all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularisation) within 12 months. Patients were not told which stent they had been allocated. Analysis was by intention to treat. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01016041.

FINDINGS

Follow-up was completed in 1797 patients. The primary endpoint occurred in 56 (6%) of 897 patients in the everolimus-eluting stent group versus 82 (9%) of 903 in the paclitaxel-eluting stent group (relative risk 0.69 [95% CI 0.50-0.95], p value for superiority=0.02). The difference was attributable to a lower rate of stent thrombosis (6 [<1%] vs 23 [3%], 0.26 [0.11-0-64], p=0.002), myocardial infarction (25 [3%] vs 48 [5%], 0.52 [0.33-0.84], p=0.007), and target vessel revascularisation (21 [2%] vs 54 [6%], 0.39 [0.24-0.64], p=0.0001). Cardiac death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularisation occurred in 44 [5%] patients in the everolimus-eluting stent group versus 74 [8%] patients in the paclitaxel-eluting stent group, p value for superiority was 0.005.

INTERPRETATION

The everolimus-eluting stent is better than the second generation paclitaxel-eluting stent in unselected patients in terms of safety and efficacy. On the basis of our results, we suggest that paclitaxel-eluting stents should no longer be used in everyday clinical practice.

FUNDING

Unrestricted grants from Abbott Vascular and Boston Scientific.

Comparison of zotarolimus-eluting and everolimus-eluting coronary stents

BACKGROUND

New-generation coronary stents that release zotarolimus or everolimus have been shown to reduce the risk of restenosis. However, it is unclear whether there are differences in efficacy and safety between the two types of stents on the basis of prospectively adjudicated end points endorsed by the Food and Drug Administration.

METHODS

In this multicenter, noninferiority trial with minimal exclusion criteria, we randomly assigned 2292 patients to undergo treatment with coronary stents releasing either zotarolimus or everolimus. Twenty percent of patients were randomly selected for repeat angiography at 13 months. The primary end point was target-lesion failure, defined as a composite of death from cardiac causes, any myocardial infarction (not clearly attributable to a nontarget vessel), or clinically indicated target-lesion revascularization within 12 months. The secondary angiographic end point was the extent of in-stent stenosis at 13 months.

RESULTS

At least one off-label criterion for stent placement was present in 66% of patients. The zotarolimus-eluting stent was noninferior to the everolimus-eluting stent with respect to the primary end point, which occurred in 8.2% and 8.3% of patients, respectively (P<0.001 for noninferiority). There were no significant between-group differences in the rate of death from cardiac causes, any myocardial infarction, or revascularization. The rate of stent thrombosis was 2.3% in the zotarolimus-stent group and 1.5% in the everolimus-stent group (P=0.17). The zotarolimus-eluting stent was also noninferior regarding the degree (+/-SD) of in-stent stenosis (21.65+/-14.42% for zotarolimus vs. 19.76+/-14.64% for everolimus, P=0.04 for noninferiority). In-stent late lumen loss was 0.27+/-0.43 mm in the zotarolimus-stent group versus 0.19+/-0.40 mm in the everolimus-stent group (P=0.08). There were no significant between-group differences in the rate of adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

At 13 months, the new-generation zotarolimus-eluting stent was found to be noninferior to the everolimus-eluting stent in a population of patients who had minimal exclusion criteria. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00617084.)

Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffolds for Coronary Artery Disease

BACKGROUND

In patients with coronary artery disease who receive metallic drug-eluting coronary stents, adverse events such as late target-lesion failure may be related in part to the persistent presence of the metallic stent frame in the coronary-vessel wall. Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds have been developed to attempt to improve long-term outcomes.

METHODS

In this large, multicenter, randomized trial, 2008 patients with stable or unstable angina were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular (Absorb) scaffold (1322 patients) or an everolimus-eluting cobalt-chromium (Xience) stent (686 patients). The primary end point, which was tested for both noninferiority (margin, 4.5 percentage points for the risk difference) and superiority, was target-lesion failure (cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization) at 1 year.

RESULTS

Target-lesion failure at 1 year occurred in 7.8% of patients in the Absorb group and in 6.1% of patients in the Xience group (difference, 1.7 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -0.5 to 3.9; P=0.007 for noninferiority and P=0.16 for superiority). There was no significant difference between the Absorb group and the Xience group in rates of cardiac death (0.6% and 0.1%, respectively; P=0.29), target-vessel myocardial infarction (6.0% and 4.6%, respectively; P=0.18), or ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization (3.0% and 2.5%, respectively; P=0.50). Device thrombosis within 1 year occurred in 1.5% of patients in the Absorb group and in 0.7% of patients in the Xience group (P=0.13).

CONCLUSIONS

In this large-scale, randomized trial, treatment of noncomplex obstructive coronary artery disease with an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold, as compared with an everolimus-eluting cobalt-chromium stent, was within the prespecified margin for noninferiority with respect to target-lesion failure at 1 year. (Funded by Abbott Vascular; ABSORB III ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01751906.).

Biolimus-eluting stent with biodegradable polymer versus sirolimus-eluting stent with durable polymer for coronary revascularisation (LEADERS): a randomised non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

A novel stent platform eluting biolimus, a sirolimus analogue, from a biodegradable polymer showed promising results in preliminary studies. We compared the safety and efficacy of a biolimus-eluting stent (with biodegradable polymer) with a sirolimus-eluting stent (with durable polymer).

METHODS

We undertook a multicentre, assessor-blind, non-inferiority study in ten European centres. 1707 patients aged 18 years or older with chronic stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes were centrally randomised by a computer-generated allocation sequence to treatment with either biolimus-eluting (n=857) or sirolimus-eluting (n=850) stents. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or clinically-indicated target vessel revascularisation within 9 months. Analysis was by intention to treat. 427 patients were randomly allocated to angiographic follow-up, with in-stent percentage diameter stenosis as principal outcome measure at 9 months. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00389220.

FINDINGS

We analysed all randomised patients. Biolimus-eluting stents were non-inferior to sirolimus-eluting stents for the primary endpoint at 9 months (79 [9%] patients vs 89 [11%], rate ratio 0.88 [95% CI 0.64-1.19], p for non-inferiority=0.003, p for superiority=0.39). Frequency of cardiac death (14 [1.6%] vs 21 [2.5%], p for superiority=0.22), myocardial infarction (49 [5.7%] vs 39 [4.6%], p=0.30), and clinically-indicated target vessel revascularisation (38 [4.4%] vs 47 [5.5%], p=0.29) were similar for both stent types. 168 (79%) patients in the biolimus-eluting group and 167 (78%) in the sirolimus-eluting group had data for angiographic follow-up available. Biolimus-eluting stents were non-inferior to sirolimus-eluting stents in in-stent percentage diameter stenosis (20.9%vs 23.3%, difference -2.2% [95% CI -6.0 to 1.6], p for non-inferiority=0.001, p for superiority=0.26).

INTERPRETATION

Our results suggest that a stent eluting biolimus from a biodegradable polymer represents a safe and effective alternative to a stent eluting sirolimus from a durable polymer in patients with chronic stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes.

FUNDING

Biosensors Europe SA, Switzerland.

Platelet reactivity after clopidogrel treatment assessed with point-of-care analysis and early drug-eluting stent thrombosis

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this prospective trial was to assess whether platelet reactivity to clopidogrel assessed with multiple electrode platelet aggregometry (MEA) correlates with the risk of early drug-eluting stent thrombosis (ST).

BACKGROUND

Studies using light transmission aggregometry (LTA) have shown that insufficient suppression of platelet reactivity to adenosine diphosphate (ADP) after clopidogrel treatment is associated with an increased risk of adverse cardiovascular events after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, LTA is time- and labor-intensive and inconvenient for the routine. A point-of-care assay with similar predictive power would be of great value.

METHODS

Between February 2007 and April 2008, a total of 1,608 consecutive patients with coronary artery disease and planned drug-eluting stent implantation were enrolled. Before PCI, all patients received 600 mg clopidogrel. Blood was obtained directly before PCI. The ADP-induced platelet aggregation was assessed in whole blood with MEA on a Multiplate analyzer (Dynabyte, Munich, Germany). The primary end point was definite ST at 30 days.

RESULTS

The upper quintile of patients according to MEA measurements (n = 323) was defined as clopidogrel low responders. Compared with normal responders (n = 1,285), low responders had a significantly higher risk of definite ST within 30 days (2.2% vs. 0.2%; odds ratio [OR]: 9.4; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.1 to 28.4; p < 0.0001). Mortality rates were 1.2% in low versus 0.4% in normal responders (OR: 3.2; 95% CI: 0.9 to 11.1; p = 0.07). The composite of death or ST was higher in low versus normal responders (3.1% vs. 0.6%; OR: 5.1; 95% CI: 2.2 to 11.6; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Low response to clopidogrel assessed with MEA is significantly associated with an increased risk of ST. Further studies are warranted to evaluate the ability of MEA to guide antiplatelet therapy in patients undergoing PCI.

Effect of Intravascular Ultrasound-Guided vs Angiography-Guided Everolimus-Eluting Stent Implantation: The IVUS-XPL Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Use of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) promotes better clinical outcomes for coronary intervention in complex coronary lesions. However, randomized data demonstrating the clinical usefulness of IVUS are limited for lesions treated with drug-eluting stents.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether the long-term clinical outcomes with IVUS-guided drug-eluting stent implantation are superior to those with angiography-guided implantation in patients with long coronary lesions.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

The Impact of Intravascular Ultrasound Guidance on Outcomes of Xience Prime Stents in Long Lesions (IVUS-XPL) randomized, multicenter trial was conducted in 1400 patients with long coronary lesions (implanted stent ≥28 mm in length) between October 2010 and July 2014 at 20 centers in Korea.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomly assigned to receive IVUS-guided (n = 700) or angiography-guided (n = 700) everolimus-eluting stent implantation.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Primary outcome measure was the composite of major adverse cardiac events, including cardiac death, target lesion-related myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization at 1 year, analyzed by intention-to-treat.

RESULTS

One-year follow-up was complete in 1323 patients (94.5%). Major adverse cardiac events at 1 year occurred in 19 patients (2.9%) undergoing IVUS-guided and in 39 patients (5.8%) undergoing angiography-guided stent implantation (absolute difference, -2.97% [95% CI, -5.14% to -0.79%]) (hazard ratio [HR], 0.48 [95% CI, 0.28 to 0.83], P = .007). The difference was driven by a lower risk of ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization in patients undergoing IVUS-guided (17 [2.5%]) compared with angiography-guided (33 [5.0%]) stent implantation (HR, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.28 to 0.91], P = .02). Cardiac death and target lesion-related myocardial infarction were not significantly different between the 2 groups. For cardiac death, there were 3 patients (0.4%) in the IVUS-guided group and 5 patients (0.7%) in the angiography-guided group (HR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.14 to 2.52], P = .48). Target lesion-related myocardial infarction occurred in 1 patient (0.1%) in the angiography-guided stent implantation group (P = .32).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among patients requiring long coronary stent implantation, the use of IVUS-guided everolimus-eluting stent implantation, compared with angiography-guided stent implantation, resulted in a significantly lower rate of the composite of major adverse cardiac events at 1 year. These differences were primarily due to lower risk of target lesion revascularization.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01308281.

Defining high bleeding risk in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a consensus document from the Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk

Identification and management of patients at high bleeding risk undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention are of major importance, but a lack of standardization in defining this population limits trial design, data interpretation, and clinical decision-making. The Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk (ARC-HBR) is a collaboration among leading research organizations, regulatory authorities, and physician-scientists from the United States, Asia, and Europe focusing on percutaneous coronary intervention-related bleeding. Two meetings of the 31-member consortium were held in Washington, DC, in April 2018 and in Paris, France, in October 2018. These meetings were organized by the Cardiovascular European Research Center on behalf of the ARC-HBR group and included representatives of the US Food and Drug Administration and the Japanese Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency, as well as observers from the pharmaceutical and medical device industries. A consensus definition of patients at high bleeding risk was developed that was based on review of the available evidence. The definition is intended to provide consistency in defining this population for clinical trials and to complement clinical decision-making and regulatory review. The proposed ARC-HBR consensus document represents the first pragmatic approach to a consistent definition of high bleeding risk in clinical trials evaluating the safety and effectiveness of devices and drug regimens for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

Long-Term Safety of Drug-Eluting and Bare-Metal Stents: Evidence From a Comprehensive Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Previous meta-analyses have investigated the relative safety and efficacy profiles of different types of drug-eluting stents (DES) and bare-metal stents (BMS); however, most prior trials in these meta-analyses reported follow-up to only 1 year, and as such, the relative long-term safety and efficacy of these devices are unknown. Many recent studies have now reported extended follow-up data.

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to investigate the long-term safety and efficacy of durable polymer-based DES, bioabsorbable polymer-based biolimus-eluting stents (BES), and BMS by means of network meta-analysis.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials comparing DES to each other or to BMS were searched through MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases and proceedings of international meetings. Information on study design, inclusion and exclusion criteria, sample characteristics, and clinical outcomes was extracted.

RESULTS

Fifty-one trials that included a total of 52,158 randomized patients with follow-up duration ≥3 years were analyzed. At a median follow-up of 3.8 years, cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents (EES) were associated with lower rates of mortality, definite stent thrombosis (ST), and myocardial infarction than BMS, paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES), and sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) and less ST than BES. Phosphorylcholine-based zotarolimus-eluting stents had lower rates of definite ST than SES and lower rates of myocardial infarction than BMS and PES. The late rates of target-vessel revascularization were reduced with all DES compared with BMS, with cobalt-chromium EES, platinum chromium-EES, SES, and BES also having lower target-vessel revascularization rates than PES.

CONCLUSIONS

After a median follow-up of 3.8 years, all DES demonstrated superior efficacy compared with BMS. Among DES, second-generation devices have substantially improved long-term safety and efficacy outcomes compared with first-generation devices.

Drug-eluting stents vs. coronary-artery bypass grafting in multivessel coronary disease

BACKGROUND

Numerous studies have compared the outcomes of two competing interventions for multivessel coronary artery disease: coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) and coronary stenting. However, little information has become available since the introduction of drug-eluting stents.

METHODS

We identified patients with multivessel disease who received drug-eluting stents or underwent CABG in New York State between October 1, 2003, and December 31, 2004, and we compared adverse outcomes (death, death or myocardial infarction, or repeat revascularization) through December 31, 2005, after adjustment for differences in baseline risk factors among the patients.

RESULTS

In comparison with treatment with a drug-eluting stent, CABG was associated with lower 18-month rates of death and of death or myocardial infarction both for patients with three-vessel disease and for patients with two-vessel disease. Among patients with three-vessel disease who underwent CABG, as compared with those who received a stent, the adjusted hazard ratio for death was 0.80 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65 to 0.97) and the adjusted survival rate was 94.0% versus 92.7% (P=0.03); the adjusted hazard ratio for death or myocardial infarction was 0.75 (95% CI, 0.63 to 0.89) and the adjusted rate of survival free from myocardial infarction was 92.1% versus 89.7% (P<0.001). Among patients with two-vessel disease who underwent CABG, as compared with those who received a stent, the adjusted hazard ratio for death was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.57 to 0.89) and the adjusted survival rate was 96.0% versus 94.6% (P=0.003); the adjusted hazard ratio for death or myocardial infarction was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.59 to 0.87) and the adjusted rate of survival free from myocardial infarction was 94.5% versus 92.5% (P<0.001). Patients undergoing CABG also had lower rates of repeat revascularization.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with multivessel disease, CABG continues to be associated with lower mortality rates than does treatment with drug-eluting stents and is also associated with lower rates of death or myocardial infarction and repeat revascularization.

Antiplatelet therapy and stent thrombosis after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation

BACKGROUND

The influences of antiplatelet therapy discontinuation on the risk of stent thrombosis and long-term clinical outcomes after drug-eluting stent implantation have not yet been addressed adequately.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In an observational study in Japan, 2-year outcomes were assessed in 10 778 patients undergoing sirolimus-eluting stent implantation. Data on status of antiplatelet therapy during follow-up were collected prospectively. Incidences of definite stent thrombosis were 0.34% at 30 days, 0.54% at 1 year, and 0.77% at 2 years. Thienopyridine use was maintained in 97%, 62%, and 50% of patients at 30 days, 1 year, and 2 years, respectively. Patients who discontinued both thienopyridine and aspirin had a significantly higher rate of stent thrombosis than those who continued both in the intervals of 31 to 180 days, 181 to 365 days, and 366 to 548 days after stent implantation (1.76% versus 0.1%, P<0.001; 0.72% versus 0.07%, P=0.02; and 2.1% versus 0.14%, P=0.004, respectively). When discontinuation of aspirin was taken into account, patients who discontinued thienopyridine only did not have an excess of stent thrombosis in any of the time intervals studied. Adjusted rates of death or myocardial infarction at 24 months were 4.1% for patients taking thienopyridine and 4.1% for patients not taking thienopyridine (P=0.99) in the 6-month landmark analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Discontinuation of both thienopyridine and aspirin, but not discontinuation of thienopyridine therapy only, was associated with an increased risk of stent thrombosis. Landmark analysis did not suggest an apparent clinical benefit of thienopyridine use beyond 6 months after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation.

Paclitaxel-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents in acute myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND

There is no consensus regarding the safety and efficacy of drug-eluting stents, as compared with bare-metal stents, in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction who are undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

METHODS

We randomly assigned, in a 3:1 ratio, 3006 patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction to receive paclitaxel-eluting stents (2257 patients) or otherwise identical bare-metal stents (749 patients). The two primary end points of the study were the 12-month rates of target-lesion revascularization for ischemia (analysis powered for superiority) and a composite safety outcome measure of death, reinfarction, stroke, or stent thrombosis (powered for noninferiority with a 3.0% margin). The major secondary end point was angiographic evidence of restenosis at 13 months.

RESULTS

Patients who received paclitaxel-eluting stents, as compared with those who received bare-metal stents, had significantly lower 12-month rates of ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization (4.5% vs. 7.5%; hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43 to 0.83; P=0.002) and target-vessel revascularization (5.8% vs. 8.7%; hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.89; P=0.006), with noninferior rates of the composite safety end point (8.1% vs. 8.0%; hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.36; absolute difference, 0.1 percentage point; 95% CI, -2.1 to 2.4; P=0.01 for noninferiority; P=0.92 for superiority). Patients treated with paclitaxel-eluting stents and those treated with bare-metal stents had similar 12-month rates of death (3.5% and 3.5%, respectively; P=0.98) and stent thrombosis (3.2% and 3.4%, respectively; P=0.77). The 13-month rate of binary restenosis was significantly lower with paclitaxel-eluting stents than with bare-metal stents (10.0% vs. 22.9%; hazard ratio, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.57; P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction who were undergoing primary PCI, implantation of paclitaxel-eluting stents, as compared with bare-metal stents, significantly reduced angiographic evidence of restenosis and recurrent ischemia necessitating repeat revascularization procedures. No safety concerns were apparent at 1 year. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00433966.)

Abluminal biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stent versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent (COMPARE II): a randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

Drug-eluting stents with durable biocompatible or biodegradable polymers have been developed to address the risk of thrombosis associated with first-generation drug-eluting stents. We aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of a biodegradable polymer-coated biolimus-eluting stent with a thin-strut everolimus-eluting stent coated with a durable biocompatible polymer.

METHODS

This open-label, prospective, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial was undertaken at 12 sites across Europe. We used limited exclusion criteria (age >18 years, life expectancy >5 years, reference vessel diameter 2·0-4·0 mm) to enrol patients eligible for percutaneous coronary intervention. Patients were randomly allocated (2:1) by computer-generated random numbers to receive either a biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stent (Nobori, Terumo, Tokyo, Japan) or a durable fluoropolymer-based everolimus-eluting stent (Xience V or Prime, Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA, USA, or Promus, Boston Scientific, Natick, MA, USA). The primary endpoint was a composite of safety (cardiac death and non-fatal myocardial infarction) and efficacy (clinically indicated target vessel revascularisation) at 12 months, analysed by intention to treat. Patients received dual antiplatelet therapy for 12 months after discharge. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01233453.

FINDINGS

From Jan 12, 2009, to Feb 7, 2011, we enrolled 2707 patients (4025 lesions), 1795 of whom were assigned to receive the biolimus-eluting stent (2638 lesions) and 912 to an everolimus-eluting stent (1387 lesions). 2688 (99·3%) patients completed 12 months' follow-up. Significantly more patients in the biolimus-eluting stent group received a non-assigned stent than did those in the everolimus-eluting stent group (105 [5·9%] vs 19 [2·1%]; p<0·0001). The primary endpoint occurred in 93 (5·2%) patients in the biolimus-eluting stent group and 44 (4·8%) patients in the everolimus-eluting stent group at 12 months (relative risk 1·07 [95% CI 0·75-1·52]; p(non-inferiority)<0·0001). Analysis per protocol did not change the outcome of this trial (p(non-inferiority)<0·0001).

INTERPRETATION

Biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stents are as safe and efficacious as the current standard of a thin-strut everolimus-eluting stent with a durable biocompatible polymer. We need to follow-up patients for longer to show whether the biolimus-eluting stent reduces the risk of stent thrombosis after 1 year when compared with the everolimus-eluting stent.

FUNDING

Terumo Europe (Leuven, Belgium) and the Research Foundation of the Cardiology Department, Maasstad Hospital (Rotterdam, Netherlands).

Polymer-based or Polymer-free Stents in Patients at High Bleeding Risk

BACKGROUND

Polymer-free drug-coated stents provide superior clinical outcomes to bare-metal stents in patients at high bleeding risk who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and are treated with 1 month of dual antiplatelet therapy. Data on the use of polymer-based drug-eluting stents, as compared with polymer-free drug-coated stents, in such patients are limited.

METHODS

In an international, randomized, single-blind trial, we compared polymer-based zotarolimus-eluting stents with polymer-free umirolimus-coated stents in patients at high bleeding risk. After PCI, patients were treated with 1 month of dual antiplatelet therapy, followed by single antiplatelet therapy. The primary outcome was a safety composite of death from cardiac causes, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis at 1 year. The principal secondary outcome was target-lesion failure, an effectiveness composite of death from cardiac causes, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically indicated target-lesion revascularization. Both outcomes were powered for noninferiority.

RESULTS

A total of 1996 patients at high bleeding risk were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive zotarolimus-eluting stents (1003 patients) or polymer-free drug-coated stents (993 patients). At 1 year, the primary outcome was observed in 169 of 988 patients (17.1%) in the zotarolimus-eluting stent group and in 164 of 969 (16.9%) in the polymer-free drug-coated stent group (risk difference, 0.2 percentage points; upper boundary of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval [CI], 3.5; noninferiority margin, 4.1; P = 0.01 for noninferiority). The principal secondary outcome was observed in 174 patients (17.6%) in the zotarolimus-eluting stent group and in 169 (17.4%) in the polymer-free drug-coated stent group (risk difference, 0.2 percentage points; upper boundary of the one-sided 97.5% CI, 3.5; noninferiority margin, 4.4; P = 0.007 for noninferiority).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients at high bleeding risk who received 1 month of dual antiplatelet therapy after PCI, use of polymer-based zotarolimus-eluting stents was noninferior to use of polymer-free drug-coated stents with regard to safety and effectiveness composite outcomes. (Funded by Medtronic; ONYX ONE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03344653.).

Randomized comparison of everolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents: two-year clinical follow-up from the Clinical Evaluation of the Xience V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Patients with de novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions (SPIRIT) III trial

BACKGROUND

In the prospective randomized Clinical Evaluation of the Xience V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Patients with de novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions (SPIRIT) III trial, an everolimus-eluting stent (EES) compared with a widely used paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) resulted in a statistically significant reduction in angiographic in-segment late loss at 8 months and noninferior rates of target vessel failure (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization) at 1 year. The safety and efficacy of EES after 1 year have not been reported.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 1002 patients with up to 2 de novo native coronary artery lesions (reference vessel diameter, 2.5 to 3.75 mm; lesion length < or =28 mm) were randomized 2:1 to EES versus PES. Antiplatelet therapy consisted of aspirin indefinitely and a thienopyridine for > or =6 months. Between 1 and 2 years, patients treated with EES compared with PES tended to have fewer episodes of protocol-defined stent thrombosis (0.2% versus 1.0%; P=0.10) and myocardial infarctions (0.5% versus 1.7%; P=0.12), with similar rates of cardiac death (0.3% versus 0.3%; P=1.0) and target vessel revascularization (2.9% versus 3.0%; P=1.0). As a result, at the completion of the 2-year follow-up, treatment with EES compared with PES resulted in a significant 32% reduction in target vessel failure (10.7% versus 15.4%; hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.48 to 0.98; P=0.04) and a 45% reduction in major adverse cardiac events (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization; 7.3% versus 12.8%; hazard ratio, 0.55; 95% confidence interval, 0.36 to 0.83; P=0.004). Among the 360 patients who discontinued clopidogrel or ticlopidine after 6 months, stent thrombosis subsequently developed in 0.4% of EES patients versus 2.6% of PES patients (P=0.10).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients treated with EES rather than PES experienced significantly improved event-free survival at a 2-year follow-up in the SPIRIT III trial, with continued divergence of the hazard curves for target vessel failure and major adverse cardiac events between 1 and 2 years evident. The encouraging trends toward fewer stent thrombosis episodes after 6 months in EES-treated patients who discontinued a thienopyridine and after 1 year in all patients treated with EES rather than PES deserve further study.

Association of Survival With Femoropopliteal Artery Revascularization With Drug-Coated Devices

Importance

In a recent meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials, femoropopliteal artery revascularization with paclitaxel drug-coated devices was associated with increased long-term all-cause mortality compared with non-drug-coated devices. However, to our knowledge, these findings have not been replicated in other data sources and may be subject to confounding from missing data associated with patient withdrawal and loss to follow-up.

Objective

To evaluate differences in all-cause mortality between patients who were treated with drug-coated devices vs non-drug-coated devices for femoropopliteal artery revascularization.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This nationwide, multicenter retrospective cohort study included 16 560 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services beneficiaries who were admitted for femoropopliteal artery revascularization from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2016. All-cause mortality was analyzed through September 30, 2017.

Exposures

Drug-coated devices (drug-eluting stent [DES] or drug-coated balloon [DCB]) compared with non-drug-coated devices (bare metal stent or uncoated percutaneous transluminal angioplasty balloon).

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was all-cause mortality analyzed through the end of follow-up.

Results

Among 16 560 patients treated at 1883 hospitals, the mean (SD) age was 72.9 (11) years, 7734 (46.7%) were men, 12 232 (73.9%) were white, 8222 (49.7%) currently or had previously used tobacco, 9817 (59.3%) had diabetes, and 8450 (51.0%) had critical limb ischemia (CLI). Drug-coated devices were used in 5989 participants (36.2%). The median follow-up was 389 days (interquartile range, 277-508 days). Among all patients, treatment with drug-coated devices was associated with a lower cumulative incidence of all-cause mortality compared with treatment with non-drug-coated devices through 600 days postprocedure (32.5% vs 34.3%, respectively; log-rank P = .007). Similar survival trends were observed when treatment was stratified by using a DCB alone or DES with or without DCB. After multivariable adjustment, drug-coated devices were not associated with a difference in all-cause mortality compared with non-drug-coated devices (hazard ratio [HR], 0.97; 95% CI, 0.91-1.04; P = .43). These findings were consistent among those with CLI (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.85-1.01; P = .09) or without CLI (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.85-1.03; P = .20), and for those treated with DCB alone (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.86-1.03; P = .17) or DES with or without DCB (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.89-1.06; P = .48).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this large nationwide analysis of Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services beneficiaries, there was no evidence of increased all-cause mortality following femoropopliteal artery revascularization with drug-coated devices compared with non-drug-coated devices.