Drug eluting versus bare metal stents in cardiac allograft vasculopathy

Background : Cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) is a distinct pathological condition characterized by diffuse and progressive arteriopathy and it is an important determinant of long‐term graft survival. Definitive CAV treatment is retransplantation but palliation with stenting might temporarily alleviate it. The benefit of drug eluting stents (DES) over bare metal stents (BMS) in the treatment of such lesions is debatable. We therefore sought to do a literature search to review the available evidence comparing DES to BMS. Methods : We conducted Pub Med, EMBASE, Cochrane database review, Web of Science search of studies comparing DES with BMS in CAV. Available studies were retrospective in nature with either direct comparison groups (n = 5) or historical controls (n = 1). The main outcomes analyzed were in stent restenosis (ISR) during follow‐up and clinical outcomes. Results : A total of 312 patients from six studies were included in the review (1995–2007). Most commonly used DES were sirolimus eluting stent. DES appeared to reduce the long‐term risk of ISR compared with BMS. Three of the five studies showed a statistically significant reduction in ISR at 12 months while the one study assessing ISR at 6 months showed no significant difference. Clinical endpoints such as death and major adverse cardiac events were not statistically different. Conclusion : DES appear to reduce the incidence of ISR in CAV as compared with BMS. Prospective randomized clinical trials are needed to determine the clinical benefit of DES beyond a reduction in ISR. © 2011 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Safety and effectiveness of drug eluting stent in patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary angioplasty

Background : Drug eluting stents (DES) have recently been proven to further reduce restenosis and revascularization rate in comparison to bare metal stents in elective procedures. Most early DES trials did not include patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST‐segment elevation MI, because these patients tend to have lower restenosis rates than other patient groups and delayed endothelization of these stents raises concern about a possible increase of thrombotic complications in the setting of STEMI. Aim : To confirm the safety and effectiveness of DES in patients with STEMI in a real‐world scenario. Methods : From January 2004 to December 2006, clinical and angiographic data of 370 patients with STEMI treated with primary PCI have been analyzed. Patients were retrospectively followed for the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE): death, reinfarction and target vessel revascularization (TVR). Results : Overall, 120 patients received DES (32%, DES group) and 250 received bare metal stents (68%, BMS group) in the infarct related artery. Compared with the BMS group, DES patients were younger, (mean age 56 ± 12 vs. 65 ± 10; P < 0.001) had more often diabetes mellitus (47% vs. 14% P < 0.001), anterior localization (65% vs. 45%; P < 0.0011) and less cardiogenic shock at admission (4% vs. 7%; P < 0.001). The angiographic characteristics in the DES group showed longer lesions (23 mm vs. 19 mm) and smaller diameter of vessels (2.5 mm vs. 3.0 mm). After a median follow‐up of 24 ± 9 months, there was no significant difference in the rate of stent thrombosis (1.6% in the DES group vs. 1.2% in the BMS group, P = ns). The incidence of MACE was significantly lower in the DES group compared with the BMS group (HR 0.56 [95% CI: 0.3–0.8]; P = 0.01), principally due to the lower rate of TVR (HR 0.41 [95% CI: 0.2–0.85]; P = 0.01). Conclusions : Utilization of DES in the setting of primary PCI for STEMI, in our “real world,” was safe and improved the 3‐year clinical outcome compared with BMS reducing the need of TVR. © 2008 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Lack of clinical long‐term benefit with the use of a drug eluting stent compared to use of a bare metal stent in saphenous vein grafts

Background: Small randomized trials have shown short‐term improved outcome with drug‐eluting stents (DES) over bare metal stent (BMS) in saphenous vein graft (SVG) interventions by reducing in‐stent restenosis and target vessel revascularization (TVR). It is not clear, however, if these benefits are maintained long term. The aim of this study is to compare the outcome in a larger cohort of patients undergoing SVG stent implantation with DES or BMS, at 2 years. Methods: From among 250 patients who underwent SVG stenting, 225 patients with available follow‐up were selected from data bases at the three participating institutions. One‐hundred‐six patients had DES (sirolimus, paclitaxel or tacrolimus eluting stent) and 119 patients had any available BMS from April 2002 to December 2006. The primary endpoint was MACE rate, a combination of cardiac death, S‐T elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and target lesion revascularization. Secondary end points were the individual components of the primary endpoint. Follow‐up was obtained by mailed interviews or telephone calls and review of the hospital chart. Results: The DES and BMS groups had similar age (71 ± 8 years vs. 70 ± 7 years, P = 1.0), diabetes (45% vs. 36%, P = 0.3), history of MI (58% vs. 51%, P = 0.6), EF (44% vs. 47%, P = 0.2) and previous PCI (40% vs. 35%, P = 0.4). Reference vessel diameter (3.15 ± 0.5 mm vs. 3.5 ± 0.5 mm. P = 0.001) and stent size (3.3 ± 0.4 mm vs. 3.9 ± 0.5 mm, P = 0.001) were smaller in the DES group; however, the BMS were longer (24 ± 10 mm vs. 21 ± 6 mm, P = 0.05). At one year there was a trend (P = 0.1) for lower MACE rate in the DES group, but at two years there was no difference in MACE free survival between the DES and BMS groups (81 % vs. 82%, P = 0.9). The death rate was similar (6% each) with three patients having STEMI (two in the DES and one in the BMS). TVR was also similar (14% in each group). Conclusion: In patients undergoing treatment of SVG disease with a stent, the marginal benefit of DES seen at 1 year was lost at 2‐year follow‐up. © 2008 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Percutaneous intervention on the saphenous vein bypass grafts—Long‐term outcomes

Background/Objective : In this era of drug eluting stents (DES), the long‐term outcome of percutaneous intervention (PCI) on saphenous venous grafts (SVG) is unknown. The objective of the study was to compare the long‐term outcomes of DES versus bare metal stent (BMS) in this population and to determine the predictors of outcomes. Methods : We reviewed the medical records of all patients who had PCI performed during January 2003 to February 2005 to obtain data cardiac risk factors, medications at discharge, angiographic details and outcomes. Results : One hundred and nine patient had PCI to SVG; of these, 37 patients received DES and the remaining had BMS. Over a mean follow‐up of 33 months, the PCI using DES was associated with 30% restenosis, 35% target vessel revascularization (TVR) and major adverse cardiac event (MACE) rate of 46% versus 35% restenosis, 38% TVR and 50% MACE rate with BMS. There was no significant difference in long‐term outcome with DES as compared to BMS. Conclusion : There was no difference in the long‐term outcomes of PCI on SVG irrespective of the type of stent used. © 2008 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Safety and efficacy of drug eluting stents compared with bare metal stents for saphenous vein graft interventions: A comprehensive meta‐analysis of randomized trials and observational studies comprising 7,994 patients

Background: Saphenous vein graft (SVG) lesions remain amongst the most challenging lesions for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). It is unknown whether drug eluting stents (DES) are superior to bare metal stents (BMS) for such lesions. Our objective is to determine the safety and efficacy of DES compared with BMS for SVG lesions by performing a meta‐analysis of clinical trials and observational studies. Data Sources: PubMed, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, conference proceedings, and internet‐based resources of clinical trials. Study Selection: Studies comparing DES vs. BMS for SVG lesions with at least > 30 patients in each study reporting the outcomes of interest [death, myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularization (TVR), stent thrombosis (ST), and the composite of death, TVR and MI (major adverse cardiac events; MACE)] with at least 6 months clinical follow‐up. The primary outcome of interest was death. Results: Two randomized trials, one subgroup analysis of a randomized trial and 26 observational studies comprising a total of 7,994 patients (4,187 patients in DES and 3,807 patients in BMS group) were included in the analysis .Mean follow‐up duration was 21 ± 11 months (6–48 months). In the overall population, MACE events were 19% in DES and 28% in BMS with a risk ratio (RR) of 0.7 (0.6, 0.8) P < 0.00001. This effect of MACE was sustained in studies with >2 years follow‐up with RR of 0.77 (0.65, 0.91) P = 0.003. Death rate was 7.8% in DES and 9% in BMS with a RR of 0.82 (0.7, 0.97) P = 0.02. MI rate was 5.7% in DES and 7.6% in BMS with RR of 0.72 (0.57, 0.91) P = 0.007. TVR was 12% in DES and 17% in BMS with RR of 0.71 (0.59, 0.85) P = 0.0002. ST was 1% in DES and 1.7 % in BMS RR of 0.61 (0.35, 1.06) P = 0.08. Specifically in randomized controlled trials, DES were associated with no significant differences in overall mortality [RR = 1.97; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.17–23; P = 0.58] or MI (RR = 1.24; 95% CI, 0.3–5.5; P = 0.78) compared with BMS. Conclusions: Based on the results of this meta‐analysis, DES may be considered as a safe and efficacious option for the percutaneous intervention of SVG lesions. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for treatment of bare‐metal in‐stent restenosis

Objectives : We compared the long‐term outcomes of drug‐eluting stents (DES) versus bare‐metal stents (BMS) for treatment of bare‐metal in‐stent restenosis (ISR). Background : There are no randomized trials or observational studies directly comparing the safety and efficacy of DES versus BMS for treatment of bare‐metal ISR. Methods : We examined data on all patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ISR at Cleveland Clinic between 05/1999 and 06/2007. We compared the efficacy and safety of DES to BMS for treating bare‐metal ISR. The primary end point was a composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), or target lesion revascularization (TLR). The secondary endpoints were individual components of the primary endpoint. Results : Of the 931 patients identified over 8 years, 706 had bare‐metal ISR and met our study criteria. Of the 706 patients with bare‐metal ISR, 362 were treated with DES and 344 with BMS. There were 230 cumulative events for a median follow‐up of 3.2 years. After adjusting for 27 variables, DES were associated with lower primary endpoint compared to BMS for treatment of bare‐metal ISR (21% vs. 45%, adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.42–0.95; P = 0.03). The individual secondary endpoint of death (8% vs. 24%, P = 0.005) favored DES, but MI (3% vs. 8%, P = 0.31), and TLR (13% vs. 20%, P = 0.23) failed to reach statistical significance. Conclusions : In our multivariate analysis of patients with bare‐metal ISR, DES use was associated with significantly lower death, MI, or TLR when compared to BMS. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Long-term safety and effectiveness of drug-eluting stents compared to bare metal stents in ST elevation myocardial infarction: findings from the Guthrie Health Off-label Stent (GHOST) Registry

Background: Multiple randomized trials and observational studies have shown drug‐eluting stents (DES) to be safe and effective at 3‐year follow‐up in stent thrombosis (ST)‐segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, outcomes data beyond 3–4 years after DES implantation are sparse. Methods: We studied 554 STEMI patients who underwent successful PCI with either DES or bare metal stent (BMS). Primary study end‐points were time to occurrence of ST and the composite of death or myocardial infarction (MI). Secondary end‐points were time to occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) and discrete events that comprise MACE (death, MI, and target vessel revascularization [TVR]). Outcomes of the DES and BMS groups were assessed by survival analysis and multivariable Cox regression. Results: There were 205 (37%) patients who received DES and 349 (63%) patients who received BMS. At a median follow‐up of 41.4 months after PCI, there were no differences in the unadjusted incidence of ST (ST, 3.4 vs. 4.3%, log‐rank P = 0.61) and MI (6.8% vs. 8%, P = 0.61) between DES versus BMS groups, respectively. However, DES implantation was associated with lower unadjusted incidence of death or MI (11% vs. 23.5%, P = 0.0002), MACE (16% vs. 34%, P < 0.0001), death (6.3% vs. 17%, P = 0.0004), and TVR (9.8% vs. 18%, P = 0.008) than BMS implantation. In multivariable analyses, DES implantation was associated with significantly lower incidence of MACE (adjusted HR = 0.47 [95% CI: 0.31–0.76], P = 0.0007) than BMS implantation. Conclusion: In our study of STEMI patients, DES implantation was safer than BMS implantation and was associated with lower MACE at long‐term follow‐up. (J Interven Cardiol 2012;25:118–125)     

Long-term safety and effectiveness of drug-eluting stents compared to bare metal stents following successful PCI in non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction: findings from the Guthrie Health Off-Label StenT (GHOST) Registry

Background: The long‐term safety and effectiveness of drug‐eluting stents (DES) versus bare metal stents (BMS) in non‐ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) beyond 2 years after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is unknown. Methods: We studied 674 NSTEMI patients who underwent successful PCI with DES (n = 323) or BMS (n = 351). The primary study end‐points were time to occurrence of death or nonfatal recurrent myocardial infarction (MI), and stent thrombosis (ST). Secondary end‐points included time to occurrence of target vessel revascularization (TVR) and any major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE, defined as the composite of death, MI, ST, TVR). Results: The DES and BMS groups were well matched except that DES patients received dual antiplatelet therapy for a longer duration and had smaller final vessel diameter. In survival analysis, at a mean follow‐up of 1333 ± 659 days after PCI, the DES group had similar incidence of death/myocardial infarction (24% vs. 27%, log rank p = 0.23) and ST (4.0% vs. 2.6%, p = 0.18) as the BMS group. The DES patients had lower incidence of TVR (8.1% vs. 17%, p = 0.0018) but similar MACE (26% vs. 37%, p = 0.31). In multivariable analysis, DES vs. BMS implantation showed no significant impact on death/myocardial infarction [adjusted hazards ratio (HR) 1.0, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.7–1.4], ST (HR 1.7; CI 0.7 – 4.0), or MACE (HR 0.8; CI 0.6 – 1.1). However, TVR was lower in the DES group (HR 0.4; CI 0.3 – 0.7). Conclusion: In patients presenting with NSTEMI, DES implantation appears to be as safe as BMS implantation at long‐term follow‐up. In addition, DES are effective in reducing TVR compared to BMS. (J Interven Cardiol 2012;25:28–36)     

Selective drug‐eluting stent implantation for high‐risk patients with acute ST‐elevation myocardial infarction: Rationale and safety

Background : A selective policy of drug‐eluting stent (DES) implantation in ST‐elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients at high risk of restenosis may maximize the benefit from restenosis reduction and minimize risk from late stent thrombosis (LaST). Objectives : We sought to prospectively determine the safety of selective DES implantation for long lesions (>20 mm), small vessels (<2.5 mm) and diabetic patients in patients with STEMI using a prospective single‐center registry. Methods : A total of 252 patients who underwent primary PCI between January 2005 and December 2006 were included: 126 consecutive patients receiving DES were compared with 126 age‐, sex‐, and vessel‐matched controls with STEMI who received bare‐metal stents. Composite major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (death, AMI, and target vessel revascularization) were used as the primary outcome measure. Results : Baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics and outcomes were similar between groups except for the prespecified diabetes, lesion length, and maximum stent diameter. Long‐term outcomes at a median follow up of 34 ± 6 months showed significant reductions in reinfarction (2% vs. 11%, P = 0.03), target vessel revascularization (TVR) (10% vs. 24%, P = 0.02), and composite MACE (18% vs. 31%, P = 0.03) with DES, with no excess of death (9% vs. 7%, P = NS) or LaST (2% vs. 1%, P = NS). In a Cox multivariate model, clopidogrel cessation at long‐term follow‐up was the most powerful predictor of hierarchical MACE (HR: 5.165; 95%CI: 2.019–13.150, P = 0.001). Conclusions : Selective DES implantation in patients with high‐risk STEMI appears safe, and exposes fewer patients to the risk of LaST. A randomized comparison of selective versus routine DES use in patients with STEMI should be considered. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

A comparative analysis of major clinical outcomes using drug‐eluting stents versus bare metal stents in diabetic versus nondiabetic patients

Objectives: We aim to explore the clinical outcome of drug‐eluting stents (DES) versus bare‐metal stents (BMS) implantation in diabetics versus nondiabetic patients. Background: Diabetic patients sustain worse long‐term clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) when compared with nondiabetics. The use of DES decreases the rate of repeat revascularization in this population but data concerning long‐term clinical benefits, such as myocardial infarction (MI) or mortality is scant. Methods: We analyzed data from a comprehensive registry of 6,583 consecutive patients undergoing PCI at our center. A propensity score was used for analysis of outcomes and for matching (DES vs. BMS). Outcome parameters were total mortality, MI, repeat target vessel revascularization (TVR) rates, and risk‐adjusted event‐free survival. Within this cohort, we identified 2,571 nondiabetic patients and these were compared with 1,826 diabetic coronary patients. Results: Mean and median follow up time was 3 and 3.25 years, respectively. Overall, diabetics had higher rates of major‐adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) at 4 years compared with nondiabetics (23.03 vs. 31.96 P > 0.001). DES use was associated with lower rates of TVR in both groups [diabetics hazard ratio (HR) = 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.42–0.76, P < 0.001, nondiabetics HR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.55–0.97, P = 0.03] while sustained decreased rates of both mortality and MI were evident solely among diabetics (HR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.56–0.89, P = 0.004 in diabetic vs. HR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.69–1.13, P = 0.3). Conclusions: In a “real‐world,” unselected population and extended clinical use, DES in diabetics was associated with sustained decreased rates of MI, death, TVR, and MACE while this benefit was attenuated in the nondiabetic population. © 2011 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Comparison of sirolimus‐eluting stent,paclitaxel‐eluting stent,and bare metal stent in the treatment of long coronary lesions

Objective: This study compared the efficacy of the sirolimus‐eluting stent (SES), the paclitaxel‐eluting stent (PES), and the bare metal stent (BMS) for long coronary lesions. Background: The outcome of drug‐eluting stent (DES) implantation in long coronary lesions remains unclear. Methods: The study involved 527 patients with de novo long coronary lesions (≥24 mm), which were treated with long (≥28 mm) SESs (223 lesions), PESs (194 lesions), or BMSs (201 lesions). Results: Lesions in the SES (36.0 ± 14.9 mm, P < 0.001) and PES (36.3 ± 14.5 mm, P < 0.001) groups were longer than those in the BMS group (32.0 ± 12.3 mm), meaning the two DES groups had longer stented segments than did the BMS group. Six‐month angiographic follow‐up showed the SES (9.3%, P < 0.001) and PES (21.3%, P < 0.001) groups had lower in‐segment restenosis rates than that of the BMS group (42.5%). The rate of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) including death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization at 9 months was higher in the BMS group (26.6%) than that in the SES (13.0%, P < 0.001) and PES (15.7%, P < 0.001) groups. Posthoc analysis of the two DES groups showed that the in‐segment restenosis rate was lower for the SES than that for the PES group (P = 0.002), while the MACE rate was similar. Conclusions: The use of DESs for long coronary lesions appears to be safe and more effective than the use of BMSs in terms of restenosis and adverse clinical events. SES use was associated with lower late luminal loss and a lower angiographic restenosis rate compared with PES use. © 2006 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

The short‐ and long‐term outcomes of percutaneous intervention with drug‐eluting stent vs bare‐metal stent in saphenous vein graft disease: An updated meta‐analysis of all randomized clinical trials

The use of drug‐eluting stents (DES) vs bare‐metal stents (BMS) in saphenous vein graft (SVG) lesions remains controversial. We conducted a meta‐analysis of all randomized clinical trials comparing the outcomes of DES with BMS in SVG percutaneous coronary interventions. A search of PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, and Clinicaltrials.gov was performed for all randomized clinical trials. We evaluated the short‐ and long‐term clinical outcomes of the following: all‐cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), definite/probable stent thrombosis, target lesion revascularization (TLR), and target‐vessel revascularization (TVR). From a total of 1582 patients in 6 randomized clinical trials, 797 had DES and 785 had BMS. Patients with DES had lower short‐term MACE, TLR, and TVR in comparison with BMS (odds ratio [OR]: 0.56, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.35–0.91, P = 0.02; OR: 0.43, 95% CI: 0.19–0.99, P = 0.05; and OR: 0.45, 95% CI: 0.22–0.95, P = 0.04, respectively). However, there were no different outcomes for all‐cause mortality (P = 0.63) or stent thrombosis (P = 0.21). With long‐term follow‐up, there were no significant reductions of MACE (P = 0.20), TLR (P = 0.57), TVR (P = 0.07), all‐cause mortality (P = 0.29), and stent thrombosis (P = 0.76). The use of DES in SVG lesions was associated with lower short‐term MACE, TLR, and TVR in comparison with BMS. However, there were no significant differences with long‐term follow‐up.     

Long‐term clinical,angiographic, and intravascular ultrasound outcomes of biodegradable polymer‐coated sirolimus‐eluting stents

Background: The residual drug carriers on drug‐eluting stents (DES) surfaces are considered to be one of the most significant reasons causing late thrombosis. There is no documented data currently available on the safety/benefit profile beyond 6 months of EXCEL stent, a novel sirolimus‐eluting stent with biodegradable polymer coating, in treating patients with coronary artery disease (CHD). Objective: To evaluate the long‐term efficacy and safety of EXCEL stent on treating CHD patients. Methods: Between February and March 2006, a consecutive cohort of complex patients treated with the EXCEL stent was prospectively enrolled in this single‐center registry. Antiplatelet protocol was 6‐month dual antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel and aspirin followed by aspirin alone indefinitely. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included in‐segment and in‐stent late lumen loss and binary restenosis rate measured by quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) analysis at 8 months postindex PCI procedure. Results: A total of 100 patients with 153 lesions were included in this analysis. Most lesions (83.0%) were classified as complex (B2/C). At 12 months, four patients (4.0%) experienced MACE, which were four target‐lesion revascularizations due to in‐stent restenosis (ISR). All patients received follow‐up up to 24 ± 0.4 months and no cardiac death, MI, and in‐stent thrombosis occurred during the 6 months of dual antiplatelet therapy or the subsequent 15 months of aspirin treatment alone. QCA analysis of 112 lesions from 75 patients showed 3.6% (4/112) in‐stent lesion restenosis, 5.4% (6/112) in‐segment lesion restenosis, 0.12 ± 0.34 mm in‐stent late lumen loss, and 0.08 ± 0.35 mm in‐segment late lumen loss. Conclusions: In this single‐center experience with complex patients and lesions, the EXCEL^TM stent implantation with 6‐month dual antiplatelet treatment proved to markedly reduce the incidence of 24‐month ISR and MACE. These preliminary findings require further validation by large scale, randomized trials. © 2008 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Long-term clinical outcomes in patients treated with drug-eluting compared to bare-metal stents for the treatment of transplant coronary artery disease

Objective : We aimed to compare the long‐term clinical outcomes of first‐vessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug‐eluting stents (DES) and bare metal stents (BMS) for the treatment of transplant coronary artery disease (TCAD). Background : TCAD is the leading cause of late death in orthotopic heart transplantation (OHT) recipients. PCI is associated with worse clinical outcomes compared with non‐OHT patients. Our institution previously reported superior angiographic outcomes with DES compared with BMS in OHT patients. However, long‐term clinical outcomes comparing PCI with DES versus BMS are lacking. Methods : The data on 105 OHT recipients who underwent first‐vessel PCI with DES (n = 58) or BMS (n = 47) at UCLA Medical Center between 1995 and 2009 were retrospectively analyzed. Results : Five‐year clinical outcomes were not significantly different with DES and BMS in terms of the composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), or target vessel revascularization (TVR) [(40.8 ± 7.2)% vs. (59.6 ± 7.2)%, log‐rank P = 0.33], death [(31.8 ± 7.8)% vs. (40.4 ± 7.2)%, log‐rank P = 0.46], MI [(12.2 ± 6.2)% vs. (11.3 ± 5.4)%, log rank P = 0.98], TVR [(25.5 ± 6.9)% vs. (26.5 ± 7.3)%, log rank P = 0.76], and time to repeat OHT [(2.27 ± 1.79) vs. (3.22 ± 3.34), P = 0.98]. Conclusions : At long‐term follow‐up, PCI with DES and BMS provided similar clinical outcomes in OHT. Long‐term mortality remains high in OHT recipients after PCI with either DES or BMS. Randomized clinical trials are required to determine the optimal treatment strategy for OHT recipients with TCAD. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Drug-eluting stents vs. intracoronary brachytherapy for in-stent restenosis: a meta-analysis

Background:

It has been reported that drug‐eluting stents (DES) were superior to intracoronary brachytherapy (ICBT) in patients with in‐stent restenosis (ISR). However, it is unknown whether there might be differences between DES and ICBT in terms of efficacy and safety in large sample size and long‐term follow‐up.

Hypothesis:

The aim of this study was to determine whether DES implantation remains favorable in large sample size and long‐term follow‐up when compared with ICBT among patients with ISR.

Methods:

We conducted a search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials without language restrictions. A meta‐analysis of 1942 cases from 12 controlled trials of DES vs ICBT for ISR was performed.

Results:

Drug‐eluting stents were significantly more effective in reducing target‐vessel revascularization (TVR) (odds ratio [OR]: 0.44, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.23–0.81, P = 0.009) and binary restenosis (OR: 0.34, 95% CI: 0.26–0.46, P<0.00001) compared with ICBT at midterm follow‐up. There were no significant differences between DES and ICBT in cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), and late stent thrombosis at midterm follow‐up. A statistical significance has been found between the 2 groups in TVR (OR: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.43–0.86, P = 0.005) at long‐term follow‐up. There were no significant differences in cardiac death and MI between the 2 groups at long‐term follow‐up.

Conclusions:

These findings provide evidence that DES is superior to ICBT for the treatment of ISR in TVR and binary restenosis reduction, but not in cardiac death, MI, and late stent thrombosis reduction. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Yong‐Guang Lu, MD, and Yan‐Mei Chen, MD, contributed equally to this work. The authors have no funding, financial relationships, or conflicts of interest to disclose.     

Efficacy and safety of a double‐coated paclitaxel‐eluting coronary stent: The EUCATAX trial

Objectives : The aim of this study was the comparison of a new double‐coated paclitaxel‐eluting coronary stent with bare‐metal stent (BMS) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Background : Stent coating with biodegradable polymers as a platform for elution of drugs has the potential for complete elution of drugs and for decreasing the risk of late complications. Methods : Multicenter randomized trial comparing a paclitaxel‐eluting stent (PES) coated with a biodegradable polymer and glycocalyx with the equivalent BMS. We randomly assigned 422 patients with de novo coronary lesions to PES (211 patients) or to BMS (211 patients). Primary end point was target vessel failure (TVF) defined as cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization. Clinical secondary end points were target vessel revascularization, target lesion revascularization, stent thrombosis (ST), and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Angiographic secondary end points were late loss and binary restenosis. Results : At 1 year of follow‐up, TVF rate was 9.5% in the PES group and 17.1% in the BMS group (P = 0.02), and MACE rate was 10% in PES and 19% in BMS arm (P = 0.009). All other secondary end points were reached but ST. ST rate was low and similar in both study arms. Conclusions : The study shows that patients treated with PES with dual coating technology had significantly lower incidence of TVF and MACE than those treated with BMS design; however, longer follow‐up should be necessary to assess true advantages of this technology compared with the previous one. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Four‐year clinical outcome of sirolimus‐ and paclitaxel‐eluting stents compared to bare‐metal stents for the percutaneous treatment of stable coronary artery disease

Background : There are limited data on the long‐term safety and efficacy profile of coronary stent implantation in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Objective : We aimed to assess the 4‐year clinical outcome in patients who received a bare‐metal stent (BMS), sirolimus‐eluting stent (SES), or a paclitaxel‐eluting stent (PES) for the percutaneous treatment of stable angina in our center during 2000–2005. Methods : In the study period, a total of 2,449 consecutive patients (BMS = 1,005; SES = 373; and PES = 1071) underwent a PCI as part of three historical PCI‐cohorts for stable angina and were routinely followed for the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Results : At 4 years follow‐up, 264 BMS patients (26.8%) had a MACE, compared to 75 SES patients (20.9%) and 199 PES patients (23.9%). Multivariate analysis showed that SES and PES were superior to BMS with respect to MACE [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.62, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.47–0.81; HR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.55–0.82, respectively]. The occurrence of MACE was significantly lower in the SES and PES population, primarily due to less target‐vessel revascularization (TVR) procedures (HR = 0.53, 95% CI: 0.37–0.75; HR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.62–0.81, respectively). The occurrence of early, late, and very late stent thrombosis was equally rare with each stent type. There were no significant differences between SES and PES on death, myocardial infarction, TVR, and MACE. Conclusion : These findings suggest that SES and PES result in decreased TVR procedures and MACE compared to BMS at 4 years follow‐up. SES or PES implantation should be the preferred choice over BMS for patients with stable CAD undergoing PCI. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Drug-Eluting Versus Bare Metal Stents in Saphenous Vein Graft Intervention: An Updated Comprehensive Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

BackgroundDrug eluting stents (DES) are preferred over bare metal stents (BMS) for native coronary artery revascularization unless contraindicated. However, the preferred stent choice for saphenous venous graft (SVG) percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) is unclear due to conflicting results.MethodsPubMed, Clinical trials registry and the Cochrane Center Register of Controlled Trials were searched through June 2018. Seven studies (n = 1639) comparing DES versus BMS in SVG-PCI were included. Endpoints were major adverse cardiac events (MACE), cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularization (TVR), target lesion revascularization (TLR), in-stent thrombosis, binary in-stent restenosis, and late lumen loss (LLL).ResultsOverall, during a mean follow up of 32.1 months, there was no significant difference in the risk of MACE, cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, MI, stent thrombosis, TVR and TLR between DES and BMS. However, short-term follow up (mean 11 months) showed lower rate of MACE (OR 0.66 [0.51, 0.85]; p = 0.002), TVR (OR 0.47 [0.23, 0.97]; p = 0.04) and binary in-stent restenosis (OR 0.14 [0.06, 0.37]; p < 0.0001) in DES as compared with BMS. This benefit was lost on long-term follow up with a mean follow up 35.5 months.ConclusionIn this meta-analysis of SVG-PCI, DES use was associated with similar MACE, cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, MI, in-stent thrombosis, TVR and TLR compared with BMS during long-term follow up. There was high incidence of MACE noted in both DES and BMS suggesting a need for exploring novel strategies to treat SVG disease to improve clinical outcomes.     

Sex‐specific outcomes following revascularization with zotarolimus‐eluting stents: Comparison of angiographic and late‐term clinical results

Objectives: We examined angiographic and late‐term clinical outcomes according to sex in recent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) trials involving zotarolimus‐eluting stents (ZES). Background. Differences in outcome between men and women undergoing PCI have been inconsistently described with bare metal and first‐generation drug‐eluting stents. Methods. Clinical and angiographic outcomes among ZES‐treated patients were evaluated by sex using propensity score modeling in a patient‐level systematic overview of six trials and were also compared to patients receiving bare metal stents (BMS). Results. Among 2,132 patients, 608 were female (28.5%). Compared to men, women were older and more frequently had diabetes, hypertension, and a smaller reference vessel diameter (P < 0.05 for all). For both sexes, the relative reductions in 8‐month angiographic binary restenosis and late lumen loss were statistically significant and of similar extent with ZES compared to BMS. By 2 years, treatment with ZES resulted in significantly lower target vessel revascularization (TVR) and target vessel failure (TVF; 10.0% vs. 21.5%, P = 0.0003) among women that paralleled risk reductions for men. However, among ZES‐treated patients, 2‐year rates of TVR (8.2% vs. 10.4%, P = 0.005) and TVF (9.9% vs. 12.8%, P = 0.004) were significantly lower among women, although rates of death and myocardial infarction were similar. Conclusions. Despite greater baseline clinical and angiographic risk than men, women undergoing PCI with ZES compared to BMS experienced significant reductions in angiographic restenosis and repeat revascularization yet similar safety. Among all patients treated with ZES, late‐term safety and efficacy outcomes are similar, if not lower, among women compared to men. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Same or Different Drug‐Eluting Stent Re‐Implantation for Drug‐Eluting Stent Restenosis: An Assessment Including Second‐Generation Drug‐Eluting Stents

Objectives

We examined the long‐term outcomes of implanting a different type of drug‐eluting stent (DES), including second‐generation DES, for treatment of DES‐in stent restenosis (ISR).

Background

Treatment for DES‐ISR has not been standardized.

Methods

The subjects were 80 patients with 89 lesions underwent DES implantation for DES‐ISR. The patients were divided into the group of patients receiving the same DES for DES‐ISR (Homo‐stent: 24 patients, 25 lesions) and a different DES for DES‐ISR (Hetero‐stent: 56 patients, 64 lesions). The primary endpoint was survival free of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), including cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization (TVR). The secondary endpoint was late loss at 8–12 months follow‐up. In the subgroup of patients who were treated with second‐generation DES for DES‐ISR, we also assessed the survival free of MACE.

Results

During a mean follow‐up of 45.1 ± 21.2 months, 26 patients experienced MACE. There was no significant difference in the survival free of MACE (Log rank P = 0.17). In the sub‐analysis of second generation DES, MACE was significantly higher in the Homo‐stent group compared to the Hetero‐stent group (Log rank P = 0.04). Late loss was significantly higher in the Homo‐stent group than in the Hetero‐stent group (0.86 ± 1.03 vs. 0.38 ± 0.74 mm, P = 0.03). This trend was prominent in the first‐generation DES group.

Conclusions

Although there was no significant difference in MACE between the Hetero‐stent and the Homo‐stent groups including both first and second‐generation DES, the sub‐analysis demonstrated different DES implantation for DES‐ISR significantly improved the MACE rate among patients treated with second‐generation DES. (J Interven Cardiol 2016;29:311–318)