Drug-Eluting Stents, Restenosis and Revascularization

Several meta-analyses have demonstrated the superiority of drug-eluting stents (DES) in reducing the incidence of restenosis, target vessel revascularization and target lesion revascularization compared to their predecessor, the bare-metal stent. In comparing Cypher and Taxus stents, the two most recent meta-analyses have given the edge to the Cypher. However, it must be stressed that the superiority of one DES over another remains debatable due to ever changing "real-world data" compared to those attained from randomized trials. The newer sirolimus analogs and selective inhibitors are challenging the old guard in their quest to further limit restenosis. So too are the newer "high-tech" polymers and additionally by using more biodegradable material in the stent's design. Stents aimed at targeting lesions are a new armament in the battle against restenosis and together with combination therapies are exciting key areas to watch. The ideal way to treat a DES in-stent restenosis is still a challenge and hence the impetus is to avoid it from happening in the first place.     

Drug-Eluting Stents Versus Bare-Metal Stents in Large Coronary Artery Revascularization: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

ObjectivesWe aim to determine if drug eluting stents (DES) are better than bare-metal stents (BMS) in large coronary artery (diameter ≥ 3 mm) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).BackgroundDES have become the standard of care for PCI in coronary artery disease (CAD). However, the superiority of DES over BMS in large vessel CAD is not clear and previous studies have shown conflicting results.MethodsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing outcomes of PCI with BMS and DES for large vessel CAD were identified from the year 2000 to August 2019. The outcomes were studied individually and included all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR), and stent thrombosis. Aggregated odds ratio and 95% CI were calculated using a random-effects model.ResultsEight RCTs were included (4 with data for first-generation DES, 3 with data for second-generation DES, and 1 with data for both first- and second-generation DES). Compared to BMS, second generation DES had a significantly lower rate of all-cause mortality (2.4% vs. 3.9%, OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.56–0.98, P 0.04), TLR (3.5% vs. 8.6% OR 0.38 95% CI 0.28–0.53, P < 0.001), and MI (2.1% vs. 2.9% OR 0.73 95% CI 0.53–1.0, P 0.05). The difference in all-cause mortality was not seen with first-generation DES.ConclusionNewer DES are associated with a lower mortality, TLR, and MI and thus should be preferred over BMS for large coronary artery PCI.     

加强糖尿病患者的多重危险因素综合防治

糖尿病患者的心血管并发症是影响糖尿病患者预后的主要因素。糖尿病患者常常并存多重危险因素。综合防治高血糖、高血压、高血脂等动脉粥样硬化性心血管疾病的多重危险因素,预防其心血管并发症,对糖尿病的防治具有重要临床意义。     

Diabetes and Percutaneous Coronary Revascularization in the Drug-Eluting Stent Era

Diabetes mellitus has reached epidemic proportions and is associated with decreased event-free survival following coronary revascularization. Although the historical complication rates for diabetic patients following percutaneous coronary intervention have been less than acceptable, the emerging drug-eluting stent technology when coupled with an aggressive adjunctive pharmacological regimen will improve the complication rates following percutaneous revascularization for this high-risk group of patients. This review will focus on the historical data associated with revascularization, percutaneous and surgical, and diabetes mellitus and will highlight the emerging data of drug-eluting stents and adjunctive pharmacology.     

Final 5-Year Follow-Up of a Randomized Controlled Trial of Everolimus- and Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents for Coronary Revascularization in Daily Practice: The COMPARE Trial (A Trial of Everolimus-Eluting Stents and Paclitaxel Stents for Coronary Revascularization in Daily Practice)

ObjectivesThis study sought to report the 5-year outcomes of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) in an all-comers population undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).BackgroundThe medium-term 1 and 2-year results of the prospective randomized COMPARE trial (A Trial of Everolimus-Eluting Stents and Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents for Coronary Revascularization in Daily Practice) showed superior clinical outcomes with EES compared with PES in an all-comers PCI population. Whether this benefit is sustained over longer-term follow-up is unknown. Furthermore, systematic long-term follow-up data on these metallic drug eluting stents with durable polymers are scarce.MethodsWe randomly assigned 1,800 patients undergoing PCI to EES or PES. The pre-specified composite primary endpoint was death, myocardial infarction (MI), or target vessel revascularization (TVR).ResultsFollow-up at 5 years was completed in 1,791 (99.5%) patients. Treatment with EES compared with PES led to a relative risk reduction of the primary endpoint by 27% (18.4% vs. 25.1%, p = 0.0005), driven by lower rates of MI (7.0% vs. 11.5%, p = 0.001) and TVR (7.4% vs. 11.4%, p = 0.003), but not with mortality (9.0% vs. 10.3%, relative risk 0.88, p = 0.36). Moreover, patients treated with EES compared with PES had lower rates of definite/probable stent thrombosis at 5 years (3.1% vs. 5.9%, p = 0.005). The hazard curves for TVR, MI, and stent thrombosis diverge over the first 3 years and, subsequently, progress in parallel.ConclusionsThe early- and medium-term superiority of EES over PES measured both by safety and efficacy endpoints is sustained at 5 years in this all-comer population. (A Trial of Everolimus-Eluting Stents and Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents for Coronary Revascularization in Daily Practice [COMPARE]; NCT01016041)     

Revascularization Strategies in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus and Acute Coronary Syndrome

Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) have more severe CAD and higher mortality in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) than patients without DM. The optimal mode of revascularization—coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)—remains controversial in this setting. For patients with DM and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, prompt revascularization of the culprit artery via PCI is generally preferable. In non-ST-elevation ACS, the decision on mode of revascularization is more challenging. Trials comparing CABG with percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty, bare metal stents, and first-generation drug-eluting stents in DM patients with multivessel have demonstrated decreased mortality in those receiving CABG. On the other hand, trials and retrospective analyses comparing CABG to PCI with second-generation drug-eluting stents have not shown a statistically significant mortality benefit favoring CABG. This potentially narrowed that gap between CABG and PCI requires further investigation.     

Cost-Effectiveness of Everolimus- Versus Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents for Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Revascularization (from the SPIRIT-IV Trial)

Although several drug-eluting stents (DESs) have been shown to be economically attractive compared to bare-metal stents in patients at moderate to high risk of restenosis, little is known about the cost-effectiveness of alternative DES designs, especially second-generation DESs. We therefore performed an economic substudy alongside the SPIRIT-IV trial, in which 3,687 patients undergoing single or multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention were randomized to receive second-generation everolimus-eluting stents (EESs; n = 2,458) or first-generation paclitaxel-eluting stents (PESs; n = 1,229). Costs through 2 years of follow-up were assessed from the perspective of the United States health care system. The primary cost-effectiveness end point was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio assessed as cost per quality-adjusted life year gained. Over a 2-year period, use of EESs versus PESs led to a trend toward decreased overall repeat revascularization procedures (14.2 vs 16.2 per 100 subjects, p = 0.20) driven by a significant decrease in the number of target vessel revascularization procedures (8.2 vs 11.0 per 100 subjects, p = 0.02) but also a slight increase in the number of nontarget vessel revascularization procedures (6.0 vs 5.1 per 100 subjects, p = 0.37). Follow-up cardiovascular costs were decreased by $273/patient in the EES group (95% confidence interval for difference 1,048 less to 502 more, p = 0.49). Formal cost-effectiveness analysis based on these results demonstrated that the probability that EES was an economically attractive strategy (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$50,000/quality-adjusted life year gained) was 85.7%. These findings demonstrate that in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with DESs, use of EESs is economically attractive compared to PESs with improved clinical outcomes and lower overall medical care costs at 2 years.     

冠心病合并糖尿病患者置入雷帕霉素洗脱支架和紫杉醇洗脱支架长期有效性及安全性观察

目的:评价冠心病合并糖尿病患者成功置入Firebird雷帕霉素洗脱支架和Taxus紫杉醇洗脱支架后的长期有效性和安全性。方法:本研究入选了2004-04至2006-10在我院行择期支架置入术的冠心病合并糖尿病患者740例。入选患者分为Firebird组(518例)和Taxus组(222例)。临床随访资料包括术后30天、1年和2年的死亡、心肌梗死、血栓、靶病变血运重建和靶血管血运重建。本研究比较了两组间各种临床事件的累积发生率差异。同时通过倾向性评分调整后的Cox比例风险模型比较两组间的2年临床随访结果。结果:术后2年时,与Taxus组相比,Firebird组患者全因死亡率[1.54%比4.98%;风险比0.354(95%可信区间:0.129～0.971),P<0.05]和靶血管血运重建率[6.18%比10.41%;风险比0.555(95%可信区间:0.315～0.979),P<0.05]风险均显著降低。结论:对于冠心病合并糖尿病患者而言,置入Firebird雷帕霉素洗脱支架与置入Taxus紫杉醇洗脱支架相比,全因死亡率和靶血管血运重建率较低。