Clinical outcomes following drug-eluting versus bare metal stent implantation for lesion subsets excluded from pivotal clinical trials: findings from the GHOST Study (Guthrie Health System Off-Label StenT Study)

Objectives: We assessed outcomes of patients undergoing drug-eluting stent (DES) vs. bare metal stent (BMS) implantation for complex lesions excluded from pivotal clinical trials of DES.
Background: Although DES improve target vessel revascularization (TVR) and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) compared to BMS in randomized trials, data on safety and efficacy of DES in complex lesions are insufficient.
Methods: In a single-center registry of 1,354 patients who underwent stent implantation for complex lesions between July 2001 and December 2005, we compared the incidence of death, death or myocardial infarction (MI), stent thrombosis [definite or probable by the Academic Research Consortium (ARC) criteria], TVR, and MACE between patients who received DES (n = 483) versus those who received BMS (n = 871). Mean duration of follow-up was 494 versus 838 days in DES and BMS groups, respectively.
Results: Clinical outcomes in DES versus BMS groups were as follows: death 5.2% versus 11.5% (log-rank P = 0.042); death/MI 11.2% versus 16.7% (P = 0.47), stent thrombosis 2.9% versus 2.6% (P = 0.61), TVR 6.6 versus 18.5% (P < 0.0001), MACE 14.9% versus 29.7% (P = 0.0002), respectively. After adjustment for baseline differences, DES implantation was associated with lower TVR (adjusted hazards ratio HR = 0.38, 95% CI 0.26–0.56, P < 0.0001) and MACE (HR = 0.56, CI 0.42–0.74, P < 0.0001) without significant impact on other outcomes. In 933 patients who underwent DES (n = 483) or BMS (n = 450) implantation in the year 2003 or later, DES implantation similarly lowered TVR and MACE without affecting other outcomes.
Conclusions: Our findings support the safety and efficacy of DES in patient subsets excluded from pivotal randomized clinical trials of DES.     

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.     

Immediate procedural and long-term clinical outcomes following drug-eluting stent implantation to ostial saphenous vein graft lesions

BACKGROUND: Ostial saphenous vein graft (OSVG) lesions were excluded from all the clinical trials demonstrating significantly lower restenosis rates with drug-eluting stents (DES) compared to bare metal stents (BMS). This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of DES in OSVG lesions by assessing angiographic and 12-month clinical outcomes. METHODS: 70 consecutive patients (70 OSVG lesions) underwent coronary stent implantation between May 2003 and April 2006: 37 lesions received DES and 33 lesions BMS. Endpoints were all cause and cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR), target vessel revascularization (TVR), examined separately and as a combined end-point (major adverse cardiac events, MACE). RESULTS: Procedural (94.6% for DES and 87.9% for BMS) and angiographic (100% for DES and 100% for BMS) success did not differ between the two groups. The only in-hospital events were non-Q wave MI (DES 8.1% versus BMS 12.1%, P=0.69). At 30-day follow-up, there were no other events. Overall, at 1-year follow-up, the BMS group had a higher TLR (30.3% versus 5.4%, P=0.015), TVR (33.3% versus 10.8%, P=0.045) and MACE rate (36.4% versus 10.8%, P=0.024) compared to the DES group. CONCLUSIONS: Drug-eluting stent implantation to OSVG lesions achieves better clinical results than BMS but is still associated with a relatively high incidence (10.8%) of revascularization at 1-year follow-up.     

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)     

Clinical and angiographic outcome after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation in aorto-ostial lesions.

OBJECTIVES: This observational study evaluated the clinical and angiographic outcomes of patients with aorto-ostial coronary artery disease treated with sirolimus-eluting stents (SESs) or with bare metal stents (BMSs). BACKGROUND: The safety and effectiveness of SESs for the treatment of aorto-ostial lesions have not been demonstrated. METHODS: We identified 82 consecutive patients who underwent percutaneous coronary interventions in 82 aorto-ostial lesions using the SES (32 patients) or BMS (50 patients) and compared the two groups of patients. The incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), including death or Q-wave myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR), and target vessel revascularization (TVR), were recorded in-hospital and at a 10-month follow-up. RESULTS: All stents were implanted successfully. There were no statistically significant differences regarding major in-hospital complications between the two groups. At 10-month follow-up, two (6.3%) patients in the SES group and 14 (28%) patients in the BMS group underwent TLR (p = 0.01); MACE were less frequent in the SES group compared to the BMS group (19% vs. 44%, p = 0.02). Angiographic follow-up showed lower binary restenosis rates (11% vs. 51%, p = 0.001) and smaller late loss (0.21 +/- 0.31 mm vs. 2.06 +/- 1.37 mm, p < 0.0001) in the SES group. CONCLUSIONS: The main finding of our study is that, compared to the BMS, implantation of the SES in aorto-ostial lesions appears safe and effective, with no increase in major in-hospital complications and a significant improvement in restenosis and late event rates at 10-month follow-up.     

Seven‐year safety and efficacy of the unrestricted use of drug‐eluting stents in saphenous vein bypass grafts

Objectives : The aim was to investigate the 7‐year clinical outcomes of patients treated with either drug‐eluting stents (DES) or bare‐metal stents (BMS) for saphenous vein graft disease (SVG). Background : Atherosclerotic disease in SVG has several peculiarities which make it difficult to extrapolate outcomes of the use of DES as compared to BMS, from outcomes observed in native coronary arteries. To date no long‐term safety and efficacy results for DES in SVG have been published. Methods : Between January, 2000 and December, 2005 a total of 250 consecutive patients with saphenous vein graft disease were sequentially treated with DES (either sirolimus‐ or paclitaxel‐eluting stents) or with BMS. Yearly follow‐up was performed. Results : At 87 months (7.25 years), a total of 101 patients died (58 [46%] in the BMS group and 43 [42%] in the DES group, P‐value= 0.4). There was no significant difference in the combined endpoint mortality or myocardial infarction. Cumulative target vessel revascularisation (TVR) was higher in the BMS group compared to the DES group (41% vs. 29%, respectively; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.63, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.39–1.0). The cumulative incidence of major adverse cardiac events was 73% vs. 68% in the BMS and DES groups, respectively (adjusted HR 0.93, 95% CI: 0.67–1.3). Conclusions : In the present study, the unrestricted use of DES for SVG lesions appeared safe and effective up to 7.25 years‐ and the use of DES resulted in a clinically relevant lower rate of TVR. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, 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.     

Comparison of drug-eluting stents with bare metal stents in unselected patients with acute myocardial infarction.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the procedural characteristics and outcomes of patients with acute myocardial infarction treated with drug-eluting stents (DES) vs. bare metal stents (BMS). BACKGROUND: DES have been shown to reduce the incidence of restenosis and target vessel revascularization (TVR) in clinical randomized studies when compared with BMS in patients undergoing elective percutaneous intervention. Limited data are available with the use of DES in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. METHODS: Two hundred and sixty-one consecutive patients who presented with myocardial infarction between 7/2001 and 8/2005 were studied. The procedural characteristics, 30-day and 12-month outcomes of 131 patients treated with DES were compared with 130 patients treated with BMS. RESULTS: At 12-months follow-up DES therapy was associated with a substantial decrease in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (HR 0.33; P =0.002), TVR (HR 0.19; P =0.002), and recurrent myocardial infarction (HR 0.23; P =0.051) vs. BMS therapy. Coronary interventions utilizing DES were characterized by a marked increase in the number of stent per target vessel (DES: 1.9 +/- 0.9 vs. BMS: 1.38 +/- 0.6, P < 0.0001), treatment of bifurcation (DES: 21% vs. BMS: 5%, P =0.0004), and multivessel intervention (DES: 22% vs. BMS: 8%, P =0.003). CONCLUSION: The routine use of DES in acute myocardial infarction is associated with reduced rates of MACE at 12 months vs BMS, despite a higher rate of complex procedures in the DES treated patients. In addition to its anti-restenosis effect, the improved outcome of patients treated with DES may be linked to a more complete revascularization in association with prolonged clopidogrel therapy.     

Clinical results of drug eluting stents compared to bare metal stents for patients with ST elevation acute myocardial infarction

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the clinical outcomes in patients with ST segment elevation acute myocardial infarction (STEMI) treated with drug eluting stents (DES) versus a matched control group of patients with STEMI treated with bare metal stents (BMS). METHODS: This registry included 122 patients with STEMI undergoing primary coronary angioplasty with DES implantation at our institution. The control group consisted of 506 patients implanted with BMS, who were matched for age, infarct location, and diabetic status. The incidences of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) including target vessel/lesion revascularization (TVR/TLR) and stent thrombosis were assessed up to 12 months. RESULTS: Twelve months follow up showed a non-significant trend towards reduced deaths (3.3% versus 7.1%, P=0.1), significantly reduced recurrent MI (0.0% versus 6.1%, P=0.02), TVR (5.7% versus 15.2%, P=0.006) and TLR (2.5% versus 14.0%, P=0.004) events in the DES group as compared to BMS group. The composite incidences of MACE at 12 months follow-up was lower in the DES group (11.5%) as compared to the BMS group (21.3%, P=0.01). CONCLUSION: According to our experiences, the use of DES in STEMI is safe and effective as compared to BMS. DES was effective in reducing the incidence of restenosis outcomes and overall adverse cardiac events up to 12 months.     

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.     

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)     

A comparison of drug-eluting stents versus bare metal stents in saphenous vein graft PCI outcomes: a meta-analysis

Aims: Studies demonstrate that percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug‐eluting stents (DES) is associated with reduced revascularization and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) rates compared to bare metal stents (BMS) in native coronary vessels. Optimal PCI treatment of saphenous vein graft (SVG) lesions remains unclear despite SVG procedures representing up to 10% of PCI cases. We therefore performed a meta‐analysis to compare outcomes between BMS and DES in SVG PCI. Methods and Results: A search (2004–2009) of MEDLINE and conference proceedings for all relevant studies comparing mortality and MACE outcomes in DES versus BMS in SVG PCI and meta‐analysis of the data was performed. Twenty studies were identified from 2005 to 2009 enrolling a total of 5,296 patients. Meta‐analysis revealed a decrease in mortality associated with DES use, odds ratio (OR) 0.68; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53–0.88; P = 0.004. Similarly, MACE (OR 0.64; 95% CI 0.51–0.82; P < 0.001), total lesion revascularization (OR 0.60; 95% CI 0.43–0.83; P = 0.002), and total vessel revascularization (OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.41–0.80; P = 0.001) were significantly decreased in the patients in which DES were used compared to BMS. This reduction in mortality and MACE events associated with DES use appears to be limited to registry studies and not randomized controlled studies. Conclusions: Our meta‐analysis suggests DES use to be safe in SVG PCI and associated with reduced mortality and MACE rates with reductions in revascularization also observed. (J Interven Cardiol 2011;24:172–180)     

Immediate and mid-term outcomes of sirolimus-eluting stent implantation for chronic total occlusions.

AIMS: To evaluate the outcomes of sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) implantation for the treatment of chronic total occlusion (CTO). METHODS AND RESULTS: We identified 122 patients who underwent revascularization in CTO lesions with SES from April 2002 to April 2004 (SES group). A control group was composed of 259 consecutive patients with CTO lesions treated with bare metal stents (BMS) in the 24 months immediately before the introduction of SES (BMS group). At 6-month follow-up, the cumulative rate of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) was 16.4% in the SES group and 35.1% in the BMS group (P<0.001). The incidence of restenosis was 9.2% in the SES group and 33.3% in the BMS group (P<0.001). The need for revascularization in the SES group was significantly lower, both target lesion revascularization (7.4 vs. 26.3%, P<0.001) and target vessel revascularization (9.0 vs. 29.0%, P<0.001). BMS implantation (HR: 2.97; 95% CI: 1.80-4.89; P<0.001), lesion length (>20 mm) (HR: 2.02; 95% CI: 1.37-2.99; P=0.0004), and baseline reference vessel diameter (>2.8 mm) (HR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.42-0.92; P=0.02) were identified as predictors of MACE during 6-month follow-up. CONCLUSION: Compared with BMS, SES implantation in CTO lesions appears to be effective in reducing the incidence of restenosis and the need for revascularization at 6 months.     

Drug-eluting stents in the treatment of intermediate lesions: pooled analysis from four randomized trials.

OBJECTIVES: To address the safety and efficacy of drug-eluting stents (DES) in the treatment of intermediate lesions, we performed a pooled analysis of four randomized DES versus bare-metal stent (BMS) trials and assessed outcomes among patients with intermediate lesions. BACKGROUND: Before the introduction of DES, intermediate coronary lesions were commonly managed based on physiologic or anatomic assessment of lesion severity. The DES may challenge this paradigm. METHODS: The study population involved 167 of 2,478 randomized patients (6.7%) with intermediate lesions (diameter stenosis <50% [mean 44%] by quantitative coronary angiography) from the Sirolimus-coated Bx Velocity Balloon Expandable Stent in the Treatment of Patients with De Novo Coronary Artery Lesions (SIRIUS), TAXUS-IV, and the First and Second First Use to Underscore Restenosis Reduction with Everolimus (FUTURE-I and -II) trials. End points examined included early (in-hospital and 30-day) and late (1-year) major adverse cardiac events (MACE), including cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularization (TVR), stent thrombosis, and follow-up angiographic restenosis. RESULTS: Patients with intermediate lesions randomized to DES versus BMS had low rates of 30-day MACE (1.1% vs. 4.0% respectively; p = 0.22). At one-year follow-up, patients treated with DES versus BMS had similar rates of cardiac death (0% vs. 2.7%, respectively; p = 0.11) and MI (3.4% vs. 5.4%; p = 0.49) but markedly lower rates of TVR (3.4% vs. 20.3%; p = 0.0004), MACE (5.6% vs. 25.4%; p = 0.0003), and binary angiographic restenosis (1.8% vs. 34.0%; p < 0.0001). No patient in either group developed stent thrombosis. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with BMS, treatment of intermediate lesions with DES appears safe and results in a marked reduction in clinical and angiographic restenosis. The efficacy of DES may require a reevaluation of current treatment paradigms for intermediate lesions.     

Comparison of three age groups regarding safety and efficacy of drug-eluting stents (from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Dynamic Registry)

Limited data exist regarding drug-eluting stent (DES) versus bare metal stent (BMS) use in older patients. From the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Dynamic Registry, 5,089 percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)-treated patients were studied (October 2001 to August 2006). The differences in 1-year safety (death, myocardial infarction, and their composite) and efficacy (target vessel revascularization [TVR] with PCI and repeat revascularization) outcomes were compared between the patients who received DESs versus BMSs within each age group: <65 years (n = 2,680); 65 to 79 years (n = 1,942); ≥80 years (n = 443). No differences were found in the safety outcomes by stent type in any age group at 1 year. Regarding the effectiveness, lower rates of TVR with PCI and repeat revascularization were observed in the DES patients across all age groups. After propensity-adjusted analysis, the risk of TVR with PCI and repeat revascularization favored DES versus BMS with patients <65 years old (7.4% vs 14.6%, hazard ratio [HR] 0.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.32 to 0.60; 12.3% vs and 17.4%, HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.84, respectively), 65 to 79 years old (4.8% vs 9.5%, HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.80; and 7.6% vs 12.3%, HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.88, respectively), and ≥80 years old (4.5% vs 10.4%, HR 0.15, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.44; and 6.0% vs 14.5%, HR 0.18, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.40, respectively). In conclusion, significant reductions in TVR with PCI and repeat revascularization were noted in all 3 age groups without increases in death or myocardial infarction in this large multicenter PCI registry. Our data support the use of DES, regardless of age.     

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.     

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.     

Comparing long‐term outcomes between drug‐eluting and bare‐metal stents in the treatment of cardiac allograft vasculopathy

Background: Cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) is the leading cause of death after the first year following heart transplantation. We compared restenosis rates, mortality, and other major adverse cardiac events (MACE) between transplant recipients treated with DES and BMS for CAV. Methods: All patients from our heart transplant registry undergoing PCI with stenting for CAV were identified. Procedural data, baseline clinical characteristics, yearly coronary angiography, cardiac events and death were prospectively collected. Primary outcome was in‐stent restenosis (ISR). Secondary outcomes were in‐segment restenosis, target vessel revascularization (TVR), all‐cause mortality and combined MACE. Results: 36 lesions in 25 patients treated with DES were compared with 31 BMS‐treated lesions in 19 patients. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics. 12‐month incidence of ISR was 0% with DES vs. 12.9% with BMS, P = 0.03. Over mean (±standard error) follow‐up of 51.1 ± 7.5 months this difference was significant for vessels ≤3 mm in diameter, hazard ratio (HR) DES vs. BMS 0.37 (95% CI 0.11 to 0.95) P = 0.037; but not for vessels >3 mm P = 0.45. However, there was no difference in overall longterm patency because of similar rates of in‐segment restenosis between DES and BMS, HR 1.13 (95% CI 0.43 to 2.97) P = 0.81. Also, the rates of TVR, death from any cause and combined MACE were similar; log rank P 0.88, 0.67, and 0.85, respectively. Conclusion: This study suggests that after PCI for cardiac allograft vasculopathy, despite a lower in‐stent restenosis rate in DES compared with BMS, in‐segment restenosis and clinical cardiac endpoints are similar. © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Five-Year Outcomes in Patients With Chronic Total Coronary Occlusion Treated With Drug-Eluting vs Bare-Metal Stents: A Case-Control Study

Background

Limited data exist on long-term safety and effectiveness of drug-eluting stents (DESs) in true chronic total coronary occlusion (CTO) settings. We evaluated 5-year clinical outcomes of patients with CTO treated successfully with DES vs bare-metal stent (BMS).

Methods

We compared the 5-year clinical outcomes of 156 patients treated with DES implantation with outcomes of a historical cohort of 159 patients treated with BMS. Primary end point was freedom from major adverse cardiac events (MACEs; defined as death, myocardial infarction [MI], and target lesion revascularization [TLR]); secondary end points were freedom from target vessel failure (TVF; combination of target vessel revascularization, MI, and cardiac death) and TLR at 5 years.

Results

After 5 years, the DES group had significantly superior event-free survival from MACE (84% vs 69%; log rank P < 0.001), TVF (71% vs 84%; P = 0.002), and TLR (77% vs 92%; P = 0.0001), compared with the BMS group. The Cox proportional hazards model identified BMS vs DES (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 3.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.85-6.17; P = 0.001), final minimal lumen diameter (HR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.14-0.52; P = 0.0001), and stent length (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.00-1.03; P = 0.03) as independent predictors of MACE at 5-year follow-up. Twelve (7%) and 7 (4%) stent thromboses occurred in the DES and BMS groups (P = 0.23), respectively.

Conclusions

After 5 years, DESs were superior to BMSs in reducing MACE, TVF, and TLR in patients with CTO and should be the preferred strategy.     

Long-term clinical benefit of sirolimus-eluting stents compared to bare metal stents in the treatment of saphenous vein graft disease

OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) in the treatment of saphenous vein graft (SVG) disease. BACKGROUND:Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of SVG lesions with bare metal stents (BMS) is associated with frequent in-stent restenosis, progression of disease in nonstented SVG segments, and suboptimal clinical outcomes. While SES have been shown to reduce restenosis rates in various native lesion subsets, the long-term clinical impact of SES use in SVG lesions is less clear. METHODS:We compared our first 59 patients who underwent SES implantation in SVGs with 50 consecutive patients who received BMS in an equivalent time period prior to SES availability. Clinical outcomes were compared in both groups. RESULTS:Baseline clinical variables between the two groups were similar. Mean graft age in the SES cohort was older than that in the BMS cohort (12.9 years vs. 9.4 years). At follow-up, the SES group had a 24.6% absolute lower incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (25.4% vs. 50.0%), driven by a 20.7% absolute lower incidence of target vessel revascularization (TVR) (15.3% vs. 36.0%). The SES treatment group had a 24.1% lower rate of clinical restenosis (11.9% vs. 36.0%). The use of a SES was an independent negative predictor of MACE at a mean follow-up of 20 months (odds ratio [OR]= 0.48,P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS:Despite the placement of longer stents in patients with older, smaller SVGs, the use of SES in the treatment of SVG lesions appears to be safe and is associated with less clinical restenosis and more favorable long-term clinical outcomes as compared with BMS.