Comparison of one-year cardiac events with drug-eluting versus bare metal stent implantation in rescue coronary angioplasty

Rescue percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with bare metal stent (BMS) implantation is useful in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and failed thrombolysis. Drug-eluting stent (DESs) are more effective in reducing restenosis compared to BMS. No data are available comparing the clinical outcomes between the 2 types of stents nor has information ever been provided about the predictors of events in patients treated with rescue PCI in the current era. The aims of the present study were to evaluate the outcomes of patients undergoing rescue PCI with DES implantation compared to BMS implantation and to determine the independent predictors of events during 1 year of follow-up. The study population consisted of 311 consecutive patients with ST-segment elevation AMI and evidence of failed fibrinolysis undergoing successful revascularization with DES (n = 134) or BMS (n = 177) implantation. The end point of the present study was the incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) defined as death, recurrent AMI, and target vessel revascularization. No differences were found in the number of MACE at 1 year of follow-up between the DES and BMS groups (n = 10 and 19, respectively, p = 0.29). The Cox proportional hazards model identified cardiogenic shock (adjusted hazard ratio 7.05, 95% confidence interval 2.08 to 23.9, p = 0.001), age (hazard ratio 1.51, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.08, p = 0.011), and final minimal lumen diameter (hazard ratio 0.42, 95% confidence interval 0.21 to 0.83, p = 0.013) as independent predictors of MACE at 1 year of follow-up. After propensity score adjustments, the predictors did not change. In conclusion, we found no differences between DESs and BMSs with respect to MACE at 1 year of follow-up in patients with AMI treated with rescue PCI. Cardiogenic shock, age, and final minimal luminal diameter were identified as predictors of MACE.     

Gender-based outcomes in percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents (from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Dynamic Registry)

Gender-based outcomes have not been evaluated in unselected patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DESs). We investigated whether gender influences the relative safety and efficacy of DESs compared with bare metal stents (BMSs) in routine clinical practice. Using the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Dynamic Registry, in-hospital and 1-year outcomes were stratified by gender in patients who received > or =1 DES (486 women, 974 men) or BMS (631 women, 1,132 men). There were significant baseline differences by gender, including older age and a higher prevalence of co-morbidities in women and more previous coronary artery disease in men. There were no gender-related differences in in-hospital myocardial infarction, coronary artery bypass grafting, and death in those treated with BMSs or DESs. Antiplatelet use and stent thrombosis (1.3% of women vs 1.2% of men, p = 0.85) were similar at 1 year with DESs. At 1 year, patients with DESs had a lower rate of repeat PCI (14.1% in women vs 9.5%, p = 0.02; 12.0% in men vs 8.8%, p = 0.02). Adjusted 1-year outcomes in patients with BMSs and DESs, including death and myocardial infarction, were independent of gender. Use of DESs was the only factor, other than age, that conferred a lower risk for the need for repeat PCI in women (relative risk 0.61, 95% confidence interval 0.41 to 0.89, p = 0.01) and men (relative risk 0.68, 95% confidence interval 0.51 to 0.91, p = 0.001). In conclusion, the widespread use of DESs is safe and has decreased clinically driven revascularization compared with BMSs equally in women and men.     

Early outcome of treatment of ostial de novo left anterior descending coronary artery lesions with drug-eluting stents

We investigated early and mid-term clinical and angiographic outcomes of patients who had de novo ostial left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD) lesions that were treated with drug-eluting stents (DESs) or bare metal stents (BMSs). We identified 43 consecutive patients who underwent percutaneous intervention for isolated de novo ostial LAD lesions with implantation of DESs and compared them with 43 patients who had similar lesions that were treated with BMSs. All stents were successfully implanted. There were no significant differences with respect to major in-hospital complications between the 2 groups. One patient in the BMS group died during hospitalization. Non-Q-wave myocardial infarction occurred in 2 patients (4.7%) in the DES and in 1 patient (2.3%) in the BMS group. At 9-month follow-up, 3 patients (7%) in the DES group and 11 (25.6%) in the BMS group underwent target lesion revascularization (p = 0.038); major adverse cardiac events were less frequent in the DES than in the BMS group (9.3% vs 32.6%, p = 0.015). Angiographic follow-up was available in 82% of patients in the DES group and 75% of those in the BMS group (p = 0.6) and showed lower binary restenotic rates (5.7% vs 31.3%, p = 0.01) and smaller late loss (0.30 +/- 0.81 vs 1.23 +/- 0.93 mm, p = 0.0001) in the DES group. In conclusion, DES implantation in de novo ostial LAD lesions appears safe and effective and is associated with a significant decrease in restenotic rates compared with historical experience with BMSs.     

Rates of stent thrombosis in bare-metal versus drug-eluting stents (from a large Australian multicenter registry)

Recent reports suggest that drug-eluting stents (DESs) may increase the risk of stent thrombosis (ST) relative to bare-metal stents (BMSs). Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare DES and BMS outcomes with a specific focus on ST. We analyzed 30-day and 1-year outcomes of 2,919 patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention with stent implantation from the Melbourne Interventional Group registry. Academic Research Consortium definitions of ST were used: (1) definite ST (confirmed using angiography in patients with an acute coronary syndrome), (2) probable ST (unexplained death <30 days or target-vessel myocardial infarction without angiographic confirmation), and (3) possible ST (unexplained death >30 days). Multivariate analysis was performed to identify predictors of ST. The incidence of ST (early or late) was similar between BMSs and DESs (1.6% vs 1.4%; p=0.66), and DES use was not predictive of ST. Independent predictors of ST included the absence of clopidogrel therapy at 30 days (odds ratio [OR] 2.58, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.29 to 5.29, p<0.01), renal failure (OR 3.30, 95% CI 1.43 to 7.59, p<0.01), index procedure presentation with an acute coronary syndrome (OR 2.59, 95% CI 1.14 to 5.87, p=0.02), diabetes mellitus (OR 2.25, 95% CI 1.19 to 4.23, p=0.01), and total stent length >or=20 mm (OR 1.85, 95% CI 1.00 to 3.42, p=0.04). In conclusion, DESs were not associated with increased risk of ST compared with BMSs at 12 months in this large Australian registry that selectively used DESs for patients at high risk of restenosis.     

药物洗脱支架在老年急性心肌梗死患者治疗中疗效观察

目的评价药物洗脱支架治疗老年ST段抬高型急性心肌梗死（AMI）患者的安全性和有效性。方法连续性收集2005年1月-12月行直接介入治疗的105例60岁及以上的老年ST段抬高型AMI患者，其中，49例接受药物洗脱支架植入，56例接受金属裸支架植入，对两组患者术后30d和240d的主要心血管不良事件（包括死亡、非致死性再梗死和靶血管血运重建）进行随访、分析。结果药物洗脱支架组和金属裸支架组的手术成功率差异无统计学意义（96％与95％，P〉0．05）。术后30d内，药物洗脱支架组和金属裸支架组的心脏不良事件发生率差异无统计学意义（8、2％与12．5％，P〉0.05），两组由冠状动脉造影证实的早期支架内血栓发生率差异无统计学意义（2．0％与1．8％，P〉0.05）。术后240d随访，与金属裸支架植入比较，药物洗脱支架植入能明显减少心脏不良事件发生率[12．2％与30、0％，相对危险比为0、38，95％可信限（CI）：0、12～0、96，P〈0.053，靶血管血运重建率显著降低[2.0％与25．0％，相对危险比为0．08（95％CI：0．01～0.63），P〈0．01]。术后30～240d，两组未发生晚期支架内血栓。结论与金属裸支架比较，药物洗脱支架应用于老年ST段抬高型AMI患者可能并不增加支架内血栓的中期发生率，同时可以降低患者8个月靶血管再次血运重建率。     

Meta-analysis comparison (nine trials) of outcomes with drug-eluting stents versus bare metal stents in patients with diabetes mellitus

In patients with diabetes mellitus, outcome after drug-eluting stent (DES) versus bare metal stent (BMS) implantation remains under investigation; although lower reintervention rates were reported, incidence of death and myocardial infarction (MI) during follow-up is not completely characterized. Thus, we performed a meta-analysis of available randomized studies evaluating follow-up events of DESs versus BMSs in patients with diabetes mellitus. Randomized trials reporting outcome of DES versus BMS in diabetic patients with a follow-up > or =6 months were included. Outcomes analyzed were (1) death, (2) MI, (3) in-stent restenosis (ISR) and target lesion revascularization (TLR), and (4) stent thrombosis. Data were extracted by 2 independent reviewers. A total of 9 trials, including 1,141 patients, were found. ISR occurred in 8% of patients with DESs versus 41% of those with BMSs (odds ratio [OR] 0.13, 95 confidence interval [CI] 0.09 to 0.20, p <0.00001) and TLR in 8% versus 27% (OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.33, p <0.00001). There was no difference in the incidence of stent thrombosis (1.1% vs 1.2%, p = 0.98) or death (2.4% vs 2.3%, p = 0.91). MI occurred in 3.5% of patients with DESs versus 7.2% of those with BMSs (52% risk decrease, p = 0.02). Decrease of ISR with DESs was observed in noninsulin-treated (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.26, p <0.00001) and insulin-treated (OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.37, p <0.00001) patients. In conclusion, diabetic patients receiving DESs have lower risk of ISR and TLR versus those treated with BMSs; use of DESs in patients with diabetes mellitus significantly decreases the incidence of MI during follow-up, without affecting mortality or stent thrombosis.     

Comparison of frequency of major adverse events in patients with atrial fibrillation receiving bare-metal versus drug-eluting stents in their coronary arteries

In patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation, the available evidence from clinical trial data are inconclusive. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the use of DESs versus bare-metal stents (BMSs) in a consecutive real-world cohort of patients with AF. Of 8,962 unselected patients with AF seen in our institution from 2000 through 2010, 833 (9%) had undergone percutaneous coronary intervention with stent implantation. BMSs were used for 678 patients (81%) and DESs for 155 (19%). During follow-up (median 688 days, interquartile range 1,114), all bleeding episodes, thromboembolism, and major adverse cardiac events (MACEs; i.e., death, acute myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization) were recorded. Incidence of MACEs was similar in the 2 groups as was incidence of all-cause mortality. Results remained similar even after adjustment for age and other confounding factors. Factors independently associated with an increased risk of MACEs were older age (hazard ratio 1.024, 95% confidence interval 1.004 to 1.044, p = 0.02), implantation of stent during acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (hazard ratio 1.81, 95% confidence interval 1.10 to 2.99, p = 0.02), and stent diameter (hazard ratio 1.09, 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 1.18, p = 0.03). Implantation of DESs was not significantly associated with a higher risk of major bleeding and we observed a similar ratio of serious events at follow-up after DES compared to BMS implantation. In conclusion, in our cohort, systematic use of DESs does not seem to be justified in most patients with AF because it was not associated with any clear advantage compared to BMSs.     

Comparison of outcomes between bare metal stents and drug-eluting stents for percutaneous revascularization of internal mammary grafts

Drug-eluting stents (DESs) decrease the need for repeat revascularization in native coronary arteries and vein grafts. This study examined the safety and efficacy of DESs for the treatment of lesions in the internal mammary artery (IMA) conduits and compared the outcomes with those from bare metal stents (BMSs). Records of 69 consecutive patients who underwent stenting of the IMA from 2001 to 2004 were reviewed and analyzed. Of these, 30 patients were treated with DESs (sirolimus- or paclitaxel-eluting stents) and 39 patients with BMSs. In-hospital and 6-month clinical outcomes were recorded and compared. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the 2 groups. Lesion location and characteristics were also similar, except for a trend toward longer stent lengths in the DES group (DES 20.2 +/- 7.7 mm vs BMS 14.8 +/- 3.5 mm, p = 0.255). There was no late thrombosis in either group. There were no significant differences in in-hospital and 1- and 6-month outcomes between the 2 groups, including target lesion revascularization with DESs (DESs 3.33% vs BMSs 10%, p = 0.38). In conclusion, DES implantation into IMAs appears safe and is associated with low rates of recurrences. These results may support expansion of use of DESs for the management of IMA stenotic lesions.     

Comparison of stent thrombosis, myocardial infarction, and mortality following drug-eluting versus bare-metal stent coronary intervention in patients with diabetes mellitus

The aim of this study was to examine outcomes subsequent to implantation of drug-eluting stents (DESs) and bare-metal stents (BMSs) in patients with diabetes. From January 2002 to June 2005, data from all percutaneous coronary interventions performed in Western Denmark were prospectively recorded. A total of 1,423 consecutive diabetic patients treated with stent implantation (2,094 lesions) were followed up for 15 months. Of these, 871 patients (1,180 lesions) were treated with a BMS, and 552 patients (914 lesions) were treated with a DES. Dual antiplatelet therapy was recommended for 12 months in both treatment groups. Data for death and myocardial infarction (MI) were ascertained from national health care databases. Use of DESs was not associated with increased risk of definite stent thrombosis (adjusted relative risk [RR] 0.76, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.10 to 3.26) or MI (adjusted RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.52). In the DES group compared with the BMS group, adjusted RRs of target-lesion revascularization (adjusted RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.71), total mortality (adjusted RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.99), and cardiac mortality (adjusted RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.90) decreased by 52%, 34%, and 47%, respectively. In conclusion, use of DESs reduced target-lesion revascularization in diabetic patients receiving routine clinical care. This result was obtained without increased risk of death, stent thrombosis, or MI.     

Frequency of coronary arterial late angiographic stent thrombosis (LAST) in the first six months: outcomes with drug-eluting stents versus bare metal stents

Concerns have been raised about the long-term safety of drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation due to late angiographic stent thrombosis (LAST). We investigated the incidence and 6-month clinical and angiographic outcomes of LAST after DES versus bare metal stent (BMS) implantation. This study comprised 6,551 patients treated with BMSs (n = 4,104) or DESs (n = 2,447). LAST was defined as angiographically proved stent thrombotic occlusion with acute ischemic symptoms >30 days after stenting. Major adverse cardiac events were defined as death, Q-wave myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization. Patients treated with DESs had a significantly higher risk profile than did patients treated with BMSs. There were 8 cases (0.33%) of LAST in the DES group and 7 (0.17%) in the BMS group, showing similar event rates after risk adjustment (adjusted hazard ratio 1.2, 95% confidence interval 0.1 to 18.4, p = 0.9). Four patients with LAST treated with DESs (50%) and 1 treated with BMSs (14%) were associated with discontinuation of antiplatelet therapy. Two cases (25%) of LAST with DESs occurred in patients on aspirin monotherapy and another 2 cases (25%) occurred in patients on dual antiplatelet therapy. There was no case of in-hospital death associated with LAST events. At 6-month follow-up after LAST events, major adverse cardiac events occurred in only 3 patients (43%) in the BMS group. In conclusion, the incidence of LAST was similar after DES and BMS implantations. LAST treated with DESs was associated with antiplatelet therapy discontinuation in a significant number of patients, and LAST events also developed on dual antiplatelet therapy. Patients with LAST and DESs showed favorable outcomes during follow-up.     

Meta-analysis of long-term outcomes for drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents in primary percutaneous coronary interventions for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

The use of drug-eluting stents (DESs) in primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) has shown early benefit over bare-metal stents (BMSs) in decreasing adverse cardiac events. However, there are concerns regarding the increased risk of late and very late stent thrombosis (ST) after DES use. With the paucity of ST events individual trials may have been underpowered to detect significant differences. We sought to perform a meta-analysis to evaluate the available literature examining the outcomes of DESs and BMSs in PPCI after ≥3 years of follow-up. We analyzed 8 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and 5 observational studies comparing DESs to BMSs in PPCI. Clinical end-point data were analyzed for RCTs and observational studies separately using random-effect models. RCTs included 5,797 patients in whom first-generation DESs (sirolimus- or paclitaxel-eluting stents) were compared to BMS control arms. Patients receiving DESs had a significantly lower risk of target lesion revascularization (odds ratio [OR] 0.48, confidence interval [CI] 0.37 to 0.61), target vessel revascularization (OR 0.53, CI 0.42 to 0.66), and accordingly major adverse cardiac events (OR 0.69; CI 0.56 to 0.84). Incidence of ST was not different between groups (OR 1.02, CI 0.76 to 1.37). There was no significant difference in mortality (OR 0.88, CI 0.68 to 1.12) or recurrent myocardial infarction (OR 0.97; CI 0.61 to 1.54). Among observational studies (n = 4,650) fewer studies reported on target lesion revascularization and target vessel revascularization, but the trend remained in favor of DESs. A small but statistically significant increase in ST was noted with DES use (OR 1.62, CI 1.18 to 2.21) at ≥3 years of follow up, without evidence of recurrent myocardial infarction. Those receiving DESs had a significantly lower mortality compared to those receiving BMSs (OR, 0.65, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.80, p <0.001). In conclusion, this meta-analysis of RCTs examining the long-term outcomes of first-generation DESs versus BMSs in PPCI, DES use resulted in decreased repeat revascularization with no increase in ST, mortality, or recurrent myocardial infarction.     

Comparison of drug-eluting versus bare metal stents in cardiac allograft vasculopathy

Although not a definitive treatment, percutaneous coronary intervention offers a palliative benefit to patients with cardiac allograft vasculopathy. Given the superior outcomes with drug-eluting stents (DESs) over bare metal stents (BMSs) in native coronary artery disease, similar improvements might be expected in transplant patients; however, the results have been mixed. Consecutive cardiac transplantation recipients at a single center receiving a stent for de novo cardiac allograft vasculopathy from 1997 to 2009 were retrospectively analyzed according to receipt of a DES versus a BMS. The angiographic and clinical outcomes were subsequently evaluated at 1 year. The baseline clinical and procedural characteristics were similar among those receiving DESs (n = 18) and BMSs (n = 16). Quantitative coronary angiography revealed no difference in the reference diameter, lesion length, or pre-/postprocedural minimal luminal diameter. At the 12-month angiographic follow-up visit, the mean lumen loss was significantly lower in the DES group than in the BMS group (0.19 ± 0.73 mm vs 0.76 ± 0.97 mm, p = 0.02). The DES group also had a lower rate of in-stent restenosis (12.5% vs 33%, p = 0.18), as well as a significantly lower rate of target lesion revascularization (0% vs 19%, p = 0.03). At 1 year, DESs were associated with a lower composite rate of cardiac death and nonfatal myocardial infarction (12% vs 38%, p = 0.04). In conclusion, DESs are safe and effective in the suppression of neointimal hyperplasia after percutaneous coronary intervention for cardiac allograft vasculopathy, resulting in significantly lower rates of late lumen loss and target lesion revascularization, as well as a reduced combined rate of cardiac death and nonfatal myocardial infarction.     

Safety and efficacy with drug-eluting stent in ST-segment elevation and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND: Drug-eluting stents (DES) have been shown to reduce the need for repeat revascularization compared with bare metal stents (BMS). However, there is little information regarding the safety and long-term efficacy of DES in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of DES in patients with AMI. METHODS: Data from 211 consecutive patients with AMI treated with DES were compared with those from 228 consecutive patients with AMI treated with BMS. All patients were treated within 7 days of symptom onset. The incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events ([MACE]: death, reinfarction, and target vessel revascularization) was evaluated at 30 days and 1 year. RESULTS: Baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics were similar for both stent groups. However, patients who received DES had longer lesion lengths (23.0 +/- 12.7 vs. 18.8 +/- 10.6 mm, respectively; p < 0.001) and smaller reference diameters (2.97 +/- 0.52 vs. 3.19 +/- 0.63 mm, respectively, p < 0.001). At 30 days, the incidence rates of MACE (DES vs. BMS: 2.2 vs. 1.9%, p = 1.000) and stent thrombosis (BMS vs. DES: 0.9 vs. 1.7%; p = 0.434) did not differ significantly between the groups. At 1 year, patients with DES had a lower rate of MACE (BMS vs. DES: 14.0 vs. 6.6%; p = 0.011) primarily due to a lower target vessel revascularization rate (BMS vs. DES: 9.6 vs. 4.8%; p = 0.028). CONCLUSIONS: The DES appear to be superior to the BMS in reducing the risk of MACE in patients with AMI.     

Review of randomized clinical trials of drug-eluting stents for the prevention of in-stent restenosis

Drug-eluting stents (DESs) have shown significant promise at reducing rates of restenosis and subsequent revascularization compared with bare metal stents (BMSs). The purpose of this report is to provide a systematic review of the randomized clinical trials that have evaluated the efficacy and safety of DESs. A total of 28 randomized clinical trials were identified: 21 comparing a DES (sirolimus, paclitaxel, ABT-578, actinomycin, everolimus, or 7-hexanoyltaxol) with a BMS and 7 comparing a DES with another DES (sirolimus vs paclitaxel). Early sirolimus and polymeric paclitaxel studies in low-risk populations demonstrated marked reductions in restenosis according to angiographic and clinical parameters, compared with BMSs. These promising findings led to the more recent evaluations of DESs in higher risk patients in controlled and head-to-head comparisons. In these subsequent trials, sirolimus and paclitaxel DESs continued to exceed the therapeutic potential of BMSs, with a slight but consistent angiographic advantage being observed with the sirolimus DESs.     

Drug-eluting stents are associated with similar cardiovascular outcomes when compared to bare metal stents in the setting of acute myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND: Recent randomized trials have demonstrated conflicting results regarding the use of drug-eluting stents (DESs) as compared to bare metal stents (BMSs) in primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We compared outcomes among patients presenting with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) who received DES with those who received BMS. METHODS: In-hospital, 30-day, 6-month, and 1-year outcomes of a cohort of 122 patients who underwent primary or facilitated PCI and received a BMS were compared to 122 propensity-matched patients who received a DES. Seventy-two patients received sirolimus-eluting stents, and 50 received paclitaxel-eluting stents. RESULTS: Baseline demographics were similar among groups. One-, 6-, and 12-month outcomes, including reinfarction, death, stent thrombosis, and target vessel revascularization (TVR), were similar among groups. At 1 year, all-cause mortality was 13.3% in the BMS group and 9.2% in the DES group [P=not significant (ns)], recurrent MI was 5.3% in the BMS group vs. 4.4% in the DES group (P=ns), and TVR was 7% in the BMS group vs. 8.7% in the DES group (P=ns). CONCLUSIONS: Our data do not support the general use of DES in the setting of STEMI given similar cardiovascular outcomes among patients receiving BMS or DES, the need for long-term dual antiplatelet therapy with DES, and the possible repercussions of very late stent thrombosis.     

Long-term outcomes with drug-eluting stents versus bare metal stents in the treatment of saphenous vein graft disease (results from the REgistro Regionale AngiopLastiche Emilia-Romagna registry)

Percutaneous revascularization of saphenous vein grafts (SVGs) remains a challenging task. Drug-eluting stents (DESs) have been shown to decrease the incidence of restenosis in de novo native coronary artery lesions. However, their clinical value in SVGs remains to be established. We compared long-term clinical outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention with DESs and bare metal stents (BMSs) for de novo lesions in SVGs. In a large prospective, multicenter registry, 360 patients underwent stenting of a de novo lesion in SVGs using BMSs (288 patients) or DESs (72 patients). Incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), including all-cause mortality, reinfarction, and target vessel revascularization, was recorded at a 12-month follow-up. Compared with the DES group, patients receiving BMSs were more likely to be men, to have chronic renal insufficiency or higher Charlson scores, but less likely to have undergone previous percutaneous coronary intervention. Incidence of MACEs at 12-month follow-up was similar in the 2 groups (17.8% in DES group vs 20.3% in BMS group, respectively, p = 0.460). Cox regression analysis identified age, chronic renal failure, cardiogenic shock at presentation, and ostial location of stenosis as independent predictors of long-term MACEs. In conclusion, our data suggest that rates of 12-month MACEs associated with the use of DESs and BMSs are similar in patients undergoing treatment of de novo lesions in SVGs.     

Meta-analysis of randomized trials of drug-eluting stents versus bare metal stents in patients with diabetes mellitus

Diabetes mellitus is a major risk factor for restenosis in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Randomized controlled trials comparing drug-eluting stents (DESs) with bare metal stents (BMSs) showed a marked decrease in in-stent restenosis and target lesion revascularization with DESs in the total patient population enrolled in the studies, including patients with diabetes. However, it remains unclear whether the antirestenotic benefit of DESs is preserved in the high-risk diabetic subgroup. MEDLINE, EMBASE, ISI Web of Knowledge, Current Contents, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and recent Scientific Sessions databases were searched to identify relevant clinical trials comparing DESs with BMSs. A randomized controlled trial was included if it provided outcome data for patients with diabetes for > or =1 of the following: late lumen loss, in-stent restenosis, or target lesion revascularization. Data were combined using fixed-effects models, and standard tests for heterogeneity were performed. Eight studies with 1,520 patients with diabetes were identified that reported > or =1 outcome of interest. Mean late lumen losses (7 studies) were 0.93 mm (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.510 to 1.348) with BMSs and 0.18 mm (95% CI -0.088 to +0.446) with DESs. For patients receiving a DES, this translated into a marked decrease in in-stent restenosis (7 studies, RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.22, p <0.001) and target lesion revascularization (8 studies, RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.45, p <0.001). DES use is associated with a marked decrease in in-stent restenosis and target lesion revascularization in patients with diabetes. In conclusion, the analysis supports the current widespread use of DESs in these high-risk patients.     

Comparison of effectiveness of sirolimus-eluting stents versus bare metal stents for percutaneous coronary intervention in patients at high risk for coronary restenosis or clinical adverse events

We evaluated the clinical effect of selective use of sirolimus-eluting stents (SESs) in real-world, high-risk patients. A total of 4,237 consecutive patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (SES, n = 872, bare metal stents [BMSs], n = 3,365) was enrolled in a prospective regional survey. A prespecified high-risk subset of patients was selected on the basis of clinical and angiographic characteristics. A propensity score analysis was performed to compare patients who received SESs with those who received BMSs. Patients in the SES group more often had diabetes and more frequently had previous myocardial infarction or coronary revascularization, type C lesions, and multivessel procedures. Patients who presented with acute myocardial infarction were treated more often with BMSs. At 9 months, the use of SESs was associated with fewer major adverse cardiac events (death, myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization; hazard ratio 0.56, 95% confidence interval 0.37 to 0.85) and target lesion revascularizations (hazard ratio 0.43, 95% confidence interval 0.20 to 0.91). This decrease was more evident in a prespecified high-risk subgroup of patients (major adverse cardiac events, 8.0% SES vs 15.6% BMS, hazard ratio 0.45, 95% confidence interval 0.29 to 0.72). We conclude that selective SES use in real-world patients who have high-risk clinical and angiographic characteristics is associated with significant decreases in major adverse cardiac events and repeat revascularizations compared with BMS use.     

Meta-analysis comparing the effect of drug-eluting versus bare metal stents on risk of acute myocardial infarction during follow-up

The only clinical benefit of drug-eluting stents (DESs) over bare metal stents (BMSs) is a significant decrease in the need for new revascularization procedures. We evaluated whether DESs also decrease the incidence of myocardial infarction at midterm. We performed a meta-analysis from 25 randomized trials comparing commercially available DESs with BMSs that included 9,791 patients overall. There was no heterogeneity across the trials included (Q test for heterogeneity, p = 0.68). Of the 9,791 patients included in all the trials, 364 developed an acute myocardial infarction during follow-up (6 to 12 months). The risk of myocardial infarction was significantly lower in patients allocated to DESs (3.3% vs 4.2% in those allocated to BMSs, odds ratio 0.79, 95% confidence interval 0.64 to 0.97, p = 0.03). In conclusion, the significant decrease in angiographic restenosis associated with the use of DESs leads not only to a decreased need for subsequent revascularization procedures but also a decreased incidence of myocardial infarction during the first 12 months after stent implantation.     

Treatment of saphenous vein graft lesions with drug-eluting stents: immediate and midterm outcome

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the present report was to evaluate clinical and angiographic outcomes of drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation in saphenous vein graft (SVG) lesions. BACKGROUND: The safety and efficacy of DES implantation for the treatment SVG lesions remains uncertain. METHODS: We evaluated in-hospital and six-month outcomes in 61 consecutive patients treated with DES in SVG lesions from March 2002 to March 2004 (DES group), as compared to 89 consecutive patients treated with bare-metal stents (BMS) in the 24 months immediately before the introduction of DES (BMS group). Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) including death, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization (TLR), and target vessel revascularization (TVR) were recorded in-hospital and at six-month follow-up. RESULTS: The rate of in-hospital MACE was similar between the two groups (6.6% vs. 5.6%, p = 1.0). Cumulative MACE at six months was 11.5% in the DES group and 28.1% in the BMS group (p = 0.02). The DES group had a significantly lower incidence of in-segment restenosis (10.0% vs. 26.7%, p = 0.03), TLR (3.3% vs. 19.8%, p = 0.003), and TVR (4.9% vs. 23.1%, p = 0.003). By Cox regression analysis, diabetes (hazard ratio [HR]: 3.03; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.33 to 6.90; p = 0.008), usage of BMS (HR: 2.53; 95% CI: 1.07 to 5.97; p = 0.03), and age of SVG (HR: 1.10; 95% CI: 1.02 to 1.19; p = 0.02) were identified as predictors of MACE at six-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to BMS implantation, DES implantation in SVG lesions appears safe with favorable and improved mid-term outcomes.