Clinical outcomes of percutaneous interventions in saphenous vein grafts using drug-eluting stents compared to bare-metal stents: a comprehensive meta-analysisof all randomized clinical trials

Background:

Clinical outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with saphenous vein grafts (SVGs) remain poor despite the use of drug‐eluting stents (DES). There is a disparity in clinical outcomes in SVG PCI based on various registries, and randomized clinical data remain scant. We conducted a meta‐analysis of all existing randomized controlled trials (RCTS) comparing bare‐metal stents (BMS) and DES in SVGPCIs.

Hypothesis:

PCI in patients with SVG disease using DES may reduce need for repeat revascularization without an excess mortality when compared to BMS.

Methods:

An aggregate data meta‐analysis of clinical outcomes in RCTs comparing PCI with DES vs BMS for SVGs reporting at least 12 months of follow‐up was performed. A literature search between Janurary 1, 2003 and September 30, 2011 identified 4 RCTs (812 patients; DES = 416, BMS = 396). Summary odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using the random‐effects model. The primary endpoint was all‐cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), repeat revascularization, and major adverse cardiac events (MACE). These outcomes were assessed in a cumulative fashion at 30 days, 18 months, and 36 months.

Results:

There were no intergroup differences in baseline clinical and sociodemographic characteristics. At a median follow‐up of 25 months, patients in the DES and BMS group had similar rates of death (OR: 1.63, 95% CI: 0.45–5.92), MI (OR; 0.83, 95% CI: 0.27‐2.60), and MACE (OR: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.25–1.32). Patients treated with DES had lower rates of repeat revascularization (OR: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.22–0.75).

Conclusions:

In this comprehensive meta‐analysis of all RCTs comparing clinical outcomes of PCI using DES vs BMS in patients with SVG disease, use of DES was associated with a reduction in rate of repeat revascularization and no difference in rates of all‐cause death and MI. Clin. Cardiol. 2012 DOI: 10.1002/clc.21984 Dr. Virani is supported by a Department of Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Service (HSR&D) Career Development Award (CDA‐09‐028), and has research support from Merck and National Football League Charities (all grants to the institution and not individual). The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Veterans Affairs. The authors have no other funding, financial relationships, or conflicts of interest to disclose.     

Long-term outcomes of drug-eluting stents versus bare metal stents in saphenous vein graft interventions. Evidence from a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BackgroundThe optimal stent for use in saphenous vein graft (SVG) intervention is still debatable. Multiple randomized trials have compared drug-eluting stents (DES) to bare metal stents (BMS) in SVG interventions with conflicting results.MethodsAuthors searched the online databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing DES to BMS in SVG percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). We performed a meta-analysis using a random effects model to calculate the odds ratio for outcomes of interest.ResultsAuthors studied six RCTs that included 1592 patients undergoing PCI of SVG. The mean follow up was 42 months. Patients mean age was the same in both groups: 70.3 years in the DES group (approximately 93.3% male) and 70.3 years in the BMS group (approximately 93.8% male). Vein graft age was 13.4 years in the DES PCI arm vs. 13.4 years in the BMS PCI arm. Four of the six trials reported data on embolic protection device use: 67% (303/452) in the DES arm vs. 67.9% (309/455) in the BMS arm. The primary outcome of long-term all-cause mortality was not different between DES vs. BMS (15.2% vs. 14.1%, OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.67–1.88; P = 0.66). Secondary outcomes were also similar between DES and BMS: major adverse cardiovascular events (31.6% vs. 33.1%, OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.45–1.38; P = 0.41); cardiac death (9% vs. 8.6%, OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.55–2.30; P = 0.75); myocardial infarction (8% vs. 9.5%, OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.47–1.51; P = 0.57); target lesion revascularization (16.4% vs. 14.4%, OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.50–1.92; P = 0.95); and target vessel revascularization (19% vs. 19.4%, OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.41–1.34; P = 0.33).ConclusionAt a mean follow-up of 42 months, no difference was observed in clinical outcomes between DES and BMS in SVG interventions.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Safety and efficacy of second‐generation drug‐eluting stents compared with bare‐metal stents: An updated meta‐analysis and regression of 9 randomized clinical trials

The efficacy of second‐generation drug‐eluting stents (DES; eg, everolimus and zotarolimus) compared with bare‐metal stents (BMS) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention was challenged recently by new evidence from large clinical trials. Thus, we aimed to conduct an updated systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy and safety of second‐generation DES compared with BMS . Electronic databases were systematically searched for all RCTs comparing second‐generation DES with BMS and reporting clinical outcomes. The primary efficacy outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACE); the primary safety outcome was definite stent thrombosis. The DerSimonian and Laird method was used for estimation of summary risk ratios (RR). A total of 9 trials involving 17 682 patients were included in the final analysis. Compared with BMS, second‐generation DES were associated with decreased incidence of MACE (RR: 0.78, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.69‐0.88), driven by the decreased incidence of myocardial infarction (MI) (RR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.48‐0.95), target‐lesion revascularization (RR: 0.47, 95% CI: 0.42‐0.53), definite stent thrombosis (RR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.41‐0.78), and definite/probable stent thrombosis (RR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.38‐0.80). The incidence of all‐cause mortality was similar between groups (RR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.79‐1.10). Meta‐regression showed lower incidences of MI with DES implantation in elderly and diabetic patients (P = 0.026 and P < 0.0001, respectively). Compared with BMS, second‐generation DES appear to be associated with a lower incidence of MACE, mainly driven by lower rates of target‐lesion revascularization, MI, and stent thrombosis. However, all‐cause mortality appears similar between groups.     

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)     

Comparison of long‐term outcomes of drug‐eluting stents and bare metal stents for saphenous vein graft stenosis

Objective : Our aim was to compare the long‐term outcomes between drug‐eluting stents and bare‐metal stents for saphenous vein graft stenosis. Background : The ideal type of stent to treat saphenous vein graft stenosis has not been clearly established. Short‐term randomized controlled trial results comparing drug‐eluting stents with bare‐metal stents for saphenous vein graft stenosis are conflicting, intermediate‐term retrospective studies and meta‐analyses at two years suggest no difference in outcomes, and there are no long term follow‐up studies. The need for long term follow‐up data has become emerged with concern over late stent thrombosis. Methods : 246 saphenous vein graft patients undergoing stenting from August 2002–December 2008 were studied. Overall survival and event‐free survival were compared by Kaplan‐Meier method. Hazard ratios (HR) were calculated by Cox‐proportional hazards models. Results : We treated 133 patients with DES (median follow‐up four years) and 113 patients with BMS (median follow‐up four years) for SVG stenosis. Overall survival (77.0% ± 3.9% vs. 70.6% ± 4.6%, log‐rank P = 0.60) and MACE‐free survival (57.5% ± 4.6% vs. 56.8% ± 4.9, log‐rank P = 0.70) were not significantly different between the DES and BMS groups. Although BMS was associated with increased risk of target lesion revascularization (TLR) (freedom from TLR 85.2% ± 3.5% vs. 90.0% ± 3.0%, HR 2.07, 95% CI 0.97–4.42, log‐rank P = 0.05), there was no significant difference in the freedom from myocardial infarction (86.7% ± 3.3% vs. 88.7% ± 3.2%, log‐rank P = 0.39) or target vessel revascularization (77.1% ± 4.2% vs. 76.1% ± 4.2%, log‐rank P = 0.33) between the two groups. Conclusions : Although mortality is not statistically different between DES and BMS for SVG stenosis, BMS is associated with increased risk of revascularization, thus suggesting the superiority of DES over BMS in the long term. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

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)     

Impact of chronic renal insufficiency on clinical outcomes in patients undergoing saphenous vein graft intervention with drug‐eluting stents: A multicenter Southern Californian Registry

Objectives : To evaluate the clinical outcomes in patients with chronic renal insufficiency (CRI) who undergo saphenous vein graft (SVG) intervention with drug‐eluting stents (DES). Background : Patients with CRI have higher rates of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) after percutaneous revascularization. SVG intervention is associated with increased rates of MACE compared with percutaneous revascularization of native arteries. However, the impact of CRI on SVG intervention with DES has not been well delineated. Methods : Consecutive patients who underwent SVG intervention with DES at five medical centers from April 2003 to December 2007 were included in this analysis. Results : A total of 172 patients, 39 patients with CRI and a serum creatinine ≥1.5 mg dL^?1, and 133 patients without CRI, underwent SVG intervention with DES. Patients with CRI were more often older, diabetic, and had a longer mean total stent length. At 1 year, patients with CRI had a higher MACE rate (35.9% vs. 15.8%, hazard ratio [HR] 2.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.26–4.88, log rank P = 0.009), mainly driven by higher mortality (20.5% vs. 9.8%, HR 3.41, 95% CI 1.10–10.58, log rank P = 0.024). There was a trend toward higher rates of target vessel revascularization in the CRI group (21.8% vs. 10.3%, HR 2.42, 95% CI 0.94–6.24, log rank P = 0.059). Stent thrombosis rates were not different between patients with and without CRI (2.6% vs. 2.3%, P = 0.8). Multivariable analysis revealed that CRI was the only significant predictor of 1‐year MACE (HR 2.2, 95% CI 1.1–4.3; P = 0.03). Conclusions : Patients with CRI who underwent SVG intervention with DES had higher risks of MACE and death compared with patients with preserved renal function. Further treatment strategies are needed in this high‐risk group who undergo SVG intervention with DES. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Long-term clinical outcome of thin-strut cobalt-chromium stents in the drug-eluting stent era: results of the COBALT (comparison of bare-metal stents in all-comers' lesion treatment) registry

Background: Despite widespread penetration of drug‐eluting stents (DES) in clinical practice, a relevant percentage of patients with coronary artery disease are still treated with bare‐metal stents (BMS). Contemporary BMS, however, are less well investigated and comparative data on clinical outcome are lacking. Methods and Results: This single‐center registry aimed to assess characteristics and outcome of patients treated with 2 different new‐generation cobalt‐chromium BMS, the MULTI‐LINK VISION and PRO‐Kinetic stents. During the study, adopted criteria for BMS selection were: (1) limited compliance to dual antiplatelet therapy, (2) ST‐elevation myocardial infarction (MI) or saphenous vein graft (SVG) interventions, and (3) noncomplex lesions located either in the right coronary artery or in the nonproximal segments of the left coronary artery. During a 24‐month period 1,176 patients were treated with the VISION (n = 438) or PRO‐Kinetic stent (n = 738). Median duration of follow‐up was 549.5 and 528.5 days, respectively. Target lesion revascularization (TLR) and target vessel revascularization were numerically lower in the VISION group (10.4 vs. 12.3% and 11.9 vs. 15.2%, P = 0.24 and 0.11). Death (4.1 vs. 4.3%, P = 0.85), MI (2 vs. 2.3%, P = 0.78), and ARC definite stent thrombosis (0.5 vs. 0.5%, P = 0.84) were similar. By multivariate analysis, variables associated with TLR were SVG interventions (HR 2.21, 95% CI 1.26–3.86), total stent length (HR 1.01, 95% CI 1.00–1.02), and smoking (HR 1.51, 95% CI 1.05–2.16). Conclusion: In the DES era, the use of last‐generation thin‐strut BMS in selected patients is associated with acceptable clinical outcome, with similar clinical results for both the MULTI‐LINK VISION and PRO‐Kinetic stents. (J Interven Cardiol 2011;24:496–504)     

Drug‐eluting stents in patients with end‐stage renal disease: Meta‐analysis and systematic review of the literature

Objective : The study sought to examine the total weight of evidence regarding the use of drug eluting (DES) and bare metal stents (BMS) in patients with end stage renal disease (ESRD). Background : The potential superiority of DES over BMS in reducing target lesion or vessel revascularization (TLR or TVR) in patients with ESRD on dialysis has not been established. Small studies comparing DES to BMS in this population have yielded inconclusive results mainly due to the small sample size. Methods : We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, CINAHL, and the Cochrane CENTRAL database of controlled clinical trials (December 2009) for controlled trials comparing DES to BMS in ESRD patients. We conducted a fixed‐effects meta‐analysis across seven eligible studies (n = 869 patients). Results : Compared with BMS‐treated patients, DES‐treated patients had significantly lower TLR/TVR (OR 0.55 CI: 0.39–0.79) and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (OR 0.54; CI: 0.40–0.73). The absolute risk reduction (ARR) with DES in TLR/TVR was ?0.09 (CI: ?0.14 to ?0.04; NNT 11) and in MACE was ?0.13 (CI: ?0.19 to ?0.07; NNT 8). A trend towards lower incidence of all cause mortality was also noted with DES (OR 0.68; CI: 0.45–1.01). No significant differences were noted between both groups in the relative or absolute risk of myocardial infarction. Conclusion : The use of DES in patients with ESRD is safe and yields significant reduction in the risk of TLR/TVR and MACE. Larger randomized studies are needed to confirm the results of this meta‐analysis and establish the appropriate stent choice in this high risk population. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

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.     

Drug-Eluting Versus Bare-Metal Stents in Older Patients: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BackgroundDespite the high prevalence of ischemic heart disease in older patients, there is a substantial lack of evidence to guide clinical decision-making in this population. Hence, we performed a meta-analysis to determine the safety and efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES) versus bare-metal stents (BMS).MethodsElectronic databases were searched for randomized trials comparing DES with BMS in patients ≥70 years-old. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Secondary outcomes included different ischemic and bleeding events. Subgroup analyses for dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) duration were conducted.ResultsWe included 7 trials with a total of 5449 patients. The use of DES compared with BMS was associated with a significant reduction in MACE (odds ratio [OR]:0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI]:0.62–0.93; P = 0.007) with no increased risk of bleeding events (OR: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.89–1.27; P = 0.48). However, longer duration of DAPT (>6 months) for the DES group increased bleeding events (OR: 1.52; 95% CI: 1.05–2.20; P = 0.03). In contrast, shorter DAPT showed persistent efficacy in reducing MACE in DES-treated patients with no increased bleeding events (OR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.60–0.87; P < 0.01 and OR: 1.01; 95% CI: 0.84–1.22; P = 0.89, respectively).ConclusionsIn older patients who had undergone PCI, DES showed superior efficacy in reducing MACE with no increased risk of bleeding compared with BMS. Persistent MACE reduction was evident with shorter DAPT durations in DES-treated patients.SummaryThis meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials demonstrated that drug-eluting stents were associated with a significant reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events with no increased risk of bleeding compared with bare-metal stents. The risk of bleeding was high with longer dual antiplatelet therapy duration for patients who underwent DES placement. However, short duration of dual antiplatelet therapy substantially reduced major adverse cardiovascular events with no increased bleeding risk.     

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.     

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.     

Outcomes of diabetics receiving bare‐metal stents versus drug‐eluting stents

Objectives : We sought to determine if differences existed in in‐hospital outcomes, long‐term rates of target vessel revascularization (TVR), and/or long‐term mortality trends between patients with diabetes mellitus undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with either a drug‐eluting stent(s) (DES) or a bare metal stent(s) (BMS). Background : Short‐ and long‐term clinical outcomes of patients with diabetes mellitus undergoing PCI with DES versus BMS remain inconsistent between randomized‐controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. Methods : Data were collected prospectively on diabetics undergoing PCI with either DES or BMS from January 2000 to June 2008. Demographic information, medical histories, in‐hospital outcomes, and long‐term TVR and mortality trends were obtained for all patients. Results : A total of 1,319 patients were included in the study. Diabetics receiving DES had a significant reduction in index admission MACE compared to diabetics receiving BMS. Using multivariable adjustment, after a mean follow‐up of 2.5 years (maximum 5 years), diabetics who received DES had a 38% decreased risk of TVR compared to diabetics with BMS [HR 0.62 (95% CI: 0.43–0.90)]; diabetics with DES had an insignificant adjusted improvement in long‐term survival compared to diabetics with BMS [HR 0.72 (95% CI: 0.52–1.00)]. These long‐term survival and TVR rates were confirmed using propensity scoring. Conclusions : The use of DES when compared with BMS among diabetics undergoing PCI is associated with significant improvement in long‐term TVR, with an insignificant similar trend in all‐cause mortality. The long‐term results of this observational study are consistent with prior RCTs after adjusting for confounding variables. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

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.     

Impact of renal insufficiency on safety and efficacy of drug‐eluting stents compared to bare‐metal stents at 6 years

Background : There is few information on the long‐term efficacy and safety of sirolimus‐eluting stents (SES) and paclitaxel‐eluting stents (PES) compared to bare metal stents (BMS) in all‐comer percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)—patients complicated by renal insufficiency (RI). Objective : Our aim was to assess the 6‐year clinical outcome of PCI‐patients with RI treated exclusively with BMS, SES, or PES in our academic hospital. Methods: A total of 1382 patients, included in three cohorts of consecutive PCI‐patients (BMS = 392; SES = 498; PES = 492), were categorized by creatinine clearance calculated by the Cockroft–Gault formula (normal kidney function ≥ 90; mild RI = 60–89; moderate RI < 60) and systematically followed for the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Results : Mortality rates were significantly higher for patients with moderate RI compared to mild RI and normal kidney function at 6 years (Kaplan–Meier estimate: moderate RI (34%) vs. mild RI (12%), P < 0.001; moderate RI (34%) vs. normal kidney function (8%), P < 0.001). After multivariate Cox‐regression analysis, SES and PES decreased the occurrence of target‐vessel revascularization (TVR) and MACE at 6 years in patients with a normal creatinine clearance compared to BMS [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) = 0.48, 95% CI: 0.28–0.84; aHR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.57–0.97, respectively] with no significant effect on mortality. Safety‐ and efficacy end points were comparable for the three stent types in patients with mild‐ and moderate renal function. Conclusion : Patients with a normal creatinine clearance had significant improvement in TVR and MACE rates after SES‐ or PES implantation compared to BMS at 6 years. However, there was no superiority of both drug‐eluting stents over BMS in safety and efficacy end points for patients with impaired renal function. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, 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.