Safety of drug-eluting stents

Drug-eluting stents (DESs) effectively reduce angiographic restenosis and the clinical need for repeat revascularization procedures as compared with bare-metal stents. Widely publicized concerns arose recently about the incidence of late and very late stent thrombosis with the use of first-generation DESs. Recent systematic reviews and large-scale registry studies demonstrated similar rates of overall mortality and myocardial infarction for patients treated with either DESs or bare-metal stents during long-term follow-up. Careful selection of stent type according to patient and lesion characteristics as well as monitoring of adherence to dual antiplatelet therapy could maximize the therapeutic potential of these devices. The purpose of the present Review is to provide the reader with an overview of the benefits and risks of first-generation DESs that could help physicians select the most appropriate stent type for each patient.

Long-term outcomes of biodegradable polymer versus durable polymer drug-eluting stents in patients with diabetes a pooled analysis of individual patient data from 3 randomized trials

BACKGROUND There is ongoing debate on the optimal drug-eluting stent (DES) in diabetic patients with coronary artery disease. Biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents (BP-DES) may potentially improve clinical outcomes in these high-risk patients. We sought to compare long-term outcomes in patients with diabetes treated with biodegradable polymer DES vs. durable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (SES). METHODS We pooled individual patient-level data from 3 randomized clinical trials (ISAR-TEST 3, ISAR-TEST 4 and LEADERS) comparing biodegradable polymer DES with durable polymer SES. Clinical outcomes out to 4years were assessed. The primary end point was the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction and target-lesion revascularization. Secondary end points were target lesion revascularization and definite or probable stent thrombosis. RESULTS Of 1094 patients with diabetes included in the present analysis, 657 received biodegradable polymer DES and 437 durable polymer SES. At 4years, the incidence of the primary end point was similar with BP-DES versus SES (hazard ratio=0.95, 95% CI=0.74-1.21, P=0.67). Target lesion revascularization was also comparable between the groups (hazard ratio=0.89, 95% CI=0.65-1.22, P=0.47). Definite or probable stent thrombosis was significantly reduced among patients treated with BP-DES (hazard ratio=0.52, 95% CI=0.28-0.96, P=0.04), a difference driven by significantly lower stent thrombosis rates with BP-DES between 1 and 4years (hazard ratio=0.15, 95% CI=0.03-0.70, P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS In patients with diabetes, biodegradable polymer DES, compared to durable polymer SES, were associated with comparable overall clinical outcomes during follow-up to 4years. Rates of stent thrombosis were significantly lower with BP-DES.

Impact of stent overlap on long-term clinical outcomes in patients treated with newer-generation drug-eluting stents

Aims: Early-generation drug-eluting stent (DES) overlap (OL) is associated with impaired long-term clinical outcomes whereas the impact of OL with newer-generation DES is unknown. Our aim was to assess the impact of OL on long-term clinical outcomes among patients treated with newer-generation DES. Methods and results: We analysed the three-year clinical outcomes of 3,133 patients included in a prospective DES registry according to stent type (sirolimus-eluting stents [SES; N=1,532] versus everolimus-eluting stents [EES; N=1,601]), and the presence or absence of OL. The primary outcome was a composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), and target vessel revascularisation (TVR). The primary endpoint was more common in patients with OL (25.1%) than in those with multiple DES without OL (20.8%, adj HR=1.46, 95% CI: 1.03-2.09) and patients with a single DES (18.8%, adj HR=1.74, 95% CI: 1.34-2.25, p<0.001) at three years. A stratified analysis by stent type showed a higher risk of the primary outcome in SES with OL (28.7%) compared to other SES groups (without OL: 22.6%, p=0.04; single DES: 17.6%, p<0.001), but not between EES with OL (22.3%) and other EES groups (without OL: 18.5%, p=0.30; single DES: 20.4%, p=0.20). Conclusions: DES overlap is associated with impaired clinical outcomes during long-term follow-up. Compared with SES, EES provide similar clinical outcomes irrespective of DES overlap status.

Coronary evaginations are associated with positive vessel remodelling and are nearly absent following implantation of newer-generation drug-eluting stents: an optical coherence tomography and intravascular ultrasound study

OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study was to assess the occurrence, predictors, and mechanisms of optical coherence tomography (OCT)-detected coronary evaginations following drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation. BACKGROUND Angiographic ectasias and aneurysms in stented segments have been associated with a risk of late stent thrombosis. Using OCT, some stented segments show coronary evaginations reminiscent of ectasias. METHODS Evaginations were defined as outward bulges in the luminal contour between struts. They were considered major evaginations (MEs) when extending ≥3 mm along the vessel length, with a depth ≥10% of the stent diameter. A total of 228 patients who had sirolimus (SES)-, paclitaxel-, biolimus-, everolimus (EES)-, or zotarolimus (ZES)-eluting stents implanted in 254 lesions, were analysed after 1, 2, or 5 years; and serial assessment using OCT and intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) was performed post-intervention and after 1 year in 42 patients. RESULTS Major evaginations occurred frequently at all time points in SES (∼26%) and were rarely seen in EES (3%) and ZES (2%, P = 0.003). Sirolimus-eluting stent implantation was the strongest independent predictor of ME [adjusted OR (95% CI) 9.1 (1.1-77.4), P = 0.008]. Malapposed and uncovered struts were more common in lesions with vs. without ME (77 vs. 25%, P < 0.001 and 95 vs. 20%, P < 0.001, respectively) as was thrombus [49 vs. 14%, OR 7.3 (95% CI: 1.7-31.2), P = 0.007]. Post-intervention intra-stent dissection and protrusion of the vessel wall into the lumen were associated with an increased risk of evagination at follow-up [OR (95% CI): 2.9 (1.8-4.9), P < 0.001 and 3.3 (1.6-6.9), P = 0.001, respectively]. In paired IVUS analyses, lesions with ME showed a larger increase in the external elastic membrane area (20% area change) compared with lesions without ME (5% area change, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION Optical coherence tomography-detected MEs are a specific morphological footprint of early-generation SES and are nearly absent in newer-generation ZES and EES. Evaginations appear to be related to vessel injury at baseline; are associated with positive vessel remodelling; and correlate with uncoverage, malapposition, and thrombus at follow-up.

Safety and efficacy of drug-eluting stents in women: a patient-level pooled analysis of randomised trials

BACKGROUND The safety and efficacy of drug-eluting stents (DES) in the treatment of coronary artery disease have been assessed in several randomised trials. However, none of these trials were powered to assess the safety and efficacy of DES in women because only a small proportion of recruited participants were women. We therefore investigated the safety and efficacy of DES in female patients during long-term follow-up. METHODS We pooled patient-level data for female participants from 26 randomised trials of DES and analysed outcomes according to stent type (bare-metal stents, early-generation DES, and newer-generation DES). The primary safety endpoint was a composite of death or myocardial infarction. The secondary safety endpoint was definite or probable stent thrombosis. The primary efficacy endpoint was target-lesion revascularisation. Analysis was by intention to treat. FINDINGS Of 43,904 patients recruited in 26 trials of DES, 11,557 (26·3%) were women (mean age 67·1 years [SD 10·6]). 1108 (9·6%) women received bare-metal stents, 4171 (36·1%) early-generation DES, and 6278 (54·3%) newer-generation DES. At 3 years, estimated cumulative incidence of the composite of death or myocardial infarction occurred in 132 (12·8%) women in the bare-metal stent group, 421 (10·9%) in the early-generation DES group, and 496 (9·2%) in the newer-generation DES group (p=0·001). Definite or probable stent thrombosis occurred in 13 (1·3%), 79 (2·1%), and 66 (1·1%) women in the bare-metal stent, early-generation DES, and newer-generation DES groups, respectively (p=0·01). The use of DES was associated with a significant reduction in the 3 year rates of target-lesion revascularisation (197 [18·6%] women in the bare-metal stent group, 294 [7·8%] in the early-generation DES group, and 330 [6·3%] in the newer-generation DES group, p<0·0001). Results did not change after adjustment for baseline characteristics in the multivariable analysis. INTERPRETATION The use of DES in women is more effective and safe than is use of bare-metal stents during long-term follow-up. Newer-generation DES are associated with an improved safety profile compared with early-generation DES, and should therefore be thought of as the standard of care for percutaneous coronary revascularisation in women. FUNDING Women in Innovation Initiative of the Society of Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions.

Impact of overlapping newer generation drug-eluting stents on clinical and angiographic outcomes: pooled analysis of five trials from the international Global RESOLUTE Program

BACKGROUND Overlapping first generation sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents are associated with persistent inflammation, fibrin deposition and delayed endothelialisation in preclinical models, and adverse angiographic and clinical outcomes--including death and myocardial infarction (MI)--in clinical studies. OBJECTIVES To establish as to whether there are any safety concerns with newer generation drug-eluting stents (DES). DESIGN Propensity score adjustment of baseline anatomical and clinical characteristics were used to compare clinical outcomes (Kaplan-Meier estimates) between patients implanted with overlapping DES (Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stent (R-ZES) or R-ZES/other DES) against no overlapping DES. Additionally, angiographic outcomes for overlapping R-ZES and everolimus-eluting stents were evaluated in the randomised RESOLUTE All-Comers Trial. SETTING Patient level data from five controlled studies of the RESOLUTE Global Clinical Program evaluating the R-ZES were pooled. Enrollment criteria were generally unrestrictive. PATIENTS 5130 patients. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES 2-year clinical outcomes and 13-month angiographic outcomes. RESULTS 644 of 5130 patients (12.6%) in the RESOLUTE Global Clinical Program underwent overlapping DES implantation. Implantation of overlapping DES was associated with an increased frequency of MI and more complex/calcified lesion types at baseline. Adjusted in-hospital, 30-day and 2-year clinical outcomes indicated comparable cardiac death (2-year overlap vs non-overlap: 3.0% vs 2.1%, p=0.36), major adverse cardiac events (13.3% vs 10.7%, p=0.19), target-vessel MI (3.9% vs 3.4%, p=0.40), clinically driven target vessel revascularisation (7.7% vs 6.5%, p=0.32), and definite/probable stent thrombosis (1.4% vs 0.9%, p=0.28). 13-month adjusted angiographic outcomes were comparable between overlapping and non-overlapping DES. CONCLUSIONS Overlapping newer generation DES are safe and effective, with comparable angiographic and clinical outcomes--including repeat revascularisation--to non-overlapping DES.

Tissue coverage and neointimal hyperplasia in overlap versus nonoverlap segments of drug-eluting stents 9 to 13 months after implantation: in vivo assessment with optical coherence tomography

BACKGROUND Histologic experimental studies have reported incomplete neointimal healing in overlapping with respect to nonoverlapping segments in drug-eluting stents (DESs), but these observations have not been confirmed in human coronary arteries hitherto. On the contrary, angiographic and optical coherence tomography studies suggest that DES overlap elicits rather an exaggerated than an incomplete neointimal reaction. METHODS Optical coherence tomography studies from 2 randomized trials including sirolimus-eluting, biolimus-eluting, everolimus-eluting, and zotarolimus-eluting stents were analyzed at 9- to 13-month follow-up. Coverage in overlapping segments was compared versus the corresponding nonoverlapping segments of the same stents, using statistical pooled analysis. RESULTS Forty-two overlaps were found in 31 patients: 11 in sirolimus-eluting stents, 3 in biolimus-eluting stents, 17 in everolimus-eluting stents, and 11 in zotarolimus-eluting stents. The risk ratio of incomplete coverage was 2.35 (95% CI 1.86-2.98) in overlapping versus nonoverlapping segments. Thickness of coverage in overlaps was only 85% (95% CI 81%-90%) of the thickness in nonoverlaps. Significant heterogeneity of the effect was observed, especially pronounced in the comparison of thickness of coverage (I(2) = 90.31). CONCLUSIONS The effect of overlapping DES on neointimal inhibition is markedly heterogeneous: on average, DES overlap is associated with more incomplete and thinner coverage, but in some cases, the overlap elicits an exaggerated neointimal reaction, thicker than in the corresponding nonoverlapping segments. These results might help to understand why overlapping DES is associated with worse clinical outcomes, both in terms of thrombotic phenomena and in terms of restenosis and revascularization.

Differential healing response attributed to culprit lesions of patients with acute coronary syndromes and stable coronary artery after implantation of drug-eluting stents: An optical coherence tomography study

BACKGROUND Pathology studies have shown delayed arterial healing in culprit lesions of patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) compared with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) after placement of drug-eluting stents (DES). It is unknown whether similar differences exist in-vivo during long-term follow-up. Using optical coherence tomography (OCT), we assessed differences in arterial healing between patients with ACS and stable CAD five years after DES implantation. METHODS AND RESULTS A total of 88 patients comprised of 53 ACS lesions with 7864 struts and 35 stable lesions with 5298 struts were suitable for final OCT analysis five years after DES implantation. The analytical approach was based on a hierarchical Bayesian random-effects model. OCT endpoints were strut coverage, malapposition, protrusion, evaginations and cluster formation. Uncovered (1.7% vs. 0.7%, adjusted p=0.041) or protruding struts (0.50% vs. 0.13%, adjusted p=0.038) were more frequent among ACS compared with stable CAD lesions. A similar trend was observed for malapposed struts (1.33% vs. 0.45%, adj. p=0.072). Clusters of uncovered or malapposed/protruding struts were present in 34.0% of ACS and 14.1% of stable patients (adj. p=0.041). Coronary evaginations were more frequent in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction compared with stable CAD patients (0.16 vs. 0.13 per cross section, p=0.027). CONCLUSION Uncovered, malapposed, and protruding stent struts as well as clusters of delayed healing may be more frequent in culprit lesions of ACS compared with stable CAD patients late after DES implantation. Our observational findings suggest a differential healing response attributable to lesion characteristics of patients with ACS compared with stable CAD in-vivo.

Long-term outcomes of biodegradable versus durable polymer drug-eluting stents in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a pooled analysis of individual patient data from three randomised trials

Aims: Arterial plaque rupture and thrombus characterise ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and may aggravate delayed arterial healing following durable polymer drug-eluting stent (DP-DES) implantation. Biodegradable polymer (BP) may improve biocompatibility. We compared long-term outcomes in STEMI patients receiving BP-DES vs. durable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (DP-SES). Methods and results: We pooled individual patient-level data from three randomised clinical trials (ISAR-TEST-3, ISAR-TEST-4 and LEADERS) comparing outcomes from BP-DES with DP-SES at four years. The primary endpoint (MACE) comprised cardiac death, MI, or target lesion revascularisation (TLR). Secondary endpoints were TLR, cardiac death or MI, and definite or probable stent thrombosis. Of 497 patients with STEMI, 291 received BP-DES and 206 DP-SES. At four years, MACE was significantly reduced following treatment with BP-DES (hazard ratio [HR] 0.59, 95% CI: 0.39-0.90; p=0.01) driven by reduced TLR (HR 0.54, 95% CI: 0.30-0.98; p=0.04). Trends towards reduction were seen for cardiac death or MI (HR 0.63, 95% CI: 0.37-1.05; p=0.07) and definite or probable stent thrombosis (3.6% vs. 7.1%; HR 0.49, 95% CI: 0.22-1.11; p=0.09). Conclusions: In STEMI, BP-DES demonstrated superior clinical outcomes to DP-SES at four years. Trends towards reduced cardiac death or myocardial infarction and reduced stent thrombosis require corroboration in specifically powered trials.

The Impact of Renal Impairment on Long-Term Safety and Effectiveness of Drug-Eluting Stents

BACKGROUND Renal impairment (RI) is associated with impaired prognosis in patients with coronary artery disease. Clinical and angiographic outcomes of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with the use of drug-eluting stents (DES) in this patient population are not well established. METHODS We pooled individual data for 5,011 patients from 3 trials with the exclusive and unrestricted use of DES (SIRTAX - N = 1,012, LEADERS - N = 1,707, RESOLUTE AC - N = 2,292). Angiographic follow-up was available for 1,544 lesions. Outcomes through 2 years were stratified according to glomerular filtration rate (normal renal function: GFR≥90 ml/min; mild RI: 90

Twelve or 30 months of dual antiplatelet therapy after drug-eluting stents.

BACKGROUND Dual antiplatelet therapy is recommended after coronary stenting to prevent thrombotic complications, yet the benefits and risks of treatment beyond 1 year are uncertain. METHODS Patients were enrolled after they had undergone a coronary stent procedure in which a drug-eluting stent was placed. After 12 months of treatment with a thienopyridine drug (clopidogrel or prasugrel) and aspirin, patients were randomly assigned to continue receiving thienopyridine treatment or to receive placebo for another 18 months; all patients continued receiving aspirin. The coprimary efficacy end points were stent thrombosis and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) during the period from 12 to 30 months. The primary safety end point was moderate or severe bleeding. RESULTS A total of 9961 patients were randomly assigned to continue thienopyridine treatment or to receive placebo. Continued treatment with thienopyridine, as compared with placebo, reduced the rates of stent thrombosis (0.4% vs. 1.4%; hazard ratio, 0.29 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.17 to 0.48]; P<0.001) and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (4.3% vs. 5.9%; hazard ratio, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.59 to 0.85]; P<0.001). The rate of myocardial infarction was lower with thienopyridine treatment than with placebo (2.1% vs. 4.1%; hazard ratio, 0.47; P<0.001). The rate of death from any cause was 2.0% in the group that continued thienopyridine therapy and 1.5% in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.36 [95% CI, 1.00 to 1.85]; P=0.05). The rate of moderate or severe bleeding was increased with continued thienopyridine treatment (2.5% vs. 1.6%, P=0.001). An elevated risk of stent thrombosis and myocardial infarction was observed in both groups during the 3 months after discontinuation of thienopyridine treatment. CONCLUSIONS Dual antiplatelet therapy beyond 1 year after placement of a drug-eluting stent, as compared with aspirin therapy alone, significantly reduced the risks of stent thrombosis and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events but was associated with an increased risk of bleeding. (Funded by a consortium of eight device and drug manufacturers and others; DAPT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00977938.).