Drug-eluting stents compared to bare-metal stents improve short-term survival in patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention: a nationwide prospective analysis of the AMIS Plus registry.

BACKGROUND: Recently, it has been suggested that the type of stent used in primary percutaneous coronary interventions (pPCI) might impact upon the outcomes of patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Indeed, drug-eluting stents (DES) reduce neointimal hyperplasia compared to bare-metal stents (BMS). Moreover, the later generation DES, due to its biocompatible polymer coatings and stent design, allows for greater deliverability, improved endothelial healing and therefore less restenosis and thrombus generation. However, data on the safety and performance of DES in large cohorts of AMI is still limited. AIM: To compare the early outcome of DES vs. BMS in AMI patients. METHODS: This was a prospective, multicentre analysis containing patients from 64 hospitals in Switzerland with AMI undergoing pPCI between 2005 and 2013. The primary endpoint was in-hospital all-cause death, whereas the secondary endpoint included a composite measure of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) of death, reinfarction, and cerebrovascular event. RESULTS: Of 20,464 patients with a primary diagnosis of AMI and enrolled to the AMIS Plus registry, 15,026 were referred for pPCI and 13,442 received stent implantation. 10,094 patients were implanted with DES and 2,260 with BMS. The overall in-hospital mortality was significantly lower in patients with DES compared to those with BMS implantation (2.6% vs. 7.1%,p < 0.001). The overall in-hospital MACCE after DES was similarly lower compared to BMS (3.5% vs. 7.6%, p < 0.001). After adjusting for all confounding covariables, DES remained an independent predictor for lower in-hospital mortality (OR 0.51,95% CI 0.40-0.67, p < 0.001). Since groups differed as regards to baseline characteristics and pharmacological treatment, we performed a propensity score matching (PSM) to limit potential biases. Even after the PSM, DES implantation remained independently associated with a reduced risk of in-hospital mortality (adjusted OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.39-0.76, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In unselected patients from a nationwide, real-world cohort, we found DES, compared to BMS, was associated with lower in-hospital mortality and MACCE. The identification of optimal treatment strategies of patients with AMI needs further randomised evaluation; however, our findings suggest a potential benefit with DES.

Predictors of restenosis after percutaneous coronary intervention using bare-metal stents: a comparison between patients with and without dysglycemia

The objective of this study was to identify intravascular ultrasound (IVUS), angiographic and metabolic parameters related to restenosis in patients with dysglycemia. Seventy consecutive patients (77 lesions) selected according to inclusion and exclusion criteria were evaluated by the oral glucose tolerance test and the determination of insulinemia after a successful percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with a bare-metal stent. The degree of insulin resistance was calculated by the homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR). Six-month IVUS and angiogram follow-up were performed. Thirty-nine patients (55.7%) had dysglycemia. The restenosis rate in the dysglycemic group was 37.2 vs 23.5% in the euglycemic group (P = 0.299). The predictors of restenosis using bivariate analysis were reference vessel diameter (RVD): £2.93 mm (RR = 0.54; 95%CI = 0.05-0.78; P = 0.048), stent area (SA): <8.91 mm² (RR = 0.66; 95%CI = 0.24-0.85; P = 0.006), stent volume (SV): <119.75 mm³ (RR = 0.74; 95%CI = 0.38-0.89; P = 0.0005), HOMA-IR: >2.063 (RR = 0.44; 95%CI = 0.14-0.64; P = 0.027), and fasting plasma glucose (FPG): ≤108.8 mg/dL (RR = 0.53; 95%CI = 0.13-0.75; P = 0.046). SV was an independent predictor of restenosis by multivariable analysis. Dysglycemia is a common clinical condition in patients submitted to PCI. The degree of insulin resistance, FPG, RVD, SA, and SV were correlated with restenosis. SV was inversely correlated with an independent predictor of restenosis in patients treated with a bare-metal stent.

Randomised comparison of titanium-nitride-oxide coated stents with bare metal stents: five year follow-up of the TiNOX trial

Revascularisation with Titanium-Nitride-Oxide (TiNOX) coated stents is safe and effective in patients with de novo native coronary artery lesions. In the TiNOX trial there was a reduction in restenosis and major adverse cardiac events as compared with stainless steel stents of otherwise identical design. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the long-term outcome of these patients over five years.

Comparison of biolimus eluted from an erodible stent coating with bare metal stents in acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (COMFORTABLE AMI trial): rationale and design

Compared with bare metal stents (BMS), early generation drug-eluting stents (DES) reduce the risk of revascularisation in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) at the expense of an increased risk of very late stent thrombosis (ST). Durable polymer coatings for controlled drug release have been identified as a potential trigger for these late adverse events and this has led to the development of newer generation DES with durable and biodegradable polymer surface coatings with improved biocompatibility. In a recent all-comers trial, biolimus-eluting stents with a biodegradable polymer surface coating were found to reduce the risk of very late ST by 80% compared with sirolimus-eluting stents with durable polymer, which also translated into a lower risk of cardiac death and myocardial infarction (MI) beyond one year.

Comparison of drug-eluting stents with bare metal stents in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

To evaluate safety and effectiveness of early generation drug-eluting stents (DES) compared with bare-metal stents (BMS) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and to determine whether benefits and risks vary over time.

Stent thrombosis with drug-eluting and bare-metal stents: evidence from a comprehensive network meta-analysis

The relative safety of drug-eluting stents and bare-metal stents, especially with respect to stent thrombosis, continues to be debated. In view of the overall low frequency of stent thrombosis, large sample sizes are needed to accurately estimate treatment differences between stents. We compared the risk of thrombosis between bare-metal and drug-eluting stents.

Effect of biolimus-eluting stents with biodegradable polymer vs bare-metal stents on cardiovascular events among patients with acute myocardial infarction: the COMFORTABLE AMI randomized trial

The efficacy and safety of drug-eluting stents compared with bare-metal stents remains controversial in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

Outcomes associated with drug-eluting and bare-metal stents: a collaborative network meta-analysis

Whether the two drug-eluting stents approved by the US Food and Drug Administration-a sirolimus-eluting stent and a paclitaxel-eluting stent-are associated with increased risks of death, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis compared with bare-metal stents is uncertain. Our aim was to compare the safety and effectiveness of these stents.

Drug-eluting or bare-metal stents for large coronary vessel stenting? The BASKET-PROVE (PROspective Validation Examination) trial: study protocol and design

BACKGROUND: Based on a subgroup analysis of 18-month BAsel Stent Kosten Effektivitäts Trial (BASKET) outcome data, we hypothesized that very late (> 12 months) stent thrombosis occurs predominantly after drug-eluting stent implantation in large native coronary vessel stenting. METHODS: To prove or refute this hypothesis, we set up an 11-center 4-country prospective trial of 2260 consecutive patients treated with > or = 3.0-mm stents only, randomized to receive Cypher (Johnson ; Johnson, Miami Lakes, FL), Vision (Abbott Vascular, Abbott Laboratories, IL), or Xience stents (Abbott Vascular). Only patients with left main or bypass graft disease, in-stent restenosis or stent thrombosis, in need of nonheart surgery, at increased bleeding risk, without compliance/consent are excluded. All patients are treated with dual antiplatelet therapy for 12 months. The primary end point will be cardiac death/nonfatal myocardial infarction after 24 months with further follow-up up to 5 years. RESULTS: By June 12, 229 patients (10% of the planned total) were included with a baseline risk similar to that of the same subgroup of BASKET (n = 588). CONCLUSIONS: This study will answer several important questions of contemporary stent use in patients with large native vessel stenting. The 2-year death/myocardial infarction-as well as target vessel revascularization-and bleeding rates in these patients with a first- versus second-generation drug-eluting stent should demonstrate the benefit or harm of these stents compared to cobalt-chromium bare-metal stents in this relevant, low-risk group of everyday patients. In addition, a comparison with similar BASKET patients will allow to estimate the impact of 12- versus 6-month dual antiplatelet therapy on these outcomes.

Drug eluting and bare metal stents in people with and without diabetes: collaborative network meta-analysis

Objective To compare the effectiveness and safety of three types of stents (sirolimus eluting, paclitaxel eluting, and bare metal) in people with and without diabetes mellitus. Design Collaborative network meta-analysis. Data sources Electronic databases (Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), relevant websites, reference lists, conference abstracts, reviews, book chapters, and proceedings of advisory panels for the US Food and Drug Administration. Manufacturers and trialists provided additional data. Review methods Network meta-analysis with a mixed treatment comparison method to combine direct within trial comparisons between stents with indirect evidence from other trials while maintaining randomisation. Overall mortality was the primary safety end point, target lesion revascularisation the effectiveness end point. Results 35 trials in 3852 people with diabetes and 10 947 people without diabetes contributed to the analyses. Inconsistency of the network was substantial for overall mortality in people with diabetes and seemed to be related to the duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (P value for interaction 0.02). Restricting the analysis to trials with a duration of dual antiplatelet therapy of six months or more, inconsistency was reduced considerably and hazard ratios for overall mortality were near one for all comparisons in people with diabetes: sirolimus eluting stents compared with bare metal stents 0.88 (95% credibility interval 0.55 to 1.30), paclitaxel eluting stents compared with bare metal stents 0.91 (0.60 to 1.38), and sirolimus eluting stents compared with paclitaxel eluting stents 0.95 (0.63 to 1.43). In people without diabetes, hazard ratios were unaffected by the restriction. Both drug eluting stents were associated with a decrease in revascularisation rates compared with bare metal stents in people both with and without diabetes. Conclusion In trials that specified a duration of dual antiplatelet therapy of six months or more after stent implantation, drug eluting stents seemed safe and effective in people both with and without diabetes.

Comparison of Newer-Generation Drug-Eluting With Bare-Metal Stents in Patients With Acute ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Pooled Analysis of the EXAMINATION (clinical Evaluation of the Xience-V stent in Acute Myocardial INfArcTION) and COMFORTABLE-AMI (Comparison of Biolimus Eluted From an Erodible Stent Coating With Bare Metal Stents in Acute ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction) Trials

OBJECTIVES This study sought to study the efficacy and safety of newer-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) compared with bare-metal stents (BMS) in an appropriately powered population of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). BACKGROUND Among patients with STEMI, early generation DES improved efficacy but not safety compared with BMS. Newer-generation DES, everolimus-eluting stents, and biolimus A9-eluting stents, have been shown to improve clinical outcomes compared with early generation DES. METHODS Individual patient data for 2,665 STEMI patients enrolled in 2 large-scale randomized clinical trials comparing newer-generation DES with BMS were pooled: 1,326 patients received a newer-generation DES (everolimus-eluting stent or biolimus A9-eluting stent), whereas the remaining 1,329 patients received a BMS. Random-effects models were used to assess differences between the 2 groups for the device-oriented composite endpoint of cardiac death, target-vessel reinfarction, and target-lesion revascularization and the patient-oriented composite endpoint of all-cause death, any infarction, and any revascularization at 1 year. RESULTS Newer-generation DES substantially reduce the risk of the device-oriented composite endpoint compared with BMS at 1 year (relative risk [RR]: 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.43 to 0.79; p = 0.0004). Similarly, the risk of the patient-oriented composite endpoint was lower with newer-generation DES than BMS (RR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.63 to 0.96; p = 0.02). Differences in favor of newer-generation DES were driven by both a lower risk of repeat revascularization of the target lesion (RR: 0.33; 95% CI: 0.20 to 0.52; p < 0.0001) and a lower risk of target-vessel infarction (RR: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.14 to 0.92; p = 0.03). Newer-generation DES also reduced the risk of definite stent thrombosis (RR: 0.35; 95% CI: 0.16 to 0.75; p = 0.006) compared with BMS. CONCLUSIONS Among patients with STEMI, newer-generation DES improve safety and efficacy compared with BMS throughout 1 year. It remains to be determined whether the differences in favor of newer-generation DES are sustained during long-term follow-up.

Biolimus-Eluting Stents With Biodegradable Polymer Versus Bare-Metal Stents in Acute Myocardial Infarction: Two-Year Clinical Results of the COMFORTABLE AMI Trial

BACKGROUND This study sought to determine whether the 1-year differences in major adverse cardiac event between a stent eluting biolimus from a biodegradable polymer and bare-metal stents (BMSs) in the COMFORTABLE trial (Comparison of Biolimus Eluted From an Erodible Stent Coating With Bare Metal Stents in Acute ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction) were sustained during long-term follow-up. METHODS AND RESULTS A total of 1061 patients were randomly assigned to biolimus-eluting stent (BES) and BMS at 11 centers, and follow-up rates at 2 years were 96.3%. A subgroup of 103 patients underwent angiography at 13 months. At 2 years, differences in the primary end point of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization continued to diverge in favor of BES-treated patients (5.8%) compared with BMS-treated patients (11.9%; hazard ratio=0.48; 95% confidence interval, 0.31-0.72; P<0.001) with a significant risk reduction during the second year of follow-up (hazard ratio 1-2 years=0.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.20-1.00; P=0.049). Differences in the primary end point were driven by a reduction in target lesion revascularization (3.1% versus 8.2%; P<0.001) and target-vessel reinfarction (1.3% versus 3.4%; P=0.023). The composite of death, any reinfarction and revascularization (14.5% versus 19.3%; P=0.03), and cardiac death or target-vessel myocardial infarction (4.2% versus 7.2%; P=0.036) were less frequent among BES-treated patients compared with BMS-treated patients. The 13-month angiographic in-stent percent diameter stenosis amounted to 12.0±7.2 in BES- and 39.6±25.2 in BMS-treated lesions (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention, BES continued to improve cardiovascular events compared with BMS beyond 1 year.

Drug-eluting stents vs. bare metal stents in patients with cardiogenic shock: a comparison by propensity score analysis.

BACKGROUND In patients with cardiogenic shock, data on the comparative safety and efficacy of drug-eluting stents (DESs) vs. bare metal stents (BMSs) are lacking. We sought to assess the performance of DESs compared with BMSs among patients with cardiogenic shock undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS Out of 236 patients with acute coronary syndromes complicated by cardiogenic shock, 203 were included in the final analysis. The primary endpoint included death, and the secondary endpoint of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) included the composite of death, myocardial infarction, any repeat revascularization and stroke. Patients were followed for a minimum of 30 days and up to 4 years. As stent assignment was not random, we performed a propensity score analysis to minimize potential bias. RESULTS Among patients treated with DESs, there was a lower risk of the primary and secondary endpoints compared with BMSs at 30 days (29 vs. 56%, P < 0.001; 34 vs. 58%, P = 0.001, respectively) and during long-term follow-up [hazard ratio 0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29-0.65, P < 0.001; hazard ratio 0.49, 95% CI 0.34-0.71, P < 0.001, respectively]. After propensity score adjustment, all-cause mortality was reduced among patients treated with DESs compared with BMSs both at 30 days [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.26, 95% CI 0.11-0.62; P = 0.002] and during long-term follow-up (adjusted hazard ratio 0.40, 95% CI 0.22-0.72; P = 0.002). The rate of MACCE was lower among patients treated with DESs compared with those treated with BMSs at 30 days (adjusted OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.19-0.95; P = 0.036). The difference in MACCEs between devices approached significance during long-term follow-up (adjusted hazard ratio 0.60, 95% CI 0.34-1.01; P = 0.052). CONCLUSION DESs appear to be associated with improved clinical outcomes, including a reduction in all-cause mortality compared with BMSs among patients undergoing PCI for cardiogenic shock, possibly because of a pacification of the infarct-related artery by anti-inflammatory drug. The results of this observational study require confirmation in an appropriately powered randomized trial.