Self-expandable metal stents in the treatment of acute esophageal variceal bleeding.

Acute variceal bleeding (AVB) is a life-threatening complication in patients with cirrhosis. Hemostatic therapy of AVB includes early administration of vasoactive drugs that should be combined with endoscopic therapy, preferably banding ligation. However, failure to control bleeding or early rebleed within 5 days still occurs in 15-20% of patients with AVB. In these cases, a second endoscopic therapy may be attempted (mild bleeding in a hemodynamically stable patient) or we can use a balloon tamponade as a bridge to definitive derivative treatment (i.e., a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt). Esophageal balloon tamponade provides initial control in up to 80% of AVB, but it carries a high risk of major complications, especially in cases of long duration of tamponade (>24 h) and when tubes are inserted by inexperienced staff. Preliminary reports suggest that self-expandable covered esophageal metallic stents effectively control refractory AVB (i.e., ongoing bleeding despite pharmacological and endoscopic therapy or massive bleeding precluding endoscopic therapy) with a low incidence of complications. Thus, covered self-expanding metal stents may represent an alternative to the Sengstaken-Blakemore balloon for the temporary control of bleeding in treatment failures. Further studies are required to determine the role of this new device in AVB.

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.

Systematic review with meta-analysis: self-expanding metal stents in patients with cirrhosis and severe or refractory oesophageal variceal bleeding.

BACKGROUND: The prognosis of patients with cirrhosis and acute variceal bleeding is very poor when the standard-of-care fails to control bleeding. New treatment modalities are needed in these patients. AIM: To synthesise the available evidence on the efficacy of self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) in patients with cirrhosis and severe or refractory oesophageal variceal bleeding. METHODS: Meta-analysis of trials evaluating SEMS in patients with cirrhosis and severe or refractory oesophageal variceal bleeding. RESULTS: Thirteen studies were included. The pooled estimate rates were 0.40 (95% confidence interval, CI = 0.31-0.49) for death, 0.41 (95% CI = 0.29-0.53) for liver-related death and 0.36 (95% CI = 0.26-0.47) for death at day 30, with low heterogeneity between studies. The pooled estimate rates were 0.12 (95% CI = 0.07-0.21) for mortality related to variceal bleeding, and 0.18 (95% CI = 0.11-0.29) for failure to control bleeding with SEMS, with no or low heterogeneity between studies. The pooled estimate rate were 0.16 (95% CI = 0.04-0.48) for rebleeding after stent removal and 0.28 (95% CI = 0.17-0.43) for stent migration, with high heterogeneity. A significant proportion of patients had access to liver transplantation or to TIPSS [pooled estimate rate 0.10 (95% CI = 0.04-0.21) and 0.26 (95% CI = 0.18-0.36), respectively]. CONCLUSIONS: Fewer than 40% of patients treated with SEMS were dead at 1 month. SEMS can be used as a bridge to TIPSS or to liver transplantation in a significant proportion of patients. Additional studies are required to identify potential risk factors leading to a poor prognosis in patients with acute variceal bleeding in whom the use of SEMS could be considered.

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.