Reporting of harm in randomized controlled trials evaluating stents for percutaneous coronary intervention

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The aim of this study was to assess the reporting of harm in randomized controlled trials evaluating stents for percutaneous coronary intervention.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The study design was a methodological systematic review of randomized controlled trials. The data sources were MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. All reports of randomized controlled trials assessing stent treatment for coronary disease published between January 1, 2003, and September 30, 2008 were selected.</p> <p>A standardized abstraction form was used to extract data.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>132 articles were analyzed. Major cardiac adverse events (death, cardiac death, myocardial infarction or stroke) were reported as primary or secondary outcomes in 107 reports (81%). However, 19% of the articles contained no data on cardiac events. The mode of data collection of adverse events was given in 29 reports (22%) and a definition of expected adverse events was provided in 47 (36%). The length of follow-up was reported in 95 reports (72%). Assessment of adverse events by an adjudication committee was described in 46 reports (35%), and adverse events were described as being followed up for 6 months in 24% of reports (n = 32), between 7 to 12 months in 42% (n = 55) and for more than 1 year in 4% (n = 5). In 115 reports (87%), numerical data on the nature of the adverse events were reported per treatment arm. Procedural complications were described in 30 articles (23%). The causality of adverse events was reported in only 4 articles.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Several harm-related data were not adequately accounted for in articles of randomized controlled trials assessing stents for percutaneous coronary intervention.</p> <p>Trials Registration</p> <p>Trials manuscript: 5534201182098351 (T80802P)</p

Drug-Eluting Stents in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease: A Prospective Registry Study

BACKGROUND: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is strongly associated with adverse outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). There are limited data on the effectiveness of drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients with CKD. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Of 3,752 consecutive patients enrolled in the Guthrie PCI Registry between 2001 and 2006, 436 patients with CKD - defined as a creatinine clearance <60 mL/min - were included in this study. Patients who received DES were compared to those who received bare metal stents (BMS). Patients were followed for a mean duration of 3 years after the index PCI to determine the prognostic impact of stent type. Study end-points were all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularization (TVR), stent thrombosis (ST) and the composite of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as death, MI or TVR. Patients receiving DES in our study, by virtue of physician selection, had more stable coronary artery disease and had lower baseline risk of thrombotic or restenotic events. Kaplan-Meier estimates of proportions of patients reaching the end-points were significantly lower for DES vs. BMS for all-cause death (p = 0.0008), TVR (p = 0.029) and MACE (p = 0.0015), but not MI (p = 0.945) or ST (p = 0.88). Multivariable analysis with propensity adjustment demonstrated that DES implantation was an independent predictor of lower rates of all-cause death (hazard ratio [HR] 0.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.25-0.92), TVR (HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.27-0.94) and MACE (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.41-0.94). CONCLUSIONS: In a contemporary PCI registry, selective use of DES in patients with CKD was safe and effective in the long term, with lower risk of all-cause death, TVR and MACE and similar risk of MI and ST as compared with BMS. The mortality benefit may be a result of selection bias and residual confounding, or represent a true finding; a hypothesis that warrants clarification by randomized clinical trials

Short- and long-term outcomes of single bare metal stent versus drug eluting stent in nondiabetic patients with a simple de novo lesion in the middle and large vessel

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Objective</p> <p>This study was aimed to investigate the short- and long-term outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) between single bare metal stent (BMS) and single drug eluting stent (DES) in nondiabetic patients with a simple de novo lesion in the middle and large vessel.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Two hundred and thirty-five consecutive patients with a simple de novo lesion in the middle and large vessel were treated with BMS or DES in our hospital from Apr. 2004 to Dec. 2004.</p> <p>The inclusion criteria: a simple de novo lesion in the middle and large vessel, stent diameter ≥ 3.0 mm, stent length ≤ 18 mm, the exclusion criteria: diabetes mellitus, left main trunk disease and left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 30%. Of them, there were 150 patients in BMS group and 85 patients in DES group, and the rates of lost to follow up were 6.7% and 1.2% respectively.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>BMS group had lower hypercholesteremia rate (22.0% vs 38.8%) and higher proportion of TIMI grade 0 (12% vs 1.2%) than DES group (all P < 0.05), but both groups had similar stent length (16.16 ± 2.81 mm vs 16.06 ± 2.46 mm) and stent diameter (3.85 ± 3.07 mm vs 3.19 ± 0.24 mm) after procedure, in-segment restenosis rate (0% vs 1.2%) and target lesion revascularization (TLR, 2.0% vs 2.4%) at 6-month follow-up (all P > 0.05). No difference was found in TLR (1.3% vs 1.2%, P = 1.00) and recurrent myocardial infarction (Re-MI) (0% vs 1.2%, P = 0.36), cardiac death (0.7% vs 1.2%, P = 1.00) between 1- and 3-year. So were TLR (6.0% vs 5.9%, P = 0.97), Re-MI (0% vs 2.4%, P = 0.06), cardiac death (2.0% vs 3.5%, P = 0.48) and major adverse cardiac events (MACE, 8.7% vs 10.6%, P = 0.63), cardiac death-free cumulative survival (98.7% vs 97.7%, P = 0.56), TLR-free cumulative survival (94.0% vs 94.1%, P = 0.98) and Re-MI-free cumulative survival (100% vs 97.7%, P = 0.06) at 3-year follow-up.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The single BMS has similar efficacy and safety to single DES in nondiabetic patients with a simple de novo lesion in the middle and large vessel at short- and long-term follow-up.</p

Intracoronary versus intravenous abciximab in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: rationale and design of the CICERO trial in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention with thrombus aspiration

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Administration of abciximab during primary percutaneous coronary intervention is an effective adjunctive therapy in the treatment of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Recent small-scaled studies have suggested that intracoronary administration of abciximab during primary percutaneous coronary intervention is superior to conventional intravenous administration. This study has been designed to investigate whether intracoronary bolus administration of abciximab is more effective than intravenous bolus administration in improving myocardial perfusion in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention with thrombus aspiration.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>The Comparison of IntraCoronary versus intravenous abciximab administration during Emergency Reperfusion Of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (CICERO) trial is a single-center, prospective, randomized open-label trial with blinded evaluation of endpoints. A total of 530 patients with STEMI undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention are randomly assigned to either an intracoronary or intravenous bolus of weight-adjusted abciximab. The primary end point is the incidence of >70% ST-segment elevation resolution. Secondary end points consist of post-procedural residual ST-segment deviation, myocardial blush grade, distal embolization, enzymatic infarct size, in-hospital bleeding, and clinical outcome at 30 days and 1 year.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The CICERO trial is the first clinical trial to date to verify the effect of intracoronary versus intravenous administration of abciximab on myocardial perfusion in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention with thrombus aspiration.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00927615</p

ACE (I/D) polymorphism and response to treatment in coronary artery disease: a comprehensive database and meta-analysis involving study quality evaluation

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The role of angiotensin-converting enzyme (<it>ACE</it>) gene insertion/deletion (<it>I/D</it>) polymorphism in modifying the response to treatment modalities in coronary artery disease is controversial.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>PubMed was searched and a database of 58 studies with detailed information regarding <it>ACE I/D </it>polymorphism and response to treatment in coronary artery disease was created. Eligible studies were synthesized using meta-analysis methods, including cumulative meta-analysis. Heterogeneity and study quality issues were explored.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Forty studies involved invasive treatments (coronary angioplasty or coronary artery by-pass grafting) and 18 used conservative treatment options (including anti-hypertensive drugs, lipid lowering therapy and cardiac rehabilitation procedures). Clinical outcomes were investigated by 11 studies, while 47 studies focused on surrogate endpoints. The most studied outcome was the restenosis following coronary angioplasty (34 studies). Heterogeneity among studies (p < 0.01) was revealed and the risk of restenosis following balloon angioplasty was significant under an additive model: the random effects odds ratio was 1.42 (95% confidence interval:1.07–1.91). Cumulative meta-analysis showed a trend of association as information accumulates. The results were affected by population origin and study quality criteria. The meta-analyses for the risk of restenosis following stent angioplasty or after angioplasty and treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors produced non-significant results. The allele contrast random effects odds ratios with the 95% confidence intervals were 1.04(0.92–1.16) and 1.10(0.81–1.48), respectively. Regarding the effect of <it>ACE I/D </it>polymorphism on the response to treatment for the rest outcomes (coronary events, endothelial dysfunction, left ventricular remodeling, progression/regression of atherosclerosis), individual studies showed significance; however, results were discrepant and inconsistent.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>In view of available evidence, genetic testing of <it>ACE I/D </it>polymorphism prior to clinical decision making is not currently justified. The relation between <it>ACE </it>genetic variation and response to treatment in CAD remains an unresolved issue. The results of long-term and properly designed prospective studies hold the promise for pharmacogenetically tailored therapy in CAD.</p

Safety and efficacy of thrombectomy in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for Acute ST elevation MI: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Clinical trials comparing thrombectomy devices with conventional percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) in patients with acute ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) have produced conflicting results. The objective of our study was to systematically evaluate currently available data comparing thrombectomy followed by PCI with conventional PCI alone in patients with acute STEMI