Selection Criteria for Drug-Eluting Versus Bare-Metal Stents and the Impact of Routine Angiographic Follow-Up 2-Year Insights From the HORIZONS-AMI (Harmonizing Outcomes With Revascularization and Stents in Acute Myocardial Infarction) Trial

ObjectivesWe sought to identify patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction most likely to benefit from drug-eluting stents (DES), and to evaluate the impact of routine angiographic follow-up on the apparent differences between stent types.BackgroundDES might have greatest utility in patients who would benefit most from their antirestenotic properties.MethodsWe randomly assigned 3,006 patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction to paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) or to bare-metal stents (BMS). Events were assessed at 12 months and 24 months, with a subset undergoing routine angiographic follow-up at 13 months. Using well-known risk factors for restenosis and target lesion revascularization (TLR), risk groups were formed to examine the absolute differences between PES and BMS.ResultsCompared with BMS, PES reduced TLR at 12 months from 7.4% to 4.5% (p = 0.003). Insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (hazard ratio: 3.12), reference vessel diameter ≤3.0 mm (hazard ratio: 2.89), and lesion length ≥30 mm (hazard ratio: 2.49) were independent predictors of 12-month TLR after BMS. In patients with 2 or 3 of these baseline risk factors, PES compared with BMS markedly reduced 12-month TLR (19.8% vs. 8.1%, p = 0.003). In patients with 1 of these risk factors, the 12-month rates of TLR were modestly reduced by PES (7.3% vs. 4.3%, p = 0.02). The 12-month TLR rates were low and similar for both stents in patients with 0 risk factors (3.3% vs. 3.2%, p = 0.93). Routine 13-month angiographic follow-up resulted in a marked increase in TLR procedures (more so with BMS) so that the absolute incremental benefit of PES compared with BMS doubled from 2.9% at 12 months to 6.0% at 24 months, a difference evident in all risk strata.ConclusionsPatients at high risk for TLR after BMS in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction for whom DES are of greatest benefit may be identified. Conversely, DES may be of less clinical benefit for patients at lower risk for TLR after BMS. Routine angiographic follow-up increases the perceived clinical benefits of DES, and must be avoided to accurately estimate absolute treatment effects. (Harmonizing Outcomes With Revascularization and Stents in Acute Myocardial Infarction [HORIZONS-AMI]; NCT00433966

Clinical Outcomes Following Stent Thrombosis Occurring In-Hospital Versus Out-of-Hospital Results From the HORIZONS-AMI (Harmonizing Outcomes with Revascularization and Stents in Acute Myocardial Infarction) Trial

ObjectivesThe study sought to determine whether rapid access to medical care and reperfusion results in a better prognosis in patients with in-hospital compared with out-of-hospital stent thrombosis (ST) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) in the HORIZONS-AMI (Harmonizing Outcomes with Revascularization and Stents in Acute Myocardial Infarction) trial.BackgroundWhether the prognosis of in-hospital and out-of-hospital ST are similar is uncertain, with conflicting data reported from prior studies.MethodsA total of 3,602 STEMI patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were randomized to bivalirudin (n = 1,800) versus unfractionated heparin (UFH) plus a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor (GPI) (UFH+GPI; n = 1,802). Stents were implanted in 3,202 patients, 156 (4.9%) of whom developed Academic Research Consortium definite/probable ST during 3-year follow-up. We investigated the 1-year clinical outcomes after ST in 54 patients with in-hospital ST compared with 102 patients with out-of-hospital ST.ResultsOne year after the ST event, patients with in-hospital compared with out-of-hospital ST had significantly greater mortality (27.8% vs. 10.8%, p < 0.01); most deaths in both groups occurred within 1 week of the ST event. Patients with in-hospital ST also had higher rates of major bleeding (21.2% vs. 6.0%, p < 0.01), but a lower rate of myocardial infarction (56.6% vs. 77.5%, p < 0.01). Subgroup analysis within both in-hospital and out-of-hospital ST groups indicated that subacute ST had the highest mortality. By multivariable analysis, 1-year mortality was significantly increased in patients with in-hospital compared with out-of-hospital ST (adjusted hazard ratio: 4.62, 95% confidence interval: 1.98 to 10.77, p < 0.01). Additional correlates of increased mortality after an ST event included diabetes and randomization to UFH+GPI (vs. bivalirudin).ConclusionsFollowing primary PCI for STEMI, more than one-third of all ST events during 3-year follow-up occurred during the index hospital phase. Mortality and major bleeding were significantly higher after in-hospital ST compared with out-of-hospital ST. (Harmonizing Outcomes With Revascularization and Stents in Acute Myocardial Infarction; NCT00433966

Outcomes and Complications With Off-Label Use of Drug-Eluting Stents Results From the STENT (Strategic Transcatheter Evaluation of New Therapies) Group

ObjectivesThis study evaluates outcomes and complications in patients treated with drug-eluting stents (DES) for “off-label” indications.BackgroundDrug-eluting stents have been effective in randomized trials, but their safety and efficacy for off-label indications has not been well studied.MethodsThe STENT (Strategic Transcatheter Evaluation of New Therapies) Registry is the largest multicenter U.S. registry evaluating outcomes of DES. Off-label indications included ostial, left main, long, bifurcation, and in-stent restenotic lesions, saphenous vein grafts, chronic total occlusions, small or large vessels, multilesion or multivessel percutaneous coronary interventions, and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Outcomes were adjusted using Cox proportional hazards regression and propensity analyses.ResultsDrug-eluting stents were used in an off-label manner in 59% of patients. The patients who received off-label treatment were more often male, had a higher incidence of prior infarction and bypass surgery, and lower ejection fractions. Off-label versus “on-label” use of DES was associated with higher rates of death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, major adverse cardiac events, and stent thrombosis at 9 months and 2 years. Off-label use of DES compared with off-label use of bare-metal stents (BMS) had lower rates of death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, and major adverse cardiac events at 9 months and 2 years and lower rates of stent thrombosis at 9 months.ConclusionsOff-label use of DES is associated with higher event rates compared with on-label use of DES, which is consistent with a higher risk clinical and lesion profile. However, event rates with off-label use of DES are lower compared with off-label use of BMS. Pending results from randomized trials, our data support the use of DES for off-label indications in selected patients