Long-term safety of drug-eluting and bare-metal stents: Evidence from a comprehensive network meta-analysis

Abstract Background Previous meta-analyses have investigated the relative safety and efficacy profiles of different types of drug-eluting stents (DES) and bare-metal stents (BMS); however, most prior trials in these meta-analyses reported follow-up to only 1 year, and as such, the relative long-term safety and efficacy of these devices are unknown. Many recent studies have now reported extended follow-up data. Objectives This study sought to investigate the long-term safety and efficacy of durable polymer-based DES, bioabsorbable polymer-based biolimus-eluting stents (BES), and BMS by means of network meta-analysis. Methods Randomized controlled trials comparing DES to each other or to BMS were searched through MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases and proceedings of international meetings. Information on study design, inclusion and exclusion criteria, sample characteristics, and clinical outcomes was extracted. Results Fifty-one trials that included a total of 52,158 randomized patients with follow-up duration ≥3 years were analyzed. At a median follow-up of 3.8 years, cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents (EES) were associated with lower rates of mortality, definite stent thrombosis (ST), and myocardial infarction than BMS, paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES), and sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) and less ST than BES. Phosphorylcholine-based zotarolimus-eluting stents had lower rates of definite ST than SES and lower rates of myocardial infarction than BMS and PES. The late rates of target-vessel revascularization were reduced with all DES compared with BMS, with cobalt-chromium EES, platinum chromium-EES, SES, and BES also having lower target-vessel revascularization rates than PES. Conclusions After a median follow-up of 3.8 years, all DES demonstrated superior efficacy compared with BMS. Among DES, second-generation devices have substantially improved long-term safety and efficacy outcomes compared with first-generation device

Instantaneous wave-free ratio compared with fractional flow reserve in PCI: A cost-minimization analysis.

To access publisher's full text version of this article, please click on the hyperlink in Additional Links field or click on the hyperlink at the top of the page marked DownloadBackground: Coronary physiology is a routine diagnostic tool when assessing whether coronary revascularization is indicated. The iFR-SWEDEHEART trial demonstrated similar clinical outcomes when using instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) or fractional flow reserve (FFR) to guide revascularization. The objective of this analysis was to assess a cost-minimization analysis of iFR-guided compared with FFR-guided revascularization. Methods: In this cost-minimization analysis we used a decision-tree model from a healthcare perspective with a time-horizon of one year to estimate the cost difference between iFR and FFR in a Nordic setting and a United States (US) setting. Treatment pathways and health care utilizations were constructed from the iFR-SWEDEHEART trial. Unit cost for revascularization and myocardial infarction in the Nordic setting and US setting were derived from the Nordic diagnosis-related group versus Medicare cost data. Unit cost of intravenous adenosine administration and cost per stent placed were based on the average costs from the enrolled centers in the iFR-SWEDEHEART trial. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were carried out to test the robustness of the result. Results: The cost-minimization analysis demonstrated a cost saving per patient of $681 (95$641 - $723) in the Nordic setting and$1024 (95% CI: $934 -$1114) in the US setting, when using iFR-guided compared with FFR-guided revascularization. The results were not sensitive to changes in uncertain parameters or assumptions. Conclusions: IFR-guided revascularization is associated with significant savings in cost compared with FFR-guided revascularization. Keywords: Cost-minimization analysis; Fractional flow reserve; Instantaneous wave-free ratio.Philips Volcan

Impact of acute coronary syndrome on clinical outcomes after revascularization with the dual-therapy CD34 antibody-covered sirolimus-eluting Combo stent and the sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent

OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of the dual-therapy CD34 antibody-covered sirolimus-eluting Combo stent (DTS) and the sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent (O-SES) in patients with and without acute coronary syndrome (ACS) included in the SORT OUT X study.BACKGROUND: The incidence of target lesion failure (TLF) after treatment with modern drug-eluting stents has been reported to be significantly higher in patients with ACS when compared to patients without ACS. Whether the results from the SORT OUT X study apply to patients with and without ACS remains unknown.METHODS: In total, 3146 patients were randomized to stent implantation with DTS (n = 1578; ACS: n = 856) or O-SES (n = 1568; ACS: n = 854). The primary end point, TLF, was a composite of cardiac death, target-lesion myocardial infarction (MI), or target lesion revascularization (TLR) within 1 year.RESULTS: At 1 year, the rate of TLF was higher in the DTS group compared to the O-SES group, both among patients with ACS (6.7% vs. 4.1%; incidence rate ratio: 1.65 [95% confidence interval, CI: 1.08-2.52]) and without ACS (6.0% vs. 3.2%; incidence rate ratio: 1.88 [95% CI: 1.13-3.14]). The differences were mainly explained by higher rates of TLR, whereas rates of cardiac death and target lesion MI did not differ significantly between the two stent groups in patients with or without ACS CONCLUSION: Compared to the O-SES, the DTS was associated with a higher risk of TLF at 12 months in patients with and without ACS. The differences were mainly explained by higher rates of TLR.</p

2-Year Outcomes of High Bleeding Risk Patients After Polymer-Free Drug-Coated Stents.

BACKGROUND: A 1-year follow-up, polymer-free metallic stent coated with biolimus-A9 followed by 1-month dual antiplatelet therapy is safer and more effective than a bare-metal stent (BMS) for patients with high risk of bleeding. OBJECTIVES: This study analyzed 2-year outcomes to determine whether these benefits are maintained. METHODS: In a prospective, multicenter, double-blind trial, we randomized 2,466 high bleeding risk patients to receive a drug-coated stent (DCS) or a BMS followed by 1-month dual antiplatelet therapy. The primary safety endpoint was a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis. The primary efficacy endpoint was clinically driven target lesion revascularization. RESULTS: At 2 years, the primary safety endpoint had occurred in 147 DCS and 180 BMS patients (15.3%) (hazard ratio: 0.80; 95% confidence interval: 0.64 to 0.99; p = 0.039). Clinically driven target lesion revascularization occurred for 77 DCS and 136 BMS patients (12.0%) (hazard ratio: 0.54; 95% confidence interval: 0.41 to 0.72; p 75 years, anemia, raised plasma creatinine, and planned long-term anticoagulation. Correlates of the primary safety endpoint were age, anemia, congestive heart failure, multivessel disease, number of stents implanted, and use of a BMS rather than a DCS. CONCLUSIONS: Safety and efficacy benefits of DCS over BMS were maintained for 2 years in high bleeding risk patients. Rates of major bleeding and coronary thrombotic events were no different and were associated with a substantial and comparable mortality risk. (A Prospective Randomized Comparison of the BioFreedom Biolimus A9 Drug Coated Stent Versus the Gazelle Bare Metal Stent in Patients With High Risk of Bleeding [LEADERS FREE]; NCT01623180)