Modifying effect of dual antiplatelet therapy on incidence of stent thrombosis according to implanted drug-eluting stent type

Aim To investigate the putative modifying effect of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) use on the incidence of stent thrombosis at 3 years in patients randomized to Endeavor zotarolimus-eluting stent (E-ZES) or Cypher sirolimus-eluting stent (C-SES). Methods and results Of 8709 patients in PROTECT, 4357 were randomized to E-ZES and 4352 to C-SES. Aspirin was to be given indefinitely, and clopidogrel/ticlopidine for ≥3 months or up to 12 months after implantation. Main outcome measures were definite or probable stent thrombosis at 3 years. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was applied, with stent type, DAPT, and their interaction as the main outcome determinants. Dual antiplatelet therapy adherence remained the same in the E-ZES and C-SES groups (79.6% at 1 year, 32.8% at 2 years, and 21.6% at 3 years). We observed a statistically significant (P = 0.0052) heterogeneity in treatment effect of stent type in relation to DAPT. In the absence of DAPT, stent thrombosis was lower with E-ZES vs. C-SES (adjusted hazard ratio 0.38, 95% confidence interval 0.19, 0.75; P = 0.0056). In the presence of DAPT, no difference was found (1.18; 0.79, 1.77; P = 0.43). Conclusion A strong interaction was observed between drug-eluting stent type and DAPT use, most likely prompted by the vascular healing response induced by the implanted DES system. These results suggest that the incidence of stent thrombosis in DES trials should not be evaluated independently of DAPT use, and the optimal duration of DAPT will likely depend upon stent type (Clinicaltrials.gov number NCT00476957

Kari Hanet ; Geoff Batchen (Art Forum)

Art Forum presented by Kari Hanet & Geoff Batchen

A large-scale multicentre study of patient skin doses in interventional cardiology: dose-area product action levels and dose reference levels.

For 318 patients in 8 different Belgian hospitals, the entire skin-dose distribution was mapped using a grid of 70 thermoluminescence dosimeters per patient, allowing an accurate determination of the maximum skin dose (MSD). Dose-area product (DAP) values, exposure parameters and geometry, together with procedure, patient and cardiologist characteristics, were also registered. Procedures were divided into two groups: diagnostic procedures (coronary angiography) and therapeutic procedures (dilatation, stent, combined procedures (e.g. coronary angiography + dilatation + stent)). The mean value of the MSD was 0.310 Gy for diagnostic and 0.699 Gy for therapeutic procedures. The most critical projection for receiving the MSD is the LAO90 (left anterior oblique) geometry. In 3% of cases, the MSD exceeded the 2 Gy dose threshold for deterministic effects. Action levels in terms of DAP values as the basis for a strategy for follow-up of patients for deterministic radiation skin effects were derived from measured MSD and cumulative DAP values. Two DAP action levels are proposed. A first DAP action level of 125 Gy cm(2) corresponding to the dose threshold of 2 Gy would imply an optional radiopathological follow-up depending on the cardiologist's decision. A second DAP action level of 250 Gy cm(2) corresponding to the 3 Gy skin dose would imply a systematic follow-up. Dose reference levels - 71.3 Gy cm(2) for diagnostic and 106.0 Gy cm(2) for therapeutic procedures - were derived from the 75 percentile of the DAP distributions. As a conclusion, we propose that total DAP is registered in patient's record file, as it can serve to improve the follow-up of patients for radiation-induced skin injuries