Meta-analysis of randomized trials on drug-eluting stents vs. bare-metal stents in patients with acute myocardial infarction

Aims To compare the efficacy and safety of drug-eluting stents vs. bare-metal stents in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Methods and results We performed a meta-analysis of eight randomized trials comparing drug-eluting stents (sirolimus-eluting or paclitaxel-eluting stents) with bare-metal stents in 2786 patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. All patients were followed up for a mean of 12.0-24.2 months. Individual data were available for seven trials with 2476 patients. The primary efficacy endpoint was the need for reintervention (target lesion revascularization). The primary safety endpoint was stent thrombosis. Other outcomes of interest were death and recurrent myocardial infarction. Drug-eluting stents significantly reduced the risk of reintervention, hazard ratio of 0.38 (95% CI, 0.29-0.50), P < 0.001. The overall risk of stent thrombosis: hazard ratio of 0.80 (95% CI, 0.46-1.39), P = 0.43; death: hazard ratio of 0.76 (95% CI, 0.53-1.10), P = 0.14; and recurrent myocardial infarction: hazard ratio of 0.72 (95% CI, 0.48-1.08, P = 0.11) was not significantly different for patients receiving drug-eluting stents vs. bare-metal stents. Conclusion The use of drug-eluting stents in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction is safe and improves clinical outcomes by reducing the risk of reintervention compared with bare-metal stent

Data standards for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the European Unified Registries for Heart Care Evaluation and Randomised Trials (EuroHeart)

Funding: European Society of Cardiology.publishersversionepub_ahead_of_prin

Cardiac procedural myocardial injury, infarction, and mortality in patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention: a pooled analysis of patient-level data

AIMS: The prognostic importance of cardiac procedural myocardial injury and myocardial infarction (MI) in chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is still debated. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analysed individual data of 9081 patients undergoing elective PCI with normal pre-PCI baseline cardiac troponin (cTn) levels. Multivariate models evaluated the association between post-PCI elevations in cTn and 1-year mortality, while an interval analysis evaluated the impact of the size of the myocardial injury on mortality. Our analysis was performed in the overall population and also according to the type of cTn used [52.0% had high-sensitivity cTn (hs-cTn)]. Procedural myocardial injury, as defined by the Fourth Universal Definition of MI (UDMI) [post-PCI cTn elevation ≥1 × 99th percentile upper reference limit (URL)], occurred in 52.8% of patients and was not associated with 1-year mortality [adj odds ratio (OR), 1.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.84-1.77), P = 0.21]. The association between post-PCI cTn elevation and 1-year mortality was significant starting ≥3 × 99th percentile URL. Major myocardial injury defined by post-PCI ≥5 × 99th percentile URL occurred in 18.2% of patients and was associated with a two-fold increase in the adjusted odds of 1-year mortality [2.29, 95% CI (1.32-3.97), P = 0.004]. In the subset of patients for whom periprocedural evidence of ischaemia was collected (n = 2316), Type 4a MI defined by the Fourth UDMI occurred in 12.7% of patients and was strongly associated with 1-year mortality [adj OR 3.21, 95% CI (1.42-7.27), P = 0.005]. We also present our results according to the type of troponin used (hs-cTn or conventional troponin). CONCLUSION: Our analysis has demonstrated that in CCS patients with normal baseline cTn levels, the post-PCI cTn elevation of ≥5 × 99th percentile URL used to define Type 4a MI is associated with 1-year mortality and could be used to detect 'major' procedural myocardial injury in the absence of procedural complications or evidence of new myocardial ischaemia

Prevalence, predictors, and outcomes of patient prosthesis mismatch in women undergoing TAVI for severe aortic stenosis: Insights from the WIN-TAVI registry

Objective: To evaluate the incidence, predictors and outcomes of female patients with patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) following transcatheter aortic valve intervention (TAVI) for severe aortic stenosis (AS). Background: Female AS TAVI recipients have a significantly lower mortality than surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) recipients, which could be attributed to the potentially lower PPM rates. TAVI has been associated with lower rates of PPM compared to SAVR. PPM in females post TAVI has not been investigated to date. Methods: The WIN-TAVI (Women's INternational Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) registry i

2015 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation: Task Force for the Management of Acute Coronary Syndromes in Patients Presenting without Persistent ST-Segment Elevation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC).

peer reviewe

Drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents in diabetic patients with ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction : a pooled analysis of individual patient data from seven randomized trials

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: The performance of drug-eluting stents (DESs) in high-risk patients with diabetes and acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) who have undergone primary angioplasty has not been previously studied. The objective was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DESs in diabetic patients with STEMI. METHODS: We performed a pooled analysis of individual patient data from seven randomized trials that compared DESs (i.e., sirolimus- or paclitaxel-eluting stents) with bare-metal stents (BMSs) in patients with STEMI. The analysis involved 389 patients with diabetes mellitus from a total of 2476 patients. The outcomes of interest were target-lesion revascularization, stent thrombosis, death and the composite endpoint of death or recurrent myocardial infarction during a follow-up of 12-24 months. RESULTS: Overall, 206 diabetic patients received a DES and 183, a BMS. The risk of target-lesion revascularization was significantly lower in patients treated with a DES compared to those treated with a BMS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.23-0.88; P=.02). There was no significant difference in the risk of stent thrombosis between those treated with a DES or a BMS (HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.09-1.13; P=.08). Similarly, the risk of the combined endpoint of death or myocardial infarction was not significantly different between patients treated with a DES or a BMS (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.36-1.13; P=.12). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with BMSs, DES use improved clinical outcomes in diabetic patients undergoing primary angioplasty for STEMI: the need for reintervention was reduced, with no increase in mortality or myocardial infarction

Ten-year clinical outcomes of polymer-free versus durable polymer new-generation drug-eluting stent in patients with coronary artery disease with and without diabetes mellitus

Background!#!Very long-term outcomes according to diabetic status of patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with new-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) are scant. Both, the durable polymer zotarolimus-eluting stent (DP-ZES), the first DES to gain FDA-approval for specific use in patients with diabetes mellitus, and the polymer-free sirolimus- and probucol-eluting stent (PF-SES), with a unique design that enables effective drug release without the need of a polymer offer the potential to enhance clinical long-term outcomes especially in patients with diabetes mellitus.!##!Methods!#!We investigate 10-year clinical outcomes of the prespecified subgroups of patients with and without diabetes mellitus, randomly assigned to treatment with PF-SES versus DP-ZES in the ISAR-TEST 5 trial. The primary endpoint of interest was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as the composite of all-cause death, any myocardial infarction or any revascularization. Further endpoints of interest were cardiac death, myocardial infarction related to the target vessel and target lesion revascularization as well as the individual components of the primary composite endpoint and the incidence of definite or probable stent thrombosis at 10 years.!##!Results!#!This analysis includes a total of 3002 patients randomly assigned to PF-SES (n = 2002) or DP-ZES (n = 1000). Prevalence of diabetes mellitus was high and comparable, 575 Patients (28.7%) in PF-SES group and 295 patients (29.5%) in DP-ZES group (P = 0.66). At 10 years 53.5% of patients with diabetes mellitus and 68.5% of patients without diabetes mellitus were alive. Regarding major adverse cardiac events, PF-SES as compared to DP-ZES showed comparable event rates in patients with diabetes mellitus (74.8% vs. 79.6%; hazard ratio 0.86; 95% CI 0.73-1.02; P = 0.08) and in patients without diabetes (PF-SES 62.5% vs. DP-ZES 62.2%; hazard ratio 0.99; 95% CI 0.88-1.11; P = 0.88).!##!Conclusion!#!At 10 years, both new-generation DES show comparable clinical outcome irrespective of diabetic status or polymer strategy. Event rates after PCI in patients with diabetes mellitus are considerable higher than in patients without diabetes mellitus and continue to accrue over time.!##!Trial registration!#!ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00598533, Registered 10 January 2008, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00598533?term=NCT00598533 Kaplan-Meier estimates of endpoints of interest for patients with vs. without diabetes mellitus treated with PF-SES vs. DP-ZES. Bar graphs: Kaplan-Meier estimates as percentages. PF-SES: polymer-free sirolimus-eluting stent; DP-ZES: durable polymer zotarolimus-eluting stent; DM: diabetes mellitus. Comparison of event rates of individual endpoints in patients with and without diabetes mellitus treated with PF-SES vs. DP-ZES all without statistically significant differences. Comparison of event rates of individual endpoints in overall patients with vs. without diabetes mellitus significantly different (P ≤ 0.01 for all comparisons)

Long-Term Clinical Outcome of Cardiogenic Shock Patients Undergoing Impella CP Treatment vs. Standard of Care

The number of patients treated with the mechanical circulatory support device Impella Cardiac Power (CP) for cardiogenic shock is steadily increasing. The aim of this study was to investigate long-term survival and complications related to this modality. Patients undergoing Impella CP treatment for cardiogenic shock were retrospectively enrolled and matched with cardiogenic shock patients not treated with mechanical circulatory support between 2010 and 2020. Data were collected from the cardiogenic shock registry of the university hospital of Munich (DRKS00015860). 70 patients with refractory cardiogenic shock without mechanical circulatory support were matched with 70 patients treated with Impella CP. At presentation, the mean age was 67 &plusmn; 15 years with 80% being male in the group without support and 67 &plusmn; 14 years (p = 0.97) with 76% being male (p = 0.68) in the group with Impella. There was no significant difference in the rate of cardiac arrest (47% vs. 51%, p = 0.73) and myocardial infarction was the predominant cause of cardiogenic shock in both groups (70% vs. 77%). A total of 41% of patients without cardiocirculatory support and 54% of patients with Impella support died during the first month (p = 0.17). After one year, mortality rates were similar in both groups (55% in conventional vs. 59% in Impella CP group, p = 0.30) as was mortality rate at long-term 5-years follow-up (64% in conventional vs. 73% in Impella CP group, p = 0.33). The rate of clinically significant bleedings during ICU stay was lower in the conventional group than in the Impella support group (15% vs. 43%, p = 0.002). In this small observational and non-randomized analysis no difference in long-term outcome between patients treated with Impella CP vs. guideline directed cardiogenic shock therapy without mechanical circulatory support could be detected. Care must be taken regarding the high rate of bleeding and vascular complications when using Impella CP. Large, adequately powered studies are urgently needed to investigate the efficacy and safety of Impella CP in cardiogenic shock