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

Systematic review and meta-analysis of intravascular temperature management vs. surface cooling in comatose patients resuscitated from cardiac arrest

Objective: To systematically review the effectiveness and safety of intravascular temperature management (IVTM) vs. surface cooling methods (SCM) for induced hypothermia (IH). Methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis. English-language PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched on May 27, 2019. The quality of included observational studies was graded using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment tool. The quality of included randomized trials was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool. Random effects modeling was used to calculate risk differences for each outcome. Statistical heterogeneity and publication bias were assessed using standard methods. Eligibility: Observational or randomized studies comparing survival and/or neurologic outcomes in adults aged 18 years or greater resuscitated from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest receiving IH via IVTM vs. SCM were eligible for inclusion. Results: In total, 12 studies met inclusion criteria. These enrolled 1573 patients who received IVTM; and 4008 who received SCM. Survival was 55.0% in the IVTM group and 51.2% in the SCM group [pooled risk difference 2% (95% CI - 1%, 5%)] Good neurological outcome was achieved in 40.9% in the IVTM and 29.5% in the surface group [pooled risk difference 5% (95% CI 2%, 8%)]. There was a 6% (95% CI 11%, 2%) lower risk of arrhythmia with use of IVTM and 15% (95% CI 22%, 7%) decreased risk of overcooling with use of IVTM vs. SCM. There was no significant difference in other evaluated adverse events between groups. Conclusions: IVTM was associated with improved neurological outcomes vs. SCM among survivors resuscitated following cardiac arrest. These results may have implications for care of patients in the emergency department and intensive care settings after resuscitation from cardiac arrest.Peer reviewe

Stent thrombosis up to 3 years after stenting for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction versus for stable angina--comparison of the effects of drug-eluting versus bare-metal stents

BACKGROUND: The long-term safety of drug-eluting stents (DES) for the treatment of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is unclear and may differ from that in stable angina (stable) patients as noted in autopsy studies. METHODS: To assess this problem, 210 consecutive STEMI and 323 stable patients, randomized 2:1 to DES versus bare-metal stents (BMS), were followed up for 3 years for definite/probable stent thrombosis (ST) and cardiac death/myocardial infarction. Events occurring during the initial 6 months were separated from later events. RESULTS: The 3-year rate of ST was 8.1% in STEMI vs 3.4% in stable patients (P = .02), with corresponding rates of 9.4% vs 2.9% (P = .01) for DES and of 5.6% vs 4.3% (P = .71) for BMS patients, respectively. This difference appeared only after 6 months: 4.6% in STEMI vs 1.7% in stable patients (P = .05) and in DES-treated patients (6.2% vs 2.0%, P = .05). Results of ST were paralleled by findings of clinical events, although here differences were less pronounced, but also seen only late after stenting. Thus, in STEMI patients, late events occurred more frequently after DES vs BMS implantation (11.6% vs 3.0%, P = .04), compared to results in stable patients (DES 6.4%, BMS 1.9%, P = .08). CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot study, we observed an increased rate of late ST and a trend to more related clinical events in patients after stenting for STEMI vs for stable angina, particularly if treated with DES. This may explain outcome differences between results of pivotal trials in stable patients vs those of "real-world" patients