Superiority Of Drug-eluting Stents Research Articles

Disparities in Drug-Eluting Stent Utilization in Patients With Acute ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: An Analysis of the National Inpatient Sample.

The superiority of drug-eluting stents (DES) compared with bare-metal stents (BMS) is well-established, but data regarding DES use in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) as a function of race is limited. Our goal was to examine stent utilization patterns and disparities based on race, sex, and insurance status in patients with STEMI undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. The National Inpatient Sample database was used to retrospectively compare DES vs BMS use in patients admitted with STEMI from 2009 to 2018. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to assess the independent predictors of DES use. DES utilization increased significantly from 62.8% in 2009 to 94.0% in 2018. However, African Americans were less likely to receive a DES (odds ratio [OR] .82, 95% confidence interval [CI] .77-.87) compared with Caucasians. Women were more likely to undergo DES implantation (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.05-1.10). Patients insured by Medicaid (OR .84, 95% CI .80-.89) and those classified as Self-pay (OR .63, 95% CI .61-.66) were less likely to undergo DES implantation compared to those with private insurance (OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.29-1.38). Disparities based on race and insurance status continue to persist despite a significant increase in DES utilization in STEMI patients across the identified subgroups.

Impact of medication adherence to dual antiplatelet therapy on the long-term outcome of drug-eluting or bare-metal stents

BackgroundIn percutaneous coronary intervention, drug-eluting stent (DES) showed better clinical outcome compared to bare-metal stent (BMS) but mostly with different DAPT durations.HypothesisThe clinical superiority of DES over BMS may depend on the medication adherence to dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT).MethodsWe retrospectively enrolled all Koreans PCI patients in year 2011 (n = 47,291). Medication adherence to DAPT was assessed by proportion of days covered (PDC) per 6 months. Analysis adjusted with the clinical propensity for receiving DES or BMS and DAPT PDC of the first 6 month was performed. Primary outcome was the 5-year major adverse clinical event (MACE) risk consisting all-cause death, revascularization, shock, or stroke.ResultsPatients with DES (n = 46,356) showed higher PDC (78% versus 60%, p<0.001) and lower MACE risk (39% versus 56%, p<0.001) compared to patients with BMS (n = 935). In the propensity-matched 1,868 patients, MACE risk was lower with DES than BMS (46% versus 54%, HR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.70–0.91, p<0.001). In both DES and BMS, patients with good medication adherence (PDC ≥80%) showed much lower MACE risk compared to patients with PDC <80% (HR = 0.36, 95% CI = 0.30–0.44; HR = 0.40, 95%CI = 0.33–0.48, p<0.001, all). Patients with DES and PDC <80% showed higher MACE risk compared to BMS with and PDC ≥80% (HR = 1.30, 95%CI = 1.03–1.64, p = 0.027).ConclusionsGood medication adherence to DAPT in the first 6 month was prerequisite for better clinical outcome in both DES and BMS. DES with poor adherence to DAPT showed worse outcome compared with BMS with good adherence.

Impact of medication adherence to dual antiplatelet therapy on the long-term outcome of drug-eluting or bare-metal stents

Abstract Objective In percutaneous coronary intervention, drug-eluting stent (DES) showed better clinical outcome compared to bare-metal stent (BMS) but mostly with different DAPT durations. This study investigated the clinical superiority of DES over BMS with regard to the medication adherence to dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). Methods We retrospectively enrolled all Koreans PCI patients in year 2011 (n=47,291). Medication adherence to DAPT was assessed by proportion of days covered (PDC) per 6 months. Analysis adjusted with the clinical propensity for receiving DES or BMS and DAPT PDC of the first 6 month was performed. Primary outcome was the 5-year major adverse clinical event (MACE) risk consisting all-cause death, revascularization, shock, or stroke. Results Patients with DES (n=46,356) showed higher PDC (78% versus 60%, p&amp;lt;0.001) and lower MACE risk (39% versus 56%, p&amp;lt;0.001) compared to patients with BMS (n=935). In the propensity-matched 1,868 patients, MACE risk was lower with DES than BMS (46% versus 54%, HR=0.80, 95% CI: 0.70–0.91, p&amp;lt;0.001). Patients with good medication adherence (PDC ≥80%) showed much lower MACE risk compared to patients with PDC &amp;lt;80% regardless of DES or BMS (HR=0.36, 95% CI: 0.30–0.44; HR=0.40, 95% CI: 0.33–0.48, p&amp;lt;0.001, all). Patients with DES and PDC &amp;lt;80% showed higher MACE risk compared to BMS with and PDC ≥80% (HR=1.30, 95% CI: 1.03–1.64, p=0.027). Conclusions Good medication adherence to DAPT in the first 6 month was prerequisite for better clinical outcome in both DES and BMS. DES with poor adherence to DAPT showed worse outcome compared with BMS with good adherence. Impact of medication adherence to dual antiplatelet therapy. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None

Drug-Eluting Stents Versus Bare-Metal Stents in Large Coronary Artery Revascularization: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

ObjectivesWe aim to determine if drug eluting stents (DES) are better than bare-metal stents (BMS) in large coronary artery (diameter ≥ 3 mm) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). BackgroundDES have become the standard of care for PCI in coronary artery disease (CAD). However, the superiority of DES over BMS in large vessel CAD is not clear and previous studies have shown conflicting results. MethodsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing outcomes of PCI with BMS and DES for large vessel CAD were identified from the year 2000 to August 2019. The outcomes were studied individually and included all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR), and stent thrombosis. Aggregated odds ratio and 95% CI were calculated using a random-effects model. ResultsEight RCTs were included (4 with data for first-generation DES, 3 with data for second-generation DES, and 1 with data for both first- and second-generation DES). Compared to BMS, second generation DES had a significantly lower rate of all-cause mortality (2.4% vs. 3.9%, OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.56–0.98, P 0.04), TLR (3.5% vs. 8.6% OR 0.38 95% CI 0.28–0.53, P < 0.001), and MI (2.1% vs. 2.9% OR 0.73 95% CI 0.53–1.0, P 0.05). The difference in all-cause mortality was not seen with first-generation DES. ConclusionNewer DES are associated with a lower mortality, TLR, and MI and thus should be preferred over BMS for large coronary artery PCI.

One-Year clinical outcomes of drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents in large coronary arteries

Background: Drug-eluting stents (DESs) have been shown to reduce the risk of restenosis and other adverse cardiac events after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) as compared with bare-metal stents (BMSs). However, the superiority of DES over BMS has been questioned in large vessels. We evaluated the risks and benefits of the use of DES versus BMS in patients who undergo stenting of large coronary arteries (≥3.5 mm) up to 1-year follow-up. Materials and Methods: This was a prospective study carried out in all-comer patients enrolled between January 2015 and December 2015. The patients with the variable indication for PCI, multivessel involvement, prior revascularization, and adjuvant drugs such as GP IIb–IIIa inhibitors were included in the study. However, patients who did not provide written informed consent and received both DES and BMS were excluded from the study. The clinical outcomes were evaluated at 1 year. Results: A total of 266 lesions (240 patients) in the large coronary arteries were stented, of which 130 lesions were treated with BMS and 136 lesions were treated with DES. At 1-year follow-up, target lesion revascularization/target vessel revascularization (P = 0.6492) and all-cause death (P = 0.7098) did not differ significantly between the two groups. In addition, no significant difference was found in patients requiring medical management (P = 0.3937) as well as number of asymptomatic patients (P = 0.2027). Conclusions: At 1-year follow-up, BMSs and DESs showed similar clinical outcomes in large coronary arteries. Hence, the use of BMS in large coronary arteries (≥3.5 mm) should not be discouraged unless clinically indicated.

Clinical outcome of 2nd generation drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents in percutaneous intervention on vein grafts

Background: Superiority of drug-eluting stents (DES) over bare-metal stents (BMS) for treatment of saphenous vein graft (SVG) lesions is controversial. Methods: This is an observational study comparing the incidence of target vessel revascularization, allcause death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke and stent thrombosis in patients who underwent SVG percutaneous coronary intervention, using DES versus BMS. Results: Out of 174 cases of SVG percutaneous coronary intervention; 87 received BMS, 66 received DES and 21 received no stents. The majority (94%) of the DES were second generation. There was no difference in target vessel revascularization at 12 months. On multivariate analysis the only predictor of major adverse cardiovascular event was stent length >20 mm. Conclusion: There was no difference in the incidence of death, MI, stroke or stent thrombosis.

Thrombose coronaire très tardive par fracture du stent actif. Cas clinique et revue de la littérature

The superiority of drug-eluting stents in reducing the risk of in-stent restenosis compared to bare-metal stents is no longer challenged. Nevertheless, the drug-eluting stents may carry long-term risk of late and very late stent thrombosis. The promoting factors of this complication are usually divided into three chapters depending on the patient, the procedure and the stent. Indeed, the literature has reported several parameters related to the stent itself, such as its length, the malapposition, its diameter, but also more rarely the occurrence of stent fracture. We present the case of a patient admitted for myocardial infarction after a very late thrombosis of Cypher drug-eluting stent four years after its implantation and related to stent fracture.

Seven-Year Clinical Outcomes of Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Stenting With Drug-Eluting Stent and Bare-Metal Stent

The superiority of drug-eluting stents (DES) over bare-metal stents (BMS) 7 years after unprotected left main coronary artery (LMCA) stenting has not been investigated. From 2003 to 2005, 182 patients underwent stent implantation for unprotected LMCA disease (DES, 96 patients; BMS, 86 patients; acute coronary syndrome cases excluded), and the 7-year clinical outcomes between the DES and BMS groups were compared. The incidence of cardiac death or non-fatal myocardial infarction was similar between the DES and BMS groups (11.0% vs. 13.5%, P=0.78). The incidence of target lesion revascularization (TLR) at 7 years was significantly lower in the DES group than in the BMS group (26.4% vs. 40.5%, P=0.009); the incidence from 1 to 4 years and that beyond 4 years were similar between the DES and BMS groups (8.9% vs. 7.9%, P=0.97; 10.0% vs. 8.7%, P=0.74, respectively). Among patients with bifurcation lesions, whereas the incidence of 7-year TLR was significantly lower in the DES group than the BMS group in patients undergoing single-stent procedures (15.9% vs. 48.6%, P=0.002), it was similar between the 2 groups in patients undergoing 2-stent procedures (38.5% vs. 39.3%, P=0.49). With the exception of the 2-stent procedure, the 7-year outcomes after DES implantation for LMCA disease were superior to those after BMS implantation because of the lower TLR rate, when considering TLR during the late phase.

Long-Term Outcome of Drug-Eluting vs. Bare-Metal Stents in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction

The purpose of the present study was to compare the 5-year clinical outcomes after implantation of drug-eluting stent (DES) and bare-metal stent (BMS) in Japanese patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). This study was a subgroup analysis of the Nagoya Acute Myocardial Infarction Study (NAMIS). It included 658 AMI patients, of which 280 were treated with a DES and 378 with a BMS. The major adverse cardiac event (MACE)-free rates during the 5-year follow-up period were similar between the 2 groups (95.7% vs. 96.8%, P=0.482). A significant difference was seen, however, in the target lesion revascularization (TLR) rates (7.9% vs. 17.7%, P<0.0001). Interestingly, there was no significant difference between the 2 groups from year 1 to 5 with regard to late TLR (2.5% vs. 2.1%, P=0.906), despite the markedly lower incidence of TLR within the first year in the DES group compared with the BMS group (5.4% vs. 15.6%, P<0.0001). In this long-term follow-up analysis of DES compared to BMS in Japanese patients with AMI, there was no significant difference in the incidence of MACE. Although a lower rate of TLR was observed in DES group within the first year, the superiority of DES in relation to the incidence of TLR disappeared after the first year following primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

Abstract 2980: Long-term Outcome Of Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Stenting With Drug-eluting Stent: Comparison With Bare-metal Stent

Background: Long-term outcome of drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation for unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis has not been evaluated in detail. Methods: This study included 226 patients with de novo coronary lesions at the unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) who were electively treated with DES and eligible for 2-year follow-up. The outcomes of these patients were compared with those of 200 patients treated with bare-metal stent (BMS) in the preceding years using log-rank test. Cox proportional hazard regression analyses were performed to correct for independent predictors of adverse outcomes between the two groups. Results: The DES patients were older, had more history of hypertension and diabetes mellitus, had more involvement of right coronary artery and three vessel stenoses, and were treated with more stents and longer stented length than the BMS patients. On the other hand, debulking atherectomy were more frequently used in the BMS patients. Two-year outcomes with adjusted hazard ratios are presented in the table . Conclusions: For ULMCA stenosis, the superiority of DES in reducing target lesion revascularization (TLR) rate compared with BMS was continuously present up to 2 years. Furthermore, DES had a trend towards lower incidences of death, cardiac death, and stent thrombosis compared with BMS.

Four-year results after brachytherapy for diffuse coronary in-stent restenosis: will coronary radiation therapy survive?

Prior to the introduction of drug-eluting stents (DES), diffuse coronary in-stent restenosis (ISR) was mainly treated by brachytherapy (BT), with good short-term and mid-term results. However, there exist limited data on the long-term effects of BT that justify its continuous use. Two hundred patients with diffuse ISR treated with intravascular BT were retrospectively followed over 4 years. Group A (n=134) was treated with the noncentered (90)Sr/Y BetaCath radiation system, whereas Group B (n=66) was treated with the centered 32P Galileo source wire system. Primary endpoints after 4 years were target lesion restenosis (TLS) and target lesion revascularization (TLR). Secondary endpoints were target vessel revascularization (TVR) and nontarget vessel revascularization (NTVR), as well as major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Follow-up at 4 years yielded a TLS rate of 37.6% (Group A, 40.8%; Group B, 31.1%; P=.48). TLR was performed in 34.8% of patients (37.5% in Group A vs. 29.5% in Group B; P=.55). Ten percent of patients underwent coronary bypass surgery. Percutaneous coronary intervention was performed more often in Group A (27.5%) than in Group B (19.7%), while TVR was less frequent in Group A (10.0%) than in Group B (18.0%). NTVR was undertaken in 25.0% of Group A patients versus 21.3% of Group B patients, and MACE occurred in 1.7% of Group A patients versus 3.3% of Group B patients. These differences were not statistically significant (P>.05). While excellent short-term and mid-term results after coronary BT are widely accepted, a high TLS rate can be observed after 4 years. The potential superiority of DES to BT will depend on the availability of long-term clinical data.

From randomized trials to routine clinical practice: an evidence-based approach for the use of drug-eluting stents

The availability of drug-eluting stents has resulted in a paradigm shift in the management of patients with coronary artery disease with a substantial increase in the percentage of patients being revascularized percutaneously rather than surgically. Since its introduction, there has been a tremendous increase in the use of drug-eluting stents with nearly 90% of patients in the US who undergo percutaneous interventions receiving drug-eluting stents. The promising results of several randomized trials that demonstrated a profound reduction in restenosis rates compared with bare-metal stents, underscores the unprecedented enthusiasm among the cardiology community to adopt this new technology swiftly. Data regarding the safety and superiority of drug-eluting stents abound, and it is imperative for the practicing clinician to review and apply them in appropriate clinical settings. In this review, we present general concepts of drug-eluting stents, and attempt to summarize the available data on the approved drug-eluting stents in a variety of patient and lesion subsets. In addition, we share some insights regarding the potential limitations, and issues specific to drug-eluting stents.

Lack of efficacy and cost-effectiveness of drug-eluting stents

The findings of the meta-analysis about the comparative efficacy of drug-eluting stents (DESs) compared with bare-metal stents (BMSs) by Nordmann et al .1 both re-affirm and enhance those observed in previous research. Katritsis et al .2 have also demonstrated the lack of any efficacy superiority of DES over BMS, during the relatively short-term follow-up of between six and 12 months from intervention. Unsurprisingly for a health intervention with questionable clinical efficacy, the cost-effectiveness ratios of the current practice of nearly routine use …

Résultats immédiats et suivi clinique des patients traités par implantation de stents actifs en pratique courante

Multiple recent randomized studies have demonstrated the superiority of drug eluting stents (DES) compared to bare stents for reduction of restenosis rates after angioplasty. We sought to study if the results obtained in these studies with highly selected patients could be translated to patients treated in routine clinical practice. To this end, we retrospectively reviewed hospital charts of 134 consecutive patients treated in our center with 202 DES implantation between November 2002 and January 2004. Thirty nine % of patients had diabetes and 59% had multivessel disease. Coronary lesions were often complex (type B2: 24%, type C: 35%). Mean percent diameter stenosis was 68 ± 13% with a reference artery diameter of 2.62 ± 0.5 mm. One patient (0.75 %) died in-hosital from cardiogenic shock. At a mean follow-up of 12 ± 2.6 months, 7 patients (5.3%) died, including 2 extracardiac deaths. Recurrent chest pain occurred in 16 patients (12%), with only 3 (2.3%) in-stent restenosis. Major adverse cardiac event rate was 8.2%. This study confirms that in a non-selected population, the rate of subsequent revascularization after DES implantation is very low. It can be hoped that the indications of implantations will progressively spread with a lowered cost of these DES.