Henning Kelbæk

Outcomes associated with drug-eluting and bare-metal stents: a collaborative network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND Whether the two drug-eluting stents approved by the US Food and Drug Administration-a sirolimus-eluting stent and a paclitaxel-eluting stent-are associated with increased risks of death, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis compared with bare-metal stents is uncertain. Our aim was to compare the safety and effectiveness of these stents. METHODS We searched relevant sources from inception to March, 2007, and contacted investigators and manufacturers to identify randomised controlled trials in patients with coronary artery disease that compared drug-eluting with bare-metal stents, or that compared sirolimus-eluting stents head-to-head with paclitaxel-eluting stents. Safety outcomes included mortality, myocardial infarction, and definite stent thrombosis; the effectiveness outcome was target lesion revascularisation. We included 38 trials (18,023 patients) with a follow-up of up to 4 years. Trialists and manufacturers provided additional data on clinical outcomes for 29 trials. We did a network meta-analysis with a mixed-treatment comparison method to combine direct within-trial comparisons between stents with indirect evidence from other trials while maintaining randomisation. FINDINGS Mortality was similar in the three groups: hazard ratios (HR) were 1.00 (95% credibility interval 0.82-1.25) for sirolimus-eluting versus bare-metal stents, 1.03 (0.84-1.22) for paclitaxel-eluting versus bare-metal stents, and 0.96 (0.83-1.24) for sirolimus-eluting versus paclitaxel-eluting stents. Sirolimus-eluting stents were associated with the lowest risk of myocardial infarction (HR 0.81, 95% credibility interval 0.66-0.97, p=0.030 vs bare-metal stents; 0.83, 0.71-1.00, p=0.045 vs paclitaxel-eluting stents). There were no significant differences in the risk of definite stent thrombosis (0 days to 4 years). However, the risk of late definite stent thrombosis (>30 days) was increased with paclitaxel-eluting stents (HR 2.11, 95% credibility interval 1.19-4.23, p=0.017 vs bare-metal stents; 1.85, 1.02-3.85, p=0.041 vs sirolimus-eluting stents). The reduction in target lesion revascularisation seen with drug-eluting stents compared with bare-metal stents was more pronounced with sirolimus-eluting stents than with paclitaxel-eluting stents (0.70, 0.56-0.84; p=0.0021). INTERPRETATION The risks of mortality associated with drug-eluting and bare-metal stents are similar. Sirolimus-eluting stents seem to be clinically better than bare-metal and paclitaxel-eluting stents.

Comparison of zotarolimus-eluting and everolimus-eluting coronary stents.

BACKGROUND New-generation coronary stents that release zotarolimus or everolimus have been shown to reduce the risk of restenosis. However, it is unclear whether there are differences in efficacy and safety between the two types of stents on the basis of prospectively adjudicated end points endorsed by the Food and Drug Administration. METHODS In this multicenter, noninferiority trial with minimal exclusion criteria, we randomly assigned 2292 patients to undergo treatment with coronary stents releasing either zotarolimus or everolimus. Twenty percent of patients were randomly selected for repeat angiography at 13 months. The primary end point was target-lesion failure, defined as a composite of death from cardiac causes, any myocardial infarction (not clearly attributable to a nontarget vessel), or clinically indicated target-lesion revascularization within 12 months. The secondary angiographic end point was the extent of in-stent stenosis at 13 months. RESULTS At least one off-label criterion for stent placement was present in 66% of patients. The zotarolimus-eluting stent was noninferior to the everolimus-eluting stent with respect to the primary end point, which occurred in 8.2% and 8.3% of patients, respectively (P<0.001 for noninferiority). There were no significant between-group differences in the rate of death from cardiac causes, any myocardial infarction, or revascularization. The rate of stent thrombosis was 2.3% in the zotarolimus-stent group and 1.5% in the everolimus-stent group (P=0.17). The zotarolimus-eluting stent was also noninferior regarding the degree (+/-SD) of in-stent stenosis (21.65+/-14.42% for zotarolimus vs. 19.76+/-14.64% for everolimus, P=0.04 for noninferiority). In-stent late lumen loss was 0.27+/-0.43 mm in the zotarolimus-stent group versus 0.19+/-0.40 mm in the everolimus-stent group (P=0.08). There were no significant between-group differences in the rate of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS At 13 months, the new-generation zotarolimus-eluting stent was found to be noninferior to the everolimus-eluting stent in a population of patients who had minimal exclusion criteria. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00617084.)

Exenatide reduces reperfusion injury in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.

AIMS Exenatide, a glucagon-like-peptide-1 analogue, increases myocardial salvage in experimental settings with coronary occlusion and subsequent reperfusion. We evaluated the cardioprotective effect of exenatide at the time of reperfusion in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI). METHODS AND RESULTS A total of 172 patients with STEMI and Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction flow 0/1 were randomly assigned to exenatide or placebo (saline) intravenously. Study treatment was commenced 15 min before intervention and maintained for 6 h after the procedure. The primary endpoint was salvage index calculated from myocardial area at risk (AAR), measured in the acute phase, and final infarct size measured 90 ± 21 days after pPCI by cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR). In 105 patients evaluated with CMR, a significantly larger salvage index was found in the exenatide group than in the placebo group (0.71 ± 0.13 vs. 0.62 ± 0.16; P= 0.003). Infarct size in relation to AAR was also smaller in the exenatide group (0.30 ± 0.15 vs. 0.39 ± 0.15; P= 0.003). In a regression analysis, there was a significant correlation between the infarct size and the AAR for both treatment groups and an analysis of covariance showed that datapoints in the exenatide group lay significantly lower than for the placebo group (P= 0.011). There was a trend towards smaller absolute infarct size in the exenatide group (13 ± 9 vs. 17 ± 14 g; P= 0.11). No difference was observed in left ventricular function or 30-day clinical events. No adverse effects of exenatide were observed. CONCLUSION In patients with STEMI undergoing pPCI, administration of exenatide at the time of reperfusion increases myocardial salvage.

Drug eluting and bare metal stents in people with and without diabetes: collaborative network meta-analysis

Objective To compare the effectiveness and safety of three types of stents (sirolimus eluting, paclitaxel eluting, and bare metal) in people with and without diabetes mellitus. Design Collaborative network meta-analysis. Data sources Electronic databases (Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), relevant websites, reference lists, conference abstracts, reviews, book chapters, and proceedings of advisory panels for the US Food and Drug Administration. Manufacturers and trialists provided additional data. Review methods Network meta-analysis with a mixed treatment comparison method to combine direct within trial comparisons between stents with indirect evidence from other trials while maintaining randomisation. Overall mortality was the primary safety end point, target lesion revascularisation the effectiveness end point. Results 35 trials in 3852 people with diabetes and 10 947 people without diabetes contributed to the analyses. Inconsistency of the network was substantial for overall mortality in people with diabetes and seemed to be related to the duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (P value for interaction 0.02). Restricting the analysis to trials with a duration of dual antiplatelet therapy of six months or more, inconsistency was reduced considerably and hazard ratios for overall mortality were near one for all comparisons in people with diabetes: sirolimus eluting stents compared with bare metal stents 0.88 (95% credibility interval 0.55 to 1.30), paclitaxel eluting stents compared with bare metal stents 0.91 (0.60 to 1.38), and sirolimus eluting stents compared with paclitaxel eluting stents 0.95 (0.63 to 1.43). In people without diabetes, hazard ratios were unaffected by the restriction. Both drug eluting stents were associated with a decrease in revascularisation rates compared with bare metal stents in people both with and without diabetes. Conclusion In trials that specified a duration of dual antiplatelet therapy of six months or more after stent implantation, drug eluting stents seemed safe and effective in people both with and without diabetes.

Stable angina pectoris with no obstructive coronary artery disease is associated with increased risks of major adverse cardiovascular events

AIMS Patients with chest pain and no obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) are considered at low risk for cardiovascular events but evidence supporting this is scarce. We investigated the prognostic implications of stable angina pectoris in relation to the presence and degree of CAD with no obstructive CAD in focus. METHODS AND RESULTS We identified 11 223 patients referred for coronary angiography (CAG) in 1998-2009 with stable angina pectoris as indication and 5705 participants from the Copenhagen City Heart Study for comparison. Main outcome measures were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke or heart failure, and all-cause mortality. Significantly more women (65%) than men (32%) had no obstructive CAD (P< 0.001). In Coxs models adjusted for age, body mass index, diabetes, smoking, and use of lipid-lowering or antihypertensive medication, hazard ratios (HRs) associated with no obstructive CAD were similar in men and women. In the pooled analysis, the risk of MACE increased with increasing degrees of CAD with multivariable-adjusted HRs of 1.52 (95% confidence interval, 1.27-1.83) for patients with normal coronary arteries and 1.85 (1.51-2.28) for patients with diffuse non-obstructive CAD compared with the reference population. For all-cause mortality, normal coronary arteries and diffuse non-obstructive CAD were associated with HRs of 1.29 (1.07-1.56) and 1.52 (1.24-1.88), respectively. CONCLUSION Patients with stable angina and normal coronary arteries or diffuse non-obstructive CAD have elevated risks of MACE and all-cause mortality compared with a reference population without ischaemic heart disease.

Complete revascularisation versus treatment of the culprit lesion only in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease (DANAMI-3—PRIMULTI): an open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND Patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary disease have a worse prognosis compared with individuals with single-vessel disease. We aimed to study the clinical outcome of patients with STEMI treated with fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided complete revascularisation versus treatment of the infarct-related artery only. METHODS We undertook an open-label, randomised controlled trial at two university hospitals in Denmark. Patients presenting with STEMI who had one or more clinically significant coronary stenosis in addition to the lesion in the infarct-related artery were included. After successful percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the infarct-related artery, patients were randomly allocated (in a 1:1 ratio) either no further invasive treatment or complete FFR-guided revascularisation before discharge. Randomisation was done electronically via a web-based system in permuted blocks of varying size by the clinician who did the primary PCI. All patients received best medical treatment. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, non-fatal reinfarction, and ischaemia-driven revascularization of lesions in non-infarct-related arteries and was assessed when the last enrolled patient had been followed up for 1 year. Analysis was on an intention-to-treat basis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01960933. FINDINGS From March, 2011, to February, 2014, we enrolled 627 patients to the trial; 313 were allocated no further invasive treatment after primary PCI of the infarct-related artery only and 314 were assigned complete revascularization guided by FFR values. Median follow-up was 27 months (range 12–44 months). Events comprising the primary endpoint were recorded in 68 (22%) patients who had PCI of the infarct-related artery only and in 40 (13%) patients who had complete revascularisation (hazard ratio 0∙56, 95% CI 0∙38–0∙83; p=0∙004). INTERPRETATION In patients with STEMI and multivessel disease, complete revascularisation guided by FFR measurements significantly reduces the risk of future events compared with no further invasive intervention after primary PCI. This effect is driven by significantly fewer repeat revascularisations, because all-cause mortality and non-fatal reinfarction did not differ between groups. Thus, to avoid repeat revascularisation, patients can safely have all their lesions treated during the index admission. Future studies should clarify whether complete revascularization should be done acutely during the index procedure or at later time and whether it has an effect on hard endpoints. FUNDING Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation and Danish Council for Strategic Research.

Effect of biolimus-eluting stents with biodegradable polymer vs bare-metal stents on cardiovascular events among patients with acute myocardial infarction: the COMFORTABLE AMI randomized trial

CONTEXT The efficacy and safety of drug-eluting stents compared with bare-metal stents remains controversial in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). OBJECTIVE To compare stents eluting biolimus from a biodegradable polymer with bare-metal stents in primary PCI. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS A prospective, randomized, single-blinded, controlled trial of 1161 patients presenting with STEMI at 11 sites in Europe and Israel between September 19, 2009, and January 25, 2011. Clinical follow-up was performed at 1 and 12 months. INTERVENTION Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive the biolimus-eluting stent (n = 575) or the bare-metal stent (n = 582). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Primary end point was the rate of major adverse cardiac events, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related reinfarction, and ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization at 1 year. RESULTS Major adverse cardiac events at 1 year occurred in 24 patients (4.3%) receiving biolimus-eluting stents with biodegradable polymer and 49 patients (8.7%) receiving bare-metal stents (hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; 95% CI, 0.30-0.80; P = .004). The difference was driven by a lower risk of target vessel-related reinfarction (3 [0.5%] vs 15 [2.7%]; HR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.06-0.69; P = .01) and ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization (9 [1.6%] vs 32 [5.7%]; HR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.13-0.59; P < .001) in patients receiving biolimus-eluting stents compared with those receiving bare-metal stents. Rates of cardiac death were not significantly different (16 [2.9%] vs 20 [3.5%], P = .53). Definite stent thrombosis occurred in 5 patients (0.9%) treated with biolimus-eluting stents and 12 patients (2.1%; HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.15-1.19; P = .10) treated with bare-metal stents. CONCLUSION Compared with a bare-metal stent, the use of biolimus-eluting stents with a biodegradable polymer resulted in a lower rate of the composite of major adverse cardiac events at 1 year among patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00962416.

Efficacy and safety of zotarolimus-eluting and sirolimus-eluting coronary stents in routine clinical care (SORT OUT III): a randomised controlled superiority trial.

BACKGROUND In low-risk patients, the zotarolimus-eluting stent has been shown to reduce rates of restenosis without increasing the risk of stent thrombosis. We compared the efficacy and safety of the zotarolimus-eluting stent versus the sirolimus-eluting stent in patients with coronary artery disease who were receiving routine clinical care with no direct follow-up. METHODS We did a single-blind, all-comer superiority trial in adult patients with chronic stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes, and at least one target lesion. Patients were treated at one of five percutaneous coronary intervention centres between January, 2006, and August, 2007. Computer-generated block randomisation and a telephone allocation service were used to randomly assign patients to receive the zotarolimus-eluting or the sirolimus-eluting stent. Data for follow-up were obtained from national Danish administrative and health-care registries. The primary endpoint was a composite of major adverse cardiac events within 9 months: cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularisation. Intention-to-treat analyses were done at 9-month and 18-month follow-up. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00660478. FINDINGS 1162 patients (1619 lesions) were assigned to receive the zotarolimus-eluting stent, and 1170 patients (1611 lesions) to receive the sirolimus-eluting stent. 67 patients (72 lesions) had stent failure, and six patients were lost to follow-up. All randomly assigned patients were included in analyses at 9-month follow-up; 2200 patients (94%) had completed 18-month follow-up by the time of our assessment. At 9 months, the primary endpoint had occurred in a higher proportion of patients treated with the zotarolimus-eluting stent than in those treated with the sirolimus-eluting stent (72 [6%] vs 34 [3%]; HR 2.15, 95% CI 1.43-3.23; p=0.0002). At 18-month follow-up, this difference was sustained (113 [10%] vs 53 [5%]; 2.19, 1.58-3.04; p<0.0001). For patients receiving the zotarolimus-eluting stent and those receiving the sirolimus-eluting stent, all cause-mortality was similar at 9-month follow-up (25 [2%] vs 18 [2%]; 1.40, 0.76-2.56; p=0.28), but was significantly different at 18-month follow-up (51 [4%] vs 32 [3%]; 1.61, 1.03-2.50; p=0.035). INTERPRETATION The sirolimus-eluting stent is superior to the zotarolimus-eluting stent for patients receiving routine clinical care. FUNDING Cordis and Medtronic.

Effect of omeprazole and cimetidine on duodenal ulcer. A double-blind comparative trial.

We conducted a double-blind randomized study of 132 patients to determine whether the new, investigational proton-pump inhibitor, omeprazole (30 mg per day), would accelerate healing and pain relief, as compared with cimetidine (1 g per day), in patients with duodenal ulcer. After two weeks of treatment, which was completed by all patients, the healing rates were 73 per cent in the omeprazole group and 46 per cent in the cimetidine group (P less than 0.01). After four weeks of treatment, which was completed by 118 patients, the corresponding figures were 92 and 74 per cent (P less than 0.05). In the omeprazole group 55 per cent of the patients were free of pain after the first week, as compared with 40 per cent of those treated with cimetidine (P greater than 0.05). No major clinical or biochemical side effects of omeprazole or cimetidine were noted. A six-month follow-up study revealed no significant difference between the recurrence rates after omeprazole and after cimetidine treatment. In May 1984 clinical trials with omeprazole were temporarily suspended, since a study of long-term toxicity in rats had shown the development of gastric carcinoid tumors.

Comparison of Paclitaxel- and Sirolimus-Eluting Stents in Everyday Clinical Practice: The SORT OUT II Randomized Trial

CONTEXT Approval of drug-eluting coronary stents was based on results of relatively small trials of selected patients; however, in routine practice, stents are used in a broader spectrum of patients. OBJECTIVE To compare the first 2 commercially available drug-eluting stents-sirolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting-for prevention of symptom-driven clinical end points, using a study design reflecting everyday clinical practice. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS Randomized, blinded trial conducted August 2004 to January 2006 at 5 university hospitals in Denmark. Patients were 2098 men and women (mean [SD] age, 63.6 [10.8] years) treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and randomized to receive either sirolimus-eluting (n = 1065) or paclitaxel-eluting (n = 1033) stents. Indications for PCI included ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), non-STEMI or unstable angina pectoris, and stable angina. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary end point was a composite clinical end point of major adverse cardiac events, defined as either cardiac death, acute myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization, or target vessel revascularization. Secondary end points included individual components of the composite end point, all-cause mortality, and stent thrombosis. RESULTS The sirolimus- and the paclitaxel-eluting stent groups did not differ significantly in major adverse cardiac events (98 [9.3%] vs 114 [11.2%]; hazard ratio, 0.83 [95% confidence interval, 0.63-1.08]; P = .16) or in any of the secondary end points. The stent thrombosis rates were 27 (2.5%) and 30 (2.9%) (hazard ratio, 0.87 [95% confidence interval, 0.52-1.46]; P = .60), respectively. CONCLUSION In this practical randomized trial, there were no significant differences in clinical outcomes between patients receiving sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00388934.