Manel Sabaté

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.

Stent thrombosis with drug-eluting and bare-metal stents: evidence from a comprehensive network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND The relative safety of drug-eluting stents and bare-metal stents, especially with respect to stent thrombosis, continues to be debated. In view of the overall low frequency of stent thrombosis, large sample sizes are needed to accurately estimate treatment differences between stents. We compared the risk of thrombosis between bare-metal and drug-eluting stents. METHODS For this network meta-analysis, randomised controlled trials comparing different drug-eluting stents or drug-eluting with bare-metal stents currently approved in the USA were identified through Medline, Embase, Cochrane databases, and proceedings of international meetings. Information about study design, inclusion and exclusion criteria, sample characteristics, and clinical outcomes was extracted. FINDINGS 49 trials including 50,844 patients randomly assigned to treatment groups were analysed. 1-year definite stent thrombosis was significantly lower with cobalt-chromium everolimus eluting stents (CoCr-EES) than with bare-metal stents (odds ratio [OR] 0·23, 95% CI 0·13-0·41). The significant difference in stent thrombosis between CoCr-EES and bare-metal stents was evident as early as 30 days (OR 0·21, 95% CI 0·11-0·42) and was also significant between 31 days and 1 year (OR 0·27, 95% CI 0·08-0·74). CoCr-EES were also associated with significantly lower rates of 1-year definite stent thrombosis compared with paclitaxel-eluting stents (OR 0·28, 95% CI 0·16-0·48), permanent polymer-based sirolimus-eluting stents (OR 0·41, 95% CI 0·24-0·70), phosphorylcholine-based zotarolimus-eluting stents (OR 0·21, 95% CI 0·10-0·44), and Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stents (OR 0·14, 95% CI 0·03-0·47). At 2-year follow-up, CoCr-EES were still associated with significantly lower rates of definite stent thrombosis than were bare-metal (OR 0·35, 95% CI 0·17-0·69) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (OR 0·34, 95% CI 0·19-0·62). No other drug-eluting stent had lower definite thrombosis rates compared with bare-metal stents at 2-year follow-up. INTERPRETATION In randomised studies completed to date, CoCr-EES has the lowest rate of stent thrombosis within 2 years of implantation. The finding that CoCr-EES also reduced stent thrombosis compared with bare-metal stents, if confirmed in future randomised trials, represents a paradigm shift. FUNDING The Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

Late Coronary Occlusion After Intracoronary Brachytherapy

BACKGROUND Intracoronary brachytherapy appears to be a promising technology to prevent restenosis. Presently, limited data are available regarding the late safety of this therapeutic modality. The aim of the study was to determine the incidence of late (>1 month) thrombosis after PTCA and radiotherapy. METHODS AND RESULTS From April 1997 to March 1999, we successfully treated 108 patients with PTCA followed by intracoronary beta-radiation. Ninety-one patients have completed at least 2 months of clinical follow-up. Of these patients, 6.6% (6 patients) presented with sudden thrombotic events confirmed by angiography 2 to 15 months after intervention (2 balloon angioplasty and 4 stent). Some factors (overlapping stents, unhealed dissection) may have triggered the thrombosis process, but the timing of the event is extremely unusual. Therefore, the effect of radiation on delaying the healing process and maintaining a thrombogenic coronary surface is proposed as the most plausible mechanism to explain such late events. CONCLUSIONS Late and sudden thrombosis after PTCA followed by intracoronary radiotherapy is a new phenomenon in interventional cardiology.

Randomized Comparison of Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Standard Stent for Percutaneous Coronary Revascularization in Diabetic Patients The Diabetes and Sirolimus-Eluting Stent (DIABETES) Trial

Background— Outcomes after percutaneous coronary interventions in diabetic patients are shadowed by the increased rate of recurrence compared with nondiabetic patients. Methods and Results— We conducted a multicenter, randomized trial to demonstrate the efficacy of sirolimus-eluting stents compared with standard stents to prevent restenosis in diabetic patients with de novo lesions in native coronary arteries. The primary end point of the trial was in-segment late lumen loss as assessed by quantitative coronary angiography at 9-month follow-up. The trial was stratified by diabetes treatment status. One hundred sixty patients were randomized to sirolimus-eluting stents (80 patients; 111 lesions) or standard stent implantation (80 patients; 110 lesions). On average, reference diameter was 2.34±0.6 mm, lesion length was 15.0±8 mm, and 13.1% of lesions were chronic total occlusions. In-segment late lumen loss was reduced from 0.47±0.5 mm for standard stents to 0.06±0.4 mm for sirolimus stents (P<0.001). Target-lesion revascularization and major adverse cardiac event rates were significantly lower in the sirolimus group (31.3% versus 7.3% and 36.3% versus 11.3%, respectively; both P<0.001). Non–insulin- and insulin-requiring patients demonstrated similar reductions in angiographic and clinical parameters of restenosis after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation. During the 9-month follow-up, stent thrombosis occurred in 2 patients after standard stent implantation. Conversely, this phenomenon was not seen in the sirolimus stent group. Conclusions— This randomized trial demonstrated that sirolimus stent implantation is safe and efficacious in reducing both angiographic and clinical parameters of restenosis compared with standard stents in diabetic patients with de novo coronary stenoses.

Everolimus-eluting stent versus bare-metal stent in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (EXAMINATION): 1 year results of a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND Everolimus-eluting stent (EES) reduces the risk of restenosis in elective percutaneous coronary intervention. However, the use of drug-eluting stent in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is still controversial. Data regarding the performance of second-generation EES in this setting are scarce. We report the 1-year result of the EXAMINATION (clinical Evaluation of the Xience-V stent in Acute Myocardial INfArcTION) trial, comparing EES with bare-metal stents (BMS) in patients with STEMI. METHODS This multicentre, prospective, randomised, all-comer controlled trial was done in 12 medical centres in three countries. Between Dec 31, 2008, and May 15, 2010, we recruited patients with STEMI up to 48 h after the onset of symptoms requiring emergent percutaneous coronary intervention. Patients were randomly assigned (ratio 1:1) to receive EES or BMS. Randomisation was in blocks of four or six patients, stratified by centre and centralised by telephone. Patients were masked to treatment. The primary endpoint was the patient-oriented combined endpoint of all-cause death, any recurrent myocardial infarction, and any revascularisation at 1 year and was analysed by intention to treat. The secondary endpoints of the study included the device-oriented combined endpoint of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction or target lesion revascularisation, and rates of all cause or cardiac death, recurrent myocardial infarction, target lesion or target vessel revascularisation, stent thrombosis, device and procedure success, and major and minor bleeding. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00828087. FINDINGS Of the 1504 patients randomised, 1498 patients were randomly assigned to receive EES (n=751) or BMS (n=747). The primary endpoint was similar in both groups (89 [11·9%] of 751 patients in the EES group vs 106 [14·2%] of 747 patients in the BMS group; difference -2·34 [95% CI -5·75 to 1·07]; p=0·19). Device-oriented endpoint (44 [5·9%] in the EES group vs 63 [8·4%] in the BMS group; difference -2·57 [95% CI -5·18 to 0·03]; p=0·05) did not differ between groups, although rates of target lesion and vessel revascularisation were significantly lower in the EES group (16 [2·1%] vs 37 [5·0%], p=0·003, and 28 [3·7%] vs 51 [6·8%], p=0·0077, respectively). Rates of all cause (26 [3·5%] for EES vs 26 [3·5%] for BMS, p=1·00) or cardiac death (24 [3·2%] for EES vs 21 [2·8%] for BMS, p=0·76) or myocardial infarction (10 [1·3%] vs 15 [2·0%], p=0·32) did not differ between groups. Stent thrombosis rates were significantly lower in the EES group (4 [0·5%] patients with definite stent thrombosis in the EES group vs 14 [1·9%] in the BMS group and seven [0·9%] patients with definite or probable stent thrombosis in the EES group vs 19 [2·5%] in the BMS group, both p=0·019). Although device success rate was similar between groups, procedure success rate was significantly higher in the EES group (731 [97·5%] vs 705 [94·6%]; p=0·0050). Finally, Bleeding rates at 1 year were comparable between groups (29 [3·9%] patients in the EES group vs 39 [5·2%] in the BMS group; p=0·19). INTERPRETATION The use of EES compared with BMS in the setting of STEMI did not lower the patient-oriented endpoint. However, at the stent level both rates of target lesion revascularisation and stent thrombosis were reduced in recipients of EES. FUNDING Spanish Heart Foundation.

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.

Consensus document on the radial approach in percutaneous cardiovascular interventions: position paper by the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions and Working Groups on Acute Cardiac Care** and Thrombosis of the European Society of Cardiology

Radial access use has been growing steadily but, despite encouraging results, still varies greatly among operators, hospitals, countries and continents. Twenty years from its introduction, it was felt that the time had come to develop a common evidence-based view on the technical, clinical and organisational implications of using the radial approach for coronary angiography and interventions. The European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) has, therefore, appointed a core group of European and non-European experts, including pioneers of radial angioplasty and operators with different practices in vascular access supported by experts nominated by the Working Groups on Acute Cardiac Care and Thrombosis of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Their goal was to define the role of the radial approach in modern interventional practice and give advice on technique, training needs, and optimal clinical indications.

Comparison of an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold with an everolimus-eluting metallic stent for the treatment of coronary artery stenosis (ABSORB II): a 3 year, randomised, controlled, single-blind, multicentre clinical trial

BACKGROUND No medium-term data are available on the random comparison between everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds and everolimus-eluting metallic stents. The study aims to demonstrate two mechanistic properties of the bioresorbable scaffold: increase in luminal dimensions as a result of recovered vasomotion of the scaffolded vessel. METHODS The ABSORB II trial is a prospective, randomised, active-controlled, single-blind, parallel two-group, multicentre clinical trial. We enrolled eligible patients aged 18-85 years with evidence of myocardial ischaemia and one or two de-novo native lesions in different epicardial vessels. We randomly assigned patients (2:1) to receive treatment with an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold (Absorb; Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA, USA) or treatment with an everolimus-eluting metallic stent (Xience; Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA, USA). Randomisation was stratified by diabetes status and number of planned target lesions. At 3 year follow-up, the primary endpoint was superiority of the Absorb bioresorbable scaffold versus the Xience metallic stent in angiographic vasomotor reactivity after administration of intracoronary nitrate. The co-primary endpoint is the non-inferiority of angiographic late luminal loss. For the endpoint of vasomotion, the comparison was tested using a two-sided t test. For the endpoint of late luminal loss, non-inferiority was tested using a one-sided asymptotic test, against a non-inferiority margin of 0·14 mm. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01425281. FINDINGS Between Nov 28, 2011, and June 4, 2013, we enrolled 501 patients and randomly assigned them to the Absorb group (335 patients, 364 lesions) or the Xience group (166 patients, 182 lesions). The vasomotor reactivity at 3 years was not statistically different (Absorb group 0·047 mm [SD 0·109] vs Xience group 0·056 mm [0·117]; psuperiority=0·49), whereas the late luminal loss was larger in the Absorb group than in the Xience group (0·37 mm [0·45] vs 0·25 mm [0·25]; pnon-inferiority=0·78). This difference in luminal dimension was confirmed by intravascular ultrasound assessment of the minimum lumen area (4·32 mm2 [SD 1·48] vs 5·38 mm2 [1·51]; p<0·0001). The secondary endpoints of patient-oriented composite endpoint, Seattle Angina Questionnaire score, and exercise testing were not statistically different in both groups. However, a device-oriented composite endpoint was significantly different between the Absorb group and the Xience group (10% vs 5%, hazard ratio 2·17 [95% CI 1·01-4·70]; log-rank test p=0·0425), mainly driven by target vessel myocardial infarction (6% vs 1%; p=0·0108), including peri-procedural myocardial infarction (4% vs 1%; p=0·16). INTERPRETATION The trial did not meet its co-primary endpoints of superior vasomotor reactivity and non-inferior late luminal loss for the Absorb bioresorbable scaffold with respect to the metallic stent, which was found to have significantly lower late luminal loss than the Absorb scaffold. A higher rate of device-oriented composite endpoint due to target vessel myocardial infarction, including peri-procedural myocardial infarction, was observed in the Absorb group. The patient-oriented composite endpoint, anginal status, and exercise testing, were not statistically different between both devices at 3 years. Future studies should investigate the clinical impact of accurate intravascular imaging in sizing the device and in optimising the scaffold implantation. The benefit and need for prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy after bioresorbable scaffold implantation could also become a topic for future clinical research. FUNDING Abbott Vascular.

Bivalirudin or Unfractionated Heparin in Acute Coronary Syndromes

BACKGROUND Conflicting evidence exists on the efficacy and safety of bivalirudin administered as part of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with an acute coronary syndrome. METHODS We randomly assigned 7213 patients with an acute coronary syndrome for whom PCI was anticipated to receive either bivalirudin or unfractionated heparin. Patients in the bivalirudin group were subsequently randomly assigned to receive or not to receive a post-PCI bivalirudin infusion. Primary outcomes for the comparison between bivalirudin and heparin were the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) and net adverse clinical events (a composite of major bleeding or a major adverse cardiovascular event). The primary outcome for the comparison of a post-PCI bivalirudin infusion with no post-PCI infusion was a composite of urgent target-vessel revascularization, definite stent thrombosis, or net adverse clinical events. RESULTS The rate of major adverse cardiovascular events was not significantly lower with bivalirudin than with heparin (10.3% and 10.9%, respectively; relative risk, 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81 to 1.09; P=0.44), nor was the rate of net adverse clinical events (11.2% and 12.4%, respectively; relative risk, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.03; P=0.12). Post-PCI bivalirudin infusion, as compared with no infusion, did not significantly decrease the rate of urgent target-vessel revascularization, definite stent thrombosis, or net adverse clinical events (11.0% and 11.9%, respectively; relative risk, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.11; P=0.34). CONCLUSIONS In patients with an acute coronary syndrome, the rates of major adverse cardiovascular events and net adverse clinical events were not significantly lower with bivalirudin than with unfractionated heparin. The rate of the composite of urgent target-vessel revascularization, definite stent thrombosis, or net adverse clinical events was not significantly lower with a post-PCI bivalirudin infusion than with no post-PCI infusion. (Funded by the Medicines Company and Terumo Medical; MATRIX ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01433627.).

Impact of Chronic Kidney Disease on Platelet Function Profiles in Diabetes Mellitus Patients With Coronary Artery Disease Taking Dual Antiplatelet Therapy

OBJECTIVES We sought to assess the impact of renal function on platelet reactivity in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) and coronary artery disease on aspirin and clopidogrel therapy. BACKGROUND Diabetes mellitus is a key risk factor for chronic kidney disease (CKD). In aspirin-treated DM patients the presence of moderate/severe CKD is associated with reduced clinical efficacy of adjunctive clopidogrel therapy. Whether these findings may be attributed to differences in clopidogrel-induced effects is unknown. METHODS This was a cross-sectional observational study in which DM patients taking maintenance aspirin and clopidogrel therapy were studied. Patients were categorized into 2 groups according to the presence or absence of moderate/severe CKD. Platelet aggregation after adenosine diphosphate (ADP) and collagen stimuli were assessed with light transmittance aggregometry and defined patients with high post-treatment platelet reactivity (HPPR). Markers of platelet activation, including glycoprotein IIb/IIIa activation and P-selectin expression, were also determined using flow cytometry. RESULTS A total of 306 DM patients were analyzed. Patients with moderate/severe CKD (n = 84) had significantly higher ADP-induced (60 +/- 13% vs. 52 +/- 15%, p = 0.001) and collagen-induced (49 +/- 20% vs. 41 +/- 20%, p = 0.004) platelet aggregation compared with those without (n = 222). After adjustment for potential confounders, patients with moderate/severe CKD were more likely to have HPPR after ADP (adjusted odds ratio: 3.8, 95% confidence interval: 1.7 to 8.5, p = 0.001) and collagen (adjusted odds ratio: 2.4; 95% confidence interval: 1.1 to 5.4; p = 0.029) stimuli. Markers of platelet activation were significantly increased in patients with HPPR. CONCLUSIONS In DM patients with coronary artery disease taking maintenance aspirin and clopidogrel therapy, impaired renal function is associated with reduced clopidogrel-induced antiplatelet effects and a greater prevalence of HPPR.