BACKGROUND: Drug eluting stent (DES) implantation is the treatment of choice for coronary artery disease (CAD) leaving only marginal indications for the use of bare metal stents (BMS). However, selected treatment populations with DES contraindications such as patients who cannot sustain 6-12 months of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) remain candidates for BMS implantations.
METHODS: Thin strut bare metal stenting in a priori defined subgroups were investigated in a non-randomized, international, multicenter «all comers» observational study. Primary endpoint was the 9-month TLR rate whereas secondary endpoints included the 9-month MACE and procedural success rates.
RESULTS: A total of 783 patients of whom 98 patients had AF underwent BMS implantation. Patient age was 70.4 ± 12.8 years. Cardiovascular risk factors in the overall population were male gender (78.2%, 612/783), diabetes (25.2%, 197/783), hypertension (64.1%, 502/783), cardiogenic shock (4.9%, 38/783) and end stage renal disease (4.9%, 38/783). In-hospital MACE was 4.1% (30/783) in the overall population. The 9-month TLR rate was 4.5% (29/645) in the non-AF group and 3.3% (3/90) in the AF group (P = 0.613). At 9 months, the MACE rate in the AF-group and non-AF group was not significantly different either (10.7%, 69/645 vs. 6.7%, 6/90; P = 0.237). Accumulated stroke rates were 0.3% (2/645) in the non-AF subgroup at baseline and 1.1% (1/90) in the AF subgroup (P = 0.264).
CONCLUSION: Bare metal stenting in AF patients delivered acceptably low TLR and MACE rates while having the benefit of a significantly shorter DAPT duration in a DES dominated clinical practice. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
BACKGROUND: Drug-eluting stents have limited restenosis and reintervention but are complicated by late and very late thrombosis and accelerated neoatherosclerosis. Alternative or adjunctive technologies are needed to address these limitations.
METHODS: A total of 183 patients with de novo lesions in native coronary arteries were randomized 2:1 to Combo (n = 124) or Taxus Liberté (n = 59). Primary endpoint was 9 month angiographic in-stent late lumen loss and the secondary endpoint was the occurrence of major adverse events (MACE) through 5-year follow-up.
RESULTS: Compared with Taxus, after 5 years the Combo stent was associated with similar rates of MACE (18.3% vs. 16.9%, p = .89), cardiac death (0.8% vs. 5.1%, p = .07), myocardial infarction (4.1% vs. 3.4%, p = .81), target lesion (9.4% vs. 10.2%, p = .78), and target vessel revascularization (14.4% vs. 11.9%, p = .73). No cases of definite stent thrombosis were reported in the Combo group. The follow-up rate at 5 years was 97.7%.
CONCLUSION: At 5-year follow-up, the Combo stent remained clinically safe and effective with an overall low rate of MACE comparable to Taxus.
BACKGROUND: SES may provide a valuable option to treat distal ULM, particularly when significant caliber gaps with side branches are observed.
METHODS: Patients from the multicenter SPARTA (clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02784405) and FAILS2 registries were included. Propensity-score with matching was performed to account for the lack of randomization. Primary end-point was the rate of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE, a composite of all cause death, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization [TLR], unstable angina and definite stent thrombosis [ST]). Single components of MACE were the secondary end-points.
RESULTS: Overall, 151 patients treated with SES and 1270 with DES-II were included; no differences in MACE rate at 250 days were observed (9.8% vs. 11.5%, P = 0.54). After propensity score with matching, 129 patients treated with SES and 258 with DES-II, of which about a third of female gender, were compared. After a follow-up of 250 days, MACE rate did not differ between the two groups (9.9% vs. 8.5%, P = 0.66), as well as the rate of ULM TLR (1.6% vs. 3.1%, P = 0.36) and definite ST (0.8% vs. 1.2%, P = 0.78). These results were consistent also when controlling for the treatment with provisional vs. 2-stents strategies for the ULM bifurcation.
CONCLUSION: SES use for ULM treatment was associated with a similar MACE rate compared to DES-II at an intermediate-term follow-up. SES might represent a potential option in this setting.
METHODS: Patient-level data from two all-comers observational studies (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT02629575 and NCT02905214) were pooled and analyzed in terms of their primary endpoint. During the data verification process, we observed substantial deviations from DAPT guideline recommendations. To illuminate this gap between clinical practice and guideline recommendations, we conducted a post hoc analysis of DAPT regimens and clinical event rates for which we defined the net adverse event rate (NACE) consisting of target lesion revascularization (TLR, primary endpoint of all-comers observational studies) all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), stent thrombosis (ST), and bleeding events. A logistic regression was utilized to determine predictors why ticagrelor was used in stable coronary artery disease (CAD) patients instead of the guideline-recommended clopidogrel.
RESULTS: For stable CAD, the composite endpoint of clinical, bleeding, and stent thrombosis, i.e., NACE, between the clopidogrel and ticagrelor treatment groups was not different (5.4% vs. 5.1%, p = 0.745). Likewise, in the acute coronary syndrome (ACS) cohort, the NACE rates were not different between both DAPT strategies (9.2% vs. 9.3%, p = 0.927). There were also no differences in the accumulated rates for TLR, myocardial infarction ([MI], mortality, bleeding events, and stent thrombosis in elective and ACS patients. The main predictors for ticagrelor use in stable CAD patients were age
BACKGROUND: Recently published randomized trials comparing BMS to DES with a focus on shortened dual-antiplatelet therapy reported incidences of stent thrombosis (ST) and bleeding complications (LEADERS FREE) in favor of drug eluting stents (DES).
METHODS: Data of previously published large-sale, international, single-armed, multicenter, observational studies of ultra-thin PF-SES, and BMS were propensity score (PS) matched for selected lesion morphological and cardiovascular risk factors to compare target lesion revascularization (TLR), myocardial infarction, cardiac death, major adverse cardiac events (MACE), bleeding complications and ST rates. Primary endpoint in both studies was TLR at 9 months.
RESULTS: At 9 months the rates of TLR was significantly lower in the PF-SES group as compared with patients treated with the BMS analogue of identical stent design (1.4% vs. 4.6%, P = 0.005). Likewise the 9-month MACE rates were lower in the PF-SES group (3.2% vs. 8.7%, P = 0.001) whereas there were no differences in the accumulated ST rates (0.5% vs. 1.5%, P = 0.109). Overall accumulated bleeding incidences (BARC 1-5) were not significantly different between PF-SES and BMS patients (1.8% vs. 2.7%, p = 0.388).
CONCLUSIONS: PF-SES are superior over analogue BMS of identical stent architecture in daily clinical routine with lower rates of TLR and MACE in a PS-matched, unselected patient population without differences in accumulated ST rates and bleeding frequencies given the currently favored postprocedural comedication (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT02629575).