Dataset Information

Long-term clinical outcomes after drug-eluting and bare-metal stenting in Massachusetts.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Drug-eluting stents (DES) reduce the need for repeat revascularization, but their long-term safety relative to that of bare-metal stents (BMS) in general use remains uncertain. We sought to compare the clinical outcome of patients treated with DES with that of BMS.

Methods and results

All adults undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with stenting between April 1, 2003, and September 30, 2004, at non-US government hospitals in Massachusetts were identified from a mandatory state database. Patients were classified from the index admission according to stent types used. Clinical and procedural risk factors were collected prospectively. Risk-adjusted mortality, myocardial infarction, and revascularization rate differences (DES-BMS) were estimated through propensity score matching without replacement. A total of 11 556 patients were treated with DES, and 6237 were treated with BMS, with unadjusted 2-year mortality rates of 7.0% and 12.6%, respectively (P<0.0001). In 5549 DES patients matched to 5549 BMS patients, 2-year risk-adjusted mortality rates were 9.8% and 12.0%, respectively (P=0.0002), whereas the respective rates for myocardial infarction and target-vessel revascularization were 8.3% versus 10.3% (P=0.0005) and 11.0% versus 16.8% (P<0.0001).

Conclusions

DES treatment was associated with lower rates of mortality, myocardial infarction, and target-vessel revascularization than BMS treatment in similar patients in a matched population-based study. Comprehensive follow-up in this inclusive population is warranted to identify whether similar safety and efficacy remain beyond 2 years.

SUBMITTER: Mauri L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2821087 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo assess patients' perspective about factors associated with stent choice.BackgroundDrug eluting stents (DES) markedly reduce the risk of repeat percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), but necessitate a longer duration of dual anti-platelet therapy (DAPT) as compared with bare metal stents (BMS). Thus, understanding patients' perspective about factors associated with stent choice is paramount.MethodsPatients undergoing angiography rated, on a 10-point scale, the importance (1 = not important, 10 = most important) of avoiding repeat revascularization and avoiding the following potential DAPT drawbacks: bleeding/bruising, more pills/day, medication costs and delaying elective surgery. The factor, or group of factors, that was rated highest by each patient was identified.ResultsAmong 311 patients, repeat revascularization was the single most important consideration to 14.4% of patients, while 20.6% considered avoiding one of the DAPT drawbacks as most important. Most patients (65%) considered avoiding at least one DAPT drawback as important as avoiding repeat revascularization. In no subgroup of patients did more than a quarter of patients prefer avoiding repeat revascularization above all other concerns. Among patients undergoing PCI, more than three quarters received a DES, regardless of their stated preferences (DES use among those most valuing DES benefits, avoiding DAPT drawbacks, or both equally were 78.7%, 86.2%, and 85.6%, respectively, P = 0.56).ConclusionMost patients reported that avoiding DAPT drawbacks was as important as avoiding repeat revascularization. Eliciting patient preferences regarding stent type can enhance shared decision-making and allow physicians to better tailor stent choice to patients' goals and values.Trial registrationDeveloping and Testing a Personalized Evidence-based Shared Decision-making Tool for Stent Selection (DECIDE-PCI). ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02046902. URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02046902 © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Project description:BackgroundWe sought to establish the long-term safety of drug-eluting stents compared with bare-metal stents in a usual care setting.MethodsUsing data from a prospective multicentre registry, we compared rates of death and of death or repeat revascularization during 3 years of follow-up of 6440 consecutive patients who underwent angioplasty with either drug-eluting or bare-metal stents between Apr. 1, 2003, and Mar. 31, 2006.ResultsDrug-eluting stents were inserted in 1120 patients and bare-metal stents in 5320. The drug-eluting stents were selected for patients who had a greater burden of comorbid illness, including diabetes mellitus (32.8% v. 20.8% in the bare-metal group, p < 0.001) and renal disease (7.4% v. 5.0%, p = 0.001). At 1-year follow-up, the drug-eluting stents were associated with a mortality of 3.0%, as compared with 3.7% with the bare-metal stents (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.62, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.46-0.83). The rate of the composite outcome of death or repeat revascularization was 12.0% for the drug-eluting stents and 15.8% for the bare-metal stents (adjusted OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.33-0.49). In the subgroup of patients who had acute coronary syndromes, the adjusted OR for this composite outcome was 0.46 (95% CI 0.35-0.61). During the 3 years of observation, the relative risks for death and repeat revascularization varied over time. In year 1, there was an initial period of lower risk in the group with drug-eluting stents than in the group with bare-metal stents; this was followed by a shift toward outcome rates favouring bare-metal stents in years 2 and 3. The adjusted relative risk of the composite outcome of death or repeat revascularization associated with drug-eluting stents relative to bare-metal stents was 0.73 early in the first year of follow-up; it then rose gradually over time, to a peak of 2.24 at 3 years.InterpretationDrug-eluting stents are safe and effective in the first year following insertion. Thereafter, the possibility of longer term adverse events cannot be ruled out.

Project description:AimsUnderstanding endothelial cell repopulation post-stenting and how this modulates in-stent restenosis is critical to improving arterial healing post-stenting. We used a novel murine stent model to investigate endothelial cell repopulation post-stenting, comparing the response of drug-eluting stents with a primary genetic modification to improve endothelial cell function.Methods and resultsEndothelial cell repopulation was assessed en face in stented arteries in ApoE(-/-) mice with endothelial-specific LacZ expression. Stent deployment resulted in near-complete denudation of endothelium, but was followed by endothelial cell repopulation, by cells originating from both bone marrow-derived endothelial progenitor cells and from the adjacent vasculature. Paclitaxel-eluting stents reduced neointima formation (0.423 ± 0.065 vs. 0.240 ± 0.040 mm(2), P = 0.038), but decreased endothelial cell repopulation (238 ± 17 vs. 154 ± 22 nuclei/mm(2), P = 0.018), despite complete strut coverage. To test the effects of selectively improving endothelial cell function, we used transgenic mice with endothelial-specific overexpression of GTP-cyclohydrolase 1 (GCH-Tg) as a model of enhanced endothelial cell function and increased NO production. GCH-Tg ApoE(-/-) mice had less neointima formation compared with ApoE(-/-) littermates (0.52 ± 0.08 vs. 0.26 ± 0.09 mm(2), P = 0.039). In contrast to paclitaxel-eluting stents, reduced neointima formation in GCH-Tg mice was accompanied by increased endothelial cell coverage (156 ± 17 vs. 209 ± 23 nuclei/mm(2), P = 0.043).ConclusionDrug-eluting stents reduce not only neointima formation but also endothelial cell repopulation, independent of strut coverage. In contrast, selective targeting of endothelial cell function is sufficient to improve endothelial cell repopulation and reduce neointima formation. Targeting endothelial cell function is a rational therapeutic strategy to improve vascular healing and decrease neointima formation after stenting.