Dataset Information

Bare metal stents, durable polymer drug eluting stents, and biodegradable polymer drug eluting stents for coronary artery disease: mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To compare the efficacy and safety of biodegradable polymer drug eluting stents with those of bare metal stents and durable polymer drug eluting stents.

Design

Mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis of 258,544 patient years of follow-up from randomized trials.

Data sources and study selection

PubMed, Embase, and Central were searched for randomized trials comparing any of the Food and Drug Administration approved durable polymer drug eluting stents (sirolimus eluting, paclitaxel eluting, cobalt chromium everolimus eluting, platinum chromium everolimus eluting, zotarolimus eluting-Endeavor, and zotarolimus eluting-Resolute) or biodegradable polymer drug eluting stents, with each other or against bare metal stents.

Outcomes

Long term efficacy (target vessel revascularization, target lesion revascularization) and safety (death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis). Landmark analysis at more than one year was evaluated to assess the potential late benefit of biodegradable polymer drug eluting stents.

Results

From 126 randomized trials and 258,544 patient years of follow-up, for long term efficacy (target vessel revascularization), biodegradable polymer drug eluting stents were superior to paclitaxel eluting stents (rate ratio 0.66, 95% credibility interval 0.57 to 0.78) and zotarolimus eluting stent-Endeavor (0.69, 0.56 to 0.84) but not to newer generation durable polymer drug eluting stents (for example: 1.03, 0.89 to 1.21 versus cobalt chromium everolimus eluting stents). Similarly, biodegradable polymer drug eluting stents were superior to paclitaxel eluting stents (rate ratio 0.61, 0.37 to 0.89) but inferior to cobalt chromium everolimus eluting stents (2.04, 1.27 to 3.35) for long term safety (definite stent thrombosis). In the landmark analysis after one year, biodegradable polymer drug eluting stents were superior to sirolimus eluting stents for definite stent thrombosis (rate ratio 0.29, 0.10 to 0.82) but were associated with increased mortality compared with cobalt chromium everolimus eluting stents (1.52, 1.02 to 2.22). Overall, among all stent types, the newer generation durable polymer drug eluting stents (zotarolimus eluting stent-Resolute, cobalt chromium everolimus eluting stents, and platinum chromium everolimus eluting stents) were the most efficacious (lowest target vessel revascularization rate) stents, and cobalt chromium everolimus eluting stents were the safest with significant reductions in definite stent thrombosis (rate ratio 0.35, 0.21 to 0.53), myocardial infarction (0.65, 0.55 to 0.75), and death (0.72, 0.58 to 0.90) compared with bare metal stents.

Conclusions

Biodegradable polymer drug eluting stents are superior to first generation durable polymer drug eluting stents but not to newer generation durable polymer stents in reducing target vessel revascularization. Newer generation durable polymer stents, and especially cobalt chromium everolimus eluting stents, have the best combination of efficacy and safety. The utility of biodegradable polymer stents in the context of excellent clinical outcomes with newer generation durable polymer stents needs to be proven.

SUBMITTER: Bangalore S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3898413 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the safety and effectiveness between biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents (BP-DES) and durable polymer drug-eluting stents (DP-DES) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS).DesignMeta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs).Primary and secondary outcome measuresMajor adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) were considered the primary endpoint. Efficacy endpoints included target vessel revascularisation (TVR) and target lesion revascularisation (TLR). Safety endpoints included all-cause death, cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction and stent thrombosis (ST).MethodsWe searched PubMed, Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials for comparative studies of BP-DES and DP-DES in patients with ACS from January 2000 to July 2021. Statistical pooling was performed to estimate incidence using a random-effects model with generic inverse-variance weighting. Risk estimates were computed with 95% CIs.ResultsEight articles with seven RCTs that compared BP-DES and DP-DES in patients with ACS were identified and included in the qualitative and quantitative analyses. There was no difference in the baseline characteristics, except for the number of smoking patients (OR: 1.13, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.24; p=0.008, I2=29%), which was significantly lower in the BP-DES group. The meta-analysis demonstrated that MACEs, efficacy endpoints and safety endpoints were similar between the groups at 1 year. However, the incidence of total ST was signiﬁcantly different between the BP-DES and DP-DES groups in the follow-up period (p=0.0001). Further analysis showed a statistically significant difference in MACEs (OR: 0.71, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.88; p=0.002, I2=0 %), TLR (OR: 0.71, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.01; p=0.05, I2=0%), TVR (OR: 0.70, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.94; p=0.002, I2=15%), total ST incidence (OR: 0.59, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.77; p=0.0001, I2=48%) and ST incidence (OR: 0.63, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.85; p=0.002, I2=0%) over 2 years.ConclusionThis meta-analysis revealed that both stent types demonstrated excellent safety and efficacy profiles at 12 months. However, a slight increase in MACEs, TLR, TVR and ST incidence was observed in the DP-DES group over the 2-year follow-up period, suggesting that BP-DES may be more favourable when treating patients with ACS.Trial registration numberNCT00389220.

Project description:BackgroundDespite the theoretical benefits of biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents (BP-DES), clinical benefits of BP-DES over durable polymer DES (DP-DES) have not been clearly demonstrated. Using data from a large-volume nationwide cohort, we compared long-term clinical outcomes between BP-DES- and DP-DES-treated patients.MethodsA retrospective cohort study that enrolled all patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with new-generation DES between 2010 and 2016 in Korea was conducted by using the National Health Insurance Service database. The outcomes of interest were all-cause death, cardiovascular death, and myocardial infarction (MI).ResultsA total of 127,731 patients treated with new-generation DES with thin struts (<90 μm) were enrolled for this analysis. After stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting, the incidence of all-cause death was significantly lower in patients treated with BP-DES (n = 19,521) at 5 years after PCI (11.3 vs. 13.0% in those treated with DP-DES [n = 108,067], hazard ratio [HR] 0.92, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.88-0.96, p < 0.001), while showing no statistically significant difference at 2 years after PCI (5.7 vs. 6.0%, respectively, HR 0.95, 95% CI, 0.89-1.01, p = 0.238). Similarly, use of BP-DES was associated with a lower incidence of cardiovascular death (7.4 vs. 9.6% in those treated with DP-DES, HR 0.82, 95% CI, 0.77-0.87, p < 0.001), and MI (7.4 vs. 8.7%, respectively, HR 0.90, 95% CI, 0.86-0.94, p = 0.006) at 5 years after PCI. There was no statistically significant difference of cardiovascular death (4.6 vs. 4.9%, respectively, HR 0.93, 95% CI, 0.85-1.01, p = 0.120) and MI (5.0 vs. 5.1%, respectively, HR 0.98, 95% CI, 0.92-1.05, p = 0.461) at 2 years after PCI.ConclusionsImplantation of BP-DES was associated with a lower risk of all-cause death, cardiovascular death, and MI compared with DP-DES implantation. This difference was clearly apparent at 5 years after DES implantation.Clinical trial registrationClinicalTrial.gov, NCT04715594.

Project description:Background The choice of optimal drug-eluting stent therapy for patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention remains uncertain. We aimed to assess the long-term clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention with biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (BP-SES) versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP-EES) in patients with DM. Methods and Results In a prespecified subgroup analysis of the BIOSCIENCE (Ultrathin Strut Biodegradable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stent for Percutaneous Coronary Revascularization) trial (NCT01443104), patients randomly assigned to ultrathin-strut BP-SES or thin-strut DP-EES were stratified according to diabetic status. The primary end point was target lesion failure, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization, at 5 years. Among 2119 patients, 486 (22.9%) presented with DM. Compared with individuals without DM, patients with DM were older and had a greater baseline cardiac risk profile. In patients with DM, target lesion failure at 5 years occurred in 74 patients (cumulative incidence, 31.0%) treated with BP-SES and 57 patients (25.8%) treated with DP-EES (risk ratio, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.87-1.73 [P=0.24]). In individuals without DM, target lesion failure at 5 years occurred in 124 patients (16.8%) treated with BP-SES and 132 patients (16.8%) treated with DP-EES (risk ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.77-1.26 [P=0.90; P for interaction=0.31]). Cumulative 5-year incidence rates of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, clinically indicated target lesion revascularization, and definite stent thrombosis were similar among patients with DM treated with BP-SES or DP-EES. There was no interaction between diabetic status and treatment effect of BP-SES versus DP-EES. Conclusions In a prespecified subgroup analysis of the BIOSCIENCE trial, we found no difference in clinical outcomes throughout 5 years between patients with DM treated with ultrathin-strut BP-SES or thin-strut DP-EES. Clinical Trial Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/. Unique identifier: NCT01443104.