Dataset Information

Drug-Eluting Stents Versus Bare Metal Stents for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Kidney Transplant Recipients.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:The comparative effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES) versus bare metal stents (BMS) has not been studied in the kidney transplant population. METHODS:Using the US Renal Data System, we identified 3245 kidney transplant patients who underwent PCI between April 2003 and December 2010; 2400 and 845 patients received DES and BMS, respectively. We used propensity score matching and inverse probability of treatment weighting to create DES- and BMS-treated groups whose observed baseline characteristics were well-balanced. The associations between stent type and the outcomes of (1) death; (2) death or myocardial infarction (MI); (3) death, MI, or repeat revascularization (RR); and (4) hospitalized bleeding were compared using Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS:Drug-eluting stent use increased during the study period, mirroring the trend described in the general population. In the propensity score-matched cohort, no significant association among DES (vs BMS) use and outcomes was observed at 1 and 2 years of follow-up. However, at 3 years, DES was associated with 20% (95% confidence interval [CI], 4-33%) lower risk of death, 15% (95% CI, 1-27%) lower risk of death or MI, and 14% (95% CI, 2-24%) lower risk of death, MI, or repeat revascularization. There were no significant differences in rates of hospitalized bleeding at any time point. Results were similar in the inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis. CONCLUSIONS:In this retrospective study of US kidney transplant recipients undergoing PCI, DES was associated with better clinical outcomes beyond 2 years of follow-up.

SUBMITTER: Lenihan CR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5807106 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Drug-Eluting Stents Versus Bare Metal Stents for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Kidney Transplant Recipients.

Lenihan Colin R CR Montez-Rath Maria E ME Winkelmayer Wolfgang C WC Chang Tara I TI

Transplantation 20170401 4

<h4>Background</h4>The comparative effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES) versus bare metal stents (BMS) has not been studied in the kidney transplant population.<h4>Methods</h4>Using the US Renal Data System, we identified 3245 kidney transplant patients who underwent PCI between April 2003 and December 2010; 2400 and 845 patients received DES and BMS, respectively. We used propensity score matching and inverse probability of treatment weighting ...[more]

PMID: 27517730

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy and safety of biodegradable polymer drug eluting stents with those of bare metal stents and durable polymer drug eluting stents.DesignMixed treatment comparison meta-analysis of 258,544 patient years of follow-up from randomized trials.Data sources and study selectionPubMed, 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.OutcomesLong 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.ResultsFrom 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.ConclusionsBiodegradable 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.

Project description:BackgroundDrug-eluting stents (DESs) were considered as ground-breaking technology promising to eradicate restenosis and the necessity to perform multiple revascularization procedures subsequent to percutaneous coronary intervention. Soon after DESs were released on the market, however, there were reports of a potential increase in mortality and of early or late thrombosis. In addition, DESs are far more expensive than bare-metal stents (BMSs), which has led to their limited use in many countries. The technology has improved over the last few years with the second generation of DESs (DES-2). Moreover, costs have come down and an improved safety profile with decreased thrombosis has been reported.ObjectivePerform a cost-benefit analysis of DES-2s versus BMSs in the context of a publicly funded university hospital in Quebec, Canada.MethodsA systematic review of meta-analyses was conducted between 2012 and 2016 to extract data on clinical effectiveness. The clinical outcome of interest for the cost-benefit analysis was target-vessel revascularization (TVR). Cost units are those used in the Quebec health-care system. The cost-benefit analysis was based on a 2-year perspective. Deterministic and stochastic models (discrete-event simulation) were used, and various risk factors of reintervention were considered.ResultsDES-2s are much more effective than BMSs with respect to TVR rate ratio (i.e., 0.29 to 0.62 in more recent meta-analyses). DES-2s seem to cause fewer deaths and in-stent thrombosis than BMSs, but results are rarely significant, with the exception of the cobalt-chromium everolimus DES. The rate ratio of myocardial infraction is systematically in favor of DES-2s and very often significant. Despite the higher cost of DES-2s, fewer reinterventions can lead to huge savings (i.e., -$479 to -$769 per patient). Moreover, the higher a patient's risk of reintervention, the higher the savings associated with the use of DES-2s.ConclusionDespite the higher purchase cost of DES-2s compared to BMSs, generalizing their use, in particular for patients at high risk of reintervention, should enable significant savings.

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.

Dataset Information

Drug-Eluting Stents Versus Bare Metal Stents for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Kidney Transplant Recipients.

Publications

Drug-Eluting Stents Versus Bare Metal Stents for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Kidney Transplant Recipients.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets