Dataset Information

Efficacy and Safety of Drug-Eluting Stents Optimized for Biocompatibility vs Bare-Metal Stents With a Single Month of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy: A Meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

A significant number of patients receive bare-metal stents (BMSs) instead of drug-eluting stents (DESs) to shorten the duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). Emerging evidence suggests that new-generation DESs, particularly those optimized for biocompatibility, may be more efficacious and safer than BMSs, even with a single month of DAPT after stent implantation.

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of DESs compared with BMSs for coronary intervention with a single month of DAPT.

Data sources

Human studies found in PubMed, the Cochrane databases through April 2018, and reference lists of selected articles.

Study selection

Randomized clinical trials were included if they enrolled patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention and randomly assigned each patient to treatment with either DESs or BMSs. The additional inclusion criterion was use of only 1 month of DAPT poststent implantation.

Data extraction and synthesis

Two reviewers independently extracted the data. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated using random-effects models.

Main outcomes and measures

The efficacy end points were major adverse cardiac events, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization, cardiac mortality, and all-cause mortality at 1 year. The safety outcomes were stent thrombosis and bleeding complications.

Results

Data from 3 randomized clinical trials involving 3943 patients were included (2457 men [62.3%]; mean [SD] age ranging from 75.7 [9.3] years to 81.4 [4.3] years per trial subgroup). Coronary intervention with DESs reduced the rates for major adverse cardiac events (OR, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.57-0.82]; P < .001), target lesion revascularization (OR, 0.38 [95% CI, 0.22-0.67]; P = .001), target vessel revascularization (OR, 0.50 [95% CI, 0.38-0.65]; P < .001), and myocardial infarction (OR, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.31-0.83]; P = .01) compared with BMSs at 1 year. The incidence of stent thrombosis was also lower with DESs compared with BMSs (1.8% vs 2.8%), but this difference was not statistically significant in the random-effects model. Additionally, the 2 stent types did not differ in the risks of all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, and bleeding.

Conclusions and relevance

In the limited number of randomized clinical trials comparing DESs with BMSs with shortened DAPT durations in patients who have high bleeding risk or are uncertain candidates for prolonged DAPT, coronary intervention with specific DESs optimized for biocompatibility is not only safe but also efficacious, even with only 1 month of DAPT.

SUBMITTER: Shah R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6583694 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Despite antirestenotic efficacy of coronary drug-eluting stents (DES) compared with bare metal stents (BMS), the relative risk of stent thrombosis and adverse cardiovascular events is unclear. Although dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) beyond 1 year provides ischemic event protection after DES, ischemic event risk is perceived to be less after BMS, and the appropriate duration of DAPT after BMS is unknown.To compare (1) rates of stent thrombosis and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE; composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) after 30 vs 12 months of thienopyridine in patients treated with BMS taking aspirin and (2) treatment duration effect within the combined cohorts of randomized patients treated with DES or BMS as prespecified secondary analyses.International, multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial comparing extended (30-months) thienopyridine vs placebo in patients taking aspirin who completed 12 months of DAPT without bleeding or ischemic events after receiving stents. The study was initiated in August 2009 with the last follow-up visit in May 2014.Continued thienopyridine or placebo at months 12 through 30 after stent placement, in 11,648 randomized patients treated with aspirin, of whom 1687 received BMS and 9961 DES.Stent thrombosis, MACCE, and moderate or severe bleeding.Among 1687 patients treated with BMS who were randomized to continued thienopyridine vs placebo, rates of stent thrombosis were 0.5% vs 1.11% (n?=?4 vs 9; hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; 95% CI, 0.15-1.64; P?=?.24), rates of MACCE were 4.04% vs 4.69% (n?=?33 vs 38; HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.57-1.47; P?=?.72), and rates of moderate/severe bleeding were 2.03% vs 0.90% (n?=?16 vs 7; P?=?.07), respectively. Among all 11,648 randomized patients (both BMS and DES), stent thrombosis rates were 0.41% vs 1.32% (n?=?23 vs 74; HR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.19-0.50; P?<?.001), rates of MACCE were 4.29% vs 5.74% (n?=?244 vs 323; HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.62-0.87; P?<?.001), and rates of moderate/severe bleeding were 2.45% vs 1.47% (n?=?135 vs 80; P?<?.001).Among patients undergoing coronary stent placement with BMS and who tolerated 12 months of thienopyridine, continuing thienopyridine for an additional 18 months compared with placebo did not result in statistically significant differences in rates of stent thrombosis, MACCE, or moderate or severe bleeding. However, the BMS subset may have been underpowered to identify such differences, and further trials are suggested.clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00977938.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To assess patients' perspective about factors associated with stent choice. BACKGROUND:Drug 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. METHODS:Patients 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. RESULTS:Among 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). CONCLUSION:Most 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 REGISTRATION:Developing 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.