Dataset Information

Long-Term Results After Drug-Eluting Versus Bare-Metal Stent Implantation in Saphenous Vein Grafts: Randomized Controlled Trial.

ABSTRACT: Background Efficacy data on drug-eluting stents (DES) versus bare-metal stents (BMS) in saphenous vein grafts are controversial. We aimed to compare DES with BMS among patients undergoing saphenous vein grafts intervention regarding long-term outcome. Methods and Results In this multinational trial, patients were randomized to paclitaxel-eluting or BMS. The primary end point was major adverse cardiac events (cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and target-vessel revascularization at 1 year. Secondary end points included major adverse cardiac events and its individual components at 5-year follow-up. One hundred seventy-three patients were included in the trial (89 DES versus 84 BMS). One-year major adverse cardiac event rates were lower in DES compared with BMS (2.2% versus 16.0%, hazard ratio, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.03-0.64, P=0.01), which was mainly driven by a reduction of subsequent myocardial infarctions and need for target-vessel revascularization. Five-year major adverse cardiac event rates remained lower in the DES compared with the BMS arm (35.5% versus 56.1%, hazard ratio, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.23-0.68, P<0.001). A landmark-analysis from 1 to 5 years revealed a persistent benefit of DES over BMS (hazard ratio, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.13-0.74, P=0.007) in terms of target-vessel revascularization. More patients in the BMS group underwent multiple target-vessel revascularization procedures throughout the study period compared with the DES group (DES 1.1% [n=1] versus BMS 9.5% [n=8], P=0.013). Enrollment was stopped before the target sample size of 240 patients was reached. Conclusions In this randomized controlled trial with prospective long-term follow-up of up to 5 years, DES showed a better efficacy than BMS with sustained benefits over time. DES may be the preferred strategy in this patient population. Registration URL: https://www.clini?caltr?ials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT00595647.

SUBMITTER: Fahrni G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7763393 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Long-Term Results After Drug-Eluting Versus Bare-Metal Stent Implantation in Saphenous Vein Grafts: Randomized Controlled Trial.

Fahrni Gregor G Farah Ahmed A Engstrøm Thomas T Galatius Søren S Eberli Franz F Rickenbacher Peter P Conen David D Mueller Christian C Pfister Otmar O Twerenbold Raphael R Coslovsky Michael M Cattaneo Marco M Kaiser Christoph C Mangner Norman N Schuler Gerhard G Pfisterer Matthias M Möbius-Winkler Sven S Jeger Raban V RV

Journal of the American Heart Association 20201009 20

Background Efficacy data on drug-eluting stents (DES) versus bare-metal stents (BMS) in saphenous vein grafts are controversial. We aimed to compare DES with BMS among patients undergoing saphenous vein grafts intervention regarding long-term outcome. Methods and Results In this multinational trial, patients were randomized to paclitaxel-eluting or BMS. The primary end point was major adverse cardiac events (cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and target-vessel revascularization at 1 ...[more]

PMID: 33032485

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSaphenous vein grafts develop an aggressive atherosclerotic process and the efficacy of drug eluting stents (DES) in treating saphenous vein graft (SVG) lesions has not been convincingly demonstrated. The aim of this study was to review and analyze the current literature for controlled studies comparing DES versus bare metal stents (BMS) for treatment of SVG stenoses.Methodology/principal findingsWe searched several scientific databases and conference proceedings up to March 15, 2010 for controlled studies comparing target vessel revascularization (TVR) between DES and BMS. Summary odds ratios (OR) for the primary endpoint TVR and secondary endpoints infarction, stent thrombosis and death were calculated using random-effect models. A total of 29 studies (3 randomized controlled trials RCT) involving 7549 (202 in RCT) patients were included. The need for target vessel revascularization in the DES group tended to be lower compared to BMS for the 3 RCT (OR 0.50 [0.24-1.00]; p = 0.051) and for observational studies (0.62 [0.49-0.79]; p<0.001). There was no significant difference in the risk for myocardial infarction in the RCT (OR 1.25 [0.22-6.99]; p = 0.250) but a lower risk for DES based on the observational studies 0.68 [0.49-0.95]; p = 0.023. The risk for stent thrombosis was found to be non-different in the RCT (OR 0.78 [0.03-21.73], p = 0.885) while it was in favor of DES in the observational studies (0.58 [0.38 - 0.84]; p<0.001). The mortality was not significantly different between DES and BMS in the RCT's (OR 2.22 [0.17 - 29.50]; p = 0.546) while the observation studies showed a decreased mortality in the DES group (0.69 [0.55-0.85]; p<0.001).ConclusionDES may decrease TVR rate in treatment of SVG stenoses. No differences in reinfarction rate, stent thrombosis or mortality was found between the DES and BMS groups in the RCT's while the observational data showed lower risk for myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis and death in the DES group. This may be a result of patient selection bias in the observational studies or represent a true finding that was not the detected in the RCT analysis due to limited statistical power.

Project description:BackgroundFew studies have examined the efficacy of drug-eluting stents (DES) for reducing aortocoronary saphenous vein bypass graft (SVG) failure compared with bare-metal stents (BMS) in patients undergoing stenting of de-novo SVG lesions. We assessed the risks and benefits of the use of DES versus BMS in de-novo SVG lesions.MethodsPatients were recruited to our double-blind, randomised controlled trial from 25 US Department of Veterans Affairs centres. Eligible participants were aged at least 18 years and had at least one significant de-novo SVG lesion (50-99% stenosis of a 2·25-4·5 mm diameter SVG) requiring percutaneous coronary intervention with intent to use embolic protection devices. Enrolled patients were randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, by phone randomisation system to receive a DES or BMS. Randomisation was stratified by presence or absence of diabetes and number of target SVG lesions requiring percutaneous coronary intervention (one or two or more) within each participating site by use of an adaptive scheme intended to balance the two stent type groups on marginal totals for the stratification factors. Patients, referring physicians, study coordinators, and outcome assessors were masked to group allocation. The primary endpoint was the 12-month incidence of target vessel failure, defined as the composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularisation. The DIVA trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01121224.FindingsBetween Jan 1, 2012, and Dec 31, 2015, 599 patients were randomly assigned to the stent groups, and the data for 597 patients were used. The patients' mean age was 68·6 (SD 7·6) years, and 595 (>99%) patients were men. The two stent groups were similar for most baseline characteristics. At 12 months, the incidence of target vessel failure was 17% (51 of 292) in the DES group versus 19% (58 of 305) in the BMS group (adjusted hazard ratio 0·92, 95% CI 0·63-1·34, p=0·70). Between-group differences in the components of the primary endpoint, serious adverse events, or stent thrombosis were not significant. Enrolment was stopped before the revised target sample size of 762 patients was reached.InterpretationIn patients undergoing stenting of de-novo SVG lesions, no significant differences in outcomes between those receiving DES and BMS during 12 months of follow-up were found. The study results have important economic implications in countries with high DES prices such as the USA, because they suggest that the lower-cost BMS can be used in SVG lesions without compromising either safety or efficacy.FundingUS Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program.

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:Currently, endovascular treatment is indicated to treat femoropopliteal lesions ?15 cm. However, the Achilles' heel of femoropopliteal endovascular repair remains restenosis. Paclitaxel eluting stents have shown promising results to prevent restenosis in femoropopliteal lesions compared to percutaneous transluminal angioplasty. A recently released prospective registry using a newer generation of self-expandable nitinol stents (Misago®; Terumo Corp., Tokyo, Japan) supports primary bare metal stenting as a first-line treatment for femoropopliteal lesions. To date, no studies have been designed to compare bare metal stents to paclitaxel eluting stents for the treatment of femoropoliteal lesions. The BATTLE trial was designed to compare paclitaxel eluting stents (Zilver® PTX®) and a last generation bare self-expandable nitinol stents (Misago® RX, Terumo Corp., Tokyo, Japan) in the treatment of intermediate length femoropopliteal lesions (?14 cm).A prospective, randomized (1:1), controlled, multicentric and international study has been designed. One hundred and eighty-six patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria will be randomized to one of the two assessments of endovascular repair to treat de novo femoropopliteal lesions ?14 cm in symptomatic patients (Rutherford 2 to 5): bare stent group and paclitaxel eluting stent group. The primary endpoint is freedom from in-stent restenosis at 1 year defined by a peak systolic velocity index >2.4 (restenosis of >50%) at the target lesion and assessed by duplex scan. Our main objective is to demonstrate the clinical superiority of primary stenting using Zilver® PTX® stent system versus bare metal self-expandable stenting in the treatment of femoropopliteal lesions in patients with symptomatic peripheral arterial disease.This is the first randomized and controlled study to compare the efficacy of bare metal stents and paclitaxel eluting stents for the treatment of femoropopliteal lesions. It may clarify the indication of stent choice for femoropopliteal lesions of intermediate length.Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02004951. 3 December 2013.

Dataset Information

Long-Term Results After Drug-Eluting Versus Bare-Metal Stent Implantation in Saphenous Vein Grafts: Randomized Controlled Trial.

Publications

Long-Term Results After Drug-Eluting Versus Bare-Metal Stent Implantation in Saphenous Vein Grafts: Randomized Controlled Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets