Dataset Information

Very Long-term Safety and Effectiveness of Drug-Eluting or Bare-Metal Stents for Left Main Coronary Disease.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Limited data are available on the long-term outcomes of drug-eluting stents (DES) vs bare-metal stents (BMS) in patients with left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease.

Methods

In this observational cohort of the Revascularization for Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis: Comparison of Percutaneous Coronary Angioplasty vs Surgical Revascularization (MAIN-COMPARE) registry, we evaluated patients with unprotected LMCA stenosis who received DES or BMS between January 2000 and June 2006. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause death or myocardial infarction (MI) at 10 years. Adjusted outcomes were compared using propensity scores and inverse probability of treatment weighting.

Results

A total of 1102 patients underwent DES (n = 784) or BMS (n = 318) during the study period. At 10 years, the adjusted rate of the primary outcome was significantly lower in DES group than in the BMS group (27.9% vs 37.0%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53-0.94; P = 0.02). The adjusted 10-year mortality rate was significantly lower in DES group than in the BMS group (20.6% vs 29.6%; HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.46-0.91; P = 0.01), whereas the 10-year rate of MI was similar between the 2 groups (9.9% vs 11.0%; HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.54-1.59; P = 0.78). DES use was associated with a significant reduction in the rate of target-lesion revascularization (10.2% vs 21.8%; HR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.27-0.61; P < 0.001).

Conclusions

In this 10-year follow-up study in patients with LMCA disease, DES use was associated with a significant reduction in the rate of the composite of death or MI, mortality, and target-lesion revascularization, when compared with BMS.

SUBMITTER: Park H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8636232 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

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: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.