Real-World Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Following Polymer-Free Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Implantations to Treat Coronary Artery Disease

In-Hospital and 1-Year Clinical Results from the French Registry Using Polymer-Free Sirolimus-Eluting Stents in Acute Coronary Syndrome and Stable Coronary Artery Disease

Objectives

The aim of this postmarket clinical study was to assess the safety and efficacy of the latest generation polymer-free sirolimus-eluting stents (PF-SES) in an all-comers population comparing outcomes in stable coronary artery disease (CAD) versus acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in France.

Background

The efficacy and safety of the first-generation PF-SES have already been demonstrated by randomized controlled trials and "all-comers" observational studies.

Methods

For this all-comers observational, prospective, multicenter study, 1456 patients were recruited in 22 French centers. The primary endpoint was target lesion revascularization (TLR) rate at 12 months and secondary endpoints included major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and bleeding.

Results

895 patients had stable CAD and 561 had ACS. At 12 months, 2% of patients had a TLR, with similar rates between stable CAD and ACS (1.9% vs 2.2%, p = 0.7). The overall MACE rate was 5.2% with an expected higher rate in patients with ACS as compared to those with stable CAD (7.3% vs 3.9%, p = 0.007). The overall bleeding event rate was 4.5%, with similar rates in stable CAD as compared to ACS patients (3.8% vs 5.6%, p = 0.3). Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) interruptions prior to the recommended duration occurred in 41.7% of patients with no increase in MACE rates as compared to patients who did not prematurely interrupt DAPT (3.9% vs 6.1%, p = 0.073).

Conclusions

The latest generation PF-SES is associated with low clinical event rates in these all-comers patients. There was a high rate of prematurely terminated DAPT, without any effect on MACE at 12 months. This trial is registered with NCT03809715.

Clinical Outcomes of Polymer-Free Versus Polymer-Coated Drug-Eluting Stents in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Drug-eluting stents have transformed the treatment of coronary artery disease (CAD), and there are two types: polymer-free and polymer-coated stents. Polymer-free stents have a coating that is quickly absorbed by the body, whereas polymer-coated stents have a coating that remains on the stent surface. This meta-analysis and systematic review aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of these two stent types in patients with coronary artery disease. The literature and abstracts from significant databases were reviewed to compare polymer-free drug-eluting stents (PF-DES) and polymer-coated drug-eluting stents (PC-DES) for the treatment of coronary artery disease (CAD). The primary efficacy endpoints of the study were all-cause mortality and deaths from cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular causes. Among the secondary outcomes were incidences of myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR), target vessel revascularization (TVR), stent thrombosis, stroke, and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs). In terms of the primary outcomes, the combined analysis revealed a marginally lower risk of all-cause mortality (relative risk, RR (95% CI) = 0.92 (0.85, 1.00), p = 0.05, I² = 0%) with the use of PF-DES versus PC-DES. Nonetheless, there was no significant difference in cardiovascular mortality (RR (95% CI) = 0.97 (0.87, 1.08)) or non-cardiovascular mortality (RR (95% CI) = 0.87 (0.69, 1.10), p = 0.25, I² = 9%) between the groups. Furthermore, univariate meta-regression revealed that male gender and prior myocardial infarction were independently associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular disease. According to the current meta-analysis, no statistically significant differences existed in PF-DES and PC-DES outcomes. More extensive research is needed to investigate these findings further and establish their validity.

Clinical characteristics and risk factors of in-hospital gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with acute myocardial infarction

Background

Gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) is one of the most serious complications of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and is correlated with poor outcomes.

Objective

To evaluate the prevalence, risk factors and in-hospital mortality of GIB in patients with AMI.

Methods

This observational case-control study retrospectively enrolled consecutive patients with AMI from the Department of Cardiovascular Medicine and Cardiovascular Surgery of the First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University from January 2015 to December 2020. GIB after AMI was identified by International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes from inpatient medical settings and validated by medical record review. AMI patients without GIB were accordingly classified as the control group. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to match with the GIB group and the control group. All anonymized clinical data were provided by the Biobank of the First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University.

Results

A total of 5,868 AMI patients were enrolled, 0.87% (51/5,868) of whom developed GIB after AMI. On the univariate analysis, history of diabetes, chronic kidney disease, Killip IV, a lower hemoglobin concentration, a higher serum level of creatinine, blood urea nitrogen and D-dimer were closely associated with the risk of GIB (P < 0.05). On the multivariable analysis, a lower hemoglobin concentration (OR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.89–0.96, P < 0.001) was independently associated with the risk of GIB. Patients with GIB had a much higher in-hospital mortality rate than those without GIB (14.3 vs. 2.1%, P = 0.047). In-hospital mortality among patients with GIB after AMI appeared to be associated with a decreased hemoglobin concentration (OR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.86–0.99, P = 0.045) and Killip IV (OR: 51.59, 95% CI: 2.65–1,005.30, P = 0.009).

Conclusion

The history of diabetes, poor renal function and heart failure were associated with the high risk of GIB in patients experiencing AMI. The in-hospital mortality in patients with AMI complicating GIB was higher than that in patients without GIB and was associated with a decreased hemoglobin concentration and high Killip classification.

Dual Antiplatelet Therapy De-escalation Strategies

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), the combination of aspirin (ASA), and a P2Y₁₂ inhibitor, protects against stent thrombosis and new atherothrombotic events after a stent implantation or an acute coronary syndrome, but exposes patients to an increased risk of bleeding. In most current practices, the P2Y₁₂ inhibitor is stopped at 6 to 12 months and ASA is continued indefinitely. The advent of safer stents, with less risk of stent thrombosis, has challenged this standard of care, however. A number of alternative strategies involving earlier de-escalation of the antiplatelet therapy have therefore been proposed. In these approaches, standard DAPT is switched to a less potent antithrombotic combination at an earlier time-point than recommended by guidelines. Three different de-escalation variations have been tested to date. The first one maintains DAPT but switches from the potent P2Y₁₂ inhibitors ticagrelor or prasugrel to either a lower dose or to clopidogrel, while maintaining ASA. The 2 other approaches involve changing DAPT to a single antiplatelet at some earlier time-point after the percutaneous coronary intervention procedure, by stopping either the P2Y₁₂ inhibitor or ASA. These strategies have all demonstrated some benefit in clinical trials so far, but especially the contribution of ASA in secondary prevention is clearly evolving as its role in increasing bleeding complications while not providing increased ischemic benefit is becoming more and more clear. In contemporary practice, the type and duration of DAPT should now be based on an individualized decision, and the de-escalation strategies, if used wisely, can be added to the existing options.

Impact of Coronary Stent Architecture on Clinical Outcomes: Do Minor Changes in Stent Architecture Really Matter?

Introduction

The objective of this study was to compare the accumulated clinical outcomes of two Malaysian all-comers populations, each treated with different polymer-free sirolimus-eluting stents (PF-SES) of similar stent design.

Methods

The Malaysian subpopulation of two all-comers observational studies based on the same protocol (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT02629575 and NCT02905214) were combined and compared to a Malaysian-only cohort which was treated with a later-generation PF-SES. The PF-SES’s used differed only in their bare-metal backbone architecture, with otherwise identical sirolimus coating. The primary endpoint was the accumulated target lesion revascularization (TLR) rate at 12 months. The rates of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), stent thrombosis (ST) and myocardial infarction (MI) were part of the secondary endpoints.

Results

A total of 643 patients were treated with either the first-generation PF-SES (413 patients) or second-generation PF-SES (230 patients). Patient demographics were similar in terms of age (p = 0.744), male gender (0.987), diabetes mellitus (p = 0.293), hypertension (p = 0.905) and acute coronary syndrome (ACS, 44.8% vs. 46.1%, p = 0.752) between groups. There were no differences between treatment groups in terms of lesion length (20.8 ± 7.3 mm vs. 22.9 ± 7.9, p = 0.111) or vessel diameter (2.87 ± 0.39 vs. 2.93 ± 0.40, p = 0.052) despite numerically smaller diameters in the first-generation PF-SES group. The second-generation PF-SES tended to have more complex lesions as characterized by calcification (10.3% vs. 16.2%, p = 0.022), severe tortuosity (3.5% vs. 6.9%, p = 0.041) and B2/C lesions (49.2% vs. 62.8%, p < 0.001). The accumulated TLR rates did not differ significantly between the first- and second-generation PF-SES (0.8% vs. 0.9%, p = 0.891). The accumulated MACE rates were not significantly different (p = 0.561), at 1.5% (6/413) and 2.2% (5/230), respectively.

Conclusions

Modifications in coronary stent architecture which enhance the radial strength and radiopacity without gross changes in strut thickness and design do not seem to impact clinical outcomes.

Clinical Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT02629575 and NCT02905214.