Comparison of safety and efficacy of sirolimus-eluting stents versus bare metal stents in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

Revascularisation versus medical treatment in patients with stable coronary artery disease: network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether revascularisation improves prognosis compared with medical treatment among patients with stable coronary artery disease.

DESIGN

Bayesian network meta-analyses to combine direct within trial comparisons between treatments with indirect evidence from other trials while maintaining randomisation.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

A strategy of initial medical treatment compared with revascularisation by coronary artery bypass grafting or Food and Drug Administration approved techniques for percutaneous revascularization: balloon angioplasty, bare metal stent, early generation paclitaxel eluting stent, sirolimus eluting stent, and zotarolimus eluting (Endeavor) stent, and new generation everolimus eluting stent, and zotarolimus eluting (Resolute) stent among patients with stable coronary artery disease.

DATA SOURCES

Medline and Embase from 1980 to 2013 for randomised trials comparing medical treatment with revascularisation.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

All cause mortality.

RESULTS

100 trials in 93,553 patients with 262,090 patient years of follow-up were included. Coronary artery bypass grafting was associated with a survival benefit (rate ratio 0.80, 95% credibility interval 0.70 to 0.91) compared with medical treatment. New generation drug eluting stents (everolimus: 0.75, 0.59 to 0.96; zotarolimus (Resolute): 0.65, 0.42 to 1.00) but not balloon angioplasty (0.85, 0.68 to 1.04), bare metal stents (0.92, 0.79 to 1.05), or early generation drug eluting stents (paclitaxel: 0.92, 0.75 to 1.12; sirolimus: 0.91, 0.75 to 1.10; zotarolimus (Endeavor): 0.88, 0.69 to 1.10) were associated with improved survival compared with medical treatment. Coronary artery bypass grafting reduced the risk of myocardial infarction compared with medical treatment (0.79, 0.63 to 0.99), and everolimus eluting stents showed a trend towards a reduced risk of myocardial infarction (0.75, 0.55 to 1.01). The risk of subsequent revascularisation was noticeably reduced by coronary artery bypass grafting (0.16, 0.13 to 0.20) followed by new generation drug eluting stents (zotarolimus (Resolute): 0.26, 0.17 to 0.40; everolimus: 0.27, 0.21 to 0.35), early generation drug eluting stents (zotarolimus (Endeavor): 0.37, 0.28 to 0.50; sirolimus: 0.29, 0.24 to 0.36; paclitaxel: 0.44, 0.35 to 0.54), and bare metal stents (0.69, 0.59 to 0.81) compared with medical treatment.

CONCLUSION

Among patients with stable coronary artery disease, coronary artery bypass grafting reduces the risk of death, myocardial infarction, and subsequent revascularisation compared with medical treatment. All stent based coronary revascularisation technologies reduce the need for revascularisation to a variable degree. Our results provide evidence for improved survival with new generation drug eluting stents but no other percutaneous revascularisation technology compared with medical treatment.

Comparison of drug-eluting stents in acute myocardial infarction patients with chronic kidney disease

BACKGROUND/AIMS

To determine which drug-eluting stents are more effective in acute myocardial infarction (MI) patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD).

METHODS

This study included a total of 3,566 acute MI survivors with CKD from the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry who were treated with stenting and followed up for 12 months: 1,845 patients who received sirolimus-eluting stents (SES), 1,356 who received paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES), and 365 who received zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZES). CKD was defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate < 60 mL/min/1.73 m(2) calculated by the modification of diet in renal disease method.

RESULTS

At the 12-month follow-up, patients receiving ZES demonstrated a higher incidence (14.8%) of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) compared to those receiving SES (10.1%) and PES (12%, p = 0.019). The ZES patients also had a higher incidence (3.9%) of target lesion revascularization (TLR) compared to those receiving SES (1.5%) and PES (2.4%, p = 0.011). After adjusting for confounding factors, ZES was associated with a higher incidence of MACE and TLR than SES (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.623; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.442 to 0.879; p = 0.007; adjusted HR, 0.350; 95% CI, 0.165 to 0.743; p = 0.006, respectively), and with a higher rate of TLR than PES (adjusted HR, 0.471; 95% CI, 0.223 to 0.997; p = 0.049).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that ZES is less effective than SES and PES in terms of 12-month TLR, and has a higher incidence of MACE due to a higher TLR rate compared with SES, in acute MI patients with CKD.

Three-year follow-up of sirolimus-eluting stents vs. bare metal stents for acute myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND

The long-term safety and efficacy of drug-eluting stents for patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) remain controversial.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 143 consecutive patients who presented between August 2004 and July 2006 with AMI and who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using sirolimus-eluting stents (SES), were compared with a historical control cohort of 129 consecutive patients who presented between August 2002 and July 2004 and who underwent primary PCI using bare metal stents (BMS). The rate of major adverse cardiovascular events at 3 years was significantly lower in the SES group than in the BMS group (20.3% vs. 33.1%, respectively; P=0.01). This reduction was mainly driven by a decrease in the rate of target vessel revascularization (12.3% vs. 22.4%, respectively; P=0.02). There was no significant difference in the rate of cardiovascular death (4.5% vs. 5.7%, respectively; P=0.67), non-fatal myocardial infarction (4.5% vs. 9.2%, respectively; P=0.16), coronary artery bypass grafting (2.3% vs. 2.5%, respectively; P=0.93), stroke (2.4% vs. 0.8%, respectively; P=0.35), and stent thrombosis (2.9% vs. 2.3%, respectively; P=0.80) between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

SES can be used safely and effectively in patients with AMI.

Vertebral Artery Origin Stents Revisited

BACKGROUND

Vertebral origin angioplasty and stenting (VOAS) with bare metal stents is associated with a high rate of in-stent restenosis (ISR).

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the rate of ISR after VOAS with drug-eluting stents.

METHODS

Twenty patients (15 men, 5 women; age range, 36–88 years; mean, 63.7 years) were treated for VOAS with a paclitaxel-eluting stent (Taxus Express2, Boston Scientific, Natick, Massachusetts). Stenosis at follow-up was quantified as insignificant (0%–24%), mild (25%–49%), moderate (50%–74%), and severe (75%–100%). ISR was defined using a binary criteria of &gt; 50% stenosis at follow-up angiography.

RESULTS

All procedures were technically successful with no periprocedural complications. Follow-up angiography (range, 4–48 months; mean, 14.7 months) showed insignificant stenosis in 9 patients, mild in 6, moderate in 4, and severe in 1. In 1 patient with “moderate” stenosis, the stent migrated distally; therefore, the lesion restenosis was not within the stent. Thus, 4 of 19 patients (21%) exhibited binary moderate or severe ISR, and 5 of 20 showed restenosis at the lesion (25%). The patient with severe stenosis developed stent thrombosis &gt; 3 years after VOAS.

CONCLUSION

VOAS with drug-eluting stents was associated with a low incidence of periprocedural complications. Although the rate of restenosis was half that seen with the use of bare metallic stents, 21% of patients still developed moderate or severe ISR. These patients may require ≥ 1 revascularization procedures. The risk of delayed stent thrombosis may necessitate lifelong dual antiplatelet medications.

Clinical impact of sirolimus-eluting stent in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate outcome of patients undergoing sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) as compared to bare-metal stent (BMS) implantation during primary angioplasty for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).

BACKGROUND

The role of SES in primary percutaneous coronary intervention setting is still debated.

METHODS

We searched Medline, EMBASE, CENTRAL, scientific session abstracts, and relevant Websites for studies in any language, from the inception of each database until October 2008. Only randomized clinical trials with a mean follow-up period >6 months and sample size >100 patients were included. Primary endpoint for efficacy was target-vessel revascularization (TVR) and primary endpoint for safety was stent thrombosis. Secondary endpoints were cardiac death and recurrent myocardial infarction (MI).

RESULTS

Six trials were included in the meta-analysis, including 2,381 patients (1,192 randomized to SES and 1,189 to BMS). Up to 12-month follow-up, TVR was significantly lower in patients treated with SES as compared to patients treated with BMS (4.53% vs. 12.53%, respectively; odds ratio [OR] 0.33; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.24-0.46; P < 0.00001). There were no significant differences in the incidence of stent thrombosis (3.02% vs. 3.70%, OR = 0.81 [95% CI, 0.52-1.27], P = 0.81), cardiac death (2.77% vs. 3.28%, OR = 0.84 [95% CI, 0.52-1.35], P = 0.47), and recurrent MI (2.94% vs. 4.04%, OR = 0.71 [95% CI, 0.45-1.11], P = 0.13) between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

SES significantly reduces TVR rates as compared to BMS in STEMI patients up to 1 year follow-up. Further studies with larger population and longer follow-up time are needed to confirm our findings.

Percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-elevation myocardial infarction: drug-eluting stents or bare metal stents?

The treatment paradigm for patients with an ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) has shifted greatly in the last 20 years. The use of fibrinolytic agents vastly altered the landscape in treating this entity and was further advanced by the introduction of percutaneous catheter-based methods of therapy. Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has become the preferred method of treatment for patients with this condition when compared with thrombolytic agents as evidenced by a number of positive clinical trials. However, PCI in itself has had several adaptations over the last decade, namely in the shift from a balloon-only approach to the widespread usage of balloon-expandable metallic stents. The use of bare metal stents has proven to be more efficacious in regard to rates of repeat procedures when compared with the balloon-only approach and has become a standard in PCI for STEMI. The composition of the stents themselves had also undergone transformation as evidenced by the introduction of drug-eluting stents (DES). Although there have been encouraging data to support the use of DES in the elective setting, the use of these devices in primary PCI has been controversial. The pathologic milieu that is present in the STEMI setting is distinctly different than that seen in the elective, stable atherosclerotic setting and the use of DES has raised concerns over safety issues with their implementation. There have been a host of recent studies dedicated to elucidating the risk of using DES versus bare metal stents in the setting of STEMI and although the results have been generally favorable for the use of DES, this subject remains one that is under significant scrutiny.

Comparison of six-month outcomes for primary percutaneous revascularization for acute myocardial infarction with drug-eluting versus bare metal stents (from the APEX-AMI study)

We evaluated the use and outcomes of drug-eluting stents (DESs) and bare metal stents (BMSs) in a large primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (MI) trial. Recently concerns have been raised with "off-label" use of DESs for short- and long-term clinical outcomes. Limited randomized data exist evaluating DESs versus BMSs in ST-elevation MI. Patients (n=5,745) in the Assessment of Pexelizumab in Acute Myocardial Infarction (APEX-AMI) trial were categorized by stent type used. Baseline variables and clinical outcomes were collected at 90 days and 6 months. Outcomes by stent type were adjusted for using conventional multivariable predictors of 90-day mortality (age, anterior location, total ST-segment deviation, and Killip class), time to PCI, and Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction grade flow. Stents were deployed (at the investigator's discretion) in 5,124 patients (89.2%) with acute MI, with DES use in 2,221 (43.3%) and BMS use in 2,903 (56.7%). Patients receiving DESs were younger (median 59 vs 63 years of age, p<0.001), had left anterior descending coronary artery PCI (57.9% vs 48.1%, p<0.001), and often were treated in the United States (58.2%). DES-treated patients had a lower adjusted mortality at 90 days (hazard ratio 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.54 to 0.99, p=0.046) and trended toward lower mortality (hazard ratio 0.77, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.03, p=0.084) and recurrent MI (hazard ratio 0.81, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.11, p=0.186) at 6 months compared with BMSs. In conclusion, in this observational analysis of stent use from a large primary percutaneous intervention for acute MI trial, DESs appear as safe as BMSs with similar 6-month clinical outcomes with regard to death and recurrent MI.

Off-label use of stents: bare-metal versus drug-eluting stents

Drug-eluting stents (DES) became the default strategy for percutaneous revascularization due to their improved intermediate-term outcomes when compared with bare-metal stents (BMS) in the pivotal randomized, controlled trials. The excellent results of DES in on-label or US FDA-approved indications led to extrapolation of the results to more complex situations that were excluded from initial pivotal trials; such as off-label indications. Safety concerns began to grow after reports of increased late thrombosis and possibly associated increased death and myocardial infarction with DES, especially in the off-label situations. Recently, however, several important published registries have calmed some of those uncertainties and reassured the cardiology community of the safety and efficacy of DES compared with BMS. There is an overall poorer outcome with off-label use of any stent (BMS or DES) compared with standard or on-label use. This difference in outcome is most likely related to patient or specific coronary lesion characteristics or comorbidities that predispose an individual to adverse outcomes regardless of the stent type used. It is accepted now that DES use does result in a small increased risk of late thrombosis, but that risk is offset by a significant reduction in restenosis. Overall, the current data suggest that the use of DES in most lesion subsets is at least as safe as and clearly more efficacious than use of BMS in similar situations.

Paclitaxel-eluting versus bare-metal stents in acute ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI)

INTRODUCTION

Data comparing efficacy and safety of drug eluting stents (DES), particularly paclitaxel stent with bare metal stents (BMS) in the setting of acute ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is limited and inconclusive. The aim of our study is to compare the efficacy and safety of paclitaxel stent with bare metal stent in acute STEMI.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was performed on patients from our single community hospital who participated in the C-PORT trial from January 2003 to May 2005. One hundred forty-three patients treated exclusively with either BMS or paclitaxel DES were included (79 with paclitaxel DES and 64 with BMS) and were followed at 1, 3, and 6 months. The primary outcome was occurrence of major adverse cardiac events defined as cardiac death, STEMI or NSTEMI or the need for target vessel revascularization. Variables were compared using appropriate statistics and event free survival curves were estimated.

RESULTS

Baseline clinical characteristics in BMS and paclitaxel DES groups were well matched. No statistical difference between BMS and DES groups in the rate of cardiac death (6% vs. 9%, P = 0.56), STEMI or NSEMI (1.6% vs. 1.3% respectively, P = 0.88) and composite end point (13% vs. 10%, P = 0.65) was observed while a significant reduction in target vessel revascularization was seen in DES group (6% vs. 0% respectively, P = 0.02) was noticed.

CONCLUSION

In our patient group with acute STEMI, the use of paclitaxel DES did not show significant decrease in cumulative end points, cardiac mortality and recurrent STEMI or NSTEMI compared with BMS over a 6-month follow-up period. However, a significant reduction in revascularization of target vessel was seen.

In-stent restenosis in bare metal stents versus sirolimus-eluting stents after primary coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction and subsequent transcoronary transplantation of autologous stem cells

BACKGROUND

Following stenting for acute myocardial infarction, transcoronary transplantation of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) mobilized autologous stem cells (ASC) has been shown to result in an increased in-stent restenosis rate of bare metal stents (BMS).

HYPOTHESIS

This study sought to compare the extent of neointimal growth in BMS and sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) after primary implantation, and subsequent transcoronary transplantation of G-CSF mobilized stem cells.

METHODS

Patients with stenting of the left anterior descending coronary artery for acute anterior myocardial infarction were randomly assigned to receive a BMS or SES. Intracoronary stem cell injection was performed after G-CSF application for at least 4 d and cell apheresis. The angiograms obtained after cell transplantation and after 6 mo were analyzed by quantitative coronary angiography.

RESULTS

We performed primary stenting and stem cell transplantion in 16 patients who received a BMS (n = 8) or an SES (n = 8). In 2 patients with a BMS, late stent thrombosis occurred after 58 d and 177 d, respectively. In the remaining patients, control angiography after 6 mo revealed in-stent restenosis of >50% in no patients with SES but in 4 patients with BMS (67%). Late lumen loss and in-stent plaque volume were significantly higher in patients with BMS compared with patients with SES.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with BMS, SES impair in-stent intima hyperplasia after stenting for acute myocardial infarction and transcoronary transplantation of G-CSF mobilized ASC.

Prospective randomized comparison of sirolimus- versus paclitaxel-eluting stents for the treatment of acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction: pROSIT trial

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare effectiveness of the Sirolimus- (SES) and Paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) in primary angioplasty for acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).

BACKGROUND

It has been reported that SES and PES have been more effective than bare-metal stents in reducing restenosis and cardiac events in a broad range of patients with coronary artery disease. However, it is unknown whether there may be differences between these two drug-eluting stents in terms of efficacy in the setting of acute STEMI.

METHODS

Acute STEMI patients (n = 308) undergoing primary angioplasty were randomly assigned to SES (n = 154) or PES (n = 154) deployment. The routine angiographic follow-up was performed at 6 months and clinical follow-up data was obtained at 12 months. The primary end point was major adverse cardiac events (MACE) including death, reinfarction, stent thrombosis, and target lesion revascularization (TLR) at 12 months.

RESULTS

The baseline clinical, angiographic, and procedural characteristics were similar between the 2 groups. Two patients (all from the PES group) experienced stent thrombosis (1 acute and 1 subacute). The SES group revealed lower in-segment restenosis (5.9% vs. 14.8%, P = 0.03) and in-segment late loss (0.09 +/- 0.45 vs. 0.33 +/- 0.68 mm, P = 0.002) than PES group on follow-up angiography. Twelve-month TLR rates (2.6% vs. 6.5%, P = 0.17) were similar between two groups. MACE rates were lower in the SES group than in the PES group, but it did not reach statistical significance (5.8% vs. 11.7%, P = 0.07).

CONCLUSION

In the setting of primary angioplasty for STEMI, there were no statistically significant differences between the SES and the PES in terms of 12-month MACE. However, binary angiographic in-segment restenosis and in-segment late loss were significantly lower in the SES group.

Correlates of late and very late thrombosis of drug eluting stents

BACKGROUND

Late and very late thrombosis of coronary drug-eluting stents (DES) has received much attention but essentially remains unpredictable. We sought to identify correlates of stent thrombosis (ST) developing >30 days after DES implantation.

METHODS

We analyzed data from our single-center registry on 5,342 consecutive patients, who underwent a first DES implant between May 2003 and December 2006. The Academic Research Consortium definitions were applied to classify definite, probable, and possible ST. Cox regression analysis was performed to identify predictors of ST.

RESULTS

Follow-up information was obtained at 6 months and at 1, 2, and 3 years after DES implantation in 97.2%, 95.2%, 92.4%, and 89.8% of patients, respectively. We identified 34 patients who developed definite and 5 with probable ST >30 days after the index stent procedure. The 3-year cumulative incidence of definite and definite + probable ST >30 days was 1.33% and 1.50%, respectively. By Cox multiple variable regression, predictors of definite + probable ST were age (hazard ratio [HR] 0.95, 95% CI 0.92-0.98, P < .001), current smoking (HR 2.55, 95% CI 1.29-5.07, P = .007), prior percutaneous coronary intervention (HR 2.68, 95% CI 1.42-5.05, P = .002), "off-label" DES indication (HR 3.10, 95% CI 1.10-8.75, P = .032), bifurcation stenting (HR 2.37, 95% CI 1.40-3.99, P = .001), and stenting an occluded vessel (HR 3.02, 95% CI 1.59-5.74, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

We identified several baseline characteristics, which, when combined, may identify patients at risk for late-occurring ST, particularly after off-label DES placement.

Clinical use of sirolimus-eluting stents

Drug-eluting stents, or intracoronary stents that combine the local delivery of antirestenotic pharmacologic therapies while maintaining the mechanical advantage of bare metal stents over balloon angioplasty alone, are a highly complex technology that have profoundly affected the practice of percutaneous coronary intervention over the last 5 years. These devices were designed specifically to treat the neointimal hyperplasia occurring after conventional bare metal stent placement, and have been remarkably successful in this regard. However, recent concerns have been raised regarding the long-term safety of these devices, particularly when used outside of the specific patient and lesion subsets studied in the pivotal randomized trials that led to device approval by regulatory bodies within the United States and abroad. This review aims to present a brief description of the sirolimus-eluting stent device platform and its mechanism of action, followed by an overview of current data regarding efficacy and safety regarding the clinical use of sirolimus-eluting stent technology.

Percutaneous coronary intervention with stenting of left main coronary artery with drug-eluting stent in the setting of acute ST elevation myocardial infarction

AIM

Primary angioplasty of the left main coronary is not a common procedure. We present 16 cases of angioplasty of left main coronary artery with drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation in the setting of acute ST elevation myocardial infarction.

METHOD

Between December 2003 and November 2005, sixteen patients presented with acute ST elevation myocardial infarction where the left main coronary artery was shown to be involved with or without the left anterior descending or left circumflex arteries. Primary angioplasties were performed on the unprotected left main coronary artery. Five patients received direct stenting while the rest had pre-dilatation. Only one patient received Taxus(R) while the rest received Cypher(R) stents.

RESULTS

Of the sixteen patients, eleven developed cardiogenic shock necessitating intra-venous inotropic and intra-aortic balloon counter-pulsation support. Seven perished in hospital (46%); four within the first day while one had a complicated course and perished on the 42nd day of hospitalization. There was no difference in clinical history (hypertension, diabetes, age, and previous coronary intervention) or hemodynamic features (presenting blood pressure, duration of infarct, stent length, and maximum balloon size or pressure) between the two groups. However, the use of inotropes and intra-aortic balloon counter-pulsation (100% vs. 44% p=0.034) was significantly more common in the group which perished. Patient with cardiogenic shock had increased mortality of 63%. Of the nine survivors, one required repeat intervention for subacute stent thrombosis at sixteenth day and one underwent coronary bypass surgery at three months. All remained well up to mean follow up of 420 days.

CONCLUSION

Left main coronary artery infarct especially in the setting of cardiogenic shock has a very high mortality rate. Percutaneous intervention can be performed on these patients with minimal delay. In our series, we have shown that primary intervention of the unprotected left main coronary artery with a drug-eluting stent carries an acceptable level of major adverse coronary event. In those who survived the initial event, there is a low rate of mortality or morbidity.

Primary percutaneous coronary intervention in acute myocardial infarction

Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has emerged as the preferred therapy for acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), as multiple randomized clinical trials and pooled analyses have shown improved clinical outcomes compared with medical reperfusion. Unfortunately, medical centers with 24-hour PCI capability are concentrated in urban areas, relegating many patients in the United States to inferior medical reperfusion. Ongoing substantial research efforts are directed at optimizing mechanical reperfusion, including refinements in adjuvant medical therapy and the use of drug-eluting stents in the catheterization laboratory. Research efforts are also focusing on the implementation of streamlined transfer systems from community centers to tertiary care centers, akin to systems used in the trauma model. Furthermore, experience with the performance of primary PCI at community centers without onsite surgical backup is growing. This article summarizes data regarding the current state, challenges, and future directions of primary PCI for STEMI, emphasizing adherence to current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines.

Meta-analysis of clinical trials on use of drug-eluting stents for treatment of acute myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND

Recent trials have shown the effects of drug-eluting stents (DES) in treatment of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), but data on the clinical outcome are still incomplete.

METHODS

We performed a meta-analysis of all trials comparing DES and bare-metal stents (BMS) in AMI.

RESULTS

We found 7 randomized trials comparing the effects of DES and BMS in AMI, enrolling a total of 2357 patients (1177 with DES and 1180 with BMS) with a follow-up of 8 to 12 months. Incidence of major cardiac events (death, myocardial infarction, or revascularization) was 9.3% in patients treated with DES and 17.6% in patients with BMS, with a relative risk (RR) of 0.53 with 95% CI 0.43 to 0.66. Incidence of death or myocardial infarction was similar in the two groups, occurring in 5.8% of patients with DES and 6.9% of patients treated with BMS, with an RR of 0.84 (95% CI 0.62-1.15). Target lesion revascularization occurred in 4.8% of DES and in 12.0% of BMS patients, with an RR of 0.40 (95% CI 0.30-0.54). Stent thrombosis occurred in 2.3% in DES versus 2.6% in BMS patients, with an RR of 0.87 (95% CI 0.53-1.45). There was no heterogeneity among trials in any of the analyses (I2 = 0% for all).

CONCLUSIONS

Drug-eluting stents significantly reduce need for revascularization in patients with AMI, without changes in incidence of death or myocardial infarction. Use of DES is not associated with an increased risk of stent thrombosis at 1-year follow-up.

Clinical outcomes of dexamethasone-eluting stent implantation in ST-elevation acute myocardial infarction

OBJECTIVES

The aim of our study was to evaluate the safety and midterm clinical results of dexamethasone-eluting stent (DexES) implantation in ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction (STEMI).

BACKGROUND

Inflammation plays a pivotal role in both inestabilization of coronary atherosclerotic plaques and development of restenosis after stent placement. Antiinflammatory agents may attenuate those mechanisms and improve clinical outcomes. There is little information about clinical results of DexES and no data are available about their utilization during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in STEMI.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with STEMI that underwent primary or rescue PCI in our institution were treated with DexES. Clinical follow-up with routine realization of noninvasive test for detection of myocardial ischemia and coronariography if necessary, were performed. The objective of the study was to evaluate the rate of MACE (death, reinfarction, or target lesion revascularization) during midterm follow-up.

RESULTS

The procedure was successful in 96.7% of cases. There were no in-hospital deaths or reinfarctions. One acute stent thrombosis occurred and no subacute thrombosis were observed. During a mean follow-up period of 384 days, cardiac-related death was 1.1%, there were no reinfarctions or late stent thrombosis and target lesion revascularization rate was 4.2%.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that utilization of DexES for PCI in STEMI is safe and provides good midterm clinical outcomes.