Can't Bare It Any Longer

Long-Term Outcomes of Contemporary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with the Xience Drug-Eluting Stent: Results from a Multicentre Australian Registry

Introduction: Several large registries have evaluated outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the USA, however there are no contemporary data regarding long-term outcomes after PCI, particularly comparing new generation drug-eluting stents (DES) with other stents in Australia. Additionally, approval of new-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) is almost exclusively based on non-inferiority trials comparing outcomes with early generation DES, and there are limited data comparing safety and efficacy outcomes of new-generation DES with bare metal stents (BMS). This study reports in-hospital and long-term outcomes after PCI with the Xience DES from a large national registry, the GenesisCare Outcomes Registry (GCOR). Methods: The first 1500 patients consecutively enrolled from January 2015 to January 2019 and treated exclusively with either Xience DES or BMS and eligible for 1-year follow-up were included. Baseline patient and procedural data, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in-hospital, at 30 days and 1-year, and medications were reported and analysed with respect to Xience DES (n = 1000) or BMS (n = 500) use. Results: In this cohort the mean age was 68.4 ± 10.7 years, 76.9% were male, 24.6% had diabetes mellitus and 45.9% presented with acute coronary syndromes. Of the overall cohort of 4765 patients from this period including all DES types, and patients who received multiple DES or a combination of DES and BMS, DES were exclusively used in 3621 (76.0%) patients, and BMS were exclusively used in 596 (12.5%). In comparison to international cohorts, adverse clinical event rates were low at 30 days in terms of mortality (0.20%), target lesion revascularisation (TLR, 0.27%) and MACE (0.47%), and at 12 months for mortality (1.26%) TLR (1.16%) and MACE (1.78%). Conclusions: Clinical practice and long-term outcomes of PCI with the Xience DES in Australia are consistent with international series. Recent trends indicate DES use has increased in parallel with good outcomes despite an increasingly complex patient and lesion cohort.

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

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.