Search

Background: Limited data are available on the long-term effects of contemporary drug-eluting stents versus contemporary bare-metal stents on rates of death, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization, and stent thrombosis and on quality of life.Methods: We randomly assigned 9013 patients who had stable or unstable coronary artery disease to undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with the implantation of either contemporary drug-eluting stents or bare-metal stents. In the group receiving drug-eluting stents, 96% of the patients received either everolimus- or zotarolimus-eluting stents. The primary outcome was a composite of death from any cause and nonfatal spontaneous myocardial infarction after a median of 5 years of follow-up. Secondary outcomes included repeat revascularization, stent thrombosis, and quality of life.Results: At 6 years, the rates of the primary outcome were 16.6% in the group receiving drug-eluting stents and 17.1% in the group receiving bare-metal stents (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.88 to 1.09; P=0.66). There were no significant between-group differences in the components of the primary outcome. The 6-year rates of any repeat revascularization were 16.5% in the group receiving drug-eluting stents and 19.8% in the group receiving bare-metal stents (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.85; P<0.001); the rates of definite stent thrombosis were 0.8% and 1.2%, respectively (P=0.0498). Quality-of-life measures did not differ significantly between the two groups.Conclusions: In patients undergoing PCI, there were no significant differences between those receiving drug-eluting stents and those receiving bare-metal stents in the composite outcome of death from any cause and nonfatal spontaneous myocardial infarction. Rates of repeat revascularization were lower in the group receiving drug-eluting stents. (Funded by the Norwegian Research Council and others; NORSTENT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00811772 .). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patients at high risk for bleeding who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) often receive bare-metal stents followed by 1 month of dual antiplatelet therapy. We studied a polymer-free and carrier-free drug-coated stent that transfers umirolimus (also known as biolimus A9), a highly lipophilic sirolimus analogue, into the vessel wall over a period of 1 month.Methods: In a randomized, double-blind trial, we compared the drug-coated stent with a very similar bare-metal stent in patients with a high risk of bleeding who underwent PCI. All patients received 1 month of dual antiplatelet therapy. The primary safety end point, tested for both noninferiority and superiority, was a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis. The primary efficacy end point was clinically driven target-lesion revascularization.Results: We enrolled 2466 patients. At 390 days, the primary safety end point had occurred in 112 patients (9.4%) in the drug-coated-stent group and in 154 patients (12.9%) in the bare-metal-stent group (risk difference, -3.6 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -6.1 to -1.0; hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.91; P<0.001 for noninferiority and P=0.005 for superiority). During the same time period, clinically driven target-lesion revascularization was needed in 59 patients (5.1%) in the drug-coated-stent group and in 113 patients (9.8%) in the bare-metal-stent group (risk difference, -4.8 percentage points; 95% CI, -6.9 to -2.6; hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.69; P<0.001).Conclusions: Among patients at high risk for bleeding who underwent PCI, a polymer-free umirolimus-coated stent was superior to a bare-metal stent with respect to the primary safety and efficacy end points when used with a 1-month course of dual antiplatelet therapy. (Funded by Biosensors Europe; LEADERS FREE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01623180.). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patients' responses to oral antiplatelet therapy are subject to variation. Bedside monitoring offers the opportunity to improve outcomes after coronary stenting by individualizing therapy. Methods: We randomly assigned 2440 patients scheduled for coronary stenting at 38 centers to a strategy of platelet-function monitoring, with drug adjustment in patients who had a poor response to antiplatelet therapy, or to a conventional strategy without monitoring and drug adjustment. The primary end point was the composite of death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, stroke, or urgent revascularization 1 year after stent implantation. For patients in the monitoring group, the VerifyNow P2Y12 and aspirin point-of-care assays were used in the catheterization laboratory before stent implantation and in the outpatient clinic 2 to 4 weeks later. Results: In the monitoring group, high platelet reactivity in patients taking clopidogrel (34.5% of patients) or aspirin (7.6%) led to the administration of an additional bolus of clopidogrel, prasugrel, or aspirin along with glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors during the procedure. The primary end point occurred in 34.6% of the patients in the monitoring group, as compared with 31.1% of those in the conventional-treatment group (hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.98 to 1.29; P=0.10). The main secondary end point, stent thrombosis or any urgent revascularization, occurred in 4.9% of the patients in the monitoring group and 4.6% of those in the conventional-treatment group (hazard ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.52; P=0.77). The rate of major bleeding events did not differ significantly between groups. Conclusions: This study showed no significant improvements in clinical outcomes with platelet-function monitoring and treatment adjustment for coronary stenting, as compared with standard antiplatelet therapy without monitoring. (Funded by Allies in Cardiovascular Trials Initiatives and Organized Networks and others; ARCTIC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00827411.) [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Background: Several studies have compared the treatment effects of coronary stenting and coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG). However, there are limited data regarding the long-term outcomes of these two interventions for patients with unprotected left main coronary artery disease. Methods: We evaluated 1102 patients with unprotected left main coronary artery disease who underwent stent implantation and 1138 patients who underwent CABG in Korea between January 2000 and June 2006. We compared adverse outcomes (death; a composite outcome of death, Q-wave myocardial infarction, or stroke; and target-vessel revascularization) with the use of propensity-score matching in the overall cohort and in separate subgroups according to type of stent. Results: In the overall matched cohort, there was no significant difference between the stenting and CABG groups in the risk of death (hazard ratio for the stenting group, 1.18; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77 to 1.80) or the risk of the composite outcome (hazard ratio for the stenting group, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.62). The rates of target-vessel revascularization were significantly higher in the group that received stents than in the group that underwent CABG (hazard ratio, 4.76; 95% CI, 2.80 to 8.11). Comparisons of the group that received bare-metal stents with the group that underwent CABG and of the group that received drug-eluting stents with the group that underwent CABG produced similar results, although there was a trend toward higher rates of death and the composite end point in the group that received drug-eluting stents. Conclusions: In a cohort of patients with unprotected left main coronary artery disease, we found no significant difference in rates of death or of the composite end point of death, Q-wave myocardial infarction, or stroke between patients receiving stents and those undergoing CABG. However, stenting, even with drug-eluting stents, was associated with higher rates of target-vessel revascularization than was CABG. N Engl J Med 2008;358:1781-92. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Recent reports suggest that off-label use of drug-eluting stents is associated with an increased incidence of adverse events. Whether the use of bare-metal stents would yield different results is unknown. Methods: We analyzed data from 6551 patients in the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Dynamic Registry according to whether they were treated with drug-eluting stents or bare-metal stents and whether use was standard or off-label. Patients were followed for 1 year for the occurrence of cardiovascular events and death. Off-label use was defined as use in restenotic lesions, lesions in a bypass graft, left main coronary artery disease, or ostial, bifurcated, or totally occluded lesions, as well as use in patients with a reference-vessel diameter of less than 2.5 mm or greater than 3.75 mm or a lesion length of more than 30 mm. Results: Off-label use occurred in 54.7% of all patients with bare-metal stents and 48.7% of patients with drug-eluting stents. As compared with patients with bare-metal stents, patients with drug-eluting stents had a higher prevalence of diabetes, hypertension, renal disease, previous percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary-artery bypass grafting, and multivessel coronary artery disease. One year after intervention, however, there were no significant differences in the adjusted risk of death or myocardial infarction in patients with drug-eluting stents as compared with those with bare-metal stents, whereas the risk of repeat revascularization was significantly lower among patients with drug-eluting stents. Conclusions: Among patients with off-label indications, the use of drug-eluting stents was not associated with an increased risk of death or myocardial infarction but was associated with a lower rate of repeat revascularization at 1 year, as compared with bare-metal stents. These findings support the use of drug-eluting stents for off-label indications. N Engl J Med 2008;358:342-52. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Numerous studies have compared the outcomes of two competing interventions for multivessel coronary artery disease: coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) and coronary stenting. However, little information has become available since the introduction of drug-eluting stents. Methods: We identified patients with multivessel disease who received drug-eluting stents or underwent CABG in New York State between October 1, 2003, and December 31, 2004, and we compared adverse outcomes (death, death or myocardial infarction, or repeat revascularization) through December 31, 2005, after adjustment for differences in baseline risk factors among the patients. Results: In comparison with treatment with a drug-eluting stent, CABG was associated with lower 18-month rates of death and of death or myocardial infarction both for patients with three-vessel disease and for patients with two-vessel disease. Among patients with three-vessel disease who underwent CABG, as compared with those who received a stent, the adjusted hazard ratio for death was 0.80 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65 to 0.97) and the adjusted survival rate was 94.0% versus 92.7% (P=0.03); the adjusted hazard ratio for death or myocardial infarction was 0.75 (95% CI, 0.63 to 0.89) and the adjusted rate of survival free from myocardial infarction was 92.1% versus 89.7% (P<0.001). Among patients with two-vessel disease who underwent CABG, as compared with those who received a stent, the adjusted hazard ratio for death was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.57 to 0.89) and the adjusted survival rate was 96.0% versus 94.6% (P=0.003); the adjusted hazard ratio for death or myocardial infarction was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.59 to 0.87) and the adjusted rate of survival free from myocardial infarction was 94.5% versus 92.5% (P<0.001). Patients undergoing CABG also had lower rates of repeat revascularization. Conclusions: For patients with multivessel disease, CABG continues to be associated with lower mortality rates than does treatment with drug-eluting stents and is also associated with lower rates of death or myocardial infarction and repeat revascularization. N Engl J Med 2008;358:331-41. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article presents the third physician opinion on treatment of a hypothetical 65-year-old diabetic patient with coronary heart disease. This physician believes that a stent is not a long term solution to this patient's problems and says a coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery is a better option. It is the author's belief that this procedure bypasses both the current stenosis and future blockages of the arteries. Survival advantage is the only justification for performing an early CABG. The rates of survival for this procedure have been shown to be higher for diabetics and obese people than other measures.

Background The safety of drug-eluting stents has been called into question by recent reports of increased stent thrombosis, myocardial infarction, and death. Such studies have been inconclusive because of their insufficient size, the use of historical controls, a limited duration of follow-up, and a lack of access to original source data. Methods We performed a pooled analysis of data from four double-blind trials in which 1748 patients were randomly assigned to receive either sirolimus-eluting stents or bare-metal stents and five double-blind trials in which 3513 patients were randomly assigned to receive either paclitaxel-eluting stents or bare-metal stents; we then analyzed the major clinical end points of the trials. Results The 4-year rates of stent thrombosis were 1.2% in the sirolimus-stent group versus 0.6% in the bare-metal–stent group (P=0.20) and 1.3% in the paclitaxel-stent group versus 0.9% in the bare-metal–stent group (P=0.30). However, after 1 year, there were five episodes of stent thrombosis in patients with sirolimus-eluting stents versus none in patients with bare-metal stents (P=0.025) and nine episodes in patients with paclitaxel-eluting stents versus two in patients with bare-metal stents (P=0.028). The 4-year rates of target-lesion revascularization were markedly reduced in both the sirolimus-stent group and the paclitaxel-stent group, as compared with the bare-metal–stent groups. The rates of death or myocardial infarction did not differ significantly between the groups with drug-eluting stents and those with bare-metal stents. Conclusions Stent thrombosis after 1 year was more common with both sirolimus-eluting stents and paclitaxel-eluting stents than with bare-metal stents. Both drug-eluting stents were associated with a marked reduction in target-lesion revascularization. There were no significant differences in the cumulative rates of death or myocardial infraction at 4 years. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Recent reports have indicated that there may be an increased risk of late stent thrombosis with the use of drug-eluting stents, as compared with bare-metal stents. Methods We evaluated 6033 patients treated with drug-eluting stents and 13,738 patients treated with bare-metal stents in 2003 and 2004, using data from the Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry. The outcome analysis covering a period of up to 3 years was based on 1424 deaths and 2463 myocardial infarctions and was adjusted for differences in baseline characteristics. Results The two study groups did not differ significantly in the composite of death and myocardial infarction during 3 years of follow-up. At 6 months, there was a trend toward a lower unadjusted event rate in patients with drug-eluting stents than in those with bare-metal stents, with 13.4 fewer such events per 1000 patients. However, after 6 months, patients with drug-eluting stents had a significantly higher event rate, with 12.7 more events per 1000 patients per year (adjusted relative risk, 1.20; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05 to 1.37). At 3 years, mortality was significantly higher in patients with drug-eluting stents (adjusted relative risk, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.35), and from 6 months to 3 years, the adjusted relative risk for death in this group was 1.32 (95% CI, 1.11 to 1.57). Conclusions Drug-eluting stents were associated with an increased rate of death, as compared with bare-metal stents. This trend appeared after 6 months, when the risk of death was 0.5 percentage point higher and a composite of death or myocardial infarction was 0.5 to 1.0 percentage point higher per year. The long-term safety of drug-eluting stents needs to be ascertained in large, randomized trials [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Definitions of stent thrombosis that have been used in clinical trials of drug-eluting stents have been restrictive and have not been used in a uniform manner. Methods We applied a hierarchical classification of stent thrombosis set by the Academic Research Consortium (ARC) across randomized trials involving 878 patients treated with sirolimus-eluting stents, 1400 treated with paclitaxel-eluting stents, and 2267 treated with bare-metal stents. We then pooled 4 years of follow-up data. All events were adjudicated by an independent clinical-events committee. Results The cumulative incidence of stent thrombosis according to the original protocol definitions was 1.2% in the sirolimus-stent group versus 0.6% in the bare-metal–stent group (P=0.20; 95% confidence interval [CI], −0.4 to 1.5) and 1.3% in the paclitaxel-stent group versus 0.8% in the bare-metal–stent group (P=0.24; 95% CI, −0.3 to 1.4). The incidence of definite or probable stent thrombosis as defined by the ARC was 1.5% in the sirolimus-stent group versus 1.7% in the bare-metal–stent group (P=0.70; 95% CI, −1.5 to 1.0) and 1.8% in the paclitaxel-stent group versus 1.4% in the bare-metal–stent group (P=0.52; 95% CI, −0.7 to 1.4). The incidence of definite or probable events occurring 1 to 4 years after implantation was 0.9% in the sirolimus-stent group versus 0.4% in the bare-metal–stent group and 0.9% in the paclitaxel-stent group versus 0.6% in the bare-metal–stent group. Conclusions The incidence of stent thrombosis did not differ significantly between patients with drug-eluting stents and those with bare-metal stents in randomized clinical trials, although the power to detect small differences in rates was limited [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The long-term effects of treatment with sirolimus-eluting stents, as compared with bare-metal stents, have not been established. Methods We performed an analysis of individual data on 4958 patients enrolled in 14 randomized trials comparing sirolimus-eluting stents with bare-metal stents (mean follow-up interval, 12.1 to 58.9 months). The primary end point was death from any cause. Other outcomes were stent thrombosis, the composite end point of death or myocardial infarction, and the composite of death, myocardial infarction, or reintervention. Results The overall risk of death (hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80 to 1.30) and the combined risk of death or myocardial infarction (hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.16) were not significantly different for patients receiving sirolimus-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents. There was a significant reduction in the combined risk of death, myocardial infarction, or reintervention (hazard ratio, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.54) associated with the use of sirolimus-eluting stents. There was no significant difference in the overall risk of stent thrombosis with sirolimus-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents (hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.64 to 1.86). However, there was evidence of a slight increase in the risk of stent thrombosis associated with sirolimus-eluting stents after the first year. Conclusions The use of sirolimus-eluting stents does not have a significant effect on overall long-term survival and survival free of myocardial infarction, as compared with bare-metal stents. There is a sustained reduction in the need for reintervention after the use of sirolimus-eluting stents. The risk of stent thrombosis is at least as great as that seen with bare-metal stents [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author suggests that drug-eluting stents represent an important advance in the management of coronary artery disease and have benefited many patients. In the rush to bring "breakthrough" technologies to market, unanticipated adverse events will occur. The solution is not to stop expediting the approval of novel products, but to improve public communication and require longer post-marketing studies.

A letter to the editor is presented in response to the article "Comparison of stenting with minimally invasive bypass surgery for stenosis of the left anterior descending coronary artery," by A. Diegeler, H. Thiele, V. Falk and colleagues in the August 22, 2002 issue.

A letter to the editor is presented in response to the article "Everolimus-Eluting Stents or Bypass Surgery for Multivessel Coronary Disease" by S. Bangalore, Y. Guo, Z. Samadashvili, S. Blecker, J. Xu, and E. L. Hannan published in the March 26, 2015 issue of the "New England Journal of Medicine."

A reprint of the article "Compelling Evidence for Coronary-Bypass Surgery in Patients With Diabetes," by Mark A. Hlatky that was first published at NEJM.org on November 4, 2012 is presented. The article discusses a study involving patients with diabetes who were assigned to undergo either coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents. It identifies the reasons for the growing use of PCI in patients with multivessel coronary disease.

A letter to the editor is presented in response to the article "Trial of Everolimus-Eluting Stents or Bypass Surgery for Coronary Disease" by S-J Park, J-M Ahn, Y-H Kim, et al. published in the March 26, 2015 issue.

A letter to the editor is presented in response to the article "Stent placement compared with balloon angioplasty for obstructed coronary bypass grafts," by M. P. Savage, in the September 11, 1997 issue.

Editorial. Comments on two articles in the June 12, 1997 issue of the `New England Journal of Medicine,' related to interventions aimed at opening occluded coronary arteries. Discussion of a study by Terstein, et al which evaluated the safety and efficacy of catheter-based gamma radiation and stenting; The Evaluation in PTCA to Improve Long-Term Outcome with Abciximab GP IIb/IIIa Blockade (EPILOG) study; Comments about changes in interventional cardiology.

The author suggests that larger, more conclusive clinical trials are necessary before routine implantation of drug-eluting stents can be recommended for all patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary interventions. He cites two articles in this issue, "Sirolimus-Eluting versus Uncoated Stents in Acute Myocardial Infarction," by C. Spaulding and colleagues as well as "Paclitaxel-Eluting versus Uncoated Stents in Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention," by G. J. Laarman and colleagues.

Background: As compared with thrombolytic therapy, primary percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) in acute myocardial infarction reduces the rates of death, reinfarction, and stroke, but recurrent ischemia, restenosis, and reocclusion of the infarct-related artery remain problematic. When used in combination with PTCA, coronary stenting and platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors may further improve outcomes. Methods: Using a 2-by-2 factorial design, we randomly assigned 2082 patients with acute myocardial infarction to undergo PTCA alone (518 patients), PTCA plus abciximab therapy (528), stenting alone with the MultiLink stent (512), or stenting plus abciximab therapy (524). Results: Normal flow was restored in the target vessel in 94.5 to 96.9 percent of patients and did not vary according to the reperfusion strategy. At six months, the primary end point — a composite of death, reinfarction, disabling stroke, and ischemia-driven revascularization of the target vessel — had occurred in 20.0 percent of patients after PTCA, 16.5 percent after PTCA plus abciximab, 11.5 percent after stenting, and 10.2 percent after stenting plus abciximab (P<0.001). There were no significant differences among the groups in the rates of death, stroke, or reinfarction; the difference in the incidence of the primary end point was due entirely to differences in the rates of target-vessel revascularization (ranging from 15.7 percent after PTCA to 5.2 percent after stenting plus abciximab, P<0.001). The rate of angiographically established restenosis was 40.8 percent after PTCA and 22.2 percent after stenting (P<0.001), and the respective rates of reocclusion of the infarcted-related artery were 11.3 percent and 5.7 percent (P=0.01), both independent of abciximab use. Conclusions: At experienced centers, stent implantation (with or without abciximab therapy) should be considered the routine reperfusion strategy. (N Engl J Med 2002;346:957-66.) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]