Search

Balancing ischemic and bleeding risk is an evolving framework.Our objectives were to simulate changes in risks for adverse events and event-driven costs with use of ticagrelor or prasugrel versus clopidogrel according to varying levels of ischemic and bleeding risk. Using the validated PARIS risk functions, we estimated 1-year ischemic (myocardial infarction or stent thrombosis) and bleeding (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium types 3 or 5) event rates among PARIS study participants who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stent implantation for an acute coronary syndrome and were discharged with aspirin and clopidogrel (n=1497). Simulated changes in adverse events with ticagrelor or prasugrel were calculated by applying treatment effects from randomized trials for a 1-year time horizon. Event costs were estimated using National Inpatient Sample data. Net costs were calculated between antiplatelet therapy groups according to level of ischemic and bleeding risk. After weighting events for quality-of-life impact, we calculated event rates and costs for risk-tailored treatment versus clopidogrel under multiple drug pricing assumptions. One-year rates (per 1000 person-years) for ischemic events were 12.6, 24.1, and 66.1, respectively, among those at low (n=630), intermediate (n=536), and high (n=331) ischemic risk. Analogous bleeding rates were 11.0, 23.9, and 66.2, respectively, among low (n=728), intermediate (n=634), and high (n=135) bleeding risk patients. Mean per event costs were $22 174 (ischemic) and $12 203 (bleeding). When risks for ischemia matched or exceeded bleeding, simulated utility-weighted event rates favored ticagrelor/prasugrel, whereas clopidogrel reduced utility-weighted events when bleeding exceeded ischemic risk. One-year costs were sensitive to drug pricing assumptions, and risk-tailored treatment with either agent progressed from cost incurring to cost saving with increasing generic market share.Tailoring antiplatelet therapy intensity to patient risk may improve health utility and could produce cost savings in the first year after percutaneous coronary intervention.URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00998127.

Summary Background Few studies have examined the efficacy of drug-eluting stents (DES) for reducing aortocoronary saphenous vein bypass graft (SVG) failure compared with bare-metal stents (BMS) in patients undergoing stenting of de-novo SVG lesions. We assessed the risks and benefits of the use of DES versus BMS in de-novo SVG lesions. Methods Patients were recruited to our double-blind, randomised controlled trial from 25 US Department of Veterans Affairs centres. Eligible participants were aged at least 18 years and had at least one significant de-novo SVG lesion (50–99% stenosis of a 2·25–4·5 mm diameter SVG) requiring percutaneous coronary intervention with intent to use embolic protection devices. Enrolled patients were randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, by phone randomisation system to receive a DES or BMS. Randomisation was stratified by presence or absence of diabetes and number of target SVG lesions requiring percutaneous coronary intervention (one or two or more) within each participating site by use of an adaptive scheme intended to balance the two stent type groups on marginal totals for the stratification factors. Patients, referring physicians, study coordinators, and outcome assessors were masked to group allocation. The primary endpoint was the 12-month incidence of target vessel failure, defined as the composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularisation. The DIVA trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01121224. Findings Between Jan 1, 2012, and Dec 31, 2015, 599 patients were randomly assigned to the stent groups, and the data for 597 patients were used. The patients' mean age was 68·6 (SD 7·6) years, and 595 (>99%) patients were men. The two stent groups were similar for most baseline characteristics. At 12 months, the incidence of target vessel failure was 17% (51 of 292) in the DES group versus 19% (58 of 305) in the BMS group (adjusted hazard ratio 0·92, 95% CI 0·63–1·34, p=0·70). Between-group differences in the components of the primary endpoint, serious adverse events, or stent thrombosis were not significant. Enrolment was stopped before the revised target sample size of 762 patients was reached. Interpretation In patients undergoing stenting of de-novo SVG lesions, no significant differences in outcomes between those receiving DES and BMS during 12 months of follow-up were found. The study results have important economic implications in countries with high DES prices such as the USA, because they suggest that the lower-cost BMS can be used in SVG lesions without compromising either safety or efficacy. Funding US Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program.

Although percutaneous coronary intervention with everolimus-eluting stent (EES) implantation for native coronary artery disease has favorable results compared to first-generation drug-eluting stents, outcomes with EES for the treatment of in-stent restenosis (ISR) are unknown.The Xience V USA is a prospective multicenter registry evaluating outcomes in patients treated with EES. Here, we present the 12-month clinical outcomes in patients who received EES for the treatment of ISR and non-ISR. The primary outcome was the composite of target lesion failure (cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction (MI), or target lesion revascularization). Secondary outcomes were MI, target lesion revascularization (TLR), and stent thrombosis (ST).In this registry, a total of 383 patients (64.4 ± 11.4 years; 68.4% male) received revascularization for single-vessel ISR and 4832 patients (64.4 ± 11.0 years; 69.0% male) received revascularization for non-ISR lesions. At 1 year, target lesion failure was 10.9% in the ISR group and 4.9% in the non-ISR group. MI, TLR, and definite ST rates were higher in the ISR group (MI, 2.2% ISR group and 1.6% non-ISR group; TLR, 10.3% ISR group and 2.9% non-ISR group; definite/probable ST, 1.98% ISR group and 0.36% non-ISR group). However, these differences ceased to exist when case-control matched patients in the non-ISR group were studied (target lesion failure, 8.8% ISR vs 7.4% non-ISR; cardiac death or MI, 2.7% ISR vs 1.4% non-ISR; TLR, 7.8% ISR vs 7.1% non-ISR; and definite/probable ST, 1.03% ISR vs 0.69% non-ISR).The treatment of ISR with EES appears to be safe and efficacious at 1 year. Compared to the non-ISR group, target lesion failure was much higher, indicating a higher risk profile of these patients. However, these differences ceased to exist with case-controlled matching.