Search

Background: The impact of glycemic control in the risk of stent failure in subjects with type 2 diabetes (T2D) is currently unknown., Objectives: This study sought to study whether poor glycemic control is associated with a higher risk of stent failure in subjects with T2D., Methods: This observational study included all patients in Sweden with T2D who underwent implantation of second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) during 2010 to 2020. The exposure variable was the updated mean of glycated hemoglobin (HbA 1c ). Individuals were stratified by glycemic control, with HbA 1c 6.1% to 7.0% (43-53 mmol/mol) as the reference group. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of stent failure (in-stent restenosis and stent thrombosis). The main result was analyzed in a complete cases model. Sensitivity analyses were performed for missing data and a model with death as a competing risk., Results: The study population consisted of 52,457 individuals (70,453 DES). The number of complete cases was 24,411 (29,029 DES). The median follow-up was 6.4 years. The fully adjusted HR was 1.10 (95% CI: 0.80-1.52) for HbA 1c of ≤5.5% (≤37 mmol/mol), 1.02 (95% CI: 0.85-1.23) for HbA 1c of 5.6% to 6.0% (38-42 mmol/mol), 1.25 (95% CI: 1.11-1.41) for HbA 1c of 7.1% to 8.0% (54-64 mmol/mol), 1.30 (95% CI: 1.13-1.51) for HbA 1c of 8.1% to 9.0% (65-75 mmol/mol), 1.46 (95% CI: 1.21-1.76) for HbA 1c of 9.1% to 10.0% (76-86 mmol/mol), and 1.33 (95% CI: 1.06-1.66) for HbA 1c of ≥10.1% (≥87 mmol/mol). Sensitivity analyses did not change the main result., Conclusions: We found a significant association between poor glycemic control and a higher risk of stent failure driven by in-stent restenosis., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures The study was funded by an ALF agreement between Stockholm County Council and Karolinska Institutet (FoUI961018). Dr Ritsinger has received honoraria for expert group participation from AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr Eliasson has received personal fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly and Company, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mundipharma, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi, all outside the submitted work. Dr Norhammar has received honoraria for expert group participation from AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly and Company, and Boehringer Ingelheim in the last 3 years. Dr Nyström has received honoraria for expert group participation from AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly and Company, Boehringer Ingelheim, Abbott, and Amgen. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

We examine physician responses to a global information shock and how these impact their patients. We exploit international news over the safety of an innovation in healthcare, the drug-eluting stent. We use data on interventional cardiologists' use of stents to define and measure cardiologists' responsiveness to the initial positive news and link this to their patients' outcomes. We find substantial heterogeneity in responsiveness to news. Patients treated by cardiologists who respond slowly to the initial positive news have fewer adverse outcomes. This is not due to patient-physician sorting. Instead, our results suggest that the differences are partially driven by slow responders being better at deciding when (not) to use the new technology, which in turn affects their patient outcomes., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To analyze the clinical outcome of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using the Xience drug eluting stent (DES) versus other modern DES., Methods: This retrospective study based on the Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry (SCAAR) analyzed the outcome of PCI using Xience versus other commonly used modern DES, 2007 to 2017. The primary outcome measure was a combination of all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI) and revascularisation with PCI. Angiographical outcome measures were in-stent restenosis (ISR) and stent thrombosis (ST)., Results: Rates of the primary outcome measure for Xience and other DES were 31.9% and 28.2% respectively, adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.99 (95% CI 0.95-1.03). Crude rates of ISR were 2.9% versus 2.1% over 4.3 and 2.9 years respectively, adjusted HR 0.93 (95% CI 0.81-1.06). Crude rates of ST were 0.9% versus 0.7%, adjusted HR 1.07 (95% CI 0.82-1.39). Results were consistent in all sensitivity analyses., Conclusions: This nationally complete, real-world study confirms that Xience is a safe and effective DES with low-event rates of ISR and ST. Compared with a control group containing a large proportion of thinner strut stents and absorbable polymers, Xience exhibits similar results in all important clinical endpoints., (© 2021 The Authors. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: Incretins are a group of glucose-lowering drugs with favourable cardiovascular (CV) effects against neoatherosclerosis. Incretins' potential effect in stent failure is unknown. The aim of this study is to determine if incretin treatment decreases the risk of stent-thrombosis (ST), and/or in-stent restenosis (ISR) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with implanted drug-eluting stents (DES)., Methods: Observational study including all diabetes patients who underwent PCI with DES in Sweden from 2007 to 2017. By merging 5 national registers, the information on patient characteristics, outcomes and drug dispenses was retrieved. Cox regression analysis with estimated hazard ratios (HRs) adjusted for confounders with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was used to analyse for the occurrence of ST/ISR, and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). A subgroup analysis for the type of incretin treatment was performed., Results: In total 18,505 diabetes patients (30% women) underwent PCI, and 32,463 DES were implanted. Of those, 10% (3449 DES in 1943 patients) were treated with incretins. Median follow-up time was 995 days (Control Group) vs. 771 days (Incretin Group). No significant difference in the risk of ST/ISR was found neither for the main study group (HR:0.98 95% CI:0.80-1.19) nor for the subgroups. No reduction of the risk of MACE (HR:0.96 95% CI:0.88-1.06) was observed. There was a 26% lower risk for CV death in favour of incretin treated patients (HR:0.74 95% CI:0.57-0.95)., Conclusion: In diabetes patients who underwent PCI incretin treatment was not associated with lower risk of stent failure, but with lower risk of CV death., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Aims: The aim of this study was to assess the real-world clinical performance of a sirolimus-eluting ultrathin-strut drug-eluting stent (DES) (Orsiro) in a large nationwide cohort of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)., Methods and Results: From the Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry, the two-year outcomes of 4,561 patients implanted with Orsiro (Orsiro group) and 69,570 receiving other newer-generation DES (n-DES group) were analysed. The rate of definite stent thrombosis was low in both groups (0.67% and 0.83% for Orsiro and n-DES, respectively; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.90, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.55-1.46, p-value 0.66). Restenosis was also infrequent (1.5% vs 2.0% with Orsiro and n-DES, adjusted HR 0.81, 95% CI: 0.63-1.03, p-value=0.09). The risk of target lesion revascularisation by PCI was lower in the Orsiro group (1.6% vs 2.3%, adjusted HR 0.75, 95% CI: 0.60-0.94, p-value=0.013). All-cause mortality and myocardial infarction did not show a statistically significant difference between the two groups (mortality of 7.5% in both groups, adjusted HR 0.99, 95% CI: 0.72-1.35, p-value=0.94; 6.0% vs 5.2% for myocardial infarction, adjusted HR 1.19, 95% CI: 1.00-1.43, p-value=0.06)., Conclusions: In a nationwide scenario, the use of a sirolimus-eluting ultrathin-strut DES portended favourable clinical outcomes.

Background: We hypothesized that the transition from bare-metal stents (BMS) to newer generation drug-eluting stents (n-DES) in clinical practice may have reduced the risk also in patients with kidney dysfunction., Methods: Observational study in the national SWEDEHEART registry, that compared the 1-year risk of in-stent restenosis (RS) and stent thrombosis (ST) in all percutaneous coronary intervention treated patients(n = 92 994) during 2007-2013., Results: N-DES patients were younger than BMS, but had more often diabetes, previous myocardial infarction, previous revascularization and were more often treated with potent platelet inhibition. N-DES versus BMS, was associated with lower 1-year risk of RS in patients with estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) >60 with a cumulative probability of 2.1% versus 5.3%, adjusted hazard ratio 0.30, 95% CI (0.27-0.34) and with eGFR 30-60: 3.0% versus 4.9%; hazard ratio 0.46 (0.36-0.60) but not in patients with eGFR <30: 8.1% versus 6.0%; hazard ratio 1.32 (0.71-2.45) (pinteraction = 0.009) as well as lower risk of ST for eGFR >60 and eGFR 30-60: 0.5% versus 0.9%; hazard ratio 0.52 (0.40-0.68) and 0.6% versus 1.3%; hazard ratio 0.54 (0.54-0.72) but not for eGFR <30; 2.1% versus 1.1%; hazard ratio 1.49 (0.56-3.98) (pinteraction = 0.027)., Conclusion: N-DES is associated with lower 1-year risk of in-stent restenosis and stent thrombosis in patients with normal or moderately reduced kidney function but not in patients with severe kidney dysfunction, where stenting is associated with worse outcomes regardless of stent type.

Aims: Randomized clinical trials have consistently demonstrated the non-inferiority of bioabsorbable polymer drug-eluting stents (BP-DES) with respect to DES having permanent polymers (PP-DES). To date, the comparative performance of BP- and PP-DES in the real world has not been extensively investigated., Methods and Results: From October 2011 to June 2016, we analysed the outcomes associated with newer generation DES use in Sweden. After stratification according to the type of DES received at the index procedure, a total of 16 504 and 79 106 stents were included in the BP- and PP-DES groups, respectively. The Kaplan-Meier estimates for restenosis at 2 years were 1.2% and 1.4% in BP- and PP-DES groups, respectively. Definite stent thrombosis (ST) was low in both groups (0.5% and 0.7% in BP- and PP-DES groups, respectively). The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for either restenosis or definite ST did not differ between BP- and PP-DES [adjusted HR 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74-1.21; P = 0.670 and adjusted HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.57-1.09; P = 0.151, respectively]. Similarly, there were no differences in the adjusted risk of all-cause death and myocardial infarction (MI) between the two groups (adjusted HR for all-cause death 1.01, 95% CI 0.82-1.25; P = 0.918 and adjusted HR for MI 1.05, 95% CI 0.93-1.19; P = 0.404)., Conclusion: In a large, nationwide, and unselected cohort of patients, percutaneous coronary intervention with BP-DES implantation was not associated with an incremental clinical benefit over PP-DES use at 2 years follow-up., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2019. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objectives: Old-generation drug-eluting coronary stents (o-DES) have despite being safe and effective been associated with an increased propensity of late stent thrombosis (ST). We evaluated ST rates in o-DES, new-generation DES (n-DES) and bare metal stents (BMS) the first year (< 1 year) and beyond 1 year (> 1 year)., Methods: We evaluated all implantations with BMS, o-DES (Cordis Cypher, Boston Scientific Taxus Liberté and Medtronic Endeavor) and n-DES in the Swedish coronary angiography and angioplasty registry (SCAAR) between 1 January 2007 and 8 January 2014 (n = 207 291). All cases of ST (n = 2 268) until 31 December 2014 were analyzed., Results: The overall risk of ST was lower in both n-DES and o-DES compared with BMS up to 1 year (n-DES versus BMS: adjusted risk ratio (RR) 0.48 (0.41-0.58) and o-DES versus BMS: 0.56 (0.46-0.67), both p < 0.001). From 1 year after stent implantation and onward, the risk for ST was higher in o-DES compared with BMS [adjusted RR, 1.82 (1.47-2.25], p < 0.001). N-DES were associated with similar low ST rates as BMS from 1 year and onward [adjusted RR 1.21 (0.94-1.56), p = 0.135]., Conclusion: New-generation DES were associated with lower ST rates in comparison to BMS during the first-year post-stenting. After 1 year, n-DES and BMS were associated with similar ST rates., Trial Registration: This study was a retrospective observational study and as such did not require clinical trial database registration.

Aims: The clinical performance of the SYNERGY drug-eluting stent (DES) in patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) has not been investigated in detail. We sought to report on the outcomes after SYNERGY DES (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA, USA) implantation in patients with MI undergoing percutaneous revascularisation (PCI)., Methods and Results: We included all consecutive patients with MI undergoing PCI with the SYNERGY DES and newer-generation DES (n-DES group) in Sweden. From March 2013 to September 2016, a total of 36,292 patients, of whom 39.7% presented with ST-elevation MI, were included. As compared to patients in the n-DES group (n=31,403), patients in the SYNERGY group (n=4,889) were older and presented more often with left main or three-vessel disease involvement, as well as with restenotic lesions (p<0.001 for all parameters). The Kaplan-Meier estimates of ST at two years in the SYNERGY and n-DES groups were 0.69% and 0.81%, respectively (adjusted HR 1.00, 95% CI: 0.69-1.46; p=0.99). Clinically relevant restenosis was encountered in 1.48% and 1.25% of patients in the SYNERGY and n-DES groups, respectively (adjusted HR 1.05, 95% CI: 0.81-1.37; p=0.72). No differences in the risk of all-cause death and recurrent MI were found between the two groups after adjustment (adjusted HR 1.12, 95% CI: 0.98-1.28; p=0.10, and adjusted HR 0.95, 95% CI: 0.82-1.10; p=0.49, respectively)., Conclusions: In a large and unselected cohort of patients with MI undergoing percutaneous revascularisation with the SYNERGY DES, stent performance and clinical outcomes did not differ compared with other n-DES up to two years.

Aims: Randomised trials indicate higher rates of stent thrombosis (ST) and target lesion failure (TLF) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with the Absorb bioresorbable scaffold (BRS) compared with modern drug-eluting stents (DES). We aimed to investigate the outcome of all Swedish patients treated with the Absorb BRS., Methods and Results: The Absorb BRS (n=810) was compared with commonly used modern DES (n=67,909). The main outcome measure was definite ST; mean follow-up was two years. Despite being implanted in a younger, lower-risk population compared with modern DES, the Absorb BRS was associated with a higher crude incidence of definite ST at stent level: 1.5 vs. 0.6%, hazard ratio (HR) 2.38 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.34-4.23), adjusted HR 4.34 (95% CI: 2.37-7.94); p<0.001. The patient level adjusted HR was 4.44 (95% CI: 2.25-8.77). Rates of in-stent restenosis were similar for BRS and DES. Non-compliance with dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) guidelines was noted in six out of 12 BRS ST events. Three very late ST events occurred with the Absorb BRS., Conclusions: In this real-world observational study, the Absorb BRS was associated with a significantly higher risk of definite ST compared with modern DES. Non-compliance with DAPT guideline recommendations was common among Absorb definite ST events.

Background: No previous studies have evaluated the performance of the Synergy stent in a large real-life population., Objectives: To describe the initial real-life experience with a novel everolimus eluting platinum chromium stent with abluminal biodegradable polymer (SYNERGY) in unselected patients from a nationwide registry., Methods: All implanted Synergy stents were compared with other new generation drug eluting stents (n-DES) with >1,000 implantations in Sweden between March 2013 and October 2015. Restenosis, definite stent thrombosis (ST), myocardial infarction (MI) and death rates were assessed using propensity score and Cox regression analyses., Results: A total of 7,886 of Synergy stents and 64,429 other n-DES (BioMatrix, N = 1,953; Orsiro, N = 4,946; Promus Element Plus, N= 2,543; Promus Premier, N= 20,414; Xience Xpedition, N= 7,971, Resolute/Resolute Integrity, N = 19,021; Ultimaster, N = 1,156; Resolute Onyx, N = 6,425) were implanted in 42,357 procedures. Restenosis and stent thrombosis occurred in 642 and 314 cases, respectively, in the overall population at 1 year. The cumulative rate of restenosis (1.1% vs. 1.0%, adjusted HR: 1.24 95% CI: 0.88-1.75; P = 0.21) and ST (0.4% vs. 0.5%, adjusted HR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.63-1.50; P = 0.17) up to 1 year was low in both the Synergy group and the other n-DES group. Death occurred in 5.2% versus 4.5% (adjusted HR: 1.14; 95% CI: 0.96-1.36; P = 0.11) and MI in 3.2% versus 3.5%, (adjusted HR: 1.11; 95% CI: 0.93-1.33; P = 0.24) up to 1 year., Conclusions: In a large real-life population the Synergy stent appears to be safe and effective with a low rate of restenosis and ST comparable with other n-DES. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc., (© 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Background: Some concerns still have not been resolved about the long-term safety of drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients with acute STEMI., Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the stent thrombosis (ST) rate up to 3 years in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) treated by primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with new-generation drug-eluting stents (n-DES) compared with bare-metal stents (BMS) and old-generation drug-eluting stents (o-DES) enrolled in the SCAAR (Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry)., Methods: From January 2007 to January 2013, 34,147 patients with STEMI were treated by PCI with n-DES (n = 4,811), o-DES (n = 4,271), or BMS (n = 25,065). The risks of early/late (up to 1 year) and very late definite ST (after 1 year) were estimated., Results: Cox regression landmark analysis showed a significantly lower risk of early/late ST in patients treated with n-DES (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.43 to 0.99; p = 0.04) and o-DES (HR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.41 to 0.89; p = 0.01) compared with the BMS group. The risk of very late ST was similar between the n-DES and BMS groups (HR: 1.52; 95% CI: 0.78 to 2.98; p = 0.21), whereas a higher risk of very late ST was observed with o-DES compared with BMS (HR: 2.88; 95% CI: 1.70 to 4.89; p < 0.01)., Conclusions: Patients treated with n-DES have a lower risk of early/late ST than patients treated with BMS. The risk of very late ST is low and comparable between n-DES and BMS up to 3 years of follow-up, whereas o-DES treatment is associated with an increased risk of very late ST. The current STEMI guidelines might require an update in light of the results of this and other recent studies., (Copyright © 2014 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of lesions in the proximal left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD) may confer a worse prognosis compared with the proximal right coronary artery (RCA) and left circumflex coronary artery (LCX)., Methods: From May 2005, to May 2011 we identified all PCIs for proximal, one-vessel coronary artery disease in the Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry (SCAAR). We evaluated restenosis, stent thrombosis (ST) and mortality in the LAD as compared to the RCA and LCX according to stent type, bare metal (BMS) or drug-eluting stents (DES)., Results: 7840 single vessel proximal PCI procedures were identified. Mean follow-up time was 792 days. No differences in restenosis or ST were seen between the LAD and the RCA. The frequency of restenosis and ST was higher in the proximal LAD compared to the proximal LCX (restenosis: hazard ratio (HR) 2.28, confidence interval (CI) 1.56-3.34 p<0.001; ST: HR 2.32, CI 1.11-4.85 p=0.024). We found no difference in mortality related to coronary artery. In the proximal LAD, DES implantation was associated with a lower restenosis rate (HR 0.39, CI 0.27-0.55 p<0.001) and mortality (HR 0.58, CI 0.41-0.82 p=0.002) compared with BMS. In the proximal RCA and LCX, DES use was not associated with lower frequency of clinical restenosis or mortality., Conclusions: Following proximal coronary artery intervention restenosis was more frequent in the LAD than in the LCX. Solely in the proximal LAD we found DES use to be associated with a lower risk of restenosis and death weighted against BMS., (© 2013.)

Background: Stent thrombosis remains among the most feared complications of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with stenting. However, data on its incidence and predictors are sparse and conflicting. We thus aimed to perform a collaborative systematic review on incidence and predictors of stent thrombosis., Methods: PubMed was systematically searched for eligible studies from the drug-eluting stent (DES) era (1/2002-12/2010). Studies were selected if including ≥ 2000 patients undergoing stenting or reporting on ≥ 25 thromboses. Study features, patient characteristics, and incidence of stent thrombosis were abstracted and pooled, when appropriate, with random-effect methods (point estimate [95% confidence intervals]), and consistency of predictors was formally appraised., Results: A total of 30 studies were identified (221,066 patients, 4276 thromboses), with DES used in 87%. After a median of 22 months, definite, probable, or possible stent thrombosis had occurred in 2.4% (2.0%; 2.9%), with acute in 0.4% (0.2%; 0.6%), subacute in 1.1% (1.0%; 1.3%), late in 0.5% (0.4%; 0.6%), and very late in 0.6% (0.4%; 0.8%). Similar figures were computed for studies reporting only on DES. From a total of 47 candidate variables, definite/probable stent thrombosis was more commonly and consistently predicted by early antiplatelet therapy discontinuation, extent of coronary disease, and stent number/length, with acute coronary syndrome at admission, diabetes, smoking status, and bifurcation/ostial disease also proving frequent predictors, but less consistently., Conclusions: Despite numerous possible risk factors, the most common and consistent predictors of stent thrombosis are early antiplatelet therapy discontinuation, extent of coronary disease, and stent number/length., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The safety and efficacy of the Promus Element stent have been recently demonstrated in a selected population from one randomized trial. The aim of this study was to describe the initial clinical experience with the everolimus eluting platinum chromium stent (Promus Element) in unselected patients from a real life nationwide registry., Methods: The Promus Element DES was compared to all other DES implanted in Sweden (with more than 500 implants) from November 2009 to March 2011. The results were assessed using Cox regression., Results: A total of 13,577 stents (Promus Element, n=2724, Cypher, n=782; Endeavor, n=747; Taxus Liberté, n=1393, Xience V/Promus, n=4832, Resolute, n=1566, Xience Prime, n=4832) were implanted at 8375 procedures. At one year the restenosis rate in the Promus Element was not significantly different from the overall DES group (2.8% vs. 2.7%, adjusted HR:1.17, 95% CI: 0.75-1.75). A significantly lower restenosis rate was observed in the Promus Element when compared with Endeavor (2.8% vs. 5.8%; adjusted HR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.26-0.74). The stent thrombosis (ST) rate at one year was not significantly different in the Promus Element as compared with the overall DES group (0.2% vs. 0.5% adjusted HR: 0.59; 95% CI: 025-1.40). ST rate was significantly lower as compared with Endeavor stent (0.2% vs. 0.8%; HR: 0.24; 95% CI: 0.08-0.67)., Conclusions: In a large unselected population the Promus Element stent appears to be safe and effective with a low risk of restenosis and ST., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study sought to study the second-generation everolimus-eluting stent (EES) as compared with first-generation sirolimus-eluting (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) in diabetes mellitus (DM) patients., Background: There are limited data available comparing clinical outcomes in this setting with EES and SES, whereas studies comparing EES with PES are not powered for low-frequency endpoints., Methods: All DM patients treated with EES, PES, or SES from January 18, 2007, to July 29, 2011, from the SCAAR (Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registery) were included. The EES was compared with SES or PES for the primary composite endpoint of clinically driven detected restenosis, definite stent thrombosis (ST), and all-cause mortality., Results: In 4,751 percutaneous coronary intervention-treated DM patients, 8,134 stents were implanted (EES = 3,928, PES = 2,836, SES = 1,370). The EES was associated with significantly lower event rates compared with SES (SES vs. EES hazard ratio [HR]: 1.99; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.19 to 3.08). The same was observed when compared with PES (PES vs. EES HR: 1.33; 95% CI: 0.93 to 1.91) but did not reach statistical significance. These results were mainly driven by lower incidence of ST (SES vs. EES HR: 2.87; 95% CI: 1.08 to 7.61; PES vs. EES HR: 1.74, 95% CI: 0.82 to 3.71) and mortality (SES vs. EES HR: 2.02; 95% CI: 1.03 to 3.98; PES vs. EES HR: 1.69; 95% CI: 1.06 to 2.72). No significant differences in restenosis rates were observed between EES and SES or PES (SES vs. EES HR: 1.26; 95% CI: 0.77 to 2.08; PES vs. EES HR: 1.05; 95% CI: 0.71 to 1.55)., Conclusions: In all-comer DM patients the use of EES was associated with improved outcomes compared with SES and PES mainly driven by lower rates of ST and mortality. These results suggest better safety rather than efficacy with EES when compared with SES or PES., (Copyright © 2012 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: To compare the long-term outcome after percutaneous coronary intervention with 'new-generation' drug-eluting stents (n-DES) to 'older generation' DES (o-DES), and bare-metal stents (BMS) in a real-world population., Methods and Results: We evaluated 94 384 consecutive stent implantations (BMS, n = 64 631; o-DES, n = 19 202; n-DES, n = 10 551) in Sweden from November 2006 to October 2010. All cases of definite stent thrombosis (ST) and restenosis were documented in the Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry (SCAAR). Older generation DES were classified as: Cypher and Cypher Select (Cordis Corporation, Miami, FL, USA), Taxus Express and Taxus Liberté (Boston Scientific Corporation), and Endeavor (Medtronic Inc.) and n-DES as: Endeavor Resolute (Medtronic Inc.), XienceV, Xience Prime (Abbott Laboratories) and Promus, Promus Element (Boston Scientific Corporation). The Cox regression analyses unadjusted and adjusted for clinical and angiographic covariates showed a statistically significant lower risk of restenosis in n-DES compared with BMS [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.29; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.25-0.33] and o-DES (HR 0.62; 95% CI: 0.53-0.72). A lower risk of definite ST was found in n-DES compared with BMS (HR 0.38; 95% CI: 0.28-0.52) and o-DES (HR, 0.57; 95% CI: 0.41-0.79). The risk of death was significantly lower in n-DES compared with o-DES (adjusted HR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.63-0.95) and BMS (adjusted HR: 0.55; 95% CI: 0.46-0.67)., Conclusion: Percutaneous coronary intervention with n-DES is associated with a 38% lower risk of clinically meaningful restenosis, a 43% lower risk of definite ST, and a 23% lower risk of death compared with o-DES in this observational study from a large real-world population.

Background: The objective was to evaluate the role of risk factors and stent type for stent thrombosis (ST) using a large real world registry., Methods and Results: We evaluated all consecutive coronary stent implantations in Sweden from May 1, 2005, to June 30, 2007. All cases of ST, documented in the Swedish coronary angiography and angioplasty registry until September 21, 2008, were analyzed. ST was registered in 882 of 73 798 stents. Acute coronary syndromes, insulin-treated diabetes mellitus, smoking, previous coronary intervention, warfarin treatment, small stent diameter, and stenting in restenotic, complex, or bypass graft lesions had the strongest association with ST in the multivariable statistical model. There were considerable differences in the frequency of ST between different stent brands. The overall risk of ST was lower in drug-eluting stents compared with bare metal stents (adjusted risk ratio, 0.79; 99% CI, 0.63 to 0.99). However, from 6 months after stent implantation and onward, the risk for ST was higher in drug-eluting stents compared with bare metal stents (adjusted risk ratio, 2.02; 99% CI, 1.30 to 3.14)., Conclusions: ST is a multifactor disease, and the incidence varies considerably between patients based on clinical, vessel, and stent characteristics. For drug-eluting stents compared with bare metal stents, the risk pattern was biphasic; initially, bare metal stents demonstrated a higher risk of ST; whereas after the first months, ST risk was higher with drug-eluting stents. Our findings highlight the need for prospective randomized studies with head-to-head comparisons between different stents.

Background: The long-term safety and efficacy of drug-eluting coronary stents have been questioned., Methods: We evaluated 47,967 patients in Sweden who received a coronary stent and were entered into the Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry between 2003 and 2006 and for whom complete follow-up data were available for 1 to 5 years (mean, 2.7). In the primary analysis, we compared patients who received one drug-eluting coronary stent (10,294 patients) with those who received one bare-metal stent (18,659), after adjustment for differences in clinical characteristics of the patients and characteristics of the vessels and lesions., Results: Analyses of outcome were based on 2380 deaths and 3198 myocardial infarctions. There was no overall difference between the group that received drug-eluting stents and the group that received bare-metal stents in the combined end point of death or myocardial infarction (relative risk with drug-eluting stents, 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.89 to 1.03) or the individual end points of death (relative risk, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.05) and myocardial infarction (relative risk, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.06), and there was no significant difference in outcome among subgroups stratified according to the indication for stent implantation. Patients who received drug-eluting stents in 2003 had a significantly higher rate of late events than patients who received bare-metal stents in the same year, but we did not observe any difference in outcome among patients treated in later years. The average rate of restenosis during the first year was 3.0 events per 100 patient-years with drug-eluting stents versus 4.7 with bare-metal stents (adjusted relative risk, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.52); 39 patients would need to be treated with drug-eluting stents to prevent one case of restenosis. Among high-risk patients, the adjusted risk of restenosis was 74% lower with drug-eluting stents than with bare-metal stents, and only 10 lesions would need to be treated to prevent one case of restenosis., Conclusions: As compared with bare-metal stents, drug-eluting stents are associated with a similar long-term incidence of death or myocardial infarction and provide a clinically important decrease in the rate of restenosis among high-risk patients., (2009 Massachusetts Medical Society)

Objectives: Our aim was to evaluate restenosis rate of drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients with and without diabetes mellitus (DM) in a real-world setting., Background: DES seem less effective in patients with DM., Methods: The SCAAR (Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry) includes all patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in Sweden. From April 1, 2004, to April 20, 2008, all restenoses detected at a subsequent angiography and all DES types implanted at more than 500 occasions were assessed using Cox regression., Results: Four DES types qualified for inclusion. In total, 35,478 DES were implanted at 22,962 procedures in 19,004 patients and 1,807 restenoses were reported over a mean 29 months follow-up. In the entire population, the restenosis rate per stent was 3.5% after 1 year and 4.9% after 2 years. The adjusted risk of restenosis was higher in patients with DM compared with that in patients without DM (relative risk [RR]: 1.23, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.10 to 1.37). In patients with DM, restenosis was twice as frequent with the zotarolimus-eluting Endeavor stent (Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minnesota) compared with that in the other DES types. The Endeavor stent and the sirolimus-eluting Cypher stent (Cordis, Johnson & Johnson, Miami, Florida) had higher restenosis rates in patients with DM compared with those in patients without DM (RR: 1.77, 95% CI: 1.29 to 2.43 and RR: 1.25, 95% CI: 1.04 to 1.51). Restenosis rate with the paclitaxel-eluting Taxus Express and Liberté (Boston Scientific, Natick, Massachusetts) stents was unrelated to DM. Mortality did not differ between different DES., Conclusions: Restenosis rate with DES was higher in patients with DM compared with that in patients without DM. There seem to be important differences between different brands of DES.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate the outcome of bare-metal stents (BMS) versus drug-eluting stents (DES) after on-label as well as off-label use., Background: DES lower restenosis rates while not influencing the risk for death and myocardial infarction when used in Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved indications. It is debated whether the clinical results of this so-called on-label use might be extrapolated to off-label situations., Methods: The SCAAR (Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry) was used to investigate the outcomes in 17,198 patients who underwent stenting with an on-label indication (10,431 BMS and 6,767 DES patients) and 16,355 patients in the context of an off-label indication (9,907 BMS and 6,448 DES patients). The patients were included from 2003 to 2005 with a minimum follow-up of 1 year and a maximum of 4 years. The analysis was adjusted for differences in baseline characteristics., Results: There were not significant differences between on-label DES and BMS (adjusted hazard ratio: 1.02; 95% confidence interval: 0.92 to 1.13) or between off-label DES and BMS (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.95; 95% confidence interval: 0.87 to 1.04) use with regard to the incidence of myocardial infarction and death. Off-label use of DES did not lead to significant differences in the combined risk of death and myocardial infarction compared with BMS throughout the whole spectrum of clinical indications., Conclusions: In contemporary Swedish practice, neither on- nor off-label use of DES is associated with worse outcome than use of BMS.