Drug-Eluting or Bare-Metal Stents for Left Anterior Descending or Left Main Coronary Artery Revascularization

BACKGROUND: New-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) reduce target-vessel revascularization compared with bare-metal stents (BMS), and recent data suggest that DES have the potential to decrease the risk of myocardial infarction and cardiovascular mortality. We evaluated the treatment effect of DES versus BMS according to the target artery (left anterior descending [LAD] and/or left main [LM] versus other territories [no-LAD/LM]). METHODS AND RESULTS: The Coronary Stent Trialist (CST) Collaboration gathered individual patient data of randomized trials of DES versus BMS for the treatment of coronary artery disease. The primary outcome was the composite of cardiac death or myocardial infarction. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs were derived from a 1-stage individual patient data meta-analysis. We included 26 024 patients across 19 trials: 13 650 (52.4%) in the LAD/LM and 12 373 (47.6%) in the no-LAD/LM group. At 6-year follow-up, there was strong evidence that the treatment effect of DES versus BMS depended on the target vessel (P interaction=0.024). Compared with BMS, DES reduced the risk of cardiac death or myocardial infarction to a greater extent in the LAD/LM (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.68­0.85) than in the no-LAD/LM territories (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.83­1.05). This benefit was driven by a lower risk of cardiac death (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.70­0.98) and myocardial infarction (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.65­0.85) in patients with LAD/LM disease randomized to DES. An interaction (P=0.004) was also found for all-cause mortality with patients with LAD/LM disease deriving benefit from DES (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.76­0.97). CONCLUSIONS: As compared with BMS, new-generation DES were associated with sustained reduction in the composite of cardiac death or myocardial infarction if used for the treatment of LAD or left main coronary stenoses.

Association of pulse pressure with clinical outcomes in patients under different antiplatelet strategies after percutaneous coronary intervention: analysis of GLOBAL LEADERS

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the association of pulse pressure (PP) and different antiplatelet regimes with clinical and safety outcomes in an all-comers percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) population. METHODS: In this analysis of GLOBAL LEADERS (n = 15,936) we compared the experimental therapy of 23 months of ticagrelor after 1 month of dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) vs standard DAPT for 12 months followed by aspirin monotherapy in subjects who underwent PCI and were divided into 2 groups according to the median PP (60 mm Hg). The primary end point (all-cause death or new Q-wave myocardial infarction) and the composite end points: patient-oriented composite end points (POCE), Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 3 or 5, and net adverse clinical events (NACE) were evaluated. RESULTS: At 2 years, subjects in the high-PP group (n = 7971) had similar rates of the primary end point (4.3% vs 3.9%; P = 0.058), POCE (14.9% vs 12.7%; P = 0.051), and BARC 3 or 5 (2.5% vs 1.7%; P = 0.355) and higher rates of NACE (16.4% vs 13.7%; P = 0.037) compared with the low-PP group (n = 7965). Among patients with PP < 60 mm Hg, the primary end point (3.4% vs 4.4%, adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.61-0.96), POCE (11.8% vs 13.5%, aHR 0.86, 95% CI 0.76-0.98), NACE (12.8% vs 14.7%, aHR 0.85, 95% CI 0.76-0.96), and BARC 3 or 5 (1.4% vs 2.1%, aHR 0.69, 95% CI 0.49-0.97) were lower with ticagrelor monotherapy compared with DAPT. The only significant interaction was for BARC 3 or 5 (P = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: After contemporary PCI, subjects with high PP levels experienced high rates of NACE at 2 years. In those with low PP, ticagrelor monotherapy led to a lower risk of bleeding events compared with standard DAPT.

Standardized classification and framework for reporting, interpreting, and analysing medication non-adherence in cardiovascular clinical trials: a consensus report from the Non-adherence Academic Research Consortium (NARC)

Non-adherence has been well recognized for years to be a common issue that significantly impacts clinical outcomes and health care costs. Medication adherence is remarkably low even in the controlled environment of clinical trials where it has potentially complex major implications. Collection of non-adherence data diverge markedly among cardiovascular randomized trials and, even where collected, is rarely incorporated in the statistical analysis to test the consistency of the primary endpoint(s). The imprecision introduced by the inconsistent assessment of non-adherence in clinical trials might confound the estimate of the calculated efficacy of the study drug. Hence, clinical trials may not accurately answer the scientific question posed by regulators, who seek an accurate estimate of the true efficacy and safety of treatment, or the question posed by payers, who want a reliable estimate of the effectiveness of treatment in the marketplace after approval. The Non-adherence Academic Research Consortium is a collaboration among leading academic research organizations, representatives from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and physician-scientists from the USA and Europe. One in-person meeting was held in Madrid, Spain, culminating in a document describing consensus recommendations for reporting, collecting, and analysing adherence endpoints across clinical trials. The adoption of these recommendations will afford robustness and consistency in the comparative safety and effectiveness evaluation of investigational drugs from early development to post-marketing approval studies. These principles may be useful for regulatory assessment, as well as for monitoring local and regional outcomes to guide quality improvement initiatives.(AU)

Drug-eluting or bare-metal stents for percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials

Background New-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) have mostly been investigated in head-to-head non-inferiority trials against early-generation DES and have typically shown similar efficacy and superior safety. How the safety profile of new-generation DES compares with that of bare-metal stents (BMS) is less clear.Methods We did an individual patient data meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials to compare outcomes after implantation of new-generation DES or BMS among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. The primary outcome was the composite of cardiac death or myocardial infarction. Data were pooled in a one-stage random-effects meta-analysis and examined at maximum follow-up and a 1-year landmark. Risk estimates are reported as hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs. This study is registered in PROSPERO, number CRD42017060520.Findings We obtained individual data for 26 616 patients in 20 randomized trials. Mean follow-up was 3·2 (SD 1·8) years. The risk of the primary outcome was reduced in DES recipients compared with BMS recipients (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·78­0·90, p<0·001) owing to a reduced risk of myocardial infarction (0·79, 0·71­0·88, p<0·001) and a possible slight but non-significant cardiac mortality benefit (0·89, 0·78­1·01, p=0·075). All-cause death was unaffected (HR with DES 0·96, 95% CI 0·88­1·05, p=0·358), but risk was lowered for definite stent thrombosis (0·63, 0·50­0·80, p<0·001) and target-vessel revascularization (0·55, 0·50­0·60, p<0·001). We saw a time-dependent treatment effect, with DES being associated with lower risk of the primary outcome than BMS up to 1 year after placement. While the effect was maintained in the longer term, there was no further divergence from BMS after 1 year. Interpretation The performance of new-generation DES in the first year after implantation means that BMS should no longer be considered the gold standard for safety. Further development of DES technology should target improvements in clinical outcomes beyond 1 year. (AU)