Cost-effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention with cobalt-chromium everolimus eluting stents versus bare metal stents: Results from a patient level meta-analysis of randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Second-generation drug eluting stents (DES) may reduce costs and improve clinical outcomes compared to first-generation DES with improved cost-effectiveness when compared to bare metal stents (BMS). We aimed to conduct an economic evaluation of a cobalt-chromium everolimus eluting stent (Co-Cr EES) compared with BMS in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). OBJECTIVE: To conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of a cobalt-chromium everolimus eluting stent (Co-Cr EES) versus BMS in PCI. METHODS: A Markov state transition model with a 2-year time horizon was applied from a US Medicare setting with patients undergoing PCI with Co-Cr EES or BMS. Baseline characteristics, treatment effects, and safety measures were taken from a patient level meta-analysis of 5 RCTs (n = 4,896). The base-case analysis evaluated stent-related outcomes; a secondary analysis considered the broader set of outcomes reported in the meta-analysis. RESULTS: The base-case and secondary analyses reported an additional 0.018 and 0.013 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and cost savings of $236 and $288, respectively with Co-Cr EES versus BMS. Results were robust to sensitivity analyses and were most sensitive to the price of clopidogrel. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, Co-Cr EES was associated with a greater than 99% chance of being cost saving or cost effective (at a cost per QALY threshold of $50,000) versus BMS. CONCLUSIONS: Using data from a recent patient level meta-analysis and contemporary cost data, this analysis found that PCI with Co-Cr EES is more effective and less costly than PCI with BMS. © 2016 The Authors. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Long-term efficacy and safety of biodegradable-polymer biolimus-eluting stents: main results of the Basel Stent Kosten-Effektivitäts Trial-PROspective Validation Examination II (BASKET-PROVE II), a randomized, controlled noninferiority 2-year outcome trial.

BACKGROUND: Biodegradable-polymer drug-eluting stents (BP-DES) were developed to be as effective as second-generation durable-polymer drug-eluting stents (DP-DES) and as safe >1 year as bare-metal stents (BMS). Thus, very late stent thrombosis (VLST) attributable to durable polymers should no longer appear. METHODS AND RESULTS: To address these early and late aspects, 2291 patients presenting with acute or stable coronary disease needing stents ≥3.0 mm in diameter between April 2010 and May 2012 were randomly assigned to biolimus-A9-eluting BP-DES, second-generation everolimus-eluting DP-DES, or thin-strut silicon-carbide-coated BMS in 8 European centers. All patients were treated with aspirin and risk-adjusted doses of prasugrel. The primary end point was combined cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and clinically indicated target-vessel revascularization within 2 years. The combined secondary safety end point was a composite of VLST, myocardial infarction, and cardiac death. The cumulative incidence of the primary end point was 7.6% with BP-DES, 6.8% with DP-DES, and 12.7% with BMS. By intention-to-treat BP-DES were noninferior (predefined margin, 3.80%) compared with DP-DES (absolute risk difference, 0.78%; -1.93% to 3.50%; P for noninferiority 0.042; per protocol P=0.09) and superior to BMS (absolute risk difference, -5.16; -8.32 to -2.01; P=0.0011). The 3 stent groups did not differ in the combined safety end point, with no decrease in events >1 year, particularly VLST with BP-DES. CONCLUSIONS: In large vessel stenting, BP-DES appeared barely noninferior compared with DP-DES and more effective than thin-strut BMS, but without evidence for better safety nor lower VLST rates >1 year. Findings challenge the concept that durable polymers are key in VLST formation. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01166685.

Can the optimal type of stent be predicted based on clinical risk factors? A subgroup analysis of the randomized BASKET-PROVE trial.

BACKGROUND: The randomized BASKET-PROVE study showed no significant differences between sirolimus-eluting stents (SES), everolimus-eluting stents (EES), and bare-metal stents (BMS) with respect to the primary end point, rates of death from cardiac causes, or myocardial infarction (MI) at 2 years of follow-up, in patients requiring stenting of a large coronary artery. Clinical risk factors may affect clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary interventions. We present a retrospective analysis of the BASKET-PROVE data addressing the question as to whether the optimal type of stent can be predicted based on a cumulative clinical risk score. METHODS: A total of 2,314 patients (mean age 66 years) who underwent coronary angioplasty and implantation of ≥1 stents that were ≥3.0 mm in diameter were randomly assigned to receive SES, EES, or BMS. A cumulative clinical risk score was derived using a Cox model that included age, gender, cardiovascular risk factors (hypercholesterolemia, hypertension, family history of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, smoking), presence of ≥2 comorbidities (stroke, peripheral artery disease, chronic kidney disease, chronic rheumatic disease), a history of MI or coronary revascularization, and clinical presentation (stable angina, unstable angina, ST-segment elevation MI). RESULTS: An aggregate drug-eluting stent (DES) group (n = 1,549) comprising 775 patients receiving SES and 774 patients receiving EES was compared to 765 patients receiving BMS. Rates of death from cardiac causes or nonfatal MI at 2 years of follow-up were significantly increased in patients who were in the high tertile of risk stratification for the clinical risk score compared to those who were in the aggregate low-mid tertiles. In patients with a high clinical risk score, rates of death from cardiac causes or nonfatal MI were lower in patients receiving DES (2.4 per 100 person-years, 95% CI 1.6-3.6) compared with BMS (5.5 per 100 person-years, 95% CI 3.7-8.2, hazard ratio 0.45, 95% CI 0.26-0.80, P = .007). However, they were not significantly different between receivers of DES and BMS in patients in the low-mid risk tertiles. CONCLUSIONS: This exploratory analysis suggests that, in patients who require stenting of a large coronary artery, use of a clinical risk score may identify those patients for whom DES use may confer a clinical advantage over BMS, beyond lower restenosis rates.

Improved outcomes of elderly patients treated with drug-eluting versus bare metal stents in large coronary arteries: results from the BAsel Stent Kosten-Effektivitäts Trial PROspective Validation Examination randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Drug-eluting stents (DES) improve outcomes in elderly patients with small coronary artery disease compared with bare-metal stents (BMS), but randomized data in elderly patients in need of large coronary stents are not available. METHODS: Planned secondary analysis of patients ≥75 years recruited to the "BASKET-PROVE" trial, in which 2,314 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for large (≥3.0 mm) native vessel disease were randomized 2:1 to DES (everolimus- vs sirolimus-eluting stents 1:1) versus BMS. All patients received 12 months of dual antiplatelet therapy. The primary end point was a composite of cardiac death or nonfatal myocardial infarction at 2 years. RESULTS: Comparison of DES versus BMS among 405 patients ≥75 years showed significantly lower rates of the primary end point for DES (5.0% vs 11.6%; hazard ration (HR) 0.64 [0.44-0.91]; P = .014). Rates of nonfatal myocardial infarction (1.2% vs 5.5%, hazard ration (HR) 0.44 [0.21-0.83]; P = .009), all-cause death (7.4% vs 14.4%; HR 0.7 [0.51-0.95]; P = .02), and target vessel revascularization (TVR) (2.3% vs 6.2%; HR 0.59 [0.34-0.99]; P = .046) were also lower, whereas stent thrombosis and bleeding rates were similar. In contrast, among patients <75 years (n = 1,909), the only significant benefit of DES was a reduced rate of TVR (4.0% vs 8.7%, HR 0.66 [0.55-0.80]; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: In patients ≥75 years requiring large (≥3.0 mm) coronary stents, use of DES was beneficial compared with BMS and reduced the rate of ischemic events, mortality, and TVR. These data suggest that DES should be preferred over BMS in elderly patients.

Drug-eluting versus bare-metal stents in large coronary arteries.

BACKGROUND: Recent data have suggested that patients with coronary disease in large arteries are at increased risk for late cardiac events after percutaneous intervention with first-generation drug-eluting stents, as compared with bare-metal stents. We sought to confirm this observation and to assess whether this increase in risk was also seen with second-generation drug-eluting stents. METHODS: We randomly assigned 2314 patients needing stents that were 3.0 mm or more in diameter to receive sirolimus-eluting, everolimus-eluting, or bare-metal stents. The primary end point was the composite of death from cardiac causes or nonfatal myocardial infarction at 2 years. Late events (occurring during months 7 to 24) and target-vessel revascularization were the main secondary end points. RESULTS: The rates of the primary end point were 2.6% among patients receiving sirolimus-eluting stents, 3.2% among those receiving everolimus-eluting stents, and 4.8% among those receiving bare-metal stents, with no significant differences between patients receiving either drug-eluting stent and those receiving bare-metal stents. There were also no significant between-group differences in the rate of late events or in the rate of death, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis. Rates of target-vessel revascularization for reasons unrelated to myocardial infarction were 3.7% among patients receiving sirolimus-eluting stents, 3.1% among those receiving everolimus-eluting stents, and 8.9% among those receiving bare-metal stents. The rate of target-vessel revascularization was significantly reduced among patients receiving either drug-eluting stent, as compared with a bare-metal stent, with no significant difference between the two types of drug-eluting stents. CONCLUSIONS: In patients requiring stenting of large coronary arteries, no significant differences were found among sirolimus-eluting, everolimus-eluting, and bare-metal stents with respect to the rate of death or myocardial infarction. With the two drug-eluting stents, similar reductions in rates of target-vessel revascularization were seen. (Funded by the Basel Cardiovascular Research Foundation and the Swiss National Foundation for Research; Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN72444640.).

Intracoronary compared to intravenous abciximab in patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention reduces mortality, target vessel revascularization and reinfarction after 1 year.

OBJECTIVES: Administration of the glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor abciximab to patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) improves outcome. Data have suggested that an intracoronary (IC) bolus might be superior to the standard intravenous (IV) administration. We have previously reported reduced short-term mortality and need for target vessel revascularization (TVR) with the IC route. We now present long-term data from our randomized trial on IC versus IV abciximab in pPCI-treated STEMI patients. METHODS: A total of 355 pPCI-treated STEMI patients were randomized to either IC or IV bolus abciximab followed by a 12-hour IV infusion. Patients were followed for 1 year to observe mortality, TVR or myocardial infarction (MI) and the combination of these. RESULTS: The two treatment arms (IV, n = 170; IC, n = 185) were similar with regard to baseline characteristics. Mortality was reduced from 10% in the IV group to 2.7% in the IC group (p = 0.004). TVR and MI were also reduced with IC administration (TVR: 14.1 vs. 7.6%, p = 0.04; MI: 11.8 vs. 5.4%, p = 0.03). Consequently, patients in the IC treatment arm had a relative risk reduction of 55% for the combined endpoint after 1 year (p = 0.002) compared to the IV treatment arm. CONCLUSIONS: In pPCI-treated STEMI patients treated with abciximab, IC bolus administration resulted in a significant reduction in mortality, TVR and MI compared to IV bolus administration.

Drug-eluting or bare-metal stents for large coronary vessel stenting? The BASKET-PROVE (PROspective Validation Examination) trial: study protocol and design.

BACKGROUND: Based on a subgroup analysis of 18-month BAsel Stent Kosten Effektivitäts Trial (BASKET) outcome data, we hypothesized that very late (> 12 months) stent thrombosis occurs predominantly after drug-eluting stent implantation in large native coronary vessel stenting. METHODS: To prove or refute this hypothesis, we set up an 11-center 4-country prospective trial of 2260 consecutive patients treated with > or = 3.0-mm stents only, randomized to receive Cypher (Johnson & Johnson, Miami Lakes, FL), Vision (Abbott Vascular, Abbott Laboratories, IL), or Xience stents (Abbott Vascular). Only patients with left main or bypass graft disease, in-stent restenosis or stent thrombosis, in need of nonheart surgery, at increased bleeding risk, without compliance/consent are excluded. All patients are treated with dual antiplatelet therapy for 12 months. The primary end point will be cardiac death/nonfatal myocardial infarction after 24 months with further follow-up up to 5 years. RESULTS: By June 12, 229 patients (10% of the planned total) were included with a baseline risk similar to that of the same subgroup of BASKET (n = 588). CONCLUSIONS: This study will answer several important questions of contemporary stent use in patients with large native vessel stenting. The 2-year death/myocardial infarction-as well as target vessel revascularization-and bleeding rates in these patients with a first- versus second-generation drug-eluting stent should demonstrate the benefit or harm of these stents compared to cobalt-chromium bare-metal stents in this relevant, low-risk group of everyday patients. In addition, a comparison with similar BASKET patients will allow to estimate the impact of 12- versus 6-month dual antiplatelet therapy on these outcomes.

Effects of cobalt-chromium everolimus eluting stents or bare metal stent on fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular events: patient level meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the safety and effectiveness of cobalt-chromium everolimus eluting stents compared with bare metal stents. DESIGN: Individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Cox proportional regression models stratified by trial, containing random effects, were used to assess the impact of stent type on outcomes. Hazard ratios with 95% confidence interval for outcomes were reported. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Randomised controlled trials that compared cobalt-chromium everolimus eluting stents with bare metal stents were selected. The principal investigators whose trials met the inclusion criteria provided data for individual patients. PRIMARY OUTCOMES: The primary outcome was cardiac mortality. Secondary endpoints were myocardial infarction, definite stent thrombosis, definite or probable stent thrombosis, target vessel revascularisation, and all cause death. RESULTS: The search yielded five randomised controlled trials, comprising 4896 participants. Compared with patients receiving bare metal stents, participants receiving cobalt-chromium everolimus eluting stents had a significant reduction of cardiac mortality (hazard ratio 0.67, 95% confidence interval 0.49 to 0.91; P=0.01), myocardial infarction (0.71, 0.55 to 0.92; P=0.01), definite stent thrombosis (0.41, 0.22 to 0.76; P=0.005), definite or probable stent thrombosis (0.48, 0.31 to 0.73; P<0.001), and target vessel revascularisation (0.29, 0.20 to 0.41; P<0.001) at a median follow-up of 720 days. There was no significant difference in all cause death between groups (0.83, 0.65 to 1.06; P=0.14). Findings remained unchanged at multivariable regression after adjustment for the acuity of clinical syndrome (for instance, acute coronary syndrome v stable coronary artery disease), diabetes mellitus, female sex, use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, and up to one year v longer duration treatment with dual antiplatelets. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis offers evidence that compared with bare metal stents the use of cobalt-chromium everolimus eluting stents improves global cardiovascular outcomes including cardiac survival, myocardial infarction, and overall stent thrombosis.

Long-term benefits and risks of drug-eluting compared to bare-metal stents in patients with versus without chronic kidney disease.

AIMS: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is associated with worse outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). How CKD influences the benefit-risk balance of drug-eluting stents (DES) versus bare-metal stents (BMS) is less known. METHODS AND RESULTS: In the multicentre BASKET-PROVE trial, 2314 patients in need of large coronary stenting (≥ 3.0mm) were randomised 2:1 to DES or BMS. In an a priori planned secondary analysis, outcomes were evaluated according to renal function defined by estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFR; normal: eGFR ≥ 60 ml/min/1.73 m(2); CKD: eGFR<60 ml/min/1.73 m(2)). The primary endpoint was the first major adverse cardiac event (MACE: cardiac death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularisation) up to 2 years. A Cox proportional-hazard model was used to evaluate adjusted relative risks (hazard rates, HRs) for BMS versus DES. The interaction of stent type and renal function was tested. CKD patients (189 (11.2%)/1681 with such data) had a 2-year MACE rate of 8.5% versus 7.4% in those without CKD [HR 0.98 (0.56-1.72), p=0.95] with cardiac mortalities of 5.3% and 1.5%, respectively (p=0.002, non-significant after baseline adjustments). The MACE rate was lower in CKD patients with DES than with BMS [4.9% versus 15.2%, p=0.017, HR 0.29(0.10-0.80)] as was the MACE rate in patients without CKD [5.6% with DES versus 11.1% with BMS, p<0.0001, HR 0.51(0.35-0.75)]. No significant interaction between stent type and renal function was found. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis of patients needing large coronary artery stenting confirms the increased mortality of CKD patients and documents a long-term benefit of DES compared to BMS irrespective of kidney function.

Impact of abciximab in elderly patients with high-risk acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: an observational registry study.

BACKGROUND: An increasing proportion of patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) requiring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are classified as elderly (aged ≥70 years). The glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor abciximab is known to reduce adverse outcomes in patients aged <70 years with high-risk ACS undergoing PCI, but conflicting findings relating to its effects in the elderly have been reported. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of abciximab in elderly high-risk ACS patients undergoing PCI. METHODS: From our dedicated PCI registry we identified 2068 ACS patients with high-risk lesions that were treated with PCI. Baseline data were collected prospectively. All-cause mortality, target vessel revascularization (TVR), myocardial infarction (MI), and the combination of these were primary study endpoints. All endpoints within 1 year after PCI were registered and validated. The population was subsequently stratified according to age and use of abciximab. RESULTS: Elderly patients constituted 42% of the total population. They presented with more co-morbidities, were less frequently treated with abciximab and had a higher risk of reaching the combined endpoint and higher all-cause mortality than younger patients. The age/abciximab stratified analysis revealed no effect of abciximab on any of the endpoints in elderly patients (combined endpoint: no abciximab 22.6% vs abciximab 23.4%, p=0.85; all-cause mortality: no abciximab 15.4% vs abciximab 15.9%, p=0.91; TVR: no abciximab 3.4% vs abciximab 5.5%, p=0.21; MI: no abciximab 7.0% vs abciximab 8.5%, p=0.54), whereas all-cause mortality and the risk of reaching the combined endpoint were significantly reduced in younger patients (combined endpoint: no abciximab 14.0% vs abciximab 9.4%, p=0.03; all-cause mortality: no abciximab 4.5% vs abciximab 1.7%, p=0.02; TVR: no abciximab 5.5% vs abciximab 4.3%, p=0.39; MI: no abciximab 7.2% vs abciximab 6.6%, p=0.80). These findings were confirmed in our adjusted analyses. CONCLUSIONS: In this large observational study we found no benefit of abciximab treatment in elderly high-risk ACS patients who underwent PCI. These findings should be taken into consideration when deciding on the treatment strategy for elderly ACS patients undergoing PCI.