Comparison Among Ultra-Thin Coronary Stents: A Network Meta-Analysis.

Ultrathin-strut drug-eluting stents (DES) have been related to potential improvement in stent-related outcomes compared with thicker-struts DES. However, comparisons among different ultrathin devices are lacking. All randomized controlled trials comparing ultrathin (struts thickness <70 µm) and thicker-struts DESs in an all-comers population were included. Target lesion failure (TLF), as defined by included trials, at 1-year follow-up was the primary end point. Overall mortality, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization (TLR), and stent thrombosis were the secondary end points. Arms of included trials were compared using network meta-analysis. Nine studies encompassing 20,081 patients were included, of which 9,509 patients had an ultrathin DES: Orsiro (evaluated in 7 arms with 8,086 patients), MiStent (1 arm with 703 patients), or Supraflex (1 arm with 720 patients). At 1-year follow-up, no significant differences were noted for TLF among these ultrathin DES. In particular, Orsiro was associated with a similar risk of TLF compared with Supraflex (risk rate 1.07, 95% confidence interval 0.59 to 1.78) and showed the highest probability of performing best in terms of TLF, myocardial infarction, and TLR. Ultrathin DES are all associated with a comparable risk of TLF compared with thicker-strut DES. In terms of TLR and TLF risk, Orsiro was the one with the highest probability of best performances, either compared with other ultrathin DES or to devices with thicker struts.

Impact of secondary prevention medical therapies on outcomes of patients suffering from Myocardial Infarction with NonObstructive Coronary Artery disease (MINOCA): A meta-analysis.

AIMS: To assess the impact of secondary prevention medical therapies (statins, ACE-inhibitors/Angiotensin Receptor Blockers (ARB), beta-blockers (BB) and Dual Antiplatelet Therapy (DAPT)) on outcomes of patients with myocardial infarction with nonobstructive coronary artery disease (MINOCA). METHODS: Five adjusted observational studies encompassing 10,546 were included in this meta-analysis. All-cause death was the primary endpoint, while Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events (MACE) and acute myocardial infarction (AMI) were the secondary endpoints. RESULTS: After 24 months of follow up, statins (tested in 8093 patients) were associated with a reduced risk of all-cause death (HR 0.60:0.45-0.81, p ã€ˆ0,001), while ACE-inhibitors/ARB (on 9666 patients) were not. Aggregate data from two studies (n = 9720, 7719 on beta-blockers, 6423 on DAPT) indicated that beta-blockers and DAPT (median follow-up 34.1 and 15.7 months, respectively) were both associated with a significant reduction of all-cause death (HR0.81:0.66-0.99, p = 0.04, and HR0.73:0.55-0.98, p = 0.03, for beta-blockers and DAPT, respectively). Among the investigated therapies, only ACE-inhibitors/ARBs entailed a reduced risk of MACE (HR0.65:0.44-0.94, p = 0.02, all CI 95%) over 36.5 months (four studies, n = 10,150). None of the investigated therapies was associated with a reduced risk of AMI. CONCLUSIONS: Data from adjusted observational studies suggest that beta-blockers, statins and DAPT are associated with a survival benefit among MINOCA patients. ACE-inhibitors/ARB entail a reduced risk of MACE while none of the investigated secondary prevention therapies is associated with a reduced risk of AMI. Randomized controlled trials are warranted to confirm these findings.