Effectiveness of two-year clopidogrel + aspirin in abolishing the risk of very late thrombosis after drug-eluting stent implantation (from the TYCOON [two-year ClOpidOgrel need] study).
ABSTRACT It remains unclear whether dual antiplatelet therapy >12 months might carry a better prognosis after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DESs). To address the hypothesis that in the real world the risk of very late thrombosis after PCI with DESs can be decreased by an extended use of clopidogrel, we set up the Two-Year ClOpidOgrel Need (TYCOON) registry and prospectively investigated the impact on very late thrombosis of 12- versus 24-month dual antiplatelet regimens in an unselected population. The registry enrolled 897 consecutive patients who underwent PCI with stenting from January 1, 2003, to December 31, 2004, and had dual antiplatelet therapy. All patients had a 4-year clinical follow-up. In the 447 patients with DES implantation, the dual antiplatelet regimen after PCI was given for 12 months in the 173 patients treated in 2003 (12-month group) and for 24 months in the 274 patients treated in 2004 (24-month group). Comparison between groups did not reveal any significant difference in baseline clinical characteristics, angiographic and procedural features, and major adverse cardiac events. During follow-up, there were 5 cases of stent thrombosis after PCI in the 12-month DES group and 1 case in the 24-month DES group (p = 0.02). Specifically, there were 2 cases of subacute thrombosis (1 in each group), no case of late thrombosis, and 4 cases of very late thrombosis occurring at 13, 15, 17, and 23 months after DES implantation in the 12-month group only. In conclusion, a 2-year dual antiplatelet regimen with aspirin and clopidogrel can prevent the occurrence of very late stent thrombosis after PCI with DESs.
- SourceAvailable from: pubget.com[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Limited data exist regarding use of drug-eluting stents outside of approved indications in real-world settings. To determine the frequency, safety, and effectiveness of drug-eluting stents for off-label (restenosis, bypass graft lesion, long lesions, vessel size outside of information for use recommendation) and untested (left main, ostial, bifurcation, or total occlusion lesions) indications in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Observational, prospective, multicenter registry to evaluate in-hospital, 30-day, and 1-year outcomes among patients undergoing PCI between January and June 2005 in 140 US academic and community medical centers. Of 7752 PCI-treated patients, 6993 (90%) received drug-eluting stents; of these, 5851 (84%) received no other devices. Standard, off-label, and untested use was determined in 5541 (95%) of these 5851 patients, constituting the study cohort. Frequency of off-label and untested use, 1-year repeat target vessel revascularization, and composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stent thrombosis at in-hospital follow-up and during 1 year of follow-up. Of 5541 patients receiving drug-eluting stents, 2588 (47%) received stents for off-label or untested indications. Adjusted in-hospital risk of death, MI, or stent thrombosis was not statistically different with off-label or untested vs standard use. At 30 days, the risk of this composite end point was significantly higher with off-label use (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 2.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.24-3.48; P = .005) but not untested use (adjusted HR, 1.45; 95% CI, 0.79-2.67; P = .23). Excluding early events, this end point was not different at 1 year with off-label use (adjusted HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.79-1.54; P = .57) or untested use (adjusted HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.60-1.38; P = .66). At 1 year, compared with standard use, significantly higher rates of target vessel revascularization were associated with off-label use (adjusted HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.13-1.98; P = .005) and untested use (adjusted HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.10-2.02; P = .01), although absolute rates were low (standard, 4.4% [n = 113]; off-label, 7.6% [n = 95]; untested, 6.7% [n = 72]). In contemporary US practice, off-label and untested use of drug-eluting stents is common. Compared with standard use, relative early safety is lower with off-label use, and the long-term effectiveness is lower with both off-label and untested use. However, the absolute event rates remain low.JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association 06/2007; 297(18):1992-2000. · 29.98 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Although drug-eluting stents (DES) significantly reduce restenosis, they require 3 to 6 months of thienopyridine therapy to prevent stent thrombosis. The rate and consequences of prematurely discontinuing thienopyridine therapy after DES placement for acute myocardial infarction (MI) are unknown. We used prospectively collected data from a 19-center study of MI patients to examine the prevalence and predictors of thienopyridine discontinuation 30 days after DES treatment. We then compared the mortality and cardiac hospitalization rates for the next 11 months between those who stopped and those who continued thienopyridine therapy. Among 500 DES-treated MI patients who were discharged on thienopyridine therapy, 68 (13.6%) stopped therapy within 30 days. Those who stopped were older, less likely to have completed high school or be married, more likely to avoid health care because of cost, and more likely to have had preexisting cardiovascular disease or anemia at presentation. They were also less likely to have received discharge instructions about their medications or a cardiac rehabilitation referral. Patients who stopped thienopyridine therapy by 30 days were more likely to die during the next 11 months (7.5% versus 0.7%, P<0.0001; adjusted hazard ratio=9.0; 95% confidence interval=1.3 to 60.6) and to be rehospitalized (23% versus 14%, P=0.08; adjusted hazard ratio=1.5; 95% confidence interval=0.78 to 3.0). Almost 1 in 7 MI patients who received a DES were no longer taking thienopyridines by 30 days. Prematurely stopping thienopyridine therapy was strongly associated with subsequent mortality. Strategies to improve the use of thienopyridines are needed to optimize the outcomes of MI patients treated with DES.Circulation 06/2006; 113(24):2803-9. · 15.20 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The long-term safety and efficacy of drug-eluting stents (DES) have been questioned recently. Between July 2002 and June 2005, 10,629 patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention with either DES (n=3064) or bare-metal stents (BMS, n=7565) were enrolled in a prospective registry comprising 13 hospitals. We assessed the cumulative incidence of major adverse cardiac events (death, acute myocardial infarction, and target-vessel revascularization) and angiographic stent thrombosis during 2-year follow-up. A propensity score analysis to adjust for different baseline clinical, angiographic, and procedural characteristics was performed. The 2-year unadjusted cumulative incidence of major adverse cardiac events was 17.8% in the DES group and 21.0% in the BMS group (P=0.003 by log-rank test). Angiographic stent thrombosis was 1.0% in the DES group and 0.6% in the BMS group (P=0.09). After adjustment, the 2-year cumulative incidence of death was 6.8% in the DES group and 7.4% in the BMS group (P=0.35), whereas the rates were 5.3% in DES and 5.8% in BMS for acute myocardial infarction (P=0.46), 9.1% in DES and 12.9% in BMS for target-vessel revascularization (P<0.00001), and 16.9% in DES and 21.8% in BMS for major adverse cardiac events (P<0.0001). Independent predictors of target-vessel revascularization in the DES group were diabetes mellitus (hazard ratio 1.36, 95% confidence interval 1.06 to 1.76), renal failure (hazard ratio 1.69, 95% confidence interval 1.06 to 2.69), and reference vessel diameter (hazard ratio 0.64, 95% confidence interval 0.45 to 0.93). In this large real-world population, the beneficial effect of DES in reducing the need for new revascularization compared with BMS extends to 2 years without evidence of a worse safety profile.Circulation 06/2007; 115(25):3181-8. · 15.20 Impact Factor