Effect of Stent Thrombosis on the Risk-Benefit Balance of Drug-Eluting Stents and Bare Metal Stents

Complexo Hospitalario Universitario de A Coruña, Spain.
Revista Espa de Cardiologia (Impact Factor: 3.79). 05/2010; 63(5):528-35. DOI: 10.1016/S1885-5857(10)70114-6
Source: PubMed


To determine the difference in the risk of stent thrombosis between drug-eluting stents (DES) and bare-metal stents (BMS) and to assess the clinical implications.
A retrospective analysis of two cohorts of patients treated at our center with either > or =1 paclitaxeleluting stents (PES) (n=430) or > or =1 BMSs (n=1230) during 2003-2004 was carried out using propensity score methods to compare the adjusted risks of stent thrombosis, instent restenosis, cardiovascular death, acute myocardial infarction (AMI), and target-lesion revascularization with the two stent types.
After a median follow-up of 46 months, there was a higher risk of stent thrombosis in PESs (hazard ratio [HR]=3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-7.1] though the risk of in-stent restenosis was lower (HR=0.3; 95% CI, 0.2-0.7]. There was no difference in the risk of cardiovascular death, AMI or target-lesion revascularization. With PESs, the risks of target-lesion revascularization (HR=0.33; 95% CI, 0.2-0.7) and in-stent restenosis (HR=0.32; 95% CI, 0.2-0.7) were reduced during the first year of follow-up. After this time, the risks of target-lesion revascularization (HR=1.8; 95% CI, 1-3.2) and very late stent thrombosis (HR=12.8; 95% CI, 3-55.1) both increased.
Our findings indicate that the balance of risks and benefits of PESs compared with BMSs is different in the early and late periods after stent implantation. The greatly increased risk of very late stent thrombosis in PESs could cancel out the clinical benefits associated with the reduction in in-stent restenosis observed in PESs relative to BMSs.

Download full-text


Available from: Guillermo Aldama, Apr 08, 2014
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: "Necessity, who is the mother of invention." - Plato. There has been a steady rise in the incidence and prevalence of coronary artery disease. In most developed countries, it is the number one cause of morbidity and mortality. As this disease has become an ever increasing burden on society, it has spurred on the development of many radical and innovative procedures and implants. This paper will discuss, briefly, the history of coronary interventions ranging from coronary artery bypass grafts (CABG) to drug-eluting stents. It will then compare and contrast some of the several drug-eluting stents available on the market today; specifically focusing on the CypherTM, TaxusTM, EndeavourTM, and Xience VTM stents. The comparisons will include a basic overview of the specifications of each stent as well as the short- and long-term outcomes of these implants. Finally, the paper will provide an introduction to some of the latest stent technology awaiting FDA approval.
    Journal of Long-Term Effects of Medical Implants 01/2011; 21(1):1-23. DOI:10.1615/JLongTermEffMedImplants.v21.i1.10
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: The Taxcor PL registry was a multicentre, phase IV open clinical trial, in which there participated 10 academic centres in Poland. Its aim was to assess the safety and effectiveness of the stent Genius TAXCOR I (Eurocor GmbH, Germany) at a dose of 1 μg/mm2 of paclitaxel, implanted during PCI with elective or urgent indications. Material and methods: Patients who entered the study were a group of patients qualified for PCI, based on clinical symptoms and provocative tests, in whom coronary angiography confirmed the presence of significant stenosis (length up to 25 mm) in the coronary arteries. Implantation procedure, peri- and postoperative procedure were in accordance with guidelines and local practice. The study protocol did not interfere with standard treatment for patients with a diagnosis of ischaemic heart disease. The total number of patients studied in the Taxcor PL registry is 100 people recruited in 10 centres in Poland. Results: Data were collected during the study on 100 PCIs (110 treated lesions). Average duration of PCI was 43 min (SD 24). Mean diameter of the implanted stent was 3.17 mm (SD 0.36) and the average length of 20.5 mm (SD 5.82). The mean time of hospitalization of patients enrolled in the study was 2.5 days (SD 3.4). During hospitalization, 2 patients experienced myocardial infarction which was the result of side branch closure during PCI. Three patients had a haematoma at the puncture site, which did not require surgical intervention and transfusion of blood products. During percutaneous coronary intervention also three cases of distal dissection were reported (type B, C and D). There were no other adverse events. In one-month follow-up one of the patients had a planned PCI procedure performed in another vessel than previously treated, which was the next stage of coronary revascularization. Similarly, in the 3-month follow-up one of the patients needed to undergo a PCI procedure on a vessel untreated with Taxcor. In the 6-month follow-up (3-6 months) one patient died - he was hospitalized with a diagnosis of malignant tumour and the gastrointestinal tract and operated on at the surgical ward (hemicolectomy); after 2 months of hospitalization, he died due to multiorgan failure. Five patients had a second percutaneous coronary intervention in other vessels than at the time of study enrolment. At 12-month follow-up (6-12 months) two patients had a second PCI procedure performed, including one in a vessel treated at the time of enrolment. Ineffectiveness of supply target vessel (called target vessel failure, TVF) occurred in three patients (death from coronary causes - 0, MI - 2, target vessel revascularization (TVR - PCI or CABG) during the 12-month observation period - 1. Conclusions: Taxcor PL registry results showed that the stent Genius Taxcor I is safe to use and provides satisfactory results in short- and long-term observation, in comparison with other commercially available coronary stent systems.
    Postepy w Kardiologii Interwencyjnej / Advances in Interventional Cardiology 10/2011; 7(4):285-291. DOI:10.5114/pwki.2011.25786 · 0.15 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Aims: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are the most reliable evidence, even if they require important resource and logistic efforts. Large, cost-free and real-world datasets may be easily accessed yielding to observational studies, but such analyses often lead to problematic results in the absence of careful methods, especially from a statistic point of view. We aimed to appraise the performance of current multivariable approaches in the estimation of causal treatment and effects in studies focusing on drug-eluting stents (DES). Methods and Results: Pertinent studies published in the literature were searched, selected, abstracted, and appraised for quality and validity features. Six studies with a logistic regression were included, all of them reporting more than 10 events for covariates and different length of follow-up, with an overall low risk of bias. Most of the 15 studies with a Cox proportional hazard analysis had a different follow-up, with less than 10 events for covariates, yielding an overall low or moderate risk of bias. Sixteen studies with propensity score were included: the most frequent method for variable selection was logistic regression, with underlying differences in follow-up and less than 10 events for covariate in most of them. Most frequently, calibration appraisal was not reported in the studies, on the contrary of discrimination appraisal, which was more frequently performed. In seventeen studies with propensity and matching, the latter was most commonly performed with a nearest neighbor-matching algorithm yet without appraisal in most of the studies of calibration or discrimination. Balance was evaluated in 46% of the studies, being obtained for all variables in 48% of them. Conclusions: Better exploitation and methodological appraisal of multivariable analysis is needed to improve the clinical and research impact and reliability of nonrandomized studies. (J Interven Cardiol 2012;25:611–621)
    Journal of Interventional Cardiology 08/2012; 25(6). DOI:10.1111/j.1540-8183.2012.00753.x · 1.18 Impact Factor
Show more