Impact of "off-label" utilization of drug-eluting stents on clinical outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.
ABSTRACT The utilization of drug-eluting stents (DES) in "real world" practice has deviated from Food and Drug Administration-approved indications. Safety concerns have arisen from recent reports that suggested increased mortality and nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI) with DES usage. Little is known about the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing intracoronary DES implantation for unapproved indications as a group compared with outcomes after bare metal stent (BMS) placement. The clinical outcomes of 546 patients undergoing DES implantation for >or=1 non-Food and Drug Administration-approved ("off label") indication since the approval of the device were assessed. The group was then matched by propensity score with 546 patients receiving BMSs prior to DES approval for the same indications. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (cardiac death, nonfatal Q-wave myocardial infarction [MI], and target vessel revascularization) at 12 months. Baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics were well matched between BMS and DES groups. The use of debulking devices was higher in the BMS group. Patients in the BMS group were more likely to be treated with larger diameter and shorter stents. There was no significant difference in the rate of in-hospital and 30-day adverse cardiac events. At 12 months, the primary endpoint of major adverse cardiac events was significantly reduced in the DES group (23.6% vs 16.7%, p=0.004), driven by reductions in the need for repeat revascularization (target lesion revascularization: 16.4% vs 7.8%, p<0.001; target vessel revascularization: 20.2% vs 13.1%, p=0.003). There was no significant difference in freedom from cardiac death or nonfatal Q-wave MI between groups (p=0.27). In conclusion, the utilization of DES for non-Food and Drug Administration-approved indications proved to be efficacious and safe when compared with a BMS cohort matched by propensity score. The advantage for DES was driven by reductions in repeat revascularization. "Off-label" DES use was not associated with increased rates of cardiac death and nonfatal MI at 12 months.
Article: Safety and efficacy of drug-eluting and bare metal stents: comprehensive meta-analysis of randomized trials and observational studies.[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The safety and efficacy of drug-eluting stents (DES) among more generalized "real-world" patients than those enrolled in pivotal randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are controversial. We sought to perform a meta-analysis of DES studies to estimate the relative impact of DES versus bare metal stents (BMS) on safety and efficacy end points, particularly for non-Food and Drug Administration-labeled indications. Comparative DES versus BMS studies published or presented through February 2008 with > or =100 total patients and reporting mortality data with cumulative follow-up of > or =1 year were identified. Data were abstracted from studies comparing DES with BMS; original source data were used when available. Data from 9470 patients in 22 RCTs and from 182 901 patients in 34 observational studies were included. RCT and observational data were analyzed separately. In RCTs, DES (compared with BMS) were associated with no detectable differences in overall mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81 to 1.15; P=0.72) or myocardial infarction (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.13; P=0.54), with a significant 55% reduction in target vessel revascularization (HR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.54; P<0.0001); point estimates were slightly lower in off-label compared with on-label analyses. In observational studies, DES were associated with significant reductions in mortality (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.86), myocardial infarction (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.78 to 0.97), and target vessel revascularization (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.61) compared with BMS. In RCTs, no significant differences were observed in the long-term rates of death or myocardial infarction after DES or BMS use for either off-label or on-label indications. In real-world nonrandomized observational studies with greater numbers of patients but the admitted potential for selection bias and residual confounding, DES use was associated with reduced death and myocardial infarction. Both RCTs and observational studies demonstrated marked and comparable reductions in target vessel revascularization with DES compared with BMS. These data in aggregate suggest that DES are safe and efficacious in both on-label and off-label use but highlight differences between RCT and observational data comparing DES and BMS.Circulation 07/2009; 119(25):3198-206. · 14.74 Impact Factor
Article: Accounting for the mortality benefit of drug-eluting stents in percutaneous coronary intervention: a comparison of methods in a retrospective cohort study.[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Drug-eluting stents (DES) reduce rates of restenosis compared with bare metal stents (BMS). A number of observational studies have also found lower rates of mortality and non-fatal myocardial infarction with DES compared with BMS, findings not observed in randomized clinical trials. In order to explore reasons for this discrepancy, we compared outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with DES or BMS by multiple statistical methods. We compared short-term rates of all-cause mortality and myocardial infarction for patients undergoing PCI with DES or BMS using propensity-score adjustment, propensity-score matching, and a stent-era comparison in a large, integrated health system between 1998 and 2007. For the propensity-score adjustment and stent era comparisons, we used multivariable logistic regression to assess the association of stent type with outcomes. We used McNemar's Chi-square test to compare outcomes for propensity-score matching. Between 1998 and 2007, 35,438 PCIs with stenting were performed among health plan members (53.9% DES and 46.1% BMS). After propensity-score adjustment, DES was associated with significantly lower rates of death at 30 days (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.39 - 0.63, P < 0.001) and one year (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.49 - 0.68, P < 0.001), and a lower rate of myocardial infarction at one year (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 - 0.87, P < 0.001). Thirty day and one year mortality were also lower with DES after propensity-score matching. However, a stent era comparison, which eliminates potential confounding by indication, showed no difference in death or myocardial infarction for DES and BMS, similar to results from randomized trials. Although propensity-score methods suggested a mortality benefit with DES, consistent with prior observational studies, a stent era comparison failed to support this conclusion. Unobserved factors influencing stent selection in observational studies likely account for the observed mortality benefit of DES not seen in randomized clinical trials.BMC Medicine 06/2011; 9:78. · 6.03 Impact Factor