[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: The elderly (≥ 75 years) constitute a high-risk subset of patients who continue to have a poorer prognosis than non-elderly (< 75 years). Whether the effects of everolimus-eluting stent (EES) in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) are independent of age has not been reported. We investigated the outcomes following primary PCI (PPCI) with bare-metal stent (BMS) or EES in elderly vs. non-elderly STEMI patients.Methods
The EXAMINATION trial randomized 1498 STEMI patients to BMS or EES. The primary patient-oriented endpoint (POCE) was the combined of all-cause death, any-recurrent myocardial infarction (MI) and any-revascularization at 1-year. The secondary endpoint included the device-oriented combined (DOCE) of cardiac death, target-vessel MI and target-lesion revascularization. These endpoints and their components were compared between elderly and non-elderly.ResultsAmong patients enrolled in the trial, 245 (16.3%) were elderly, allocated to BMS (n = 132) or EES (n = 113), while the remaining 1253 (83.7%) were non-elderly, allocated to BMS (n = 615) or EES (n = 638). At 1-year, both the POCE and DOCE were observed more frequently in elderly vs. non-elderly group (24.5% vs. 10.5%, p < 0.001 and 15.9% vs. 5.1%, p < 0.001). Whereas in non-elderly, both POCE and DOCE were lower in EES vs. BMS (12.4% vs. 8.8%, p = 0.03 and 6.7% vs. 3.6%, p = 0.01), no differences were found in elderly, with a tendency for interaction between age and stent type for POCE (p = 0.05). On multivariate analysis age ≥ 75 years was an independent predictor of POCE (HR 2.19 [95%CI 1.59–3.01], p < 0.0001) and DOCE (HR 2.42 [95%CI 1.60–3.7], p < 0.001) at 1-year.Conclusions
In STEMI patients undergoing PPCI, advanced age (≥ 75 years) is associated with worse outcomes. The beneficial effects of EES over BMS tended to be age-dependent.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: This study sought to assess the 2-year outcomes of the population included in the EXAMINATION (Everolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Bare-Metal Stents in ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction) trial beyond the 1-year prescription period of dual antiplatelet therapy.
The EXAMINATION trial compared the performance of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) versus bare-metal stents (BMS) in an all-comer ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) population.
This was a multicenter, multinational, prospective, randomized, single-blind, controlled trial in patients with STEMI. The primary endpoint, which was the combined endpoint of all-cause death, any recurrent myocardial infarction, and any revascularization, and the endpoints target lesion revascularization and stent thrombosis were assessed at 2 years.
Between December 31, 2008, and May 15, 2010, 1,498 patients were randomized to receive EES (n = 751) or BMS (n = 747). Compliance with dual antiplatelet regimen was reduced at 2 years to a similar degree (17.3% vs. 17.2%, p = 0.91). At 2 years, the primary endpoint occurred in 108 (14.4%) patients of the EES group and in 129 (17.3%) patients of the BMS group (p = 0.11). Rate of target lesion revascularization was significantly lower in the EES group than in the BMS group (2.9% vs. 5.6%; p = 0.009). Rates of definite and definite or probable stent thrombosis were also significantly reduced in the EES group (0.8% vs. 2.1%; p = 0.03, and 1.3% vs. 2.8%; p = 0.04, respectively).
The 2-year follow-up of the EXAMINATION trial confirms the safety and efficacy of the EES compared with BMS in the setting of STEMI. Specifically, both rates of target lesion revascularization and stent thrombosis were reduced in recipients of EES without any signs of late attrition for either of these endpoints. (A Clinical Evaluation of Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stents in the Treatment of Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction [EXAMINATION]; NCT00828087).
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: ST-elevation myocardial infarctions (STEMI) caused by proximal left-anterior descending (LAD) lesions have more myocardium at risk and worse outcomes than those located in other segments. The aim is to compare outcomes of patients with STEMI and proximal-LAD lesions treated with bare-metal stents (BMS) versus everolimus-eluting stents (EES).
The EXAMINATION trial randomized 1498 STEMI patients to BMS versus EES. The primary end point was the patient-oriented combined of all-cause death, any-recurrent myocardial infarction (MI) and any-revascularization. The secondary end point included the device-oriented combined of cardiac death, target-vessel MI and target-lesion revascularization (TLR).
STEMI with a proximal-LAD occlusion was observed in 290 patients (BMS = 132 and EES = 158). Both groups were similar except for diabetes (12.9% vs 24.1%; P = .016). At 1 year, the primary end point was observed in 18.9% and 9.5% of patients treated with BMS and EES, respectively (P = .023). The secondary end point was observed in 11.4% and 5.1%, respectively (P = .053). There were no differences in cardiac death (4.5% vs 3.8%; P = .750) and MI (1.5% vs 0%; P = .121). BMS had higher rate of TLR compared to EES (6.8% vs 1.3%; P = .014). Patients with proximal-LAD STEMI had higher mortality than patients with non proximal-LAD STEMI (5.5% vs 2.9%; P = .027). Proximal-LAD lesions treated with BMS tended to increase the risk of the primary end point compared with other segments (18.9% vs 13.0%; P = .079). However, EES implanted in proximal-LAD had similar outcomes compared with other locations (9.5% vs 12.0%; P = .430). Adjusting for confounders, the interaction between BMS and proximal-LAD location was associated with the primary end point.
Patients with STEMI and proximal-LAD lesions treated with EES have better outcomes compared with BMS at 1 year. Although further investigations are required, it seems reasonable to consider EES for proximal-LAD STEMI-lesions.
American heart journal 07/2013; 166(1):119-126.e1. · 4.65 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Few data are available about safety of second generation drug eluting stents in an all-comer ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) population. We sought to investigate the predictors and clinical implications of 1-year stent thrombosis (ST) in patients with STEMI, included in the EXAMINATION trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: The EXAMINATION trial is an all-comer prospective, randomized 1:1 controlled trial, testing everolimus-eluting stent (EES) vs. cobalt chromium bare metal stent (BMS) in STEMI patients. It included 1498 patients, randomized to EES (n=751) or BMS (n=747). At 1year, definite/probable stent thrombosis, defined according to ARC criteria, occurred in 26 patients (1.73%), including 18 definite and 8 probable events. The incidence of ST was lower in patients treated with EES than in those treated with BMS (HR 0.16, 95% CI 0.03-0.29, p=0.017). Patients with ST have higher 1-year rates of cardiac death (30.8% vs. 2.5%, p<0.001), myocardial infarction (30.8% vs. 0.5%, p<0.001) and target vessel revascularization (65.4% vs. 4.2%, p<0.001) compared with those without. Independent predictors of 1-year definite/probable ST were BMS implantation at the index procedure (HR 3.41, 95% CI 1.35-8.60), ST segment resolution of at least 70% in the EKG post-PCI (HR 0.30, 95% CI 0.13-0.70) and Killip class on admission (HR 2.57, 95% CI 1.70-3.90). CONCLUSIONS: ST had low frequency in the first year after implantation of EES/BMS in STEMI patients, but it is associated with adverse events. BMS implantation, lack of ST-segment resolution and high Killip class on admission were independent predictors of 1-year ST.
International journal of cardiology 04/2013; · 6.18 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Everolimus-eluting stent (EES) reduces the risk of restenosis in elective percutaneous coronary intervention. However, the use of drug-eluting stent in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is still controversial. Data regarding the performance of second-generation EES in this setting are scarce. We report the 1-year result of the EXAMINATION (clinical Evaluation of the Xience-V stent in Acute Myocardial INfArcTION) trial, comparing EES with bare-metal stents (BMS) in patients with STEMI. METHODS: This multicentre, prospective, randomised, all-comer controlled trial was done in 12 medical centres in three countries. Between Dec 31, 2008, and May 15, 2010, we recruited patients with STEMI up to 48 h after the onset of symptoms requiring emergent percutaneous coronary intervention. Patients were randomly assigned (ratio 1:1) to receive EES or BMS. Randomisation was in blocks of four or six patients, stratified by centre and centralised by telephone. Patients were masked to treatment. The primary endpoint was the patient-oriented combined endpoint of all-cause death, any recurrent myocardial infarction, and any revascularisation at 1 year and was analysed by intention to treat. The secondary endpoints of the study included the device-oriented combined endpoint of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction or target lesion revascularisation, and rates of all cause or cardiac death, recurrent myocardial infarction, target lesion or target vessel revascularisation, stent thrombosis, device and procedure success, and major and minor bleeding. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00828087. FINDINGS: Of the 1504 patients randomised, 1498 patients were randomly assigned to receive EES (n=751) or BMS (n=747). The primary endpoint was similar in both groups (89 [11·9%] of 751 patients in the EES group vs 106 [14·2%] of 747 patients in the BMS group; difference -2·34 [95% CI -5·75 to 1·07]; p=0·19). Device-oriented endpoint (44 [5·9%] in the EES group vs 63 [8·4%] in the BMS group; difference -2·57 [95% CI -5·18 to 0·03]; p=0·05) did not differ between groups, although rates of target lesion and vessel revascularisation were significantly lower in the EES group (16 [2·1%] vs 37 [5·0%], p=0·003, and 28 [3·7%] vs 51 [6·8%], p=0·0077, respectively). Rates of all cause (26 [3·5%] for EES vs 26 [3·5%] for BMS, p=1·00) or cardiac death (24 [3·2%] for EES vs 21 [2·8%] for BMS, p=0·76) or myocardial infarction (10 [1·3%] vs 15 [2·0%], p=0·32) did not differ between groups. Stent thrombosis rates were significantly lower in the EES group (4 [0·5%] patients with definite stent thrombosis in the EES group vs 14 [1·9%] in the BMS group and seven [0·9%] patients with definite or probable stent thrombosis in the EES group vs 19 [2·5%] in the BMS group, both p=0·019). Although device success rate was similar between groups, procedure success rate was significantly higher in the EES group (731 [97·5%] vs 705 [94·6%]; p=0·0050). Finally, Bleeding rates at 1 year were comparable between groups (29 [3·9%] patients in the EES group vs 39 [5·2%] in the BMS group; p=0·19). INTERPRETATION: The use of EES compared with BMS in the setting of STEMI did not lower the patient-oriented endpoint. However, at the stent level both rates of target lesion revascularisation and stent thrombosis were reduced in recipients of EES. FUNDING: Spanish Heart Foundation.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: To assess the performance of the everolimus-eluting stent (EES) versus cobalt chromium bare-metal stent (BMS) in the setting of primary percutaneous coronary intervention for treatment of patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). The implantation of a drug-eluting stent in the setting of an acute myocardial infarction is still controversial. In several registries this clinical scenario has been associated with the development of stent thrombosis. The EES has demonstrated to reduce the stent thrombosis rate as compared to paclitaxel-eluting stent in randomised controlled trials, mainly performed in patients in stable clinical conditions. There are however few data regarding the effectiveness of EES in the context of STEMI.
This is an investigator-driven, prospective, multicentre, multinational, randomised, single blind, two-arm, controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT00828087). This trial, with an all comer design, randomises approximately 1,500 patients 1:1 to EES or BMS. Overall, any patient presenting with STEMI up to 48 hours who requires emergent percutaneous coronary intervention can be included. The primary endpoint is the patient-oriented combined endpoint of all-cause death, any myocardial infarction and any revascularisation at 1-year according to the Academic Research Consortium. Clinical follow-up will be scheduled at 30 days, six months, one year and yearly up to five years. No angiographic follow-up is mandated per protocol.
This trial with broad inclusion and few exclusion criteria will shed light on the performance of the second generation EES in the complex scenario of STEMI.
EuroIntervention: journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology 11/2011; 7(8):977-84. · 3.17 Impact Factor