Clinical outcomes of drug-eluting stent use in patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction
Introduction
Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is the preferred reperfusion method for patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction [STEMI, [1], [2]]. Bare-metal stents (BMS) are clearly superior to balloon angioplasty alone, however significant restenosis does occur and may be associated with adverse clinical outcomes [3].
Drug-eluting stent (DES) use has been shown to be associated with significantly reduced clinical and angiographic restenosis compared with BMS in various patient populations and lesion subsets [4], [5], [6], [7]. However, the early pivotal trials establishing the efficacy of DES compared with BMS excluded patients with STEMI. Recently, a number of randomised trials have compared the outcomes of patients with STEMI undergoing implantation of DES vs. BMS and confirm a favourable reduction in restenosis with DES [8], [9], [10]. However, these trials have generally excluded complex patients such as those in cardiogenic shock, rescue angioplasty and patients with complex lesions. Furthermore, there has been concern in the interventional community of using DES in patients presenting with STEMI, given concerns of delayed healing, lack of complete endothelialization, and the thrombogenic environment of the exposed culprit plaque necrotic core [11], [12]. The presence of a large thrombus burden, as is often the case during STEMI, has been shown to predict adverse events in patients treated with DES, with particular concern for late stent thrombosis [13], [14].
The aim of this study was to assess the clinical outcomes of consecutive patients undergoing PCI for STEMI based on stent type (DES vs. BMS) from a ‘real world’ interventional registry.
Section snippets
Patients and design
The study population consists of 564 consecutive STEMI patients treated with PCI with stent implantation from 1st August 2004 to 1st May 2006. Patients were prospectively enrolled in the Melbourne Interventional Group (MIG) registry. The DES group had ≥ 1 DES implanted and the BMS group had only BMS implanted.
The MIG registry is a voluntary, collaborative venture of interventional cardiologists practicing at 7 Australian tertiary referral hospitals, designed to record data pertaining to PCI and
Baseline characteristics
A total of 564 patients with STEMI were enrolled over the stated time period, and 528 patients (94%) had 12-month follow-up at the time of data analysis (Table 1). Baseline clinical characteristics were similar in patients receiving DES vs. BMS with respect to age (62.6 ± 12.5 vs. 62.2 ± 13.3 years, p = 0.71), male gender (79.2 vs. 74.3%, p = 0.19), prior myocardial infarction (14.2 vs. 11.6%, p = 0.52), rescue PCI (11.4 vs. 11.6%, p = 0.9) and cardiogenic shock (10.2 vs. 11.0%, p = 0.78). As would be
Discussion
Our study provides several important insights regarding the use of DES implantation in a “real world” STEMI population: (i) DES are commonly (44.7%) used for treatment of STEMI in Australia despite potential safety concerns raised recently; (ii) our registry suggests low and equivalent rates of 12-month late thrombosis in patients receiving DES compared to BMS in the presence of prolonged clopidogrel therapy for patients receiving DES; (iii) DES use in a higher risk cohort yields overall
Conclusions
The present study demonstrates that despite limited and conflicting evidence, DES are very frequently used in patients presenting with STEMI in contemporary cardiology centres in Australia. In our study population, the selective approach of DES for patients at highest risk of restenosis demonstrated equivalent outcomes in terms of TVR and mortality despite a higher risk profile. Further randomised trials including all high-risk patients are required before definitive conclusions can be made
Acknowledgements
The Melbourne Interventional Group acknowledges funding from Abbott Vascular, Astra-Zeneca, Biotronik, Boston-Scientific, Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, Schering-Plough, Servier, St Jude and Terumo. These companies do not have access to the data, and do not have the right to review articles before publication. Dr. Duffy's work is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia Program Grant.
The authors of this manuscript have certified that they
References (31)
- et al.
Primary angioplasty versus intravenous thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction: a quantitative review of 23 randomised trials
Lancet
(2003) - et al.
Bare metal stent restenosis is not a benign clinical entity
Am Heart J
(2006) - et al.
Randomized trial of sirolimus-eluting stent versus bare-metal stent in acute myocardial infarction (SESAMI)
J Am Coll Cardiol
(2007) - et al.
Pathology of drug-eluting stents in humans: delayed healing and late thrombotic risk
J Am Coll Cardiol
(2006) - et al.
Frequency of and risk factors for stent thrombosis after drug-eluting stent implantation during long-term follow-up
Am J Cardiol
(2006) - et al.
The foundation and launch of the Melbourne Interventional Group: a collaborative interventional cardiology project
Heart Lung Circ
(2006) - et al.
Drug-eluting stents for acute myocardial infarction
J Am Coll Cardiol
(2007) - et al.
On- versus off-label use of drug-eluting coronary stents in clinical practice (report from the American College of Cardiology National Cardiovascular Data Registry [NCDR])
Am J Cardiol
(2006) - et al.
Short- and long-term clinical benefit of sirolimus-eluting stents compared to conventional bare stents for patients with acute myocardial infarction
J Am Coll Cardiol
(2004) - et al.
Frequency and correlates of coronary stent thrombosis in the modern era: analysis of a single center registry
J Am Coll Cardiol
(2002)
Reliable assessment of the effects of treatment on mortality and major morbidity, II: observational studies
Lancet
Early and late coronary stent thrombosis of sirolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents in routine clinical practice: data from a large two-institutional cohort study
Lancet
Ethical authorship and publishing
Int J Cardiol
Does time matter? A pooled analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing primary percutaneous coronary intervention and in-hospital fibrinolysis in acute myocardial infarction patients
Eur Heart J
Analysis of 14 trials comparing sirolimus-eluting stents with bare-metal stents
N Engl J Med
Cited by (6)
Effect of Paclitaxel+Hirudin on the TLR4-MyD88 Signaling Pathway during Inflammatory Activation of Human Coronary Artery Smooth Muscle Cells and Mechanistic Analysis
2018, Cellular Physiology and BiochemistryEvaluation of drug release from paclitaxel + hirudin-eluting balloons and the resulting vascular reactivity in healthy pigs
2018, Experimental and Therapeutic MedicineAssociation of smoking with restenosis and major adverse cardiac events after coronary stenting: A meta-analysis
2015, Pakistan Journal of Medical SciencesUse and misuse of multivariable approaches in interventional cardiology studies on drug-eluting stents: A systematic review
2012, Journal of Interventional Cardiology