David M Kent1, Thomas A Trikalinos. 1. Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts-New England Medical Center, Boston, MA 02111, USA. dkent1@tufts-nemc.org
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It has been suggested that the benefits of drug-eluting stents compared to bare metal stents (BMS) have been overestimated in part because target lesion/vessel revascularization (TLR/TVR) rates in the BMS control group of these trials were spuriously high. METHODS: We used meta-analytic techniques to systematically compare clinical event rates among patients treated with BMS in trials where BMS were the experimental (BMS(experimental)) rather than the control (BMS(control)) intervention. MEDLINE searches were performed to identify eligible randomized trials comparing either drug-eluting stents with BMS(control) or BMS(experimental) with balloon angioplasty in patients with nonacute coronary artery disease. Trial characteristics and 6- to 12-month rates for death, myocardial infarction, TLR/TVR, and major adverse cardiac events were extracted and assessed. RESULTS: Eligible trials yielded 50 BMS cohorts: 19 in the BMS(control) group (4046 patients) and 31 in the BMS(experimental) group (5068 patients). Summary death and infarction rates did not differ between groups. The summary TLR/TVR rates were 16.2% (95% CI 13.5-19.3) versus 13.8% (95% CI 12.0-15.7) in BMS(control) versus BMS(experimental) groups, respectively (P = .15). Among 39 BMS cohorts with < or = 250 patients, TLR/TVR rates were significantly higher in BMS(control) versus BMS(experimental) groups (18.9% [95% CI 16.0-22.2] vs 13.7% [95% CI 11.5-16.3], P = .01). There were no between-group differences among larger BMS cohorts (P = .98). CONCLUSIONS: Although overall clinical event rates did not differ in the BMS(control) and the BMS(experimental) groups, a higher rate of TVR/TLR was seen in the BMS(control) group among smaller trials.
BACKGROUND: It has been suggested that the benefits of drug-eluting stents compared to bare metal stents (BMS) have been overestimated in part because target lesion/vessel revascularization (TLR/TVR) rates in the BMS control group of these trials were spuriously high. METHODS: We used meta-analytic techniques to systematically compare clinical event rates among patients treated with BMS in trials where BMS were the experimental (BMS(experimental)) rather than the control (BMS(control)) intervention. MEDLINE searches were performed to identify eligible randomized trials comparing either drug-eluting stents with BMS(control) or BMS(experimental) with balloon angioplasty in patients with nonacute coronary artery disease. Trial characteristics and 6- to 12-month rates for death, myocardial infarction, TLR/TVR, and major adverse cardiac events were extracted and assessed. RESULTS: Eligible trials yielded 50 BMS cohorts: 19 in the BMS(control) group (4046 patients) and 31 in the BMS(experimental) group (5068 patients). Summary death and infarction rates did not differ between groups. The summary TLR/TVR rates were 16.2% (95% CI 13.5-19.3) versus 13.8% (95% CI 12.0-15.7) in BMS(control) versus BMS(experimental) groups, respectively (P = .15). Among 39 BMS cohorts with < or = 250 patients, TLR/TVR rates were significantly higher in BMS(control) versus BMS(experimental) groups (18.9% [95% CI 16.0-22.2] vs 13.7% [95% CI 11.5-16.3], P = .01). There were no between-group differences among larger BMS cohorts (P = .98). CONCLUSIONS: Although overall clinical event rates did not differ in the BMS(control) and the BMS(experimental) groups, a higher rate of TVR/TLR was seen in the BMS(control) group among smaller trials.
Authors: A Lafont; J L Dubois-Randé; P G Steg; P Dupouy; D Carrié; P Coste; A Furber; F Beygui; L J Feldman; S Rahal; C Tron; M Hamon; G Grollier; P Commeau; P Richard; P Colin; C Bauters; G Karrillon; F Ledru; B Citron; F N Marié; M Kern Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2000-08 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: A Witkowski; W Ruzyłło; R Gil; B Górecka; Z Purzycki; M Kośmider; L Poloński; A Lekston; M Gasior; K Zmudka; P Pieniazek; P Buszman; J Drzewiecki; D Ciećwierz; Z Sadowski Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2000-08 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Henning Kelbaek; Leif Thuesen; Steffen Helqvist; Lene Kløvgaard; Erik Jørgensen; Samir Aljabbari; Kari Saunamäki; Lars R Krusell; Gunnar V H Jensen; Hans E Bøtker; Jens F Lassen; Henning R Andersen; Per Thayssen; Anders Galløe; Anton van Weert Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2005-12-09 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: J C Cappelleri; J P Ioannidis; C H Schmid; S D de Ferranti; M Aubert; T C Chalmers; J Lau Journal: JAMA Date: 1996 Oct 23-30 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: A Betriu; M Masotti; A Serra; J Alonso; F Fernández-Avilés; F Gimeno; T Colman; J Zueco; J L Delcan; E García; J Calabuig Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1999-11-01 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: W D Weaver; M A Reisman; J J Griffin; C E Buller; P P Leimgruber; T Henry; C D'Haem; V L Clark; J S Martin; D J Cohen; N Neil; N R Every Journal: Lancet Date: 2000-06-24 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: G Dangas; J A Ambrose; D Rehmann; J D Marmur; S K Sharma; C Hemdal-Monsen; T A Sanborn; D L Fischman Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2000-04-15 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Thomas A Trikalinos; Alawi A Alsheikh-Ali; Athina Tatsioni; Brahmajee K Nallamothu; David M Kent Journal: Lancet Date: 2009-03-14 Impact factor: 79.321