Sripal Bangalore1, Bora Toklu2,3, Neil Patel2, Frederick Feit1, Gregg W Stone4. 1. New York University School of Medicine (S.B., F.F.). 2. Mt. Sinai Beth Israel Medical Center, New York, NY (B.T., N.P.). 3. Montefiore Medical Center and Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York (B.T.). 4. New York Presbyterian Hospital, Columbia University Medical Center and the Cardiovascular Research Foundation (G.W.S.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Contemporary second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) have superior efficacy and safety in comparison with early-generation stents in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, in part, related to their thinner struts. Whether newer-generation ultrathin DES further improve clinical outcomes in comparison with older second-generation thicker strut DES is unknown. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomized clinical trials that compared newer-generation ultrathin strut DES (defined as strut thickness <70 µm) versus thicker strut second-generation DES and reported clinical outcomes. The primary outcome was target lesion failure (composite of cardiovascular death, target vessel myocardial infarction or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization) evaluated at 1-year follow-up. Tests for subgroup effects based on the ultrathin strut DES type and the comparator DES type were performed by using meta-regression analysis. RESULTS: We identified 10 trials that randomly assigned 11 658 patients and evaluated 3 newer-generation ultrathin strut DES: Orsiro stent (60 μm), MiStent (64 μm), and BioMime (65 µm). In comparison with thicker strut second-generation DES, newer-generation ultrathin strut DES were associated with a 16% reduction in target lesion failure (relative risk, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.72-0.99) driven by less myocardial infarction (relative risk, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.65-0.99). Ultrathin strut DES were also associated with qualitatively lower rates of any stent thrombosis (relative risk, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.51-1.01). Tests for subgroup effects based on the ultrathin strut DES type ( P=0.58) and the comparator DES type ( P=0.98) were not significant, suggesting consistent outcomes across the 3 ultrathin strut DES and with the different DES comparators. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, newer-generation ultrathin strut DES further improve 1-year clinical outcomes in comparison with contemporary thicker strut second-generation DES.
BACKGROUND: Contemporary second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) have superior efficacy and safety in comparison with early-generation stents in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, in part, related to their thinner struts. Whether newer-generation ultrathin DES further improve clinical outcomes in comparison with older second-generation thicker strut DES is unknown. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomized clinical trials that compared newer-generation ultrathin strut DES (defined as strut thickness <70 µm) versus thicker strut second-generation DES and reported clinical outcomes. The primary outcome was target lesion failure (composite of cardiovascular death, target vessel myocardial infarction or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization) evaluated at 1-year follow-up. Tests for subgroup effects based on the ultrathin strut DES type and the comparator DES type were performed by using meta-regression analysis. RESULTS: We identified 10 trials that randomly assigned 11 658 patients and evaluated 3 newer-generation ultrathin strut DES: Orsiro stent (60 μm), MiStent (64 μm), and BioMime (65 µm). In comparison with thicker strut second-generation DES, newer-generation ultrathin strut DES were associated with a 16% reduction in target lesion failure (relative risk, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.72-0.99) driven by less myocardial infarction (relative risk, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.65-0.99). Ultrathin strut DES were also associated with qualitatively lower rates of any stent thrombosis (relative risk, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.51-1.01). Tests for subgroup effects based on the ultrathin strut DES type ( P=0.58) and the comparator DES type ( P=0.98) were not significant, suggesting consistent outcomes across the 3 ultrathin strut DES and with the different DES comparators. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, newer-generation ultrathin strut DES further improve 1-year clinical outcomes in comparison with contemporary thicker strut second-generation DES.
Authors: Rosaly A Buiten; Eline H Ploumen; Paolo Zocca; Carine J M Doggen; Liefke C van der Heijden; Marlies M Kok; Peter W Danse; Carl E Schotborgh; Martijn Scholte; Frits H A F de Man; Gerard C M Linssen; Clemens von Birgelen Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2019-07-01 Impact factor: 14.676
Authors: Rayyan Hemetsberger; Mohammad Abdelghani; Ralph Toelg; Hector M Garcia-Garcia; Serdar Farhan; Nader Mankerious; Karim Elbasha; Abdelhakim Allali; Stephan Windecker; Thierry Lefèvre; Shigeru Saito; David Kandzari; Ron Waksman; Gert Richardt Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2022-02-25 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Mahesh V Madhavan; James P Howard; Azim Naqvi; Ori Ben-Yehuda; Bjorn Redfors; Megha Prasad; Bahira Shahim; Martin B Leon; Sripal Bangalore; Gregg W Stone; Yousif Ahmad Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2021-07-15 Impact factor: 29.983