Javier Limeres1, Gregory Y H Lip2, Bruno García Del Blanco1, Ignacio Ferreira-González3, Maria Mutuberria1, Fernando Alfonso4, Héctor Bueno5, Angel Cequier6, Bernard Prendergast7, Javier Zueco8, Oriol Rodríguez-Leor9, José A Barrabés1, David García-Dorado1, Antonia Sambola10. 1. Department of Cardiology, University Hospital Vall d'Hebron, Institut de Recerca Vall d'Hebron, University Autonomous of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. 2. Liverpool Centre for Cardiovascular Science, University of Liverpool and Liverpool Heart & Chest Hospital, Liverpool, United Kingdom; Aalborg Thrombosis Research Unit, Department of Clinical Medicine, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark. 3. Department of Cardiology, University Hospital Vall d'Hebron, Institut de Recerca Vall d'Hebron, University Autonomous of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain; Cardiovascular Epidemiology Unit Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain. 4. Department of Cardiology, Hospital Universitario La Princesa, Madrid. Spain. 5. Department of Cardiology, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain. 6. Department of Cardiology, Hospital Universitari de Bellvitge, L'Hospitalet del Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain. 7. Department of Cardiology, St Thomas's Hospital, London, United Kingdom. 8. Department of Cardiology, Hospital Universitario Marqués de Valdecilla, Santander, Spain. 9. Department of Cardiology, Hospital Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol, Badalona, Spain. 10. Department of Cardiology, University Hospital Vall d'Hebron, Institut de Recerca Vall d'Hebron, University Autonomous of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. Electronic address: asambola@vhebron.net.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Drug-eluting stents (DES) reduce stent restenosis compared with bare-metal stents (BMS). However, their use in patients requiring long-term oral anticoagulation (OAC) is controversial owing to increased risk of bleeding associated with OAC plus antiplatelet treatment over time. OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety of DES vs BMS in patients requiring long-term OAC for any reason. METHODS: Prospective observational multicenter study conducted at 6 teaching centers of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention who required OAC for any reason. Adverse outcomes were analyzed at 1 year of follow-up. RESULTS: We identified 1002 patients requiring OAC (mean age: 72 years, male 72%). Six- hundred and thirteen patients (61.2%) received BMS and 389 (38.8%) DES. Diabetes, previous PCI, myocardial infarction and acute coronary syndrome at admission (P < 0.0001) were more common in patients with DES. Antithrombotic prescribing was similar at discharge between groups (TT: 51.5% vs 50.9%, clopidogrel plus OAC: 7.0% vs 5.0% and DAPT: 41.4% vs 42.7%, p = 0.52). DES and BMS patients showed similar rates of total bleeding (15.2% vs 13.4%, adjusted HR 0.82 [0.58-1.17, p = 0.82 and major bleeding (6.2% vs 6.0%; adjusted HR 1.22 [0.71-2.09], p = 0.46) and MACE (15.2% vs 18.6%, adjusted HR: 0.82 [0.57-1.17], p = 0.28, while restenosis was lower in patients with DES (5.3% vs 8.5%, adjusted HR. (0.52 [0.29-0.92], p = 0.02. Cox analysis after propensity score selection of 368 matched pairs demonstrated that DES use was not associated with a higher incidence of total bleeding or major bleeding. CONCLUSION: DES use is safe in patients with an indication for long-term OAC.
BACKGROUND: Drug-eluting stents (DES) reduce stent restenosis compared with bare-metal stents (BMS). However, their use in patients requiring long-term oral anticoagulation (OAC) is controversial owing to increased risk of bleeding associated with OAC plus antiplatelet treatment over time. OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety of DES vs BMS in patients requiring long-term OAC for any reason. METHODS: Prospective observational multicenter study conducted at 6 teaching centers of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention who required OAC for any reason. Adverse outcomes were analyzed at 1 year of follow-up. RESULTS: We identified 1002 patients requiring OAC (mean age: 72 years, male 72%). Six- hundred and thirteen patients (61.2%) received BMS and 389 (38.8%) DES. Diabetes, previous PCI, myocardial infarction and acute coronary syndrome at admission (P < 0.0001) were more common in patients with DES. Antithrombotic prescribing was similar at discharge between groups (TT: 51.5% vs 50.9%, clopidogrel plus OAC: 7.0% vs 5.0% and DAPT: 41.4% vs 42.7%, p = 0.52). DES and BMS patients showed similar rates of total bleeding (15.2% vs 13.4%, adjusted HR 0.82 [0.58-1.17, p = 0.82 and major bleeding (6.2% vs 6.0%; adjusted HR 1.22 [0.71-2.09], p = 0.46) and MACE (15.2% vs 18.6%, adjusted HR: 0.82 [0.57-1.17], p = 0.28, while restenosis was lower in patients with DES (5.3% vs 8.5%, adjusted HR. (0.52 [0.29-0.92], p = 0.02. Cox analysis after propensity score selection of 368 matched pairs demonstrated that DES use was not associated with a higher incidence of total bleeding or major bleeding. CONCLUSION: DES use is safe in patients with an indication for long-term OAC.