ABSTRACT
Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT>1 year) in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) and diabetes who were event-free at 1 year after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stent (DES) in a large and contemporary PCI registry. Methods: A total of 1 661 eligible patients were selected from the Fuwai PCI Registry, of which 1 193 received DAPT>1 year and 468 received DAPT ≤1 year. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event (MACCE) and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 2, 3 or 5 bleeding, MACCE was defined as a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction or stroke. Multivariate Cox regression analysis and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) Cox regression analysis were performed. Results: After a median follow-up of 2.5 years, patients who received DAPT>1 year were associated with lower risks of MACCE (1.4% vs. 3.2%; hazard ratio (HR) 0.412, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.205-0.827) compared with DAPT ≤1 year, which was primarily caused by the lower all-cause mortality (0.1% vs. 2.6%; HR 0.031, 95%CI 0.004-0.236). Risks of cardiac death (0.1% vs. 1.5%; HR 0.051, 95%CI 0.006-0.416) and definite/probable ST (0.3% vs. 1.1%; HR 0.218, 95%CI 0.052-0.917) were also lower in patients received DAPT>1 year than those received DAPT ≤ 1 year. No difference was found between the two groups in terms of BARC type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding (5.3% vs. 4.1%; HR 1.088, 95%CI 0.650-1.821). Conclusions: In patients with stable CAD and diabetes who were event-free at 1 year after PCI with DES, prolonged DAPT (>1 year) provides a substantial reduction in ischemic cardiovascular events, including MACCE, all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, and definite/probable ST, without increasing the clinically relevant bleeding risk compared with ≤ 1-year DAPT. Further well-designed, large-scale randomized trials are needed to verify the beneficial effect of prolonged DAPT in this population.
Subject(s)
Humans , Coronary Artery Disease/therapy , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 , Drug Therapy, Combination , Drug-Eluting Stents , Hemorrhage , Percutaneous Coronary Intervention , Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Risk Assessment , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
<p><b>Background</b>Currently, drug-eluting balloon (DEB) appears to be an attractive alternative option for the treatment of in-stent restenosis (ISR). Nevertheless, the clinical outcomes of DEB have seldom been compared to those of new-generation drug-eluting stent (DES). Thus, this meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of DEB compared to those of new-generation DES in the treatment of ISR.</p><p><b>Methods</b>A comprehensive search of electronic databases including PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library up to November 2, 2017 was performed to identify pertinent articles comparing DEB to new-generation DES for the treatment of ISR. In addition, conference proceedings for the scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, European Society of Cardiology, Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics, and EuroPCR were also searched. The primary endpoint was target lesion revascularization (TLR) at the longest follow-up. Dichotomous variables were presented as risk ratios (RR s) with 95% confidence intervals (CI s), while the overall RR s were estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model.</p><p><b>Results</b>Five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and eight observational studies involving 2743 patients were included in the present meta-analysis. Overall, DEB was comparable to new-generation DES in terms of TLR (RR = 1.24, 95% CI: 0.89-1.72, P = 0.21), cardiac death (RR = 1.55, 95% CI: 0.89-2.71, P = 0.12), major adverse cardiovascular event (RR = 1.21, 95% CI: 0.98-1.48, P = 0.07), myocardial infarction (RR = 1.12, 95% CI: 0.72-1.76, P = 0.62), and stent thrombosis (RR = 0.95, 95% CI: 0.38-2.42, P = 0.92). However, DEB was associated with higher risk of all-cause mortality than new-generation DES (RR = 1.65, 95% CI: 1.09-2.50, P = 0.02). This was especially true in the real-world observational studies (RR = 1.79, 95% CI: 1.12-2.88, P = 0.02). In RCTs, however, no significant difference was found between the two treatment strategies in the risk of all-cause mortality.</p><p><b>Conclusions</b>The current meta-analysis showed that DEB and new-generation DES had comparable safety and efficacy for the treatment of ISR in RCTs. However, treatment with DEB was associated with higher risk of all-cause mortality in the real-world nonrandomized studies.</p>