Comparison of Efficacy and Safety between First- and Second-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome / 中华医学杂志(英文版)

Background@#It remains undetermined whether second-generation drug-eluting stents (G2-DESs) outperform first-generation DESs (G1-DESs) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of G1-DES and G2-DES in ACS patients in a high-volume cardiovascular center.@*Methods@#In 2013, 10,724 consecutive patients underwent percutaneous coronary intervention in our institution. We included 4037 patients with ACS who underwent exclusively G1-DES or G2-DES implantation (n = 364 and n = 3673, respectively). We used propensity score matching to minimize the imbalance between the G1-DES and G2-DES groups and followed patients for 2 years. The efficacy endpoints were major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) and its components including target vessel-related myocardial infarction (TV-MI), target vessel revascularization/target lesion revascularization (TVR/TLR), and cardiac death. The safety endpoint was stent thrombosis. Continuous variables were compared by Mann-Whitney U-test, and categorical variables were compared using Pearson's Chi-square or Fisher's exact test. Kaplan-Meier curves were constructed to compare the event-free survival rates, and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to assess whether stent type was an independent risk factor for the efficacy and safety endpoints.@*Results@#At the 2-year follow-up, the results for MACE and it components, as well as stent thrombosis, were similar for G1-DES and G2-DES (MACE, 5.2% vs. 4.3%, χ = 0.514, P = 0.474; TV-MI, 0.8% vs. 0.4%, P = 0.407; TVR, 4.9% vs. 3.7%, χ = 0.939, P = 0.333; TLR, 3.8% vs. 2.5%, χ = 1.610, P = 0.205; cardiac death, 0.3% vs. 0.5%, P = 0.670; and stent thrombosis, 0.5% vs. 0.4%, P > 0.999). Kaplan-Meier analysis indicated similar event-free survival rates between G1-DES and G2-DES after propensity score matching (all: log-rank P > 0.05). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that stent type was not an independent risk factor for the efficacy and safety endpoints (MACE, hazard ratio [HR] = 0.805, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.455-1.424, P = 0.456; TV-MI, HR = 0.500, 95% CI: 0.101-2.475, P = 0.395; TVR, HR = 0.732, 95% CI: 0.403-1.330, P = 0.306; TLR, HR = 0.629, 95% CI: 0.313-1.264, P = 0.193; cardiac death, HR = 1.991, 95% CI: 0.223-17.814, P = 0.538; and stent thrombosis, HR = 0.746, 95% CI: 0.125-4.467, P = 0.749).@*Conclusion@#G1-DES and G2-DES have similar efficacy and safety profiles in ACS patients at the 2-year follow-up.

Comparison of Efficacy and Safety between First and Second Generation Drug-eluting Stents in Patients with Stable Coronary Artery Disease: A Single-center Retrospective Study / 中华医学杂志(英文版)

<p><b>BACKGROUND</b>Lots of trials demonstrate that second-generation drug-eluting stents (G2-DES), with their improved properties, offer significantly superior efficacy and safety profiles compared to first generation DES (G1-DES) for patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) receiving percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). This study aimed to verify the advantage of G2-DES over G1-DES in Chinese patients with stable CAD (SCAD).</p><p><b>METHODS</b>For this retrospective observational analysis, 2709 SCAD patients with either G1-DES (n = 863) or G2-DES (n = 1846) were enrolled consecutively throughout 2013. Propensity score matching (PSM) was applied to control differing baseline factors. Two-year outcomes, including major adverse coronary events as well as individual events, including target vessel-related myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization (TLR), target vessel revascularization, and cardiogenic death were evaluated.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>The incidence of revascularization between G1- and G2-DES showed a trend of significant difference with a threshold P - value (8.6% vs. 6.7%, χ2 = 2.995, P = 0.084). G2-DES significantly improved TLR-free survival compared to G1-DES (96.6% vs. 97.9%, P = 0.049) and revascularization-free survival curve showed a trend of improvement of G2-DES (92.0% vs. 93.8%, P = 0.082). These differences diminished after PSM. Multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression analysis showed a trend for G1-associated increase in revascularization (hazard ratio: 1.28, 95% confidence interval: 0.95-1.72, P = 0.099) while no significance was found after PSM. Other endpoints showed no significant differences after multivariate adjustment regardless of PSM.</p><p><b>CONCLUSIONS</b>G1-DES showed the same safety as G2-DES in this large Chinese cohort of real-world patients. However, G2-DES improved TLR-free survival of SCAD patients 2 years after PCI. The advantage was influenced by baseline clinical factors. G1-DES was associated with a trend of increase in revascularization risk and was not an independent predictor of worse medium-term prognosis compared with G2-DES.</p>

Long-term Outcomes of Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with Second-generation Drug-eluting Stents in ST-elevation Myocardial Infarction Patients Caused by Very Late Stent Thrombosis / 中华医学杂志(英文版)

<p><b>BACKGROUND</b>The ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients due to stent thrombosis (ST) remain a therapeutic challenge for a clinician. Till date, very few researches have been conducted regarding the safety and effectiveness of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) for STEMI caused by very late ST (VLST). This retrospective study evaluated the safety, efficacy, and outcomes of primary PCI with second-generation DES for STEMI due to VLST compared with primary PCI for STEMI due to de novo lesion.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>Between January 2007 and December 2013, STEMI patients with primary PCI in Fuwai Hospital had only second-generation DES implanted for de novo lesion (558 patients) and VLST (50 patients) were included in this retrospective study. The primary end points included cardiac death and reinfarction. The secondary end points included cardiac death, reinfarction, and target lesion revascularization. Continuous variables were expressed as mean (standard deviation) or median (interquartile range) and compared by Student's t- test or Mann-Whitney U-test as appropriate. Categorical variables were expressed as counts and percentages, and comparison of these variables was performed with Chi-square or Fisher's exact test. A two-tailed value of P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all comparisons. Statistical analyses were performed by SAS software (version 9.4, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, USA) for Windows.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>In-hospital primary end point and the secondary end point were no significant differences between two groups (P = 1.000 and P = 1.000, respectively). No significant differences between two groups were observed according to the long-term primary end point and the secondary end point. Kaplan-Meier survival curves showed no significant difference between the two groups in the primary end point and the secondary end point at 2 years (P = 0.340 and P = 0.243, respectively). According to Cox analysis, female, intra-aortic balloon pump support, and postprocedural thrombolysis in myocardial infarction flow 3 were found to be independent predictors for long-term follow-up.</p><p><b>CONCLUSION</b>Primary PCI with second-generation DES is a reasonable choice for STEMI patients caused by VLST.</p>

Head to Head Comparison of Two Point-of-care Platelet Function Tests Used for Assessment of On-clopidogrel Platelet Reactivity in Chinese Acute Myocardial Infarction Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention / 中华医学杂志(英文版)

<p><b>BACKGROUND</b>Platelet function tests are widely used in clinical practice to guide personalized antiplatelet therapy. In China, the thromboelastography (TEG) test has been well accepted in clinics, whereas VerifyNow, mainly used for scientific research, has not been used in routine clinical practice. The aim of the current study was to compare these two point-of-care platelet function tests and to analyze the consistency between the two tests for evaluating on-clopidogrel platelet reactivity in Chinese acute myocardial infarction patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).</p><p><b>METHODS</b>A total of 184 patients admitted to Fuwai Hospital between August 2014 and May 2015 were enrolled in the study. On-clopidogrel platelet reactivity was assessed 3 days after PCI by TEG and VerifyNow using adenosine diphosphate as an agonist. Based on the previous reports, an inhibition of platelet aggregation (IPA) <30% for TEG or a P2Y12 reaction unit (PRU) >230 for VerifyNow was defined as high on-clopidogrel platelet reactivity (HPR). An IPA >70% or a PRU <178 was defined as low on-clopidogrel platelet reactivity (LPR). Correlation and agreement between the two methods were analyzed using the Spearman correlation coefficient (r) and kappa value (κ), respectively.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>Our results showed that VerifyNow and TEG had a moderate but significant correlation in evaluating platelet reactivity (r = -0.511). A significant although poor agreement (κ = 0.225) in identifying HPR and a significantly moderate agreement in identifying LPR (κ = 0.412) were observed between TEG and VerifyNow. By using TEG as the reference for comparison, the cutoff values of VerifyNow for the Chinese patients in this study were identified as PRU >205 for HPR and PRU <169 for LPR.</p><p><b>CONCLUSIONS</b>By comparing VerifyNow to TEG which has been widely used in clinics, VerifyNow could be an attractive alternative to TEG for monitoring on-clopidogrel platelet reactivity in Chinese patients.</p>