Propensity score matched all comers population treated with ultra-thin strut bare metal and sirolimus-probucol coated drug-eluting stents of identical stent architecture.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of a polymer-free sirolimus coated, ultrathin strut drug eluting stent (PF-SES) to its uncoated bare-metal stent (BMS) platform of identical stent architecture. BACKGROUND: Recently published randomized trials comparing BMS to DES with a focus on shortened dual-antiplatelet therapy reported incidences of stent thrombosis (ST) and bleeding complications (LEADERS FREE) in favor of drug eluting stents (DES). METHODS: Data of previously published large-sale, international, single-armed, multicenter, observational studies of ultra-thin PF-SES, and BMS were propensity score (PS) matched for selected lesion morphological and cardiovascular risk factors to compare target lesion revascularization (TLR), myocardial infarction, cardiac death, major adverse cardiac events (MACE), bleeding complications and ST rates. Primary endpoint in both studies was TLR at 9 months. RESULTS: At 9 months the rates of TLR was significantly lower in the PF-SES group as compared with patients treated with the BMS analogue of identical stent design (1.4% vs. 4.6%, P = 0.005). Likewise the 9-month MACE rates were lower in the PF-SES group (3.2% vs. 8.7%, P = 0.001) whereas there were no differences in the accumulated ST rates (0.5% vs. 1.5%, P = 0.109). Overall accumulated bleeding incidences (BARC 1-5) were not significantly different between PF-SES and BMS patients (1.8% vs. 2.7%, p = 0.388). CONCLUSIONS: PF-SES are superior over analogue BMS of identical stent architecture in daily clinical routine with lower rates of TLR and MACE in a PS-matched, unselected patient population without differences in accumulated ST rates and bleeding frequencies given the currently favored postprocedural comedication (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT02629575).

Thin strut bare metal stents in patients with atrial fibrillation: Is there still a need for BMS?

OBJECTIVES: This observational study assessed the 9-month clinical outcomes in an « all comers ¼ population with a focus on patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) after thin strut bare metal stenting. BACKGROUND: Drug eluting stent (DES) implantation is the treatment of choice for coronary artery disease (CAD) leaving only marginal indications for the use of bare metal stents (BMS). However, selected treatment populations with DES contraindications such as patients who cannot sustain 6-12 months of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) remain candidates for BMS implantations. METHODS: Thin strut bare metal stenting in a priori defined subgroups were investigated in a non-randomized, international, multicenter «all comers¼ observational study. Primary endpoint was the 9-month TLR rate whereas secondary endpoints included the 9-month MACE and procedural success rates. RESULTS: A total of 783 patients of whom 98 patients had AF underwent BMS implantation. Patient age was 70.4 ± 12.8 years. Cardiovascular risk factors in the overall population were male gender (78.2%, 612/783), diabetes (25.2%, 197/783), hypertension (64.1%, 502/783), cardiogenic shock (4.9%, 38/783) and end stage renal disease (4.9%, 38/783). In-hospital MACE was 4.1% (30/783) in the overall population. The 9-month TLR rate was 4.5% (29/645) in the non-AF group and 3.3% (3/90) in the AF group (P = 0.613). At 9 months, the MACE rate in the AF-group and non-AF group was not significantly different either (10.7%, 69/645 vs. 6.7%, 6/90; P = 0.237). Accumulated stroke rates were 0.3% (2/645) in the non-AF subgroup at baseline and 1.1% (1/90) in the AF subgroup (P = 0.264). CONCLUSION: Bare metal stenting in AF patients delivered acceptably low TLR and MACE rates while having the benefit of a significantly shorter DAPT duration in a DES dominated clinical practice. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.