1 / 22

Late “Catch-Up” in Target Vessel Revascularization with DES vs BMS in SVG Intervention: Two Year Results from the STENT

Late “Catch-Up” in Target Vessel Revascularization with DES vs BMS in SVG Intervention: Two Year Results from the STENT Group. Bruce R Brodie, Hadley Wilson , Thomas Stuckey, Marcy Nussbaum, Sherry Laurent, Barbara Bradshaw, Angela Humphrey, Chris Metzger, James Hermiller,

tirzah
Download Presentation

Late “Catch-Up” in Target Vessel Revascularization with DES vs BMS in SVG Intervention: Two Year Results from the STENT

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Late “Catch-Up” in Target Vessel Revascularization with DES vs BMS in SVG Intervention:Two Year Results from the STENT Group Bruce R Brodie, Hadley Wilson, Thomas Stuckey, Marcy Nussbaum, Sherry Laurent, Barbara Bradshaw, Angela Humphrey, Chris Metzger, James Hermiller, Fred Krainin, Stanley Juk, Barry Cheek, Peter Duffy, and Charles A. Simonton TCT 2009

  2. No conflicts

  3. Background and Purpose Drug-eluting stents (DES) have been shown to be safe and more effective than bare metal stents (BMS) with PCI in non- complex lesions. The safety and efficacy of DES for “off-label” use in SVG interventions is controversial. There have been 2 small randomized trials and several small registries evaluating DES with SVG intervention, but they have been limited by small numbers of patients and short follow-up and have yielded conflicting results. The purpose of this study is to test the hypothesis that DES used with SVG intervention are safe and are effective in reducing target vessel revascularization (TVR) compared with BMS.

  4. The STENT Group • The STENT Group organized the first US prospective multi-center registry for the evaluation of DES in May 2003. • Patients undergoing PCI at 8 participating centers were consented for participation, including 9 month and 2 year clinical follow-up. • Clinical coordinators entered data into a centralized database, and a central data coordinating center was responsible for quality control and statistical analyses. • Physicians adjudicated all major events with audits performed on 10% of the first 4000 procedures with 5% thereafter.

  5. Participating Centers Data Coordinating Center: R. Stuart Dickson Institute for Health Studies, Charlotte, NC Clinical Coordinating Center: Carolinas Heart Institute, Charlotte, NC Participating Centers: Carolinas Heart Institute, Charlotte, NC High Point Regional Hospital, High Point, NC Holston Valley Medical Center, Kingsport, TN Indiana Heart Institute, Indianapolis, IN LeBauer Cardiovascular Research Foundation/ Moses Cone Heart and Vascular Center, Greensboro, NC McLeod Regional Medical Center, Florence, SC Moore Regional Hospital, Pinehurst, NC Sisters of Charity Providence Hospitals, Columbia, SC

  6. Definitions • Myocardial Infarction post-PCI: CK > 3x ULN with • positive MB • Target Vessel Revascularization: PCI or CABG for any • lesion in target vessel • Stent thrombosis: ARC definite and probable ST • 1. Angiographically documented ST • 2. MI in distribution of target vessel • 3. Sudden cardiac death

  7. Statistical Methods • Univariable analysis was conducted using t-tests for continuous variables and Chi-square or Fisher’s Exact test for categorical data depending upon the normality of the distribution. Significance levels were set at <0.05. • Propensity scores for selecting DES vs BMS were • calculated using logistical regression and these were entered into a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model to provide propensity adjusted • outcomes.

  8. Study Population All PCI ProceduresN = 26,941 May 2003 through June 2006 Consented Procedures N = 24,384 (90.5%) Index (First) Procedures N = 20,905 SVG PCI N = 1380 DES Only N = 820 BMS Only N = 348 Completed 9 mo F/U N = 785 (95.7%) Completed 9 mo F/U N = 343 (98.6%) Completed 2 year F/U N = 252 (98.1% of eligible) Completed 2 year F/U N = 407 (94.9% of eligible)

  9. Baseline Clinical Variables BMS DES (n = 343) (n = 785) p value Age, yrs (mean) 68.8 67.5 0.10 Male 79.6% 77.6% 0.48 Diabetes 37.3% 38.1% 0.84 Prior MI 42.3% 44.2% 0.79 Hypertension 79.9% 85.2% 0.03 Smoker (ever) 57.7% 60.4% 0.43 Prior PCI 42.9% 46.6% 0.27 Clinical Presentation STEMI 9.3% 4.1% <0.001 Acute CHF 9.6% 6.6% 0.09 Cardiogenic Shock 0.3% 0.8% 0.68

  10. Angiographic and Procedural Variables BMS DES p value (n=343) (n=785) Procedure Indication Elective 28.1% 32.9% 0.005 Urgent 60.5% 61.2% Emergent 11.4% 6.0% Ejection Fraction (mean) 46.1% 46.2% 0.11 Multi-vessel CAD 74.8% 78.9% 0.36 Multi-vessel PCI 8.2% 11.6% 0.09 Multi-lesion PCI 24.2% 28.0% 0.18 Multiple Stents/Procedure 37.0% 41.8% 0.15 GP IIb/IIIa Use 48.1% 46.5% 0.65

  11. Angiographic Variables Lesion Level BMS DES p value (n=451) (n=1047) RVD mm (mean) 3.7 3.3 <0.001 Reference Vessel <3.5mm 25.8% 41.7% <0.001 Reference Vessel >4.5mm 23.4% 4.0% <0.001 Lesion length mm (mean) 16.4 18.2 0.003 Lesion length > 28 mm 9.6% 13.1% 0.057 Ostial Lesion 10.0% 10.3% 0.93 TIMI 2-3 Flow pre-PCI 88.2% 91.8% 0.58

  12. Procedural Variables Lesion Level BMS DES p value (n=451) (n=1047) Stent Length/Lesion 22.0 mm 25.0 mm <0.001 Distal Protection Device 33.7% 37.3% 0.20 No Reflow 6.9% 3.3% 0.002 TIMI 3 Flow post-PCI 93.6% 98.2% <0.001 Angiographic Success 97.6% 99.3% 0.008

  13. Death or Myocardial Infarction 25 22.3% BMS 20 17.0% 15 DES 10 5 0 0 6 12 18 24 Months Number at risk BMS DES 343 785 306 729 219 477 198 357 183 329

  14. Target Vessel Revascularization 25 Log Rank p value = 0.86 Adjusted HR = 0.70 (0.40-0.90) p = 0.014 18.3% 20 BMS BMS 16.9% 15 10.0% 7.2% TVR % DES DES 10 5 0 0 6 12 18 24 Months Number at risk BMS DES 343 785 302 726 203 448 186 325 173 296

  15. Stent Thrombosis 25 20 9 Mos – 2 Yrs DES 2.0% BMS 0.4% p = 0.11 15 Stent Thrombosis 10 9 Months 2.1% p = 0.24 1.2% 3.2% 5 2.5% 0 0 6 12 18 24 Months Number at risk BMS DES 343 785 324 756 230 493 213 373 205 353

  16. TVR with DES vs BMSSubgroup Analyses DES did not provide statistically significant benefit in any other subgroup including diabetics and patients with long lesions. p = 0.013 17.2% 9 Month TVR % p = 0.74 8.0% 6.6% 6.0% < 3.5 mm SVG Reference Vessel Diameter

  17. Conclusions • This registry is the largest reported experience • with DES in SVG intervention with 785 patients • treated with DES and followed for at least 9 months. • BMS were more often selected for patients at • high clinical risk – more emergent procedures and • more STEMI patients. • DES were more often selected for lesions at high • risk for TVR – smaller diameter grafts and longer • lesions.

  18. Conclusions (cont) • DES used with SVG intervention were associated with a • lower incidence of death or MI but after propensity • adjustments there were no significant differences between • DES and BMS. • DES and BMS has similar frequency of stent thrombosis. • DES had a lower incidence of TVR at 9 months, but by • 2 years the frequency of TVR was similar between • DES and BMS. • DES were beneficial in reducing TVR at 9 months in SVG • with reference vessel diameter < 3.5 mm but not with • reference vessel diameter > 3.5 mm.

  19. Limitations • Our study has the limitations of an observational database. • There may be hidden biases to select BMS for sicker pts • with more co-morbidities and pts who are less compliant with • anti-platelet therapy and other therapies. Thus our data may • overestimate the safety of DES with regard to death, MI and • stent thrombosis. • Conversely, there may be hidden biases to select DES for • pts more likely to develop TVR. Consequently, our data • could underestimate the benefit of DES in reducing TVR.

  20. Limitations (cont) • Our registry does not have a core lab for angiographic • analysis. Consequently, we are not able to distinguish • between TLR and TVR at sites other than the target • lesion. This hinders our ability to distinguish the • mechanisms for the late “catch-up” TVR with DES. • We do not have data regarding compliance with dual • anti-platelet therapy which is a major determinant of • stent thrombosis and adverse events.

  21. Clinical Implications • DES appear to be safe with SVG intervention • with similar or lower rates of death or MI and • stent thrombosis. • DES appear to provide short term benefit in • reducing TVR, especially with RVD < 3.5 mm, • but there is a “catch up” phenomenom such that • at 2 years most of the benefit is lost. • The mechanisms are not clear and could be related to • either progression of disease at non-target sites or • greater late loss after 9 months with DES vs BMS in • SVG.

  22. Recommendations Based on our data, DES appear safe and appear to offer short term advantages over BMS in reducing TVR in SVG < 3.5 mm in diameter.

More Related