Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T00:00:01.809Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents in acute myocardial infarction: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2011

Hae Sun Suh ,
Hyun Jin Song ,
Ji Eun Choi ,
Eun Jin Jang ,
Hee Jeong Son ,
Sang Moo Lee ,
Jung-Sun Kim  and
Donghoon Choi
Hae Sun Suh
Affiliation:
National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency
Hyun Jin Song
Affiliation:
National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency
Ji Eun Choi
Affiliation:
National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency
Eun Jin Jang
Affiliation:
National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency
Hee Jeong Son
Affiliation:
National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency
Sang Moo Lee
Affiliation:
National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency
Jung-Sun Kim
Affiliation:
Severance Cardiovascular Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine
Donghoon Choi
Affiliation:
National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating AgencySeverance Cardiovascular Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: Recent concerns have been raised for the safety after drug-eluting stents (DES) implantation compared with the use of bare-metal stents (BMS) in patients with ST-elevation acute myocardial infarction (STEMI). The objective of this study was to estimate the relative impact of DES versus BMS on mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularization (TVR), and stent thrombosis (ST) in STEMI patients by performing comprehensive meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies.

Methods: We performed an electronic search and manual search of studies presented through September 2009, without language restrictions. An approach of “using systematic reviews” was used. Two independent reviewers extracted prespecified data from each study. A random-effects model was used to combine trials and to perform stratified analyses based on study designs and the duration of follow-up.

Results: Fourteen RCTs were identified (N = 7,654). Compared with BMS, DES significantly reduced TVR (risk ratio [RR], 0.48; 95 percent confidence interval [CI], 0.41–0.56) and MI (RR, 0.77; 95 percent CI, 0.61–0.97), without increasing mortality (RR, 0.88; 95 percent CI, 0.70–1.10) and ST (RR, 0.93; 95 percent CI, 0.72–1.21). Among 35 observational studies (N = 44,849), the use of DES was associated with a significant reduction in mortality (RR, 0.85; 95 percent CI, 0.79–0.91) and TVR (RR, 0.61; 95 percent CI, 0.48–0.77). MI and ST were significantly lower in the DES group within 1-year follow-up, but there were no differences within 2 years of follow-up. There was no evidence of statistical heterogeneity and publication bias.

Conclusions: These data in aggregate suggest that using DES in STEMI patients is safe and efficacious, but there are differences between RCT and observational data comparing DES and BMS.

Keywords

Myocardial infarctionDrug-eluting stentsSystematic reviewMeta-analysis
Type
ASSESSMENTS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 27 , Issue 1 , January 2011 , pp. 11 - 22
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Brar, SS, Leon, MB, Stone, GW, et al. Use of drug-eluting stents in acute myocardial infarction: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;53:1677–1689.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Begg, CB, Mazumdar, M. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics. 1994;50:1088–1101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. De Luca, G, Stone, GW, Suryapranata, H, et al. Efficacy and safety of drug-eluting stents in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: A meta-analysis of randomized trials. Int J Cardiol. 2009;133:213–222.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. De Luca, G, Valgimigli, M, Spaulding, C, et al. Short and long-term benefits of sirolimus-eluting stent in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: A meta-analysis of randomized trials. J Thromb Thrombolysis. 2009;28:200–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. DerSimonian, R, Laird, N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7:177–188.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Duval, S, Tweedie, R. Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot–based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics. 2000;56:455–463.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Egger, M, Smith, GD, Schneider, M, Minder, C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315:629–634.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Finn, AV, Nakazawa, G, Kolodgie, F, Virmani, R. Drug eluting or bare metal stent for acute myocardial infarction: An issue of safety? Eur Heart J. 2009;30:1828–1830.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Guyatt, GH, Oxman, AD, Vist, GE, et al. GRADE: An emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336:924–926.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Higgins, JPT, Green, S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.0.2 (updated September 2009). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2009. www.cochrane-handbook.org (accessed October 1, 2009).Google Scholar
11. Higgins, JPT, Thompson, SG, Deeks, JJ, Altman, DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327:557–560.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Hill, RA, Boland, A, Dickson, R, et al. Drug-eluting stents: A systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2007;11:iii, xi-221.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Iijima, R, Byrne, RA, Dibra, A, et al. Drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents in diabetic patients with ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction: A pooled analysis of individual patient data from seven randomized trials. Rev Esp Cardiol. 2009;62:354–364.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. Kastrati, A, Dibra, A, Spaulding, C, et al. Meta-analysis of randomized trials on drug-eluting stents vs. bare-metal stents in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J. 2007;28:2706–2713.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15. Kim, SS, Park, DW, Seo, JS, et al. Abstract AS-190: Long-term clinical outcomes with drug-eluting versus bare metal stents in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol. 2009;103 (Suppl 1):81B.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Kushner, FG, Hand, M, Smith, SC Jr, et al. 2009. Focused updates: ACC/AHA Guidelines for the management of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (updating the 2004 guideline and 2007 focused update) and ACC/AHA/SCAI Guidelines on percutaneous coronary intervention (updating the 2005 guideline and 2007 focused update): A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2009;120:2271–2306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Kuukasjarvi, P, Malmivaara, A, Halinen, M, et al. Overview of systematic reviews on invasive treatment of stable coronary artery disease. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22:219–234.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18. Moreno, R, Fernandez, C, Calvo, L, et al. Meta-analysis comparing the effect of drug-eluting versus bare metal stents on risk of acute myocardial infarction during follow-up. Am J Cardiol. 2007;99:621–625.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19. Nakamura, S, Bae, J, Cahyadi, YH, et al. Three-year follow-up of patients with ST-segment evelation acute myocardial infarction treated with sirolimus-eluting stent and paclitaxel-eluting stent: Multicenter registry in Asia. Circulation. 2006;114 (II_516):Abstract 2503.Google Scholar
20. NECA. Drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents in acute myocardial infarction (NA2009-015). Seoul, Korea: The National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency (NECA); 2010.Google Scholar
21. Nordmann, AJ, Hengstler, P, Leimenstoll, BM, et al. Clinical outcomes of stents versus balloon angioplasty in non-acute coronary artery disease. Eur Heart J. 2004;25:69–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22. Pan, XH, Zhong, WZ, Xiang, MX, et al. Clinical outcomes of serolimus-eluting stents versus bare metal stents in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients: A meta-analysis. Chin Med J (Engl). 2009;122:88–92.Google ScholarPubMed
23. Park, KW, Kang, SH, Lee, HY, et al. Abstract TCT-315: ‘Real World’ comparison of drug-eluting stents versus bare metal stents in the treatment of unselected patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: Mid to long term results from a two center registry. Am J Cardiol. 2008;102 (Suppl 1):128i.Google Scholar
24. Pasceri, V, Patti, G, Speciale, G, et al. Meta-analysis of clinical trials on use of drug-eluting stents for treatment of acute myocardial infarction. Am Heart J. 2007;153:749–754.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25. Piscione, F, Piccolo, R, Cassese, S, Galasso, G, Chiariello, M. Clinical impact of sirolimus-eluting stent in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: A meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2009;74:323–332.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26. Shea, BJ, Hamel, C, Wells, GA, et al. AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:1013–1020.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27. Slim, K, Nini, E, Forestier, D, et al. Methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS): Development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ J Surg. 2003;73:712–716.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28. Valgimigli, M, Campo, G, Arcozzi, C, et al. Two-year clinical follow-up after sirolimus-eluting versus bare-metal stent implantation assisted by systematic glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor infusion in patients with myocardial infarction: Results from the STRATEGY study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;50:138–145.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Suh supplementary material

Figures and Tables

Download Suh supplementary material(File)
File 348.8 KB