Background: More effective and progressively safer generations of drug-elut-ing stents (DES) have replaced bare metal stents (BMS) in rou-tine clinical practice. However, patients considered to be at high bleeding risk (HBR) have traditionally been underrepresented in pivotal DES trials.

Aims: The aim of this study was to model the safety and effectiveness of drug-coated stents (DCS) versus BMS in HBR patients according to the Academic Research Consortium (ARC) criteria.

Methods: Participants from the LEADERS FREE (LF) and LEADERS FREE II (LFII) studies were pooled into one data set. Participants were treated with 30 days of DAPT. The primary safety (composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis) and effectiveness (target lesion revascularisation) endpoints were compared between DCS and BMS in the subgroup of patients satisfying the ARC-HBR definition using propensity-score modelling.

Results: From the 3,635 participants included in the combined LF and LFII data set, 2,898 (79.7%) satisfied the ARC-HBR criteria (DCS: 1,923; BMS: 975). The primary safety endpoint occurred in 184 (9.8%) and in 132 (13.8%) participants in the DCS and BMS groups, respectively (adjusted HR 0.72, 95% CI: 0.57-0.91; p=0.006). The risk of the primary effectiveness endpoint was also significantly lower with DCS (6.2%) versus BMS (8.8%) (adjusted HR 0.70, 95% CI: 0.52-0.94; p=0.016). The safety and effectiveness of DCS versus BMS were consistent according to ARC-HBR status (p for interaction=0.206 and 0.260, respectively).

Conclusions: DCS are safer and more effective than BMS in an ARC-defined HBR population.

Similar articles

Global Approach to High Bleeding Risk Patients With Polymer-Free Drug-Coated Coronary Stents: The LF II Study.
Krucoff MW, Urban P, Tanguay JF, McAndrew T, Zhang Y, Rao SV, Morice MC, Price MJ, Cohen DJ, Abdel-Wahab M, Mehta SR, Faurie B, McLaurin B, Diaz C, Stoll HP, Pocock S, Leon MB. Krucoff MW, et al. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2020 Apr;13(4):e008603. doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.119.008603. Epub 2020 Apr 13. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2020. PMID: 32279567
Safety and Efficacy of Polymer-Free Biolimus A9-Coated Versus Bare-Metal Stents in Orally Anticoagulated Patients: 2-Year Results of the LEADERS FREE Oral Anticoagulation Substudy.
Carrié D, Menown I, Oldroyd K, Copt S, Talwar S, Maillard L, Morice MC, Teik LS, Lang I, Urban P. Carrié D, et al. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017 Aug 28;10(16):1633-1642. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2017.05.033. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017. PMID: 28838473 Clinical Trial.
Polymer-free Biolimus-A9 coated thin strut stents for patients at high bleeding risk 1-year results from the LEADERS FREE III study.
Eberli FR, Stoll HP, Urban P, Morice MC, Brunel P, Maillard L, Lipiecki J, Cook S, Berland J, Hovasse T, Carrie D, Schütte D, Slama SS, Garot P. Eberli FR, et al. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2022 Feb;99(3):593-600. doi: 10.1002/ccd.29869. Epub 2021 Jul 9. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2022. PMID: 34241947 Clinical Trial.
Meta-analysis of drug eluting stents compared with bare metal stents in high bleeding risk patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions.
Neupane S, Khawaja O, Edla S, Singh H, Othman H, Bossone E, Yamasaki H, Rosman HS, Eggebrecht H, Mehta RH. Neupane S, et al. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2019 Jul 1;94(1):98-104. doi: 10.1002/ccd.28045. Epub 2018 Dec 26. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2019. PMID: 30585391
The Role of Vascular Imaging in Guiding Routine Percutaneous Coronary Interventions: A Meta-Analysis of Bare Metal Stent and Drug-Eluting Stent Trials.
Alsidawi S, Effat M, Rahman S, Abdallah M, Leesar M. Alsidawi S, et al. Cardiovasc Ther. 2015 Dec;33(6):360-6. doi: 10.1111/1755-5922.12160. Cardiovasc Ther. 2015. PMID: 26363283 Review.

Drug-coated stents versus bare metal stents in Academic Research Consortium-defined high bleeding risk patients

Abstract

Similar articles