Acute Myocardial Infarction - The Role of Drug-eluting Stents in Treatment Strategies

Login or register to view PDF.
Abstract

Although primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has become the cornerstone in the treatment of ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction (AMI), systemic fribrinolysis may still be considered for patients in areas where PCI is not accessible. The downside of initial plain balloon angioplasty, mainly coronary artery dissection and vessel re-occlusion, was effectively solved by the application of coronary stents. The incidence of target vessel failure, witnessed after bare metal stent (BMS) implantation, was dramatically reduced by the introduction of drug-eluting stents (DES), which significantly and effectively alleviate restenosis in the overall population. A minute incidence of late and very late DES thrombosis led to some safety concerns, which were soon rebutted, particularly by the development of newer generation DES. DES have consequently outplayed BMS among almost all anatomical and clinical subgroups of coronary artery disease patients. However, AMI remains one of the last contested territories. Today there is a growing body of evidence to support the use of DES as a safe and effective treatment of AMI.

Disclosure
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Correspondence
Ahmed A Khattab, University Hospital Bern, 3010 Bern, Switzerland. E: AhmedAziz.Khattab@insel.ch
Received date
20 January 2011
Accepted date
14 April 2011
Citation
European Cardiology - Volume 7 Issue 2;2011:7(2):113-116
Correspondence
Ahmed A Khattab, University Hospital Bern, 3010 Bern, Switzerland. E: AhmedAziz.Khattab@insel.ch
DOI
http://dx.doi.org/10.15420/ecr.2011.7.2.113

The treatment of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) has substantially improved in recent decades. Thrombolysis, the former first-line therapy, which is inexpensive and may be administered without noteworthy delay in primary care or pre-hospital settings, has been replaced by primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) despite the inherent delay of transfering patients to a cardiac catheterisation laboratory. Initial wariness about stent implantation in the thrombogenic milieu of AMI has rapidly faded away and stent-based primary PCI has been shown to be the superior method of reperfusion compared with thrombolytic therapy in terms of reducing death, re-infarction and stroke.1 Restenosis can be substantially reduced by drug-eluting stents (DES), which may further improve long-term outcomes. Owing to their ability to significantly reduce the need for repeat revascularisation procedures, DES have been shown to be a more effective treatment compared with bare metal stents (BMS) despite being more expensive per se and the minimally increased risk of late and very late stent thrombosis that was observed with first generation DES, particularly when used for so-called ‘off-label’ indications. Off-label use of DES constitutes almost two-thirds of all indications in the real world. AMI remains one of these last contested territories: randomised clinical trials (RCTs) are still being conducted to prove the safety and efficacy of DES compared with BMS in this high-risk clinical setting. In this article, we shed light on the evidence and role of DES in the treatment of ST-segment elevation AMI.

Acute Myocardial Infarction – A High-risk Population

Although AMI has not been identified as a direct predictor for restenosis after BMS placement,2 patients presenting with AMI may bear lesion-related or clinical risk factors of restenosis, such as long lesions, small vessels or diabetes mellitus. Compared with BMS, the use of DES has resulted in significant reductions in angiographic in-stent late luminal loss, in-stent restenosis and repeat revascularisations among people with such lesions. At long-term follow-up, the rates of death and myocardial infarction were similar between BMS and DES in RCTs.3 Furthermore, due to the high thrombus burden and the frequently encountered coronary spasm associated with AMI, a tendency towards stent undersizing with subsequent malapposition has been reported among these patients, which again may relate to stent thrombosis4,5 and/or restenosis.6 Stent thrombosis is associated with a high incidence of myocardial infarction (50–70%) and mortality (20–40%).7,8

An apparent increase in late and very late stent thrombosis muted the initial enthusiasm about reduced target vessel revascularisation (TVR) after DES implantation. In the meantime, large RCTs have shown that the slightly higher incidence of late stent thrombosis after DES implantations compared with BMS does not translate into a higher mortality.8 Furthermore, observational studies suggest a reduction in mortality and myocardial infarction after DES compared with BMS implantation.8 The risk of DES thrombosis is increased when they are implanted in AMI rather than stable angina patients.4,9 However, this increased risk is probably outweighed by the morbidity associated with target vessel failure after BMS implantation.

Cost-effectiveness

The primary clinical and economic benefit of a DES is the reduction in TVR and its associated costs,10 which are estimated to be between US$1,650 and 4,678 per repeat revascularisation event avoided.11,12 However, DES require prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy (DAT), which is estimated to cost roughly US$2,500 over two years.13 Using DES not only makes the index procedure more costly but also prolonged DAT and the economic impact of late stent thrombosis have to outweigh the costs associated with repeat revascularisations. Taking these factors into account, DES may prove cost-effective in patients who are at increased risk of restenosis.11 However, in unselected coronary artery disease patients, DES have so far not been shown to be cost-effective compared with BMS. This has been shown in a four-year follow-up study comparing zotarolimus-eluting stents (Endeavor®) with BMS (Driver®)14 and in a one-year follow-up study comparing paclitaxeleluting stents (TAXUS™) with BMS (Express®).12 Given that AMI patients subjected to primary PCI may have both simple and complex lesion morphologies, and hence have a different prognosis in terms of restenosis, an individual assessment may be appropriate to make a decision about the most cost-effective treatment.

Head-to-head Comparisons of Drug-eluting Stents versus Bare Metal Stents in Acute Myocardial Infarction Patients

DES and BMS in AMI have been compared in numerous RCTs (see Table 1) and in several clinical registries. The largest RCT, which evaluated the role of DES in AMI, was the Harmonizing outcomes with revascularization and stents in acute mycocardial infarction (HORIZONS-AMI) trial, 15 which compared paclitaxel-eluting stents with BMS in 3,006 AMI patients with a 12-month follow-up. The study showed significantly reduced angiographic evidence of restenosis and TVR (5.8 versus 8.7%, hazard ratio 0.65, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.48–0.89; p=0.006) after DES implantation. However, there were no differences in stent thrombosis and similar 12-month rates of death in both groups. At one year there were no safety concerns for DES implanted in patients with AMI. The absolute difference (95% CI) in target lesion revascularisation (TLR) favouring paclitaxel-eluting stents compared with BMS rose from 2.9% (0.8–5.0%) at 12 months to 6.0% (3.1–8.8%) at 24 months. 16 However, the performance of a routine angiographic follow-up at 13 months in this trial triggered a sharp incremental increase in the number of TLR procedures compared with the background event rate that was occurring before angiography.
The Trial to assess the use of the Cypher® stent in acute myocardial infarction treated with balloon angioplasty (TYPHOON) study17 evaluated the safety and efficacy of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) versus BMS in 712 patients with ST-segment elevation AMI with a follow-up of one year. The primary end-point – target-vessel failure (TVF) one year after the procedure – defined as target-vessel-related death, recurrent myocardial infarction or TVR, was significantly lower in the SES group than in the BMS group (7.3 versus 14.3%, p=0.004). However, this reduction was mainly driven by a decrease in the rate of TVR (5.6 and 13.4%; p<0.001) and there was no significant difference between the two groups in the rate of death, reinfarction or stent thrombosis at one year. After a follow-up of four years18 in 501 patients in the TYPHOON study, SES demonstrated sustained efficacy to reduce TLR with no difference in death, repeat myocardial infarction or stent thrombosis between SES and BMS.
In the Paclitaxel-eluting stent versus conventional stent in myocardial infarction with ST-segment elevation (PASSION) trial,19 619 patients with AMI were randomly assigned to a paclitaxel-eluting stent or a BMS. After one year there was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of the rate of death from cardiac causes, the rate of AMI, the rate of TVR and the incidence of stent thrombosis.

After two years20 there was still no significant difference in clinical outcome and only a trend towards a lower rate of TLR in DES. At five years21 the results did not change, showing no difference in the composite end-point of cardiac death, recurrent myocardial infarction or TLR between patients treated with a DES or BMS.
In the Paclitaxel or sirolimus-eluting stent versus bare metal stent in primary angioplasty (PASEO) trial,22 270 patients with AMI were randomly assigned to a paclitaxel-eluting stent, SES or BMS. At the two-year follow-up no difference was observed in terms of death, reinfarction and combined death and/or reinfarction.
The Drug elution and distal protection in acute myocardial infarction (DEDICATION) trial23 randomised 626 patients with ST-segment elevation AMI to receive a DES or BMS. At three years, TLR was 6.1% in the DES group compared with 16.3% in the BMS group (p<0.001), and the rate of major adverse cardiac events was 11.5 versus 18.2%, respectively (p=0.02). However, all-cause mortality did not differ significantly and the occurrence of reinfarction, stroke and stent thrombosis was similar.
Another long-term follow-up trial was the MISSION! study (a prospective RCT to evaluate the efficacy of DES versus BMS for the treatment of AMI),24 which compared SES with BMS in 310 patients with ST-segment elevation AMI. After the first year of follow-up, a significant difference between SES and BMS patients for all revascularisation end-points was found. However, at the three-year follow-up, although there was still a trend towards better clinical outcomes in SES-treated patients, there were no significant differences for death, target vessel-related MI, TVR, TLR, target vessel failure (TVF) and stent thrombosis.
There is a relatively high consistency in the data obtained from RCTs comparing DES with BMS in patients with AMI showing that DES reduce revascularisation end-points; none of these trials showed a benefit of DES in reducing death, MI or stroke. The cumulative risk of stent thrombosis is also similar between DES and BMS: stent thrombosis occurs earlier in patients treated with BMS, whereas in patients treated with DES it occurs later during the follow-up.

Data from large-scale clinical registries support these findings. In a large registry from Massachusetts published in 2008,25 repeat revascularisation rates were significantly reduced with the use of DES compared with BMS in 7,217 patients with AMI during a two-year follow-up. Furthermore, two-year risk-adjusted mortality rates were lower for DES than for BMS (10.7 versus 12.8%; p=0.02).
By contrast, an analysis of the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE)26 suggested that among patients surviving an ST-segment elevation AMI, the mortality rate at two years in patients treated with a DES was more than double that of those treated with a BMS. However, when data from the GRACE registry for all acute coronary syndrome patients at two years were analysed together, there was no significant difference in mortality between BMS and DES (4.6 versus 2.8%).

Ongoing Studies

Two large European RCTs are directly addressing the role of DES in AMI: they have completed recruitment and are now in the follow-up phase. One of them is the Comfortable AMI (NCT00962416) trial, which is a multicentre study conducted at 12 European sites and in Israel with the aim of comparing the biolimus-eluting (Biomatrix™) with the otherwise identical bare-metal stent (Gazelle™) in unselected patients suffering from ST-segment elevation AMI. The composite end-point encompasses cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction (MI) and TLR at one year. The recruitment of 1,150 patients was accomplished in January 2011 and the results of the primary outcome are expected in the summer of 2012. In addition, 100 patients were included in an imaging sub-study with the aim of assessing the stent vessel wall interactions (coverage, apposition, plaque behind the strut) using multimodal imaging at baseline and at 13 months follow-up.
The EXAMINATION study (NCT00828087: a clinical evaluation of everolimus-eluting coronary stents in the treatment of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction) is a multicentre European trial that has also finished its recruitment phase. Patients presenting with ST-elevation AMI were randomised to receive either an everolimus-eluting stent or a cobalt chromium stent (non-drug-eluting stent arm). The primary outcome is a composite end-point of all-cause death, any myocardial infarction and any revascularisation at one year.

Secondary end-points will be all cause and cardiac mortality, recurrent MI, TLR, TVR, stent thrombosis, clinical device success, clinical procedure success and major and minor bleeding.

Future Perspectives

A further treatment concept was investigated in the APPOSITION clinical trial programme, which is designed to show if the STENTYS self-expanding stent (BMS and DES) can improve the treatment of acute myocardial infarction. APPOSITION II (NCT01008085) is a prospective, randomised, multicentre, international clinical trial comparing STENTYS technology with existing balloon-expandable stents in AMI patients. The APPOSITION II study27 showed that 0.51% of struts were malapposed in the STENTYS group versus 5.33% in the balloon-expandable group at three days, assessed using optical coherence tomography, representing a 10-fold reduction. The clinical impact of reducing stent malapposition among these patients will be further investigated.

Conclusion

Owing to the heterogeneity of anatomic and clinical subsets encountered among AMI patients presenting for primary PCI, the decision whether to use a BMS or DES in AMI may be individualised to each patient. Assessment of the risk of restenosis, stent thrombosis and bleeding are paramount. For patients with an increased risk of restenosis, DES are the preference. DES are safe and effective even long term in the treatment of AMI and are associated with a decreased need for TVR.
Future treatment concepts, such as self-expanding stents, are under investigation and may lead to a further improvement in treating AMI patients.

References
  1. Keeley EC, Boura JA, Grines CL, Primary angioplasty versus intravenous thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction: a quantitative review of 23 randomised trials, Lancet, 2003;361:13–20.
    Crossref | PubMed
  2. Kastrati A, Schomig A, Elezi S, et al., Predictive factors of restenosis after coronary stent placement, J Am Coll Cardiol, 1997;30:1428–36.
    Crossref | PubMed
  3. Stettler C, Wandel S, Allemann S, et al., Outcomes associated with drug-eluting and bare-metal stents: a collaborative network meta-analysis, Lancet, 2007;370:937–48.
    Crossref | PubMed
  4. Holmes DR Jr, Kereiakes DJ, Garg S, et al., Stent thrombosis, J Am Coll Cardiol, 2010;56:1357–65.
    Crossref | PubMed
  5. Cook S, Wenaweser P, Togni M, et al., Incomplete stent apposition and very late stent thrombosis after drug-eluting stent implantation, Circulation, 2007;115:2426–34.
    Crossref | PubMed
  6. Santos MC, Lin T, Barlis P, In-stent restenosis associated with stent malapposition: seven year optical coherence tomography findings, Int J Cardiol, 2011;147:149–51.
    Crossref | PubMed
  7. Roukoz H, Bavry AA, Sarkees ML, et al., Comprehensive metaanalysis on drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents during extended follow-up, Am J Med, 2009;122: 581.e1–10.
    Crossref | PubMed
  8. Kirtane AJ, Gupta A, Iyengar S, et al., Safety and efficacy of drug-eluting and bare metal stents: comprehensive metaanalysis of randomized trials and observational studies, Circulation, 2009;119:3198–206.
    Crossref | PubMed
  9. Nakazawa G, Finn AV, Joner M, et al., Delayed arterial healing and increased late stent thrombosis at culprit sites after drug-eluting stent placement for acute myocardial infarction patients: an autopsy study, Circulation, 2008;118:1138–45.
    Crossref | PubMed
  10. Garg S, Eisenberg MJ, Drug-eluting stents: more dollars than sense?, JACC Cardiovasc Interv, 2009;2:1188–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  11. Cohen DJ, Bakhai A, Shi C, et al., Cost-effectiveness of sirolimus-eluting stents for treatment of complex coronary stenoses: results from the Sirolimus-Eluting Balloon Expandable Stent in the Treatment of Patients With De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions (SIRIUS) trial, Circulation, 2004;110:508–14.
    Crossref | PubMed
  12. Bakhai A, Stone GW, Mahoney E, et al., Cost effectiveness of paclitaxel-eluting stents for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary revascularization: results from the TAXUS-IV Trial, J Am Coll Cardiol, 2006;48:253–61.
    Crossref | PubMed
  13. Filion KB, Roy AM, Baboushkin T, et al., Cost-effectiveness of drug-eluting stents including the economic impact of late stent thrombosis, Am J Cardiol, 2009;103:338–44.
    Crossref | PubMed
  14. Eisenstein EL, Wijns W, Fajadet J, et al., Long-term clinical and economic analysis of the Endeavor drug-eluting stent versus the Driver bare-metal stent: 4-year results from the ENDEAVOR II trial (Randomized Controlled Trial to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of the Medtronic AVE ABT-578 Eluting Driver Coronary Stent in De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions), JACC Cardiovasc Interv, 2009;2:1178–87.
    Crossref | PubMed
  15. Stone GW, Lansky AJ, Pocock SJ, et al., Paclitaxel-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents in acute myocardial infarction, N Engl J Med, 2009;360:1946–59.
    Crossref | PubMed
  16. Stone GW, Parise H, Witzenbichler B, et al., Selection criteria for drug-eluting versus bare-metal stents and the impact of routine angiographic follow-up: 2-year insights from the HORIZONS-AMI (Harmonizing Outcomes With Revascularization and Stents in Acute Myocardial Infarction) trial, J Am Coll Cardiol, 2010;56:1597–604.
    Crossref | PubMed
  17. Spaulding C, Henry P, Teiger E, et al., Sirolimus-eluting versus uncoated stents in acute myocardial infarction, N Engl J Med, 2006;355:1093–104.
    Crossref | PubMed
  18. Spaulding C, Teiger E, Commeau P, et al., Four-year follow-up of TYPHOON (Trial to Assess the Use of the CYPHer Sirolimus-Eluting Coronary Stent in Acute Myocardial Infarction Treated With BallOON Angioplasty), JACC Cardiovasc Interv, 2011;4:14–23.
    Crossref | PubMed
  19. Laarman GJ, Suttorp MJ, Dirksen MT, et al., Paclitaxel-eluting versus uncoated stents in primary percutaneous coronary intervention, N Engl J Med, 2006;355:1105–13.
    Crossref | PubMed
  20. Dirksen MT, Vink MA, Suttorp MJ, et al., Two year follow-up after primary PCI with a paclitaxel-eluting stent versus a bare-metal stent for acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (the PASSION trial): a follow-up study, EuroIntervention, 2008;4:64–70.
    Crossref | PubMed
  21. Vink M, Dirksen M, Suttorp M, et al., 5-year follow-up after primary percutaneous coronary intervention with a paclitaxeleluting stent versus a bare-metal stent in acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a follow-up study of the PASSION (Paclitaxel-Eluting Versus Conventional Stent in Myocardial Infarction with ST-Segment Elevation) trial, J Am Coll Cardiovasc Interv, 2011;4:24–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  22. Di Lorenzo E, De Luca G, Sauro R, et al., The PASEO (PaclitAxel or Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Bare Metal Stent in Primary Angioplasty) randomized trial, JACC Cardiovasc Interv, 2009;2:515–23.
    Crossref | PubMed
  23. Kaltoft A, Kelbaek H, Thuesen L, et al., Long-term outcome after drug-eluting versus bare-metal stent implantation in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: 3-year follow-up of the randomized DEDICATION (Drug Elution and Distal Protection in Acute Myocardial Infarction) trial, J Am Coll Cardiol, 2010;56:641–5.
    Crossref | PubMed
  24. Atary JZ, van der Hoeven BL, Liem SS, et al., Three-year outcome of sirolimus-eluting versus bare-metal stents for the treatment of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (from the MISSION! Intervention Study), Am J Cardiol, 2010;106:4–12.
    Crossref | PubMed
  25. Mauri L, Silbaugh TS, Garg P, et al., Drug-eluting or bare-metal stents for acute myocardial infarction, N Engl J Med, 2008;359:1330–42.
    Crossref | PubMed
  26. Steg PG, Increased all-cause mortality at 2 year follow-up after PCI with drug-eluting stents vs bare metal stents in acute coronary syndromes: the GRACE registry experience. Presented at the 29th Congress of the European Society of Cardiology, Vienna, Austria, 1–5 September 2007.
  27. Verheye S, APPOSITION II results: randomized study comparing the STENTYS stent to conventional stents in STEMI patients. Presented at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics, Washington DC, 22 September 2010.
  28. Valgimigli M, Percoco G, Malagutti P, et al., Tirofiban and sirolimus-eluting stent vs abciximab and bare-metal stent for acute myocardial infarction: a randomized trial, JAMA, 2005;293:2109–17.
    Crossref | PubMed
  29. Di Lorenzo E, Varricchio A, Lanzillo T, et al., Paclitaxel and sirolimus stent implantation in patients with acute myocardial infarction, Circulation, 2005;112:II–478 (Abstract Suppl.)
  30. Pittl U, Kaiser C, Brunner-La Rocca H, et al., Safety and efficacy of drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents in PCI of patients with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Presented at the European Congress of Cardiology, Barcelona, Spain; 2006.
  31. Chechi T, Vittori G, Biondi Zoccai GG, et al., Single-center randomized evaluation of paclitaxel-eluting versus conventional stent in acute myocardial infarction (SELECTION), J Interv Cardiol, 2007;20:282–91.
    Crossref | PubMed
  32. Tierala I, Syvaenne M, Kupari M, Comparison of paclitaxel-eluting with bare-metal stents in acute myocardial infarction. The HAAMU-STENT-study: Presented at the Transcatheter and Cardiovascular Therapeutics, Washington, US, 2006.
  33. Diaz de la Llera LS, Ballesteros S, Nevado J, et al., Sirolimuseluting stents compared with standard stents in the treatment of patients with primary angioplasty, Am Heart J, 2007;154:164.e1–6.
    Crossref | PubMed
  34. Menichelli M, Parma A, Pucci E, et al., Randomized trial of Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Bare-Metal Stent in Acute Myocardial Infarction (SESAMI), J Am Coll Cardiol, 2007;49:1924–30.
    Crossref | PubMed
  35. Valgimigli M, Campo G, Percoco G, et al., Comparison of angioplasty with infusion of tirofiban or abciximab and with implantation of sirolimus-eluting or uncoated stents for acute myocardial infarction: the MULTISTRATEGY randomized trial, JAMA, 2008;299:1788–99.
    Crossref | PubMed