Why the study?
It was unknown whether the clinical benefits of ultrathin-strut compared with thicker-strut DES differ between patients presenting with CCS versus ACS.
Does newer-generation ultrathin-strut DES reduce target lesion failure compared with thicker-strut DES in patients with chronic and acute coronary syndromes?
Does newer-generation ultrathin-strut DES reduce target lesion failure compared with thicker-strut DES in patients with chronic and acute coronary syndromes?
Ultrathin-strut DES significantly reduce the risk of target lesion failure compared to thicker-strut second-generation DES, driven by lower ischemia-driven TLR, with consistent benefits across both chronic and acute coronary syndromes.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports preferential use of ultrathin-strut DES; confirms consistent TLF reduction across CCS and ACS.
OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to compare the differential effects of ultrathin-strut and thicker-strut drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients with chronic (CCS) versus acute (ACS) coronary syndromes. BACKGROUND: Newest-generation ultrathin-strut DES reduce target lesion failure (TLF) compared with thicker-strut second-generation DES in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for randomized controlled trials comparing newer-generation ultrathin-strut (<70 μm) versus thicker-strut (≥70 μm) DES. Patients were divided based on baseline clinical presentation (CCS versus ACS). The primary endpoint was TLF, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically indicated target lesion revascularization (TLR). RESULTS: A total of 22,766 patients from 16 randomized controlled trials were included, of which 9 trials reported TLF rates in ACS patients. At a mean follow-up of 12.2 months, the risk of TLF was lower among patients treated with ultrathin-strut compared with thicker-strut DES (risk ratio [RR]: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.75-0.95; P = 0.006). The difference was driven by a lower risk of clinically-indicated TLR (RR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.63-0.89; P < 0.001) among patients treated with ultrathin-strut DES. The treatment effect was consistent between patients presenting with CCS and ACS (relative RR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.73-1.31; P for interaction = 0.854). In patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, TLF risk was lower among those treated with ultrathin- compared with thicker-strut DES (RR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.54-0.99; P = 0.049). CONCLUSIONS: Ultrathin-strut DES reduce the risk of TLF compared with thicker-strut second-generation DES in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, a difference caused by a lower risk of ischemia-driven TLR. The treatment effect was consistent among patients with CCS and ACS.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Iglesias et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: