Key result
Drug-eluting stents compared to bare metal stents in AF patients with acute MI were associated with similar 1-year risk of mortality, stroke, or MI (22% vs 26%; HR 0.88; 95% CI 0.76-1.03).
Why the study?
Does drug-eluting stent placement reduce the composite of all-cause mortality, readmission for stroke, or MI compared to bare metal stent placement in patients with atrial fibrillation presenting with acute myocardial infarction?
Cohort (n=14,427)
Yes
Does drug-eluting stent placement reduce the composite of all-cause mortality, readmission for stroke, or MI compared to bare metal stent placement in patients with atrial fibrillation presenting with acute myocardial infarction?
In patients with atrial fibrillation presenting with acute MI, DES use has increased over time and is associated with similar 1-year composite outcomes compared to BMS, despite less frequent warfarin prescription at discharge.
DES were associated with similar 1-year outcomes versus BMS in AF patients with acute MI; observational data leave open optimal stent selection pending randomized trials.
Background Patients receiving oral anticoagulation in addition to dual‐antiplatelet therapy are known to be at high risk for bleeding events; thus, the selection of a drug‐eluting stent (DES) versus a bare metal stent (BMS) can have important implications for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) presenting with acute myocardial infarction (MI). Methods and Results From the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ACTION (Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network) Registry—Get With the Guidelines, we identified 14 427 AF patients presenting with acute MI undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention from 2008 to 2014. Temporal trends and hospital variation in DES use were examined, as were patterns of use by stroke risk (CHA 2 DS 2 ‐VASc) and bleeding risk ATRIA (Anticoagulation and Risk Factors in Atrial Fibrillation). Among patients with linked Medicare data (n=2844), multivariable Cox regression modeling was used to compare risks for a composite outcome (all‐cause mortality, readmission for stroke, or MI), readmission for stroke, revascularization, and major bleeding at 1 year. A DES was used in 8414 (58.9%) MI patients with AF, increasing from 47.1% in 2008 to 67.9% in 2014, with wide variation among hospitals. DES placement was more common than BMS placement among patients at high stroke risk (CHA 2 DS 2 ‐VASc ≥2) and high bleeding risk (ATRIA ≥4). Although aspirin and a P2Y 12 inhibitor were prescribed for >95% of all patients regardless of stent type at discharge, warfarin was prescribed less frequently among patients receiving a DES than a BMS (31% versus 39%, P <0.001). The composite outcome was similar between patients with a DES or BMS at 1 year (22% versus 26%; adjusted hazard ratio: 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76–1.03). Conclusions Use of DESs among MI patients with AF has increased over time, but substantial hospital‐level variation was observed. Patients with AF meeting indications for anticoagulation are more likely to receive a DES than a BMS, even among those at high predicted risk of both stroke and bleeding.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vora et al. (2017) conducted a cohort in Atrial fibrillation presenting with acute myocardial infarction (n=14,427). Drug-eluting stent vs. Bare metal stent was evaluated on Composite of all-cause mortality, readmission for stroke, or MI (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.76-1.03). Drug-eluting stents compared to bare metal stents in AF patients with acute MI were associated with similar 1-year risk of mortality, stroke, or MI (22% vs 26%; HR 0.88; 95% CI 0.76-1.03).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: