DOI: 10.4244/EIJ-D-18-00666R

Reply to the Letter to the Editor “Is it time to abandon drug-eluting stents for saphenous venous graft percutaneous coronary intervention?”

Islam Y. Elgendy1, MD; Ahmed N. Mahmoud1, MD; Emmanouil S. Brilakis2, MD, PhD; Anthony A. Bavry1,3, MD, PhD

We appreciate the interest of Sethi et al1 in our meta-analysis2. Sethi et al argue that there are several issues with the meta-analysis that could lead to the misinterpretation of the findings. First, they suggest that the sensitivity analysis excluding DELAYED RRISC3 showed a possible benefit with drug-eluting stents (DES). While this analysis might be statistically significant, there needs to be a scientific rationale for how a sensitivity analysis is conducted. The usual scenario is to exclude the largest trial and determine if the overall interpretation remains the same. In this case the exclusion of the smallest trial found a positive association; however, it was not consistent with the other sensitivity analyses excluding every other trial. Collectively, one cannot conclude that this sensitivity analysis would challenge the overall conclusion. Second, Sethi et al point out that performing a subgroup analysis by censoring the events at 12 months might yield a strong trend to suggest benefit of DES. However, the interaction within the subgroup analysis performed by Sethi et al is non-significant (p=0.06). In our analysis2, we included the cumulative events at a longer follow-up (i.e., beyond 12 months) rather than just censoring the events at 12 months to include the totality of events4. Importantly, our findings are concurrent with the largest trial to date comparing both devices (i.e., ISAR-CABG) which showed benefit with DES at 12 months5; however, this benefit was lost at five years, which is probably due to the higher attrition of efficacy in the DES group and the expected time-related graft degeneration6. These results are also supported in the recently published DIVA trial, which used contemporary second-generation DES and yet showed no benefit with DES at a median of 2.7 years7. In summary, the findings from our meta-analysis as well as the two large randomised trials on this topic dispute the safety concerns with DES which were seen in the DELAYED RRISC trial3, and suggest that there is no clear benefit for DES (even second-generation DES) over bare metal stents regarding long-term outcomes.

Conflict of interest statement

E. Brilakis reports consulting/speaker honoraria from Abbott Vascular, Amgen, Asahi, CSI, Elsevier, GE Healthcare, and Medicure, research support from Boston Scientific and Osprey, and that his spouse was an employee of Medtronic. A. Bavry discloses the following relationship – honorarium from the American College of Cardiology. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.


References

Volume 15 Number 2
Jun 20, 2019
Volume 15 Number 2
View full issue


Key metrics

On the same subject

10.4244/EIJV12I16A314 Mar 20, 2017
Iteration of second-generation drug-eluting stents: the missing piece of evidence
Palmerini T and Biondi-Zoccai G
free

10.4244/EIJV14I2A22 Jun 20, 2018
Percutaneous coronary intervention of saphenous vein grafts: where do we stand?
Bulluck H et al
free

10.4244/EIJV12I13A258 Jan 20, 2017
Don’t think twice: BMS is never nice
Colleran R and Kastrati A
free

10.4244/EIJV16I18A266 Apr 2, 2021
Similar long-term outcome of dissimilar drug-eluting stents: is it time to change the assessment?
von Birgelen C and Ploumen EH
free

10.4244/EIJV16I17A251 Apr 20, 2021
To be better among the best: a difficult task
Colombo A and Mangieri A
free

Editorial

10.4244/EIJ-E-22-00012 Jun 3, 2022
Comparative stent trials, a never-ending story
Smits PC
free
Trending articles
281.53

State-of-the-Art Review

10.4244/EIJ-D-21-00695 Nov 19, 2021
Transcatheter treatment for tricuspid valve disease
Praz F et al
free
243.2

State of the art

10.4244/EIJ-D-21-01117 Sep 20, 2022
Recanalisation of coronary chronic total occlusions
Di Mario C et al
free
208.35

State-of-the-Art Review

10.4244/EIJ-D-21-01034 Jun 3, 2022
Management of in-stent restenosis
Alfonso F et al
free
168.7

Translational research

10.4244/EIJ-D-21-00824 May 15, 2022
Bench test and in vivo evaluation of longitudinal stent deformation during proximal optimisation
Toth GG et al
free
167.05

Expert review

10.4244/EIJ-D-21-00690 May 15, 2022
Crush techniques for percutaneous coronary intervention of bifurcation lesions
Moroni F et al
free
151.03

State-of-the-Art

10.4244/EIJ-D-22-00776 Apr 3, 2023
Computed tomographic angiography in coronary artery disease
Serruys PW et al
free
118

Translational research

10.4244/EIJ-D-22-00718 Jun 5, 2023
Preclinical evaluation of the degradation kinetics of third-generation resorbable magnesium scaffolds
Seguchi M et al
110.35

Viewpoint

10.4244/EIJ-E-22-00007 May 15, 2022
TAVI at 20: how a crazy idea led to a clinical revolution
Eltchaninoff H et al
free
X

The Official Journal of EuroPCR and the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI)

EuroPCR EAPCI
PCR ESC
Impact factor: 6.2
2022 Journal Citation Reports®
Science Edition (Clarivate Analytics, 2023)
Online ISSN 1969-6213 - Print ISSN 1774-024X
© 2005-2024 Europa Group - All rights reserved