DOI: 10.4244/EIJV16I18A266

Similar long-term outcome of dissimilar drug-eluting stents: is it time to change the assessment?

Clemens von Birgelen1,2, MD; Eline H. Ploumen1,2, MD

Long-term follow-up of randomised drug-eluting stent (DES) trials provides information that may be of great clinical value. While restenosis in DES generally occurs within the first two years, some safety and efficacy endpoints may only be seen at later stages. Most randomised trials that compared contemporary DES using Kaplan-Meier methods showed no significant difference in long-term outcome despite substantial between-DES differences in strut thickness, polymer type, stent design, and drug1,2,3. However, the inability to prove a difference is not the same as proof of no difference. In case of a negative trial result, in principle, there may be truly no difference, a lack of statistical power (type 2 error), or suboptimal methods used for assessment.

In this issue of EuroIntervention, Xu et al also report no between-DES difference in five-year clinical outcome in the I-LOVE-IT 2 trial, a well-performed and analysed, multicentre randomised trial that compared a biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent with a durable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent4.

In patients treated with the biodegradable polymer-coated DES, the trial also compared 6-month versus 12-month dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) and found similar rates of net adverse clinical and cerebral events at both 18-month and 5-year follow-up. Remarkably, there was no benefit in terms of bleeding events after shortening the duration of clopidogrel-based DAPT. We can only speculate that the fact that I-LOVE-IT 2 did not utilise the more potent P2Y12 receptor antagonists may have partly accounted for this finding.

As recently most randomised DES trials (including the I-LOVE-IT 2 trial) have reported similar long-term outcomes for dissimilar contemporary DES, it is of interest to evaluate potential explanations. A possible reason that has not been extensively discussed is that Kaplan-Meier methods may no longer be the ideal approach to evaluate contemporary DES with their increasingly low event rates. While the Kaplan-Meier approach is still considered the gold standard and allows the easy comparison of the results of different trials, some concerns about this method can be raised that may be particularly relevant for contemporary DES.

When using Kaplan-Meier methods, only the first event of a specific event type or composite clinical endpoint is included in the analysis. After that first adverse event, the statistical method no longer considers the patient to be “at risk” for any subsequent event of that type. For some events this is not an issue, such as for death which can occur only once. However, after a first repeat revascularisation there is still the possibility of subsequent repeat revascularisations which may have a substantial impact on the patient’s quality of life. In addition, by including repeat events, the event count per treatment arm increases, and the total sample size and costs of trials could be reduced while maintaining statistical power. Hence, as a step towards performing more cost-effective and patient-centred clinical research, investigators of future DES trials may consider including the assessment of repeat events.

Another concern may be the use of composite clinical endpoints as the main outcome parameter. After a patient has experienced any of the individual endpoints of the composite, the Kaplan-Meier method neglects other adverse events that may occur later on. In addition, for the analysis, all individual components of the composite endpoint are considered to be of equal clinical relevance and severity. Yet, in reality, this is highly questionable as, for instance, the severity of death is not equal to that of a repeat coronary revascularisation procedure5.

A few previous studies have explored the use of other methods for analysing randomised clinical trials6,7. For instance, the weighted composite endpoint method considers all consecutive events and the time-to-events, and it allows differentiation between the severity of events. It is within the bounds of possibility that the assessment of randomised DES trials with such a novel method may yield different results and reveal between-DES differences that otherwise could not be seen7. Nevertheless, this novel statistical method is somewhat more challenging, and it may take some time before achieving standardisation for common use.

The I-LOVE-IT 2 trial has collected high-quality randomised trial data of contemporary DES in a broad patient population and reported no between-stent difference in the five-year rates of ischaemic and bleeding events. The data collection and analysis of this study were performed according to current international standards. Yet, investigators of future DES trials may consider changing standards to facilitate the use of more patient-centred and cost-effective methods that consider the severity and repeatability of all relevant adverse clinical events.

Funding

C. von Birgelen reports that the Research Department of Thoraxcentrum Twente received institutional research grants provided by Abbott Vascular, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Supplementary data

To read the full content of this article, please download the PDF.


References

Volume 16 Number 18
Apr 2, 2021
Volume 16 Number 18
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/EIJV15I11A176 Dec 6, 2019
Are all DES equal at 10-year follow-up?
Bär S et al
free

10.4244/EIJV17I5A62 Aug 6, 2021
DAPT duration in acute coronary syndrome: is stent type an issue?
Gilard M and Didier R
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