Outcomes and complications associated with off-label and untested use of drug-eluting stents.

CONTEXT Limited data exist regarding use of drug-eluting stents outside of approved indications in real-world settings. OBJECTIVES To determine the frequency, safety, and effectiveness of drug-eluting stents for off-label (restenosis, bypass graft lesion, long lesions, vessel size outside of information for use recommendation) and untested (left main, ostial, bifurcation, or total occlusion lesions) indications in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS Observational, prospective, multicenter registry to evaluate in-hospital, 30-day, and 1-year outcomes among patients undergoing PCI between January and June 2005 in 140 US academic and community medical centers. Of 7752 PCI-treated patients, 6993 (90%) received drug-eluting stents; of these, 5851 (84%) received no other devices. Standard, off-label, and untested use was determined in 5541 (95%) of these 5851 patients, constituting the study cohort. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Frequency of off-label and untested use, 1-year repeat target vessel revascularization, and composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stent thrombosis at in-hospital follow-up and during 1 year of follow-up. RESULTS Of 5541 patients receiving drug-eluting stents, 2588 (47%) received stents for off-label or untested indications. Adjusted in-hospital risk of death, MI, or stent thrombosis was not statistically different with off-label or untested vs standard use. At 30 days, the risk of this composite end point was significantly higher with off-label use (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 2.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.24-3.48; P = .005) but not untested use (adjusted HR, 1.45; 95% CI, 0.79-2.67; P = .23). Excluding early events, this end point was not different at 1 year with off-label use (adjusted HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.79-1.54; P = .57) or untested use (adjusted HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.60-1.38; P = .66). At 1 year, compared with standard use, significantly higher rates of target vessel revascularization were associated with off-label use (adjusted HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.13-1.98; P = .005) and untested use (adjusted HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.10-2.02; P = .01), although absolute rates were low (standard, 4.4% [n = 113]; off-label, 7.6% [n = 95]; untested, 6.7% [n = 72]). CONCLUSIONS In contemporary US practice, off-label and untested use of drug-eluting stents is common. Compared with standard use, relative early safety is lower with off-label use, and the long-term effectiveness is lower with both off-label and untested use. However, the absolute event rates remain low.

[1]  David B Matchar,et al.  Clopidogrel use and long-term clinical outcomes after drug-eluting stent implantation. , 2007, JAMA.

[2]  J. Stauffer,et al.  Use of sirolimus‐eluting coronary stents in routine clinical practice , 2004, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

[3]  Antonio Colombo,et al.  Randomized Study to Evaluate Sirolimus-Eluting Stents Implanted at Coronary Bifurcation Lesions , 2004, Circulation.

[4]  P. Serruys,et al.  Immediate and one-year outcome of percutaneous intervention of saphenous vein graft disease with paclitaxel-eluting stents. , 2005, American Journal of Cardiology.

[5]  Johan Lindbäck,et al.  Long-term outcomes with drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents in Sweden. , 2007, The New England journal of medicine.

[6]  P. Serruys,et al.  Comparison of early outcome of percutaneous coronary intervention for unprotected left main coronary artery disease in the drug-eluting stent era with versus without intravascular ultrasonic guidance. , 2005, The American journal of cardiology.

[7]  I. Iakovou,et al.  Treatment of saphenous vein graft lesions with drug-eluting stents: immediate and midterm outcome. , 2005, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[8]  Marco Valgimigli,et al.  The unrestricted use of paclitaxel- versus sirolimus-eluting stents for coronary artery disease in an unselected population: one-year results of the Taxus-Stent Evaluated at Rotterdam Cardiology Hospital (T-SEARCH) registry. , 2005, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[9]  William Wijns,et al.  Sirolimus-eluting stents for treatment of patients with long atherosclerotic lesions in small coronary arteries: double-blind, randomised controlled trial (E-SIRIUS) , 2003, The Lancet.

[10]  P. Serruys,et al.  Early outcome after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation in patients with acute coronary syndromes: insights from the Rapamycin-Eluting Stent Evaluated At Rotterdam Cardiology Hospital (RESEARCH) registry. , 2003, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[11]  P. Serruys,et al.  Sirolimus-Eluting Stent for the Treatment of In-Stent Restenosis: A Quantitative Coronary Angiography and Three-Dimensional Intravascular Ultrasound Study , 2003, Circulation.

[12]  J. Popma,et al.  The Canadian study of the sirolimus-eluting stent in the treatment of patients with long de novo lesions in small native coronary arteries (C-SIRIUS). , 2004, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[13]  David O. Williams,et al.  Outcomes of 6906 Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in the Era of Drug-Eluting Stents: Report of the DEScover Registry , 2006, Circulation.

[14]  Patrick W Serruys,et al.  Unrestricted Utilization of Sirolimus-Eluting Stents Compared With Conventional Bare Stent Implantation in the “Real World”: The R apamycin-E luting S tent E valuated A t R otterdam C ardiology H ospital (RESEARCH) Registry , 2004, Circulation.

[15]  P. Serruys,et al.  Sirolimus-eluting versus paclitaxel-eluting stent implantation for the percutaneous treatment of left main coronary artery disease: a combined RESEARCH and T-SEARCH long-term analysis. , 2006, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[16]  P. Serruys,et al.  Maintenance of Long-Term Clinical Benefit With Sirolimus-Eluting Coronary Stents: Three-Year Results of the RAVEL Trial , 2005, Circulation.

[17]  A. Colombo,et al.  Treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease with sirolimus-eluting stent implantation: immediate and mid-term results. , 2004, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[18]  B. Gersh.  Incidence, Predictors, and Outcome of Thrombosis After Successful Implantation of Drug-Eluting Stents , 2006 .

[19]  J. Popma,et al.  Clinical Efficacy of Polymer-Based Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents in the Treatment of Complex, Long Coronary Artery Lesions From a Multicenter, Randomized Trial: Support for the Use of Drug-Eluting Stents in Contemporary Clinical Practice , 2005, Circulation.

[20]  Ciro Indolfi,et al.  Sirolimus-eluting vs uncoated stents for prevention of restenosis in small coronary arteries: a randomized trial. , 2004 .

[21]  J. Stauffer,et al.  A prospective randomized comparison between paclitaxel and sirolimus stents in the real world of interventional cardiology: the TAXi trial. , 2005, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[22]  I. Iakovou,et al.  Clinical outcome following aleatory implantation of paclitaxel-eluting or sirolimus-eluting stents in complex coronary lesions. , 2005, The American journal of cardiology.

[23]  P. Serruys,et al.  Very long sirolimus-eluting stent implantation for de novo coronary lesions. , 2004, The American journal of cardiology.

[24]  Mark Woodward,et al.  Imputations of missing values in practice: results from imputations of serum cholesterol in 28 cohort studies. , 2004, American journal of epidemiology.

[25]  M. Bell,et al.  Correlates of procedural complicationsand a simple integer risk scorefor percutaneous coronary intervention , 2002 .

[26]  Fesc,et al.  Safety of Coronary Sirolimus-Eluting Stents in Daily Clinical Practice: One-Year Follow-Up of the e-Cypher Registry , 2006, Circulation.

[27]  A. Gershlick,et al.  Sirolimus-eluting stents for treatment of patients with long atherosclerotic lesions in small coronary arteries: double-blind, randomized controlled trial (E-SIRIUS) , 2004 .

[28]  P. Teirstein,et al.  Sirolimus-eluting stents for treatment of complex bypass graft disease: insights from the SECURE registry. , 2005, The Journal of invasive cardiology.

[29]  P. Serruys,et al.  Short- and long-term clinical benefit of sirolimus-eluting stents compared to conventional bare stents for patients with acute myocardial infarction. , 2004, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[30]  Jeffrey W Moses,et al.  Sirolimus-eluting stents versus standard stents in patients with stenosis in a native coronary artery. , 2003, The New England journal of medicine.

[31]  B. Gersh.  Debating the Risks of Drug-Eluting Stents , 2008 .

[32]  M. Bell,et al.  Correlates of procedural complications and a simple integer risk score for percutaneous coronary intervention. , 2002, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[33]  I. Iakovou,et al.  In-hospital and nine-month outcome of treatment of coronary bifurcational lesions with sirolimus-eluting stent. , 2005, The American journal of cardiology.

[34]  Gregg W Stone,et al.  One-Year Clinical Results With the Slow-Release, Polymer-Based, Paclitaxel-Eluting TAXUS Stent: The TAXUS-IV Trial , 2004, Circulation.