PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Frederic C. Daoud
AU  - Louis Létinier
AU  - Nicholas Moore
AU  - Pierre Coste
AU  - Pasi P. Karjalainen
TI  - Efficacy and safety of TiNO-coated stents versus drug-eluting coronary stents. Systematic literature review and meta-analysis
AID  - 10.1101/2020.12.19.20248564
DP  - 2021 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2020.12.19.20248564
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/01/30/2020.12.19.20248564.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/01/30/2020.12.19.20248564.full
AB  - Objectives To compare clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using titanium-nitride-oxide coated stents (TiNOS) versus drug-eluting stents (DES) in coronary artery disease (CAD) including acute coronary syndrome (ACS).Design Prospective systematic literature (SLR) conducted according to PRISMA. Medline, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science were searched in March 2018 and updated.Setting Interventional cardiology.Participants Patients with CAD, including ACS, requiring PCI.Interventions All prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared clinical outcomes after PCI with DES versus TiNOS.Outcome measures The pooled risk ratios (RR), TiNOS over DES, with 95% confidence intervals (CI) are computed for device-oriented Major Adverse Cardiac Events (MACE), non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), cardiac death (CD), clinically driven target lesion revascularization (TLR), probable or definite stent thrombosis (ST), total mortality, at one to five years after PCI. Pooled RRs are stratified according to baseline ACS versus other CAD. Sensitivity analysis (SA) and certainty of the evidence are rated per GRADE.Results Five RCTs are eligible with 1,855 patients with TiNOS versus 1,363 with DES at 1-year follow-up and 783 versus 771 at 5-year. Three RCTs included patients with ACS only. One-year RRs in ACS are: MACE 0.93 [0.72, 1.20], MI 0.48 [0.31, 0.73], CD 0.66 [0.33, 1.31], TLR 1.55 [1.10, 2.19] and ST 0.35 [0.20, 0.64]. One-year MACE, MI, and ST are robust to SA. The certainty of the evidence is high in MACE, moderate in MI, and low or very low in the other endpoints. There are too few observations to conclude about other CAD and 5-year outcomes. However, 5-year interim results are consistent with 1-year conclusions.Conclusions A similar risk of MACE is found in TiNOS and DES, with potentially fewer MI and ST but more TLR in TiNOS. TiNOS are safe and effective in ACS at 1-year follow-up.Registration PROSPERO CRD42018090622Strengths and limitations of this study- Strengths:The level of certainty of the evidence is high for the primary endpoint at one-year follow-up in patients treated for acute coronary syndrome.The primary endpoint and critical secondary endpoints are robust to sensitivity analysis.- Limitations:Outcomes in patients treated for chronic coronary artery disease cannot be analyzed.The level of certainty of the evidence of secondary endpoints is moderate or low.Analysis of five-year outcomes is still at an interim stage.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical TrialNot a clinical trialFunding StatementNo external funding was received.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:No IRB or regulatory requirement for a systematic literature review of published material.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesThis work used published summary data only.