HORIZONS and Drug-eluting Stent Usage in Acute Myocardial Infarction

Register or Login to View PDF Permissions
Permissions× For commercial reprint enquiries please contact Springer Healthcare:

For permissions and non-commercial reprint enquiries, please visit to start a request.

For author reprints, please email
Average (ratings)
No ratings
Your rating


Myocardial infarction (MI) is one of the few clinical presentations whereby percutaneous coronary intervention reduces the risk of death compared with medical therapy alone. However, treatment with drug-eluting stents (DES) – so-called ‘off-label’ use for patients with STsegment- elevation MI (STEMI) – raises safety concerns with respect to the morbidity and mortality attributed to late stent thrombosis (LST). Pathology data clearly indicate delayed healing as the primary substrate in all cases of DES-related LST, where differences in lesion morphology invariably show a greater prevalence of uncovered struts, accumulated fibrin and inflammation in ruptures relative to stable plaques. The prolonged risk of LST appears to persist up to at least four years after DES implantation. Results from the recently published Harmonising Outcomes with Revascularisation and Stents – Acute Myocardial Infarction (HORIZONS-AMI) trial of 3,006 prospective patients presenting with STEMI, randomised to paclitaxel-eluting (PES) or identical bare-metal stents (BMS), show similar 12-month death and stent thrombosis rates. Despite a significant reduction in ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularisation, a sub-study analysis showed a greater incidence of malapposition in patients receiving PES. Along these same lines, other registry studies point towards inconsistencies in advocating the use of DES for AMI. Considering that arterial healing in response to DES is delayed for periods longer than one year, longterm follow-up beyond this point is required to confirm the results of the HORIZONS trial. However, despite the final outcome, the results may remain disputable since the trial may not have been sufficiently powered to address the relative risks of LST or mortality. Clearly, there remains a need for larger randomised controlled studies before the broader use of this technology in AMI patients is settled.

Disclosure:Gaku Nakazawa, Masataka Nakano, Marc Vorpahl and Frank Kolodgie have no conflicts of interest to declare. Renu Virmani has received company-sponsored research support from 3F Therapeutics/ATS Medical, Abbott Vascular, Ablation Frontiers, Abraxis Bioscience, Inc, AccelLab, Inc, Affinergy, Inc, AGA Medical Corp, AK International Co, Ltd, AlchiMedics, Alvimedica Medical Technologies, Amaranth Medical, Inc., AngioDynamics, Inc, AngioScore, Inc, Angiomed GmbH & Co, Angioslide LTD, Angel Medical Systems, Inc, Angioblast Systems, Inc, Apnex Medical, Inc, Arbor Surgical, Inc, Ardian, Inc., Atritech, Inc, Atrium Medical Corp, Avantec Vascular, Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc, B-Balloon Ltd, Biotronik AG, Biogen IDEC, Biotegra, Inc, Biomerix, BioPAL, Inc, Biosensors International, Biomer Technology Ltd, Boston Scientific Corp, ByPass Medical Technologies, Ltd, CardioDex, Ltd, Cardica, Inc, CardioKinetix, Inc, CardioFocus, Inc, Cardiovascular Research FoundationÔÇöKorea, CardioMind, Inc, Cardiovascular Research Foundation, Cierra, Inc, CoAptus Medical Corp, Coherex Medical, Inc, Concentric Medical, Conor Med Systems, CorAssist Cardiovascular Ltd, Cordis Corporation, CoRepair, Inc, Correx, Inc, Corindus, Inc, CorNova Inc, CVRx, Inc, CyberHeart Inc, Devax, Inc., Edwards Lifesciences, LLC, Elixir Medical Corp, Elutex, Inc, ev3, Inc, Evalve, Inc, Gardia Medical Ltd, Gem Biosystems, GlaxoSmithKline, HemCon, InfraReDx, Inc, Invatec Technology Centre GmbH, Jerini AG, Kaneka Corp, Laax, Inc, Lumen Biomedical, Inc, Lutonix, Inc., Maquet Cardiovascular, Medtronic AVE, Medtronic Heart Valves, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd, Microvention, Inc., Minnow Medical, LLC, Miravant Medical, LLC, Neovasc Medical Ltd, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, NovoStent Corp, OrbusNeich Medical, Inc, Oregon Medical Laser Centre, Paragon Intellectual Properties, LLC, Prescient Medical, Inc., Probiodrug AG, ReLeaf Medical, Relisys Medical Devices Ltd, ReValve Vascular LTD, Revascular Therapeutics, Sahajanand Medical Technologies Pvt. Ltd, Sorin Biomedica Cardio Srl, Surmodics, Inc, Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Terumo Corp, Theregen, Inc, TissueGen, Inc, Top Spin, Toray Industries, Inc, Transluminal Technologies, Vascular Therapies, LLC, VIA Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Volcano Therapetutics, Inc, X-Cell Medical, Inc and Xtent, Inc, and is a consultant for Medtronic AVE, Abbott Vascular, WL Gore, Volcano Therapeutics, Inc., Prescient Medical, CardioMind, Inc., Direct Flow and Atrium Medical Corporation.



Correspondence Details:Renu Virmani, CVPath Institute, Inc., 19 Firstfield Road, Gaithersburg, MD 20878, US. E:

Copyright Statement:

The copyright in this work belongs to Radcliffe Medical Media. Only articles clearly marked with the CC BY-NC logo are published with the Creative Commons by Attribution Licence. The CC BY-NC option was not available for Radcliffe journals before 1 January 2019. Articles marked ‘Open Access’ but not marked ‘CC BY-NC’ are made freely accessible at the time of publication but are subject to standard copyright law regarding reproduction and distribution. Permission is required for reuse of this content.

The limited information regarding the long-term safety of drug-eluting stents (DES) for the treatment of ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) has raised concern regarding its clinical safety, in particular with respect to the associated morbidity and mortality attributed to late stent thrombosis (LST). Observational studies in daily practice have shown that the risk of LST continues at a constant rate up to at least four years after DES implantation.1 Given that MI is one of the few clinical presentations in which percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has been shown to reduce the risk of death, compared to medical therapy alone, the long-term outcomes after DES for the treatment of acute MI (AMI) is of immense clinical importance.2,3

Previous Studies of Drug-eluting Stents for Acute Myocardial Infarction

Several randomised clinical trials have compared clinical outcomes for patients with AMI treated with either bare-metal stents (BMS) or DES.4–7 A meta-analysis of these trials, with limited follow-up of one to two years, demonstrated a significant reduction in re-intervention with no differences in stent thrombosis, myocardial infarction or deaths between patients treated with BMS versus DES.8 Despite favourable clinical outcomes of generally low death and re-infarction rates of 4.6 and 3.5%, respectively, it remains questionable how applicable these results are to the broader use of this technology in the STEMI population.

Although several registries of DES usage for AMI have enrolled high-risk patients, registry data are imperfect and subject to selection bias, and have demonstrated inconsistent outcomes. For example, the Massachusetts Registry reported by Mauri et al. of AMI patients receiving either BMS or DES9 shows a significant decrease in repeat revascularisation and two-year mortality compared with BMS. However, at two days after the index procedure, the adjusted mortality for STEMI patients was already significantly lower for DES. This finding reinforces the notion that selection bias can heavily influence interpretation of data even after statistical adjustment.

In another study, Steg and colleagues published data from a large multinational registry of 5,093 patients receiving BMS or DES for AMI where there was increased late mortality (i.e. from six months to two years) for DES versus BMS patients,10 although the propensity and risk-adjusted survival post-discharge was not different at six months or one year. It is tempting to speculate that the events accounting for differences in mortality were thrombotic in nature and linked to discontinuation of antiplatelet therapy, which has been shown in multiple clinical studies to be a risk factor for the development of LST. Since follow-up data were available in only approximately 50% of patients, it is impossible to draw any firm conclusions about whether there was or a causal relationship between withdrawal of antiplatelet therapy and mortality. Despite these weaknesses, the data of Steg et al. are corroborated by our own pathological findings and should at the very least raise an awareness of the possibility of serious long-term risks with the strategy of using DES for the treatment of AMI.


One-year results from the HORIZONS AMI trial, in which 3,006 patients with AMI receiving aspirin and clopidogrel for one year were randomised to unfractionated heparin plus IIb/IIIa inhibitor or bivalirudin and paclitaxel (PES) or BMS (weighted 3:1),11 showed no differences in thrombosis and re-infarction rates at one year although, as expected, target lesion revascularisation was significantly lower in patients receiving PES. Although these data are encouraging, long-term follow-up beyond one year is required to confirm these results. Moreover, while this trial may provide further answers regarding the safety and benefits of DES in STEMI patients, it is not powered to address the relative risk of stent thrombosis or mortality with DES compared with BMS.

A recent presentation at the i2 summit (Orlando, American College of Cardiology, 2009) reported on a sub-analysis of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) data from the HORIZONS trial. While neointimal volume was significantly less in PES versus BMS, the incidence of malapposition in PES was as high as 28.3%, which was significantly greater than BMS (7.9%; p<0.0009) at 13-month follow-up. This suggests that despite a similar incidence of in-stent thrombosis at one year, patients with DES may be at greater risk of very late stent thrombosis based on the higher prevalence of malapposition. Consistent with this notion, a recent meta-analysis reported that the incidence of late stent malapposition is significantly greater in DES compared with BMS12 and was associated with the occurrence of LST.

Pathophysiology of Late Stent Thrombosis in Acute Myocardial Infarction

Autopsy studies of patients dying from complications of LST attributed to DES report delayed arterial healing characterised by severe suppression of smooth-muscle-cell infiltration, persistence of fibrin and poor endothelialisation as the primary pathological substrate.13,14 Recent data from our laboratory in patients dying after DES placement demonstrated delayed vessel healing at culprit sites of AMI patients (i.e. plaque rupture sites) compared with stable lesions or non-culprit sites within the same stent, emphasising the importance of plaque morphology in biological healing of DES (see Figure 1).15 Furthermore, the prevalence of LST in patients with AMI versus stable angina was also significantly higher. Although observational studies and randomised clinical trials of patients receiving DES for AMI have yielded inconsistencies regarding the safety of this practice, the pathology data supports a risk for DES-driven LST in an infarct-related artery, which may outweigh potential long-term benefits.

There are several possibilities regarding how plaque morphology might influence healing in response to DES. Since ruptured plaques account for >75% of acute coronary thrombi and these lesions typically show large areas of necrosis, there is a greater risk of strut penetration into the necrotic core. One can argue that since sirolimus and paclitaxel are highly lipophilic,16 there is a greater tendency for these agents to accumulate in lipid-rich plaques and to exhibit longer dwell times relative to stents deployed on a base of fibrous tissue. Moreover, necrotic cores are generally less cellular and proliferative compared with fibrous plaques of stable lesions therefore, neo-intimal coverage over buried struts within a necrotic core is likely to be poor. Alternatively, increased drug uptake by the thrombus as shown by Hwang et al. with PES17 may also play a role. A clinical correlation to the last findings can be found in the data of Sianos et al., who investigated the impact of thrombus burden on clinical outcome in patients treated with DES for STEMI.18 Notably, patients with a greater thrombus burden had significantly higher mortality rates, major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and in-stent thrombosis compared with those with a small thrombus burden.

Collectively, these data highlight the complexities of DES on vascular healing in the ‘real-world’ setting of STEMI and potential complications of LST with regard to plaque morphology. Considering the current inconsistencies attributed to the safety of DES for the routine treatment of AMI in terms of mortality and risk of LST, the issue is far from settled. The human pathology data clearly indicate greater delayed healing in response to DES implanted at sites of plaque rupture versus stable plaque, which can theoretically contribute to the increased risk of late thrombotic events. Clearly, there is a requirement for larger randomised controlled trials before newer technologies such as DES are implemented for currently unapproved indications such as AMI.


  1. Daemen J, Wenaweser P, Tsuchida K, et al., Early and late coronary stent thrombosis of sirolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents in routine clinical practice: data from a large two-institutional cohort study, Lancet, 2007;369(9562):667–78.
    Crossref | PubMed
  2. Bavry AA, Kumbhani DJ, Quiroz R, et al., Invasive therapy along with glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors and intracoronary stents improves survival in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes: a meta-analysis and review of the literature, Am J Cardiol, 2004;93(7):830–35.
    Crossref | PubMed
  3. Keeley EC, Boura JA, Grines CL,. Primary angioplasty versus intravenous thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction: a quantitative review of 23 randomised trials, Lancet, 2003;361(9351):13–20.
    Crossref | PubMed
  4. Laarman GJ, Suttorp MJ, Dirksen MT, et al., Paclitaxeleluting versus uncoated stents in primary percutaneous coronary intervention, N Engl J Med, 2006;355(11): 1105–13.
    Crossref | PubMed
  5. Menichelli M, Parma A, Pucci E, et al., Randomized trial of Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Bare-Metal Stent in Acute Myocardial Infarction (SESAMI), J Am Coll Cardiol, 2007;49(19):1924–30.
    Crossref | PubMed
  6. Spaulding C, Henry P, Teiger E, et al., Sirolimus-eluting versus uncoated stents in acute myocardial infarction, N Engl J Med, 2006;355(11):1093–1104.
    Crossref | PubMed
  7. van der Hoeven BL, Liem SS, Jukema JW, et al., Sirolimuseluting stents versus bare-metal stents in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: 9-month angiographic and intravascular ultrasound results and 12- month clinical outcome results from the MISSION! Intervention Study, J Am Coll Cardiol, 2008;51(6):618–26.
    Crossref | PubMed
  8. Kastrati A, Dibra A, Spaulding C, et al., Meta-analysis of randomiszed trials on drug-eluting stents vs. bare-metal stents in patients with acute myocardial infarction, Eur Heart J, 2007;28(22):2706–13.
    Crossref | PubMed
  9. Mauri L, Silbaugh TS, Garg Pet al., Drug-eluting or baremetal stents for acute myocardial infarction, N Engl J Med, 2008;359(13):1330–42.
    Crossref | PubMed
  10. Steg PG, Fox KA, Eagle KA, et al., Mortality following placement of drug-eluting and bare-metal stents for STsegment elevation acute myocardial infarction in the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events, Eur Heart J, 2009;30(3):321–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  11. Stone GW, Witzenbichler B, Guagliumi G, et al., Bivalirudin during primary PCI in acute myocardial infarction, N Engl J Med, 2008;358(21):2218–30.
    Crossref | PubMed
  12. Hassan AK, Bergheanu SC, Stijnen T, et al., Late stent malapposition risk is higher after drug-eluting stent compared with bare-metal stent implantation and associates with late stent thrombosis, Eur Heart J, 2009.
    Crossref | PubMed
  13. Joner M, Farb A, Cheng Q, Finn AV, et al., Pioglitazone inhibits in-stent restenosis in atherosclerotic rabbits by targeting transforming growth factor-beta and MCP-1, Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol, 2007;27(1):182–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  14. Finn AV, Joner M, Nakazawa G, et al., Pathological correlates of late drug-eluting stent thrombosis: strut coverage as a marker of endothelialiszation, Circulation, 2007;115(18):2435–41.
    Crossref | PubMed
  15. Nakazawa G, Finn AV, Joner M, et al., Delayed arterial healing and increased late stent thrombosis at culprit sites after drug-eluting stent placement for acute myocardial infarction patients: an autopsy study, Circulation, 2008;118(11):1138–45.
    Crossref | PubMed
  16. Levin AD, Vukmirovic N, Hwang CW, Edelman ER,. Specific binding to intracellular proteins determines arterial transport properties for rapamycin and paclitaxel, Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2004;101(25):9463–7.
    Crossref | PubMed
  17. Hwang CW, Levin AD, Jonas M, et al., Thrombosis modulates arterial drug distribution for drug-eluting stents, Circulation, 2005;111(13):1619–26.
    Crossref | PubMed
  18. Sianos G, Papafaklis MI, Daemen J, et al., Angiographic stent thrombosis after routine use of drug-eluting stents in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: the importance of thrombus burden, J Am Coll Cardiol, 2007;50(7):573–83.
    Crossref | PubMed