Long-term outcome of percutaneous catheter intervention for de novo coronary bifurcation lesions with drug-eluting stents or bare-metal stents

Drug-Coated versus Uncoated Balloon for Side Branch Protection in Coronary Bifurcation Lesions Treated with Provisional Stenting Using Drug-Eluting Stents: A Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Provisional stenting using drug-eluting stents (DES) has become the preferred treatment for coronary bifurcation lesions (CBLs). We performed a meta-analysis to compare the effects of side branch (SB) protection using a drug-coated balloon (DCB) versus an uncoated balloon (UCB) during the procedure.

METHODS

Relevant randomized and nonrandomized studies were identified by searching the Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Wanfang, and CNKI databases. We used a random-effect model to pool the data by incorporating the heterogeneity between the included studies.

RESULTS

Overall, 803 patients with CBLs treated with provisional stenting using DES were included from seven studies. With a follow-up duration of 6 to 12 months, SB protection with DCB was associated with a lower degree of postoperative diameter stenosis (mean difference (MD): -11.35%, 95% confidence interval (CI): -14.17 to-8.53, p < 0.001; I² = 0%) and less late lumen loss (MD: -0.19 mm, 95% CI:-0.28 to-0.10, p < 0.001; I² = 69%) of SB compared to those with UCB. Moreover, SB protection with DCB was associated with reduced risks of target lesion revascularization (risk ratio [RR]: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.27 to 0.88, p = 0.02; I² = 0%) and major adverse cardiovascular events (RR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.27 to 0.66, p < 0.01; I² = 0%). Subgroup analysis according to the study design showed similar results.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with CBL treated with provisional stenting using DES, SB protection with DCB was associated with better angiographic and clinical outcomes than those with UCB.

Propensity Score-Based Methods in Comparative Effectiveness Research on Coronary Artery Disease

This review examines the conduct and reporting of observational studies using propensity score-based methods to compare coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), or medical therapy for patients with coronary artery disease. A systematic selection process identified 48 studies: 20 addressing CABG versus PCI; 21 addressing bare-metal stents versus drug-eluting stents; 5 addressing CABG versus medical therapy; 1 addressing PCI versus medical therapy; and 1 addressing drug-eluting stents versus balloon angioplasty. Of 32 studies reporting information on variable selection, 7 relied exclusively on statistical criteria for the association of covariates with treatment, and 5 used such criteria to determine whether product or nonlinear terms should be included in the propensity score model. Twenty-five (52%) studies reported assessing covariate balance using the estimated propensity score, but only 1 described modifications to the propensity score model based on this assessment. The over 400 variables used in the 48 propensity score models were classified into 12 categories and 60 subcategories; only 17 subcategories were represented in at least half of the propensity score models. Overall, reporting of propensity score-based methods in observational studies comparing CABG, PCI, and medical therapy was incomplete; when adequately described, the methods used were often inconsistent with current methodological standards.

Ivabradine in Patients with Stable Coronary Artery Disease: A Rationale for Use in Addition to and Beyond Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Heart rate is an established prognostic marker for longevity and is an important contributor in the pathophysiology of various cardiovascular diseases, including ischemic heart disease and heart failure. Most ischemic episodes are triggered by an increase in heart rate, which causes an imbalance between myocardial oxygen delivery and consumption. In addition, increased heart rate is a modifiable risk factor for chronic heart failure. Ivabradine, an inhibitor of I_f ion channels, is an approved second-line anti-ischemic drug for the treatment of angina. Ivabradine has been shown to decrease the risk of hospitalization in patients with chronic heart failure who were previously treated with β-blockers, renin-angiotensin system blockers or mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. This review describes the rationale for the pathophysiological and clinical use of ivabradine as an anti-ischemic agent in patients with stable coronary disease and highlights its benefits and drawbacks compared with other first- and second-line anti-anginal drugs. The review also highlights the role of ivabradine as a treatment for patients with high-risk coronary artery disease in whom first-line anti-anginal drugs are insufficient or inadequate and percutaneous coronary intervention is contraindicated or revascularization is incomplete or unsuitable.

Three-year clinical outcome of patients with bifurcation treatment with second-generation Resolute and Xience V stents in the randomized TWENTE trial

BACKGROUND

Only limited data from large randomized clinical trials have been published on the long-term performance of second-generation drug-eluting stents in bifurcation lesions.

METHODS

We investigated in patients in the randomized TWENTE trial the long-term safety and efficacy of treating bifurcation lesions with 2 widely applied second-generation drug-eluting stents, the zotarolimus-eluting Resolute stent (Medtronic Inc, Santa Rosa, CA) and the everolimus-eluting Xience V stent (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA). Three-year follow-up was available in 99.3%. Patients were categorized into treatment for ≥1 bifurcation lesion versus treatment for nonbifurcation lesions only.

RESULTS

Among the 1,391 patients of the TWENTE trial, 362 (26%) were treated for bifurcation lesions. At 3-year follow-up, target-vessel failure did not differ between patients treated for bifurcation versus nonbifurcation lesions (13.1% vs 12.6%; P = .84), whereas the periprocedural myocardial infarction rate was higher in patients with bifurcation lesions (6.9% vs 3.1%; P < .01). Of the 362 patients with bifurcation lesion treatment, 179 (49.4%) were treated with Resolute and 183 (50.6%) with Xience V. There was no significant difference in target-vessel failure between the Resolute and Xience V groups with bifurcation treatment (13.6% vs 12.6%; P = .78), and their incidence of definite-or-probable stent thrombosis was low and similar (1.1% vs 0.5%, respectively; P = .62).

CONCLUSION

Despite a significant difference in periprocedural myocardial infarction, 3-year clinical outcome after implantation of second-generation stents was favorable and similar for patients with and without bifurcation lesions. In addition, we observed no difference in long-term clinical outcome after bifurcation lesion treatment with Resolute and Xience V stents.

Two-year outcomes after deployment of XIENCE V everolimus-eluting stents in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention of bifurcation lesions: a report from the SPIRIT V single arm study

The aim of this analysis was to analyze outcomes of patients undergoing Xience V EES treatment of bifurcation lesions, a subset in which treatment is particularly challenging. The SPIRIT V Study provided an evaluation of the Xience V everolimus eluting stent (EES) performance in complex patient and lesion population. The SPIRIT V Single Arm Study enrolled 2700 patients with de novo coronary artery lesions suitable to be optimally treated with a maximum of four planned Xience V EES. Lesion evaluation was by visual assessment. The outcomes of the 492 patients undergoing Xience V EES stenting of ≥1 bifurcation lesion were compared to those with no bifurcation lesion treated. Compared to those without bifurcation treatment, patients with bifurcation treatment were more likely to have multi-vessel disease (49% vs 40%), left main treatment (3.1% vs 0.9%), more lesions treated (1.5 vs 1.3), calcification (36.4% vs 27.5%), and ostial (17.1% vs 8.2%) and angulated lesions (29.3% vs 21.1%), all P < 0.001. The 30-day composite rate of death, myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularization (TVR) was 4.3% in patients with bifurcation PCI and 2.2% in those with non-bifurcation PCI (P = 0.017). At 2 years, this composite event rate was 11.3% and 10.0% in these two groups, respectively (P = 0.403). Rates of cardiac death, MI, target lesion revascularization (TLR), TVR, and ARC defined definite or probable stent thrombosis (0.4% vs 0.9%, P = 0.402) were not significantly different between the two groups. Despite greater patient and lesion complexity, treatment of patients with bifurcation lesions using the Xience V EES in the SPIRIT V prospective Single Arm Study was safe and effective, with low overall event rates that were similar to those without bifurcation lesion treatment. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

DUrable polymer-based sTent CHallenge of Promus ElemEnt versus ReSolute integrity (DUTCH PEERS): rationale and study design of a randomized multicenter trial in a Dutch all-comers population

BACKGROUND

Drug-eluting stents (DES) are increasingly used for the treatment of coronary artery disease. An optimized DES performance is desirable to successfully treat various challenging coronary lesions in a broad population of patients. In response to this demand, third-generation DES with an improved deliverability were developed. Promus Element (Boston Scientific, Natick, MA) and Resolute Integrity (Medtronic Vascular, Santa Rosa, CA) are 2 novel third-generation DES for which limited clinical data are available. Accordingly, we designed the current multicenter study to investigate in an all-comers population whether the clinical outcome is similar after stenting with Promus Element versus Resolute Integrity.

METHODS

DUTCH PEERS is a multicenter, prospective, single-blinded, randomized trial in a Dutch all-comers population. Patients with all clinical syndromes who require percutaneous coronary interventions with DES implantation are eligible. In these patients, the type of DES implanted will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio between Resolute Integrity versus Promus Element. The trial is powered based on a noninferiority hypothesis. For each stent arm, 894 patients will be enrolled, resulting in a total study population of 1,788 patients. The primary end point is the incidence of target vessel failure at 1-year follow-up.

SUMMARY

DUTCH PEERS is the first randomized multicenter trial with a head-to-head comparison of Promus Element and Resolute Integrity to investigate the safety and efficacy of these third-generation DES.