Randomized comparison of Zotarolimus-Eluting Endeavor Sprint versus bare-metal stent implantation in uncertain drug-eluting stent candidates: rationale, design, and characterization of the patient population for the Zotarolimus-eluting Endeavor Sprint stent in uncertain DES candidates study

Three-year major clinical outcomes of phosphorylcholine polymer- vs biolinx polymer-zotarolimus-eluting stents: A propensity score matching study

There are limited long-term outcome data comparing BioLinx polymer (B)-zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZES) with phosphorylcholine polymer (P)-ZES. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of B-ZES with P-ZES in patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) during a 3-year follow-up period.One thousand two hundred fifty four patients who underwent PCI with P-ZES (Endeavor [ZES-E] or Endeavor sprint [ZES-S], n = 356) or B-ZES (Endeavor resolute [ZES-R] or Resolute Integrity [ZES-I], n = 889) were enrolled. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE); the composite of total death, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR), target vessel revascularization (TVR), non-target vessel revascularization (Non-TVR), and the secondary endpoint was stent thrombosis (ST).After PSM, 2 propensity-matched (PSM) groups (275 pairs, n = 550, C-statistic = 0.730) were generated. During the 3-year follow-up period, the cumulative incidence of MACE (hazard ratio [HR], 1.525; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.920-2.526; P = .101) and ST (HR, 1.248; 95% CI, 0.335-4.4649; P = .741) were similar between P-ZES and B-ZES after PSM. However, TLR rate was significantly higher in ZES-S than ZES-I (11.3% vs 3.8%, log rank P = .029) and TVR rate was higher in ZES-S than ZES-R (14.1% vs 4.8%, log rank P = .025).In this single-center, all-comer registry, despite different polymers, P-ZES, and B-ZES showed comparable safety and efficacy during a 3-year follow-up period after PCI.

Rationale and design of the Onyx ONE global randomized trial: A randomized controlled trial of high-bleeding risk patients after stent placement with 1 month of dual antiplatelet therapy

BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE

Polymer-free drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation in combination with 1-month dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) has shown superior safety and efficacy outcomes compared with bare-metal stents among patients with high-bleeding risk (HBR) treated with 1-month DAPT. The safety and efficacy of the newer-generation durable-polymer DES Resolute Onyx compared with polymer-free DES among HBR patients treated with 1-month DAPT is unknown.

TRIAL DESIGN

The Onyx ONE global randomized trial is an international, prospective, randomized, blinded, controlled study enrolling HBR patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. The trial will randomize up to 2,000 patients in a 1:1 fashion to receive either the durable-polymer Resolute Onyx DES or the polymer-free Biosensors BioFreedom DES. After index procedure, patients in both arms will be treated with 1 month of DAPT (aspirin and oral P2Y12 inhibitor), followed by single antiplatelet therapy thereafter. The primary end point is the composite end point of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis at 1-year follow-up. The powered secondary end point is target lesion failure (defined as the composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target lesion revascularization) at 1 year. Patient follow-up is planned for 1, 2, and 6 months and 1 and 2 years after the procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

The Onyx ONE global randomized trial is the first study to directly compare the safety and efficacy of a durable polymer DES (Resolute Onyx) with a polymer-free DES (BioFreedom) in HBR patients treated with 1 month of DAPT.

Design and rationale of the Management of High Bleeding Risk Patients Post Bioresorbable Polymer Coated Stent Implantation With an Abbreviated Versus Standard DAPT Regimen (MASTER DAPT) Study

BACKGROUND

The optimal duration of antiplatelet therapy in high-bleeding risk (HBR) patients with coronary artery disease treated with newer-generation drug-eluting bioresorbable polymer-coated stents remains unclear.

DESIGN

MASTER DAPT (clinicaltrial.govNCT03023020) is an investigator-initiated, open-label, multicenter, randomized controlled trial comparing an abbreviated versus a standard duration of antiplatelet therapy after bioresorbable polymer-coated Ultimaster (TANSEI) sirolimus-eluting stent implantation in approximately 4,300 HBR patients recruited from ≥100 interventional cardiology centers globally. After a mandatory 30-day dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) run-in phase, patients are randomized to (a) a single antiplatelet regimen until study completion or up to 5 months in patients with clinically indicated oral anticoagulation (experimental 1-month DAPT group) or (b) continue DAPT for at least 5 months in patients without or 2 in patients with concomitant indication to oral anticoagulation, followed by a single antiplatelet regimen (standard antiplatelet regimen). With a final sample size of 4,300 patients, this study is powered to assess the noninferiority of the abbreviated antiplatelet regimen with respect to the net adverse clinical and major adverse cardiac and cerebral events composite end points and if satisfied for the superiority of abbreviated as compared to standard antiplatelet therapy duration in terms of major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding. Study end points will be adjudicated by a blinded Clinical Events Committee.

CONCLUSIONS

The MASTER DAPT study is the first randomized controlled trial aiming at ascertaining the optimal duration of antiplatelet therapy in HBR patients treated with sirolimus-eluting bioresorbable polymer-coated stent implantation.

Blood-Compatible Surfaces with Phosphorylcholine-Based Polymers for Cardiovascular Medical Devices

For the acquisition of blood-compatible materials, various hydrophilic polymers for surface modification have been examined. Among them, polymers with a representative phospholipid polar group, the phosphorylcholine (PC) group, are a successful example. These polymers were designed from inspiration of the cell membrane surface and provide protein adsorption resistance even following contact with plasma. This important property is based on the unique hydration state of water molecules surrounding hydrated polymer; in other words, water molecules weakly interact with the polymers and maintain their favorable cluster structure through hydrogen bonding. These polymers are not only hydrophilic, but also electrically neutral, important characteristics which make hydrogen bonding with water molecules less likely to occur and avoid hydrophobic interactions. Phosphorylcholine groups and other zwitterionic structures are significant as hydrophilic functional groups meeting these important requirements. In this review, blood compatibility of a polymer having a PC group is introduced in relation to its hydration structure, followed by a description of the applications of this polymer to cardiovascular medical devices.

Impact of angiographic coronary artery disease complexity on ischemic and bleeding risks and on the comparative effectiveness of zotarolimus-eluting vs. bare-metal stents in uncertain drug-eluting stent candidates

BACKGROUND

The impact of coronary artery disease (CAD) extension/complexity on outcomes and on the comparative benefits/risks of zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) versus bare-metal stents (BMS) remains unclear in patients at high risk of bleeding or thrombosis or at low restenosis risk.

METHODS

We performed a post-hoc analysis of the ZEUS trial. The impact of coronary anatomic complexity measured by the SYNTAX score on the differences in outcomes following ZES and BMS was assessed at 1 year.

RESULTS

The mean SYNTAX score was 16.3 ± 13.1 with a median of 12 (IQR: 7 to 22). We stratified patients according to SYNTAX tertiles (0-8: n = 563; >8-19 n = 532; >19: n = 511), and observed that the higher the score, the correspondingly higher was the rate of the primary endpoint of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and other ischemic events, but not bleeding after adjustment. The superior efficacy of ZES versus BMS for MACE was consistent across SYNTAX tertiles (tertile 1: HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.44-1.13; tertile 2: HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.46-1.09; tertile 3: HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.61-1.10) without significant heterogeneity (p for trend = 0.55). This between-groups difference mainly reflected a reduction in MI and TVR without effect on mortality. There was no significant interaction between the SYNTAX score and allocated stent type with respect to ischemic and bleeding endpoints.

CONCLUSIONS

The SYNTAX score was predictor of major adverse cardiovascular events but not bleeding and ZES provided superior efficacy and safety than BMS across the whole spectrum of CAD complexity. SYNTAX score may be routinely used for the assessment of the ischemic risk (but not bleeding) after PCI and should not guide the decision-making for DES versus BMS in patients undergoing PCI.

Drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents for acute coronary syndrome

BACKGROUND

Approximately 3.7 million people died from acute coronary syndrome worldwide in 2012. Acute coronary syndrome, also known as myocardial infarction or unstable angina pectoris, is caused by a sudden blockage of the blood supplied to the heart muscle. Percutaneous coronary intervention is often used for acute coronary syndrome, but previous systematic reviews on the effects of drug-eluting stents compared with bare-metal stents have shown conflicting results with regard to myocardial infarction; have not fully taken account of the risk of random and systematic errors; and have not included all relevant randomised clinical trials.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents in people with acute coronary syndrome.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, SCI-EXPANDED, and BIOSIS from their inception to January 2017. We also searched two clinical trials registers, the European Medicines Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration databases, and pharmaceutical company websites. In addition, we searched the reference lists of review articles and relevant trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials assessing the effects of drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents for acute coronary syndrome. We included trials irrespective of publication type, status, date, or language.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed our published protocol and the methodological recommendations of Cochrane. Two review authors independently extracted data. We assessed the risks of systematic error by bias domains. We conducted Trial Sequential Analyses to control the risks of random errors. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, major cardiovascular events, serious adverse events, and quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were angina, cardiovascular mortality, and myocardial infarction. Our primary assessment time point was at maximum follow-up. We assessed the quality of the evidence by the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 25 trials randomising a total of 12,503 participants. All trials were at high risk of bias, and the quality of evidence according to GRADE was low to very low. We included 22 trials where the participants presented with ST-elevation myocardial infarction, 1 trial where participants presented with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction, and 2 trials where participants presented with a mix of acute coronary syndromes.Meta-analyses at maximum follow-up showed no evidence of a difference when comparing drug-eluting stents with bare-metal stents on the risk of all-cause mortality or major cardiovascular events. The absolute risk of death was 6.97% in the drug-eluting stents group compared with 7.74% in the bare-metal stents group based on the risk ratio (RR) of 0.90 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 1.03, 11,250 participants, 21 trials/22 comparisons, low-quality evidence). The absolute risk of a major cardiovascular event was 6.36% in the drug-eluting stents group compared with 6.63% in the bare-metal stents group based on the RR of 0.96 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.11, 10,939 participants, 19 trials/20 comparisons, very low-quality evidence). The results of Trial Sequential Analysis showed that we did not have sufficient information to confirm or reject our anticipated risk ratio reduction of 10% on either all-cause mortality or major cardiovascular events at maximum follow-up.Meta-analyses at maximum follow-up showed evidence of a benefit when comparing drug-eluting stents with bare-metal stents on the risk of a serious adverse event. The absolute risk of a serious adverse event was 18.04% in the drug-eluting stents group compared with 23.01% in the bare-metal stents group based on the RR of 0.80 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.86, 11,724 participants, 22 trials/23 comparisons, low-quality evidence), and Trial Sequential Analysis confirmed this result. When assessing each specific type of adverse event included in the serious adverse event outcome separately, the majority of the events were target vessel revascularisation. When target vessel revascularisation was analysed separately, meta-analysis showed evidence of a benefit of drug-eluting stents, and Trial Sequential Analysis confirmed this result.Meta-analyses at maximum follow-up showed no evidence of a difference when comparing drug-eluting stents with bare-metal stents on the risk of cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.09, 9248 participants, 14 trials/15 comparisons, very low-quality evidence) or myocardial infarction (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.18, 10,217 participants, 18 trials/19 comparisons, very low-quality evidence). The results of the Trial Sequential Analysis showed that we had insufficient information to confirm or reject our anticipated risk ratio reduction of 10% on cardiovascular mortality and myocardial infarction.No trials reported results on quality of life or angina.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The current evidence suggests that drug-eluting stents may lead to fewer serious adverse events compared with bare-metal stents without increasing the risk of all-cause mortality or major cardiovascular events. However, our Trial Sequential Analysis showed that there currently was not enough information to assess a risk ratio reduction of 10% for all-cause mortality, major cardiovascular events, cardiovascular mortality, or myocardial infarction, and there were no data on quality of life or angina. The evidence in this review was of low to very low quality, and the true result may depart substantially from the results presented in this review.More randomised clinical trials with low risk of bias and low risks of random errors are needed if the benefits and harms of drug-eluting stents for acute coronary syndrome are to be assessed properly. More data are needed on the outcomes all-cause mortality, major cardiovascular events, quality of life, and angina to reduce the risk of random error.

Randomized evaluation of short-term dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome treated with the COMBO dual therapy stent: rationale and design of the REDUCE trial

BACKGROUND

The optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients treated with drug eluting stents (DES) is still under debate. Recent meta-analyses on ≤6months versus 12months DAPT suggest that bleeding rates can be reduced, without a higher rate of thrombotic complications. In particular, the COMBO dual therapy stent, being associated with early re-endothelialization, may allow for a reduction of the duration of DAPT without increasing the thrombotic risk, while reducing the risk of bleeding complications.

AIM

The aim of the REDUCE trial is to demonstrate the non-inferiority of a combined efficacy and safety endpoint of a short-term 3months DAPT strategy as compared to standard 12-month DAPT strategy in ACS patients treated with the COMBO stent.

DESIGN

A prospective, multicenter, randomized study designed to enroll 1500 patients with ACS treated with the COMBO stent. Patients will be randomized before discharge in a 1:1 fashion to either 3 or 12months of DAPT. A clinical follow-up is scheduled at 3, 6, 12, and 24months. The primary endpoint is the time to event as defined by the occurrence of one of the following: all cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, stroke, target vessel revascularization or bleeding (Bleeding Academic Research Council type II, III and V) within 12months. The study has recruited patients since July 2014, and the results are expected in 2017.

SUMMARY

A reduction of the DAPT duration in ACS patients after PCI without affecting the thrombotic risk is an attractive option with regard to the associated bleeding risk. The REDUCE trial will be the first to investigate the efficacy and safety of a 3-month DAPT strategy compared to a 12-month DAPT strategy in an ACS only population treated with the COMBO stent.

Rapid and portable, lab-on-chip, point-of-care genotyping for evaluating clopidogrel metabolism

BACKGROUND

Dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and a platelet P2Y12 receptor inhibitors (clopidogrel, prasugrel, ticagrelor) is a cornerstone of antithrombotic treatment in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS). Clopidogrel has been the standard of care for nearly a decade; however, its clinical efficacy is influenced by a considerable inter-patient variability in response, clearly associated to cytochrome P (CYP) enzyme genetic variations. We used a novel point-of-care lab-on-chip instrument to genotype ACS patients in order to identify carriers of the ATB-binding cassette ABCB1 3435, CYP2C19*2 and CYPC2C19*17 alleles and adjust the pharmacological approach accordingly.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Between October 2012 and January 2013, 160 ACS patients were enrolled at the Cardiology Unit of the Ospedale Niguarda Cà Granda and genotyped at the patients' point-of-care using the newly developed Q3 portable real-time PCR instrument, which remarkably scored the CYP2C19*2, CYP2C19*17, and ABCB1 3435 alleles in a time of 70 min from DNA extraction to final genotype calls; concordance with the other gold-standard genotyping techniques was 100%.

CONCLUSIONS

The Q3 instrument proved to be as reliable as the current conventional techniques. As genotyping in the ACS setting cannot be delegated to centralised clinical laboratories for reasons of time, genotyping at the patients' bedside provides an opportunity to conduct large-scale randomised trials in order to assess whether adding genotype data to clinical variables improves clinical outcomes.

Novel drug-eluting stents for coronary revascularization

Over the past decades, there has been significant evolution in coronary stents used in percutaneous coronary intervention. The current novel drug-eluting stents available in the United States represent significant advancements compared to angioplasty, bare-metal stents, and the first generation of drug-eluting stents (DES). The Xience everolimus-eluting stents, Promus everolimus-eluting stents, and Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stents currently demonstrate the optimal balance of safety and efficacy. Endeavor zotarolimus-eluting stents have shorter drug-elution courses, and recent evidence suggests that 3 months of dual antiplatelet therapy appears safe, making Endeavor preferred when early discontinuation of dual antiplatelet therapy is warranted. Despite these advances in stent design, the permanent polymer and metallic stent remain in the vessel wall and may precipitate sustained inflammation, persistent vasomotor dysfunction, and in-stent neo-atherosclerosis. Bioresorbable platforms with biodegradable polymers have been developed to overcome the aforementioned limitations, and the outcomes of ongoing clinical trials are eagerly anticipated to determine if these novel stents will further improve clinical outcomes.