Comparison of everolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents in patients with acute and stable coronary syndromes: pooled results from the SPIRIT (A Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System) and COMPARE (A Trial of Everolimus-Eluting Stents and Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents for Coronary Revascularization in Daily Practice) Trials. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2011;4:1104-1115. [PMID: 22017936 DOI: 10.1016/j.jcin.2011.06.018]

Impact of Intravascular Imaging-Guided Stent Optimization According to Clinical Presentation in Patients Undergoing Complex PCI

BACKGROUND

It is unclear whether the beneficial effects of intravascular imaging-guided stent optimization vary by clinical presentation during complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

OBJECTIVES

In this prespecified, stratified subgroup analysis from RENOVATE-COMPLEX-PCI (Randomized Controlled Trial of Intravascular Imaging Guidance versus Angiography-Guidance on Clinical Outcomes After Complex PCI), we sought to compare the outcomes between intravascular imaging vs angiography guidance according to clinical presentation.

METHODS

Patients with complex coronary artery lesions were randomly assigned to undergo either intravascular imaging-guided PCI or angiography-guided PCI in a 2:1 ratio. The primary endpoint was target vessel failure (TVF), which is a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target vessel revascularization.

RESULTS

Of 1,639 patients, 832 (50.8%) presented with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and 807 (49.2%) with chronic coronary syndrome. During a median follow-up of 2.1 years (Q1-Q3: 1.4-3.0 years), there was no significant interaction between the treatment effect of intravascular imaging and clinical presentation (P for interaction = 0.19). Among patients with ACS, the incidences of TVF were 10.4% in the intravascular imaging group and 14.6% in the angiography group (HR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.48-1.15; P = 0.18). Among patients with CCS, the incidences of TVF were 5.0% in the intravascular imaging group and 10.4% in the angiography group (HR: 0.46; 95% CI: 0.27-0.80; P = 0.006). Achieving stent optimization by intravascular imaging resulted in a reduced risk of TVF among patients with ACS who were randomly assigned to intravascular imaging-guided PCI for complex coronary lesions (optimized vs unoptimized, 6.5% vs 14.1%; HR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.27-0.87; P = 0.02) but not those with CCS (5.4% vs 4.7%, HR: 1.18; 95% CI: 0.53-2.59; P = 0.69).

CONCLUSIONS

No significant interaction was observed between the benefits of intravascular imaging and clinical presentation in the risk of TVF. Stent optimization by intravascular imaging was particularly important for ACS patients. (Intravascular Imaging- Versus Angiography-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention For Complex Coronary Artery Disease [RENOVATE]; NCT03381872).

Three-Year Clinical Outcomes With the Cilotax Dual Drug-Eluting Stent vs Everolimus-Eluting Stents in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction

BACKGROUND

This study compared the safety and effectiveness of paclitaxel/cilostazol-eluting Cilotax stents with those of everolimus-eluting stents in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Real-world data from the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry were examined.

METHODS

A total of 5,472 patients with acute myocardial infarction underwent percutaneous coronary intervention with Cilotax stents (n = 212) or everolimus-eluting stents (n = 5,260). The primary end point was the 3-year rate of target lesion failure. The other end points were major adverse cardiovascular events (a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization), target vessel revascularization, and stent thrombosis. A propensity score matching analysis was performed to adjust for potential confounders by using a logistic regression model; propensity score matching generated 2 well-balanced groups (Cilotax group, n = 180; everolimus-eluting stents group, n = 170; N = 350). After propensity score matching, baseline clinical characteristics were similar between the groups.

RESULTS

After percutaneous coronary intervention, compared with the everolimus-eluting stents group, the Cilotax group more often had major adverse cardiovascular events (24.1% vs 18.5%; P = .042), myocardial infarction (8.0% vs 3.2%; P < .001), target lesion revascularization (8.0% vs 2.6%; P < .001), target vessel revascularization (11.3% vs 4.5%; P < .001), and stent thrombosis (4.7% vs 0.5%; P < .001) before matching. Even after matching, the Cilotax group had more frequent target lesion revascularization (9.4% vs 2.9%; P = .22) and stent thrombosis (5.6% vs 1.2%; P = .34).

CONCLUSION

In patients with acute myocardial infarction who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention, use of the Cilotax stent was associated with higher rates of target lesion revascularization, target vessel revascularization, and stent thrombosis than were everolimus-eluting stents. Use of the Cilotax dual drugeluting stent should be avoided in the treatment of myocardial infarction.

Long-Term Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Outcomes in Chronic Versus Acute Coronary Syndromes (TARGET All Comers Trial)

In the Targeted therapy with a localised abluminal coated, low-dose sirolimus-eluting, biodegreadable polymer coronary stent (TARGET; NCT02520180) All Comers trial the biodegradable polymer (BP) sirolimus-eluting FIREHAWK stent was noninferior to the durable polymer (DP) everolimus-eluting XIENCE stent with respect to target lesion failure (TLF) at 1 and 5 years; however, the long-term safety and efficacy in the setting of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) are not known. We sought to assess the long-term outcomes in ACS versus chronic coronary syndromes (CCS) with BP sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) versus DP everolimus-eluting stent (EES). The TARGET AC study was a multicenter, open-label, noninferiority trial of all comer patients randomly allocated 1:1 to BP SES or DP EES (stratified by ST-elevation myocardial infarction and study site). In this predefined substudy, the outcomes were compared based on clinical presentation (ACS vs CCS) and treatment allocation. A total of 1,653 patients were enrolled (728 with ACS and 922 with CCS), with 94% completing the 5-year follow-up. The baseline characteristics were well-matched between the 2 stent types; however, co-morbidities were more prevalent in the CCS than in the ACS population. TLF (15.5% vs 17.7%, p = 0.24), patient-oriented outcomes (32.0% vs 34.4%, p = 0.31), and stent thrombosis (4.1% vs 3.3%, p = 0.40) were similar between patients with ACS and patients with CCS. In the ACS cohort, the outcomes at 5 years for BP SES versus DP EES were similar for TLF (16.0% vs 14.9%, p = 0.70), ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (5.6% vs 8.3%, p = 0.17), and definite/probable stent thrombosis (2.7% vs 4.6%, p = 0.18). The same was true for the CCS cohort, with 5-year outcomes for BP SES versus DP EES for TLF (18.0% vs 17.4%, p = 0.82), ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (6.4% vs 5.0%, p = 0.37), and definite/probable stent thrombosis (3.0% vs 1.8%, p = 0.26). In conclusion, in the TARGET AC trial, 1 in 3 patients had a major adverse event at 5 years, irrespective of CCS or ACS presentation. Long-term, the BP sirolimus-eluting FIREHAWK stent was as safe and effective as the DP everolimus-eluting XIENCE stent across the spectrum of clinical presentations.

Advances in Fabrication Technologies for the Development of Next-Generation Cardiovascular Stents

Coronary artery disease is the most prevalent cardiovascular disease, claiming millions of lives annually around the world. The current treatment includes surgically inserting a tubular construct, called a stent, inside arteries to restore blood flow. However, due to lack of patient-specific design, the commercial products cannot be used with different vessel anatomies. In this review, we have summarized the drawbacks in existing commercial metal stents which face problems of restenosis and inflammatory responses, owing to the development of neointimal hyperplasia. Further, we have highlighted the fabrication of stents using biodegradable polymers, which can circumvent most of the existing limitations. In this regard, we elaborated on the utilization of new fabrication methodologies based on additive manufacturing such as three-dimensional printing to design patient-specific stents. Finally, we have discussed the functionalization of these stent surfaces with suitable bioactive molecules which can prove to enhance their properties in preventing thrombosis and better healing of injured blood vessel lining.

Acute myocardial infarction treated with novel Resolute Onyx and Orsiro stents in the randomized BIONYX trial

Objectives

To compare 2‐year outcome following treatment with drug‐eluting stents (DES) for acute myocardial infarction (MI) versus non‐MI clinical syndromes. In acute MI patients, a stent‐level comparison was performed, comparing Resolute Onyx versus Orsiro stents.

Background

In patients presenting with acute MI, higher adverse event rates have been reported. So far, no clinical results >1 year have been published of acute MI patients treated with Resolute Onyx.

Methods

This post‐hoc analysis of the randomized BIONYX trial(NCT02508714) assessed the main outcome target vessel failure (TVF: cardiac death, target vessel MI, or target vessel revascularization) with Kaplan–Meier methods.

Results

Of all 2,488 trial participants, acute MI patients (n = 1,275[51.2%]) were significantly younger and had less comorbidities than non‐MI patients (n = 1,213[48.8%]). TVF rates were lower in acute MI patients (77/1,275[6.1%] vs. 103/1,213[8.6%], HR:0.70, 95%‐CI 0.52–0.94; p_log‐rank = 0.02), mainly driven by target vessel revascularization (4.1 vs. 6.1%, p_log‐rank = 0.03). Multivariate analysis showed no independent association of clinical syndrome with TVF (adjusted‐HR: 0.81, 95%‐CI 0.60–1.10; p = .17). In MI patients treated with Resolute Onyx (n = 626) versus Orsiro (n = 649), there was no difference in TVF (6.2 vs. 6.1%; p_log‐rank = 0.97) and its components. There was only 1(0.2%) definite‐or‐probable stent thrombosis in RO‐ZES and 8(1.2%) in O‐SES (p = .053).

Conclusions

Two years after treatment with thin‐strut DES in this randomized trial, patients treated for acute MI had lower adverse event rates than non‐MI patients. Yet, these findings were mainly attributable to between‐group differences in patient and lesion characteristics. In patients who underwent PCI for acute MI, both Resolute Onyx and Orsiro showed favorable and similar 2‐year outcomes.

Final five-year results of the REMEDEE Registry: Real-world experience with the dual-therapy COMBO stent

Objectives

This final report from the REMEDEE Registry assessed the long‐term safety and efficacy of the dual‐therapy COMBO stent in a large unselected patient population.

Background

The bio‐engineered COMBO stent (OrbusNeich Medical BV, The Netherlands) is a dual‐therapy pro‐healing stent. Data of long‐term safety and efficacy of the this stent is lacking.

Methods

The prospective, multicenter, investigator‐initiated REMEDEE Registry evaluated clinical outcomes after COMBO stent implantation in daily clinical practice. One thousand patients were enrolled between June 2013 and March 2014.

Results

Five‐year follow‐up data were obtained in 97.2% of patients. At 5‐years, target lesion failure (TLF) (composite of cardiac death, target‐vessel myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization) was present in 145 patients (14.8%). Definite or probable stent thrombosis (ST) occurred in 0.9%, with no additional case beyond 3‐years of follow‐up. In males, 5‐year TLF‐rate was 15.6 versus 12.6% in females (p = .22). Patients without diabetes mellitus (DM) had TLF‐rate of 11.4%, noninsulin‐treated DM 22.7% (p = .001) and insulin‐treated DM 41.2% (p < .001). Patients presenting with non‐ST segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE‐ACS) had higher incidence of TLF compared to non‐ACS (20.4 vs. 13.3%; p = .008), while incidence with STE‐ACS was comparable to non‐ACS (10.7 vs. 13.3%; p = .43).

Conclusion

Percutaneous coronary intervention with the dual‐therapy COMBO stent in unselected patient population shows low rates of TLF and ST to 5 years. Remarkably, no case of ST was noted beyond 3 years.

Everolimus-Eluting Second-Generation Stents for Treatment of De Novo Lesions in Patients with Cardiac Allograft Vasculopathy

Background

Cardiac allograft vasculopathy is a major cause of cardiac allograft rejection. Percutaneous coronary intervention has become the main form of treatment of significant focal lesions. Despite the significance of the problem, data remain scarce. With a large population of transplant recipients undergoing coronary angiography at our center, we decided to analyze the implications of the use of everolimus-eluting second-generation stents by performing 6-month clinical and angiographic follow-up.

Material/Methods

From December 2012 and August 2019, 319 patients after heart transplantation undergoing coronary angiography at our institution were analyzed. Subsequently, 22 patients underwent de novo angioplasty with second-generation everolimus-eluting stents. The primary study endpoint was angiographic restenosis as evaluated by quantitative coronary angiography. Secondary outcomes included binary restenosis, target lesion revascularization, and cardiac death during the follow-up period (6 months).

Results

Patient comorbidities included hypertension (77.3%), type 2 diabetes mellitus (68.2%), dyslipidemia (68.2%), and obesity (31.8%). Primary success was obtained in all of the treated lesions. The analysis of quantitative coronary angiography after 6-month follow-up revealed low late lumen loss (0.22±0.40). Significant restenosis was observed in 1 of the cases. There were no deaths in the 6-month observation period.

Conclusions

In the analyzed population, invasive strategy with second-generation everolimus-eluting stents for de novo lesions in cardiac allograft vasculopathy resulted in a low rate of binary restenosis, low late lumen loss, and no deaths during the 6-month follow-up.

Bioabsorbable-polymer drug-eluting stents in acute myocardial infarction: Insights from the ULLISE registry

Limited information is available about the performance of bioabsorbable-polymer drug-eluting stents in the setting of acute myocardial infarction. Patients treated with these stents presenting with acute myocardial infarction are at higher risk of adverse events compared with stable patients. Further clinical trials are needed to fully understand the role of bioabsorbable-polymer drug-eluting stents in patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction.

Early and Mid-Term Vascular Responses to Optical Coherence Tomography-Guided Everolimus-Eluting Stent Implantation in Stable Coronary Artery Disease

BACKGROUND

Analysis of pooled clinical data has shown the safety of 3 months of dual antiplatelet therapy with everolimus-eluting cobalt-chromium stents (Co-Cr EESs). This study evaluated early and mid-term vascular responses to Co-Cr EESs in patients with stable coronary artery disease.

METHODS

The Multicenter Comparison of Early and Late Vascular Responses to Everolimus-Eluting Cobalt-Chromium Stent and Platelet Aggregation Studies in Patients With Stable Angina Managed as Elective Case (MECHANISM-Elective) study (NCT02014818) is a multicenter optical coherence tomography (OCT) registry. Enrolled patients were evaluated by OCT immediately after everolimus-eluting stent implantation were prospectively allocated to 1 month (n = 50) or 3 months (n = 50) OCT follow-up and then received a 12-month OCT evaluation. The incidences of intrastent thrombus (IS-Th) and irregular protrusion (IRP) were also assessed.

RESULTS

The percentage of uncovered struts was 6.4% ± 10.3% at 1 month (P < 0.001 vs. postprocedure) and 0.5% ± 0.9% at 12 months (P < 0.001 vs. 1 month). The corresponding values in the 3-month cohort were 2.0% ± 2.5% (P < 0.001 vs. postprocedure) and 0.5% ± 1.5% (P < 0.001 vs. 3 months). The incidence of IS-Th was 32.7% at 1 month, 5.4% at 3 months, and 2.0% at 12 months. IRP was observed in 21.8% of patients post-EES but had totally resolved at 1, 3, and 12 months.

CONCLUSION

Early and mid-term vascular reactions after Co-Cr EES implantation in stable patients with coronary artery disease in the MECHANISM-Elective included dynamic resolution of IS-Th and IRP and rapid decrease in uncovered struts. Thus, EES may allow shortening of dual antiplatelet therapy duration less than 3 months in this patient subset.

Association Between Hypertension, Platelet Reactivity, and the Risk of Adverse Events After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (From the ADAPT-DES Study)

Hypertension is associated with vascular and endothelial dysfunction that may result in a greater propensity for reactive platelets to cause thrombosis. We sought to assess whether the risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with on-clopidogrel residual high platelet reactivity (HPR) varies in patients with versus without hypertension. Assessment of dual antiplatelet therapy with drug eluting stents (ADAPT-DES) was a prospective, multicenter registry of patients successfully treated with coronary drug-eluting stents (DES). HPR was defined as P2Y12 reaction units (PRU) >208, as assessed by the VerifyNow point-of-care assay. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression was used to assess whether the adjusted association between HPR and 2-year risk of MACE (cardiac death, myocardial infarction [MI], or stent thrombosis) was different in patients with versus without hypertension. A total of 6833 of 8582 patients (79.6%) had a history of hypertension. Patients with compared with those without hypertension were older, more likely to have other cardiovascular risk factors, and had higher PRU (190.1 ± 97.3 vs 179.5 ± 94.3; p <0.0001). Patients with hypertension had significantly higher 2-year rates of MACE (7.0% vs 4.4%, p <0.001), all-cause death (4.2% vs 2.5%, p = 0.001), and MI (5.2% vs 3.2%, p <0.001), and had nominally higher rates of stent thrombosis (1.0% vs 0.5%, p = 0.059). A significant interaction was present between hypertension and HPR regarding 2-year MACE risk (adjusted hazard ratio for HPR vs no HPR 1.38, 95% confidence interval 1.14 to 1.68 for patients with hypertension vs 0.81, 95% confidence interval 0.50 to 1.33 for patients without hypertension, p = 0.046). In conclusion, following successful PCI with DES, 2-year MACE rates are increased in patients with both hypertension and residual HPR on clopidogrel. HPR had a greater effect on the risk of adverse events among patients with versus without hypertension.

One-year clinical outcome of biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent in patients needing short dual antiplatelet therapy. Insight from the ULISSE registry (ULtimaster Italian multicenter all comerS Stent rEgistry)

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to evaluate real-world clinical outcome of patients needing short dual antiplatelet therapy (S-DAPT) following PCI with Ultimaster® thin-strut, biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (BP-SES), which was supposed to induce faster stent endothelialization and reduce device thrombogenicity.

METHODS

In this sub-group analysis of patients enrolled in the ULISSE registry, two groups were identified: 1) patients discharged with S-DAPT (≤3-month) due to high bleeding risk or need for urgent major non-cardiac surgery and 2) patients discharged with recommended DAPT (R-DAPT) duration (≥6-month). The primary ischemic-safety and bleeding-safety endpoints were TLF (composite of cardiac-death, target vessel MI, and clinically driven target lesion revascularization), and BARC major bleedings (≥type-3a) at 1-year follow-up. To account for events occurring before DAPT discontinuation we performed 3-month landmark analysis.

RESULTS

82 patients (5%) were discharged with ≤3-month DAPT (57 ± 27 days), and 1558 patients (94%) were discharged with ≥6-month DAPT (318 ± 75 days). No significant differences between S-DAPT and R-DAPT group were observed in TLF at 1-year (7.9% vs. 4.6%). The rate of BARC major bleeding resulted significantly higher in S-DAPT group (3.9% vs. 0.3%; p = 0.001), with the majority of bleeding events occurring within 3 months. The landmark analysis showed no significant differences in BARC major bleedings between groups (1.4% vs. 0.3%; p = 0.142).

CONCLUSIONS

As compared to those treated with R-DAPT (≥6-month), patients needing -S-DAPT (≤3-month) after PCI with Ultimaster® BP-SES had similar rates of 1-year TLF and BARC major bleedings following early DAPT discontinuation.

One-year clinical performance of ABSORB bioresorbable vascular scaffold in patients presenting with acute coronary syndromes: Results from the RAI registry

OBJECTIVES

To report 1-year clinical outcomes of bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) in acute coronary syndromes (ACS) population.

BACKGROUND

BVS use has rapidly extended to high-risk patients as those presenting with ACS. To date limited data have been reported on BVS performance in ACS patients.

METHODS

RAI is a multicenter, prospective registry that included 1,505 patients treated with at least 1 successful BVS implantation. A subgroup analysis on ACS patients was performed and the 1-year outcomes of this cohort compared to the remaining stable coronary artery disease (SCAD) population are reported here. Coprimary endpoints were target-lesion revascularization (TLR) and scaffold thrombosis (ScT) at 1-year follow-up.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine percent of the patients presented with ACS, of whom 36.5% with ST-elevation myocardial infarctions. ACS patients were significantly younger, with a better cardiovascular risk profile, a lower rate of multivessel disease, chronic total occlusion or in-stent restenosis and a lower Syntax score. Predilation and postdilation were performed in 97.4% and in 96.5% of cases, respectively. No differences were noted in terms of TIMI 3 final flow, but acute gain was greater in ACS compared to SCAD group (P < 0.001). At one-year follow-up no differences were found in terms of TLR (3.3% vs. 3.3%, P = 0.98), and device-oriented composite end-point (4.3% vs. 3.4%, P = 0.4) between ACS and SCAD groups. The rate of definite/probable ScT was numerically higher in ACS vs. stable CAD patients (1.3% vs. 0.8%, P = 0.2).

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that the use of BVS in ACS patients is associated with a numerically higher rate of ScT compared to SCAD population numerically higher, but without statistical significance.

Comparison of the vessel healing process after everolimus-eluting stent and bare metal stent implantations in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction

Cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stent (CoCr EES) is associated with a lower rate of stent thrombosis even in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). However, the time-serial changes of endothelial coverage of the stent struts in the extremely early period have never been reported, especially in patients with STEMI. The aim of this study was to compare the vessel healing process between CoCr EES and cobalt-chromium bare metal stent (CoCr BMS) implantations using optical coherence tomography (OCT) in patients with STEMI. Sixty-three patients who had primary emergent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with CoCr EES (42 patients) or CoCr BMS (21 patients) were enrolled in this study for 3 years. OCT was performed just after, 2 and 12 weeks after EES or BMS implantations. Time-serial changes in the neointimal coverage (NIC), the neointimal thickness, and malapposition of stent struts were evaluated. NIC of stent struts did not differ between CoCr EES (23.2%, 99.4%) and CoCr BMS (24.0%, 97.8%) at 2 weeks and 12 weeks after PCI, respectively. Thicknesses of the neointima on the stent strut was significantly thinner in CoCr EES (34.0 ± 13.8, 107.0 ± 32.4 µm) than in CoCr BMS (40.0 ± 14.6, 115.7 ± 33.8 µm) at 2 weeks and 12 weeks after PCI (p = 0.011, p = 0.008), respectively. The malapposition did not differ just after PCI, and was completely resolved at 12 weeks after PCI in both groups. Thrombus was significantly less in CoCr EES than in CoCr BMS at 2 weeks (19.0% vs 42.9%, p < 0.01), and decreased over time in both groups, but at 12 weeks, disappeared only in CoCr EES (CoCr EES: 0% vs. CoCr BMS: 4.8%, p = 0.56). This study demonstrated that NIC and apposition of the stent struts almost completed at 12 weeks after EES and BMS implantations, while the neointimal thickness on the stent struts were thinner in EES than in BMS. Moreover, thrombus was significantly less in EES than in BMS implantations 2 weeks after PCI, which may explain the lower rate of acute and subacute stent thrombosis of EES compared with BMS.

A catastrophic nightmare of the interventional cardiologist: Iatrogenic left main artery dissection and longitudinal stent deformation

Iatrogenic left main coronary artery dissection is a rare but potentially life-threatening complication of invasive coronary procedures. The newer generation drug eluting stents have shown a greater safety and efficacy compared to first generation drug eluting stents. We report a 60-year-old woman with iatrogenic left main coronary artery dissection who failed bailout stenting and underwent coronary artery bypass grafting. The strategy for managing left main coronary artery dissection is variable and depends upon the mechanism, the comorbidities of the patient and degree of hemodynamic stability. Longitudinal stent deformation is a rarely encountered complication but can be seen in complex lesions such as ostial, bifurcation and left main coronary artery lesions. The interventionists must be aware of this complication.

Comparison of Efficacy and Safety between First- and Second-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome

Background:

It remains undetermined whether second-generation drug-eluting stents (G2-DESs) outperform first-generation DESs (G1-DESs) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of G1-DES and G2-DES in ACS patients in a high-volume cardiovascular center.

Methods:

In 2013, 10,724 consecutive patients underwent percutaneous coronary intervention in our institution. We included 4037 patients with ACS who underwent exclusively G1-DES or G2-DES implantation (n = 364 and n = 3673, respectively). We used propensity score matching to minimize the imbalance between the G1-DES and G2-DES groups and followed patients for 2 years. The efficacy endpoints were major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) and its components including target vessel-related myocardial infarction (TV-MI), target vessel revascularization/target lesion revascularization (TVR/TLR), and cardiac death. The safety endpoint was stent thrombosis. Continuous variables were compared by Mann-Whitney U-test, and categorical variables were compared using Pearson's Chi-square or Fisher's exact test. Kaplan-Meier curves were constructed to compare the event-free survival rates, and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to assess whether stent type was an independent risk factor for the efficacy and safety endpoints.

Results:

At the 2-year follow-up, the results for MACE and it components, as well as stent thrombosis, were similar for G1-DES and G2-DES (MACE, 5.2% vs. 4.3%, χ² = 0.514, P = 0.474; TV-MI, 0.8% vs. 0.4%, P = 0.407; TVR, 4.9% vs. 3.7%, χ² = 0.939, P = 0.333; TLR, 3.8% vs. 2.5%, χ² = 1.610, P = 0.205; cardiac death, 0.3% vs. 0.5%, P = 0.670; and stent thrombosis, 0.5% vs. 0.4%, P > 0.999). Kaplan-Meier analysis indicated similar event-free survival rates between G1-DES and G2-DES after propensity score matching (all: log-rank P > 0.05). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that stent type was not an independent risk factor for the efficacy and safety endpoints (MACE, hazard ratio [HR] = 0.805, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.455–1.424, P = 0.456; TV-MI, HR = 0.500, 95% CI: 0.101–2.475, P = 0.395; TVR, HR = 0.732, 95% CI: 0.403–1.330, P = 0.306; TLR, HR = 0.629, 95% CI: 0.313–1.264, P = 0.193; cardiac death, HR = 1.991, 95% CI: 0.223–17.814, P = 0.538; and stent thrombosis, HR = 0.746, 95% CI: 0.125–4.467, P = 0.749).

Conclusion:

G1-DES and G2-DES have similar efficacy and safety profiles in ACS patients at the 2-year follow-up.

Twelve-month outcomes after bioresorbable vascular scaffold implantation in patients with acute coronary syndromes. Data from the European Multicenter GHOST-EU Extended Registry

AIMS

The aim of this study was to report on the midterm outcomes of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) for the treatment of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and compare with those of patients with stable coronary artery disease (sCAD).

METHODS AND RESULTS

One thousand four hundred and seventy-seven (1,477) patients underwent implantation of one or more BVS (Absorb BVS; Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA, USA) at 11 European centres and were included in the GHOST-EU registry. Admissions comprised 47.1% of the patients (951 BVS) with ACS, and 52.8% (1,274 BVS) with sCAD. During a median follow-up of 384 (359-460) days, patient-oriented endpoints (PoCE), including all-cause death, any infarction, any revascularisation, were recorded in 271 patients (12-month incidence in ACS patients: 18.5% vs. 11.6% in the sCAD group, p<0.001). Device-oriented composite endpoints (DoCE), cardiac death, target vessel infarction and target lesion revascularisation, were observed in 98 patients (12-month incidence of 4.2% in the sCAD group, 6.4% in the ACS group; p=0.052). The 12-month incidence of definite scaffold thrombosis was 2.6% in ACS patients and 0.8% in XIENCE patients (p=0.006). In multivariate analysis, ACS was a predictor of DoCE (HR: 2.26 [1.34-3.81], p=0.002), PoCE (HR: 1.71 [1.13-2.58], p=0.011), and stent thrombosis (HR: 2.51 [1.13-5.60], p=0.025). In contrast, the incidence of target lesion revascularisation was not different between groups. There was no difference in the incidence of any of these endpoints among the different clinical presentations (unstable angina, non-ST-elevation infarction and ST-elevation infarction).

CONCLUSIONS

PoCE, DoCE and scaffold thromboses were more frequent in ACS patients, without any difference among different forms of ACS.

Long-Term Clinical Outcome of Early Generation Versus New-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents in 481 Patients Undergoing Rotational Atherectomy: A Retrospective Analysis

INTRODUCTION

New-generation drug-eluting stents (NG-DES) are superior to early generation DES (EG-DES) in the majority of lesion and patient subsets, but comparative data in patients with severely calcified coronary lesions are lacking. This study aims to compare clinical outcomes of EG-DES and NG-DES in patients undergoing rotational atherectomy (RA) in calcified lesions.

METHODS

Data of 268 patients (288 lesions) treated with EG-DES and 213 patients (225 lesions) receiving NG-DES after RA were retrospectively analyzed from a single-center registry. All major adverse cardiac events (MACE) were assessed at 2 years.

RESULTS

Compared to the EG-DES group, patients with NG-DES more commonly had diabetes mellitus (31.9% vs. 40.9%; p = 0.04), left main lesions (7.6% vs. 17.3%; p < 0.001) and chronic total occlusions (3.5% vs. 8.5%; p = 0.016), and had a higher total stent length (30.5, IQR 20-40 mm, vs. 38, IQR 22-53 mm, p < 0.001). The Kaplan-Meier estimated rate of cardiovascular events at 2 years showed a lower incidence of death (13.5% vs. 8.2%, log-rank p = 0.13; adjusted HR after Cox regression analysis 0.49; 95% CI 0.26-0.92; p = 0.03) and a lower MACE rate (31.1% vs. 21.1%, log-rank p = 0.04; adjusted HR 0.65; 95% CI 0.42-0.98; p = 0.04) in the NG-DES group.

CONCLUSIONS

Although RA is performed in more complex patients and lesions in the NG-DES era, use of NG-DES is associated with lower rates of death and MACE at 2 years as compared to EG-DES.

Comparison of Efficacy and Safety between First and Second Generation Drug-eluting Stents in Patients with Stable Coronary Artery Disease: A Single-center Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

Lots of trials demonstrate that second-generation drug-eluting stents (G2-DES), with their improved properties, offer significantly superior efficacy and safety profiles compared to first generation DES (G1-DES) for patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) receiving percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). This study aimed to verify the advantage of G2-DES over G1-DES in Chinese patients with stable CAD (SCAD).

METHODS

For this retrospective observational analysis, 2709 SCAD patients with either G1-DES (n = 863) or G2-DES (n = 1846) were enrolled consecutively throughout 2013. Propensity score matching (PSM) was applied to control differing baseline factors. Two-year outcomes, including major adverse coronary events as well as individual events, including target vessel-related myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization (TLR), target vessel revascularization, and cardiogenic death were evaluated.

RESULTS

The incidence of revascularization between G1- and G2-DES showed a trend of significant difference with a threshold P - value (8.6% vs. 6.7%, χ2 = 2.995, P = 0.084). G2-DES significantly improved TLR-free survival compared to G1-DES (96.6% vs. 97.9%, P = 0.049) and revascularization-free survival curve showed a trend of improvement of G2-DES (92.0% vs. 93.8%, P = 0.082). These differences diminished after PSM. Multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression analysis showed a trend for G1-associated increase in revascularization (hazard ratio: 1.28, 95% confidence interval: 0.95-1.72, P = 0.099) while no significance was found after PSM. Other endpoints showed no significant differences after multivariate adjustment regardless of PSM.

CONCLUSIONS

G1-DES showed the same safety as G2-DES in this large Chinese cohort of real-world patients. However, G2-DES improved TLR-free survival of SCAD patients 2 years after PCI. The advantage was influenced by baseline clinical factors. G1-DES was associated with a trend of increase in revascularization risk and was not an independent predictor of worse medium-term prognosis compared with G2-DES.

Outcomes of Acute Myocardial Infarction Patients Implanted With Biodegradable Polymer Biolimus-Eluting Stents Versus New-Generation Durable Polymer Drug-Eluting Stents: A Retrospective Analysis

We compared outcomes between biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stent (BP-BES) and new-generation durable polymer drug-eluting stent (DP-DES) implantations in patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI). Among 13472 patients with acute MI in a nationwide registry, 557 (64.8%) were in the BP-BES and 303 (35.2%) in the new-generation DP-DES group following coronary reperfusion. The occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE; death, MI, revascularization) and stent thrombosis was compared. Major adverse cardiac events occurred in 53 (6.2%) patients and showed similar rates between the BP-BES and new-generation DP-DES groups (all: 6.6% vs 5.9%, P = .652; propensity score [PS] matched: n = 380, 6.3% vs 5.3%, P = .623). Stent thrombosis did not differ between groups (all: 0.3% vs 0.4%, P = .892; PS matched: 0.5% vs 0.5%, P = 1.000). Major adverse cardiac event-free survival was comparable between groups (all: 93.4% vs 94.1%, log-rank P = .357; PS matched: 93.7% vs 94.7%, log-rank P = .445). Biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stent was not associated with MACE (all: hazard ratio [HR], 1.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75-3.74; P = 0.212; PS matched: HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.40-2.75; P = .915). In conclusion, in patients with acute MI, BP-BES was equivalent to the new-generation DP-DES in terms of outcomes.

Are BVS suitable for ACS patients? Support from a large single center real live registry

OBJECTIVES

To investigate one-year outcomes after implantation of a bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) compared to stable angina patients.

BACKGROUND

Robust data on the outcome of BVS in the setting of ACS is still scarce.

METHODS

Two investigator initiated, single-center, single-arm BVS registries have been pooled for the purpose of this study, namely the BVS Expand and BVS STEMI registries.

RESULTS

From September 2012-October 2014, 351 patients with a total of 428 lesions were enrolled. 255 (72.6%) were ACS patients and 99 (27.4%) presented with stable angina/silent ischemia. Mean number of scaffold/patient was 1.55±0.91 in ACS group versus 1.91±1.11 in non-ACS group (P=0.11). Pre- and post-dilatation were performed less frequent in ACS patients, 75.7% and 41.3% versus 89.0% and 62.0% respectively (P=0.05 and P=0.001). Interestingly, post-procedural acute lumen gain and percentage diameter stenosis were superior in ACS patients, 1.62±0.65mm (versus 1.22±0.49mm, P<0.001) and 15.51±8.47% (versus 18.46±9.54%, P=0.04). Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) rate at 12months was 5.5% in the ACS group (versus 5.3% in stable group, P=0.90). One-year definite scaffold thrombosis rate was comparable: 2.0% for ACS population versus 2.1% for stable population (P=0.94), however, early scaffold thromboses occurred only in ACS patients.

CONCLUSIONS

One-year clinical outcomes in ACS patients treated with BVS were similar to non-ACS patients. Acute angiographic outcomes were better in ACS than in non-ACS, yet the early thrombotic events require attention and further research.

First- Versus Second-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents in Acute Coronary Syndromes (Katowice-Zabrze Registry)

Background

There are sparse data on the performance of different types of drug-eluting stents (DES) in acute and real-life setting.

Objective

The aim of the study was to compare the safety and efficacy of first- versus second-generation DES in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS).

Methods

This all-comer registry enrolled consecutive patients diagnosed with ACS and treated with percutaneous coronary intervention with the implantation of first- or second-generation DES in one-year follow-up. The primary efficacy endpoint was defined as major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event (MACCE), a composite of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, target-vessel revascularization and stroke. The primary safety outcome was definite stent thrombosis (ST) at one year.

Results

From the total of 1916 patients enrolled into the registry, 1328 patients were diagnosed with ACS. Of them, 426 were treated with first- and 902 with second-generation DES. There was no significant difference in the incidence of MACCE between two types of DES at one year. The rate of acute and subacute ST was higher in first- vs. second-generation DES (1.6% vs. 0.1%, p < 0.001, and 1.2% vs. 0.2%, p = 0.025, respectively), but there was no difference regarding late ST (0.7% vs. 0.2%, respectively, p = 0.18) and gastrointestinal bleeding (2.1% vs. 1.1%, p = 0.21). In Cox regression, first-generation DES was an independent predictor for cumulative ST (HR 3.29 [1.30-8.31], p = 0.01).

Conclusions

In an all-comer registry of ACS, the one-year rate of MACCE was comparable in groups treated with first- and second-generation DES. The use of first-generation DES was associated with higher rates of acute and subacute ST and was an independent predictor of cumulative ST.

External validity of the "all-comers" design: insights from the BIOSCIENCE trial

OBJECTIVES

We sought to systematically evaluate the external validity of a contemporary randomized controlled stent trial (BIOSCIENCE).

METHODS

Baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes of patients enrolled into the BIOSCIENCE trial at Bern University Hospital (n = 1216) were compared to those of patients included in the CARDIOBASE Bern PCI Registry at the same institution (n = 1045). The primary study endpoint was the rate of target lesion failure (TLF), defined as a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-myocardial infarction (MI) or target lesion revascularization (TLR), at 1 year.

RESULTS

Women were underrepresented in the RCT compared to the registry (25 vs. 29.4 %, p = 0.020). Non-participants were older compared to study participants (69.2 ± 12.4 vs. 67.0 ± 11.6, p < 0.001), and had a higher prevalence of previous cerebrovascular events (10.8 vs. 5.2 %, p < 0.001), and chronic renal failure (35.5 vs. 15.6 %, p < 0.001). ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and Killip class IV at presentation were more common among non-participants than participants (30.7 vs. 21.1 %, p < 0.001 and 7.8 vs. 0.4 %, p < 0.001, respectively). At 1 year, non-participants experienced a significantly higher rate of TLF, (15.0 vs. 6.5 %, p < 0.001), and patient-oriented composite endpoint (POCE), including death, MI or any repeat revascularization (21.6 vs. 11.2 %, p < 0.001). There was a significant interaction between POCE and presence or absence of an acute coronary syndrome in participants versus non-participants, respectively (p = 0.009).

CONCLUSIONS

Non-participants of this all-comers trial had a higher risk profile and adverse prognosis compared to study participants. Further efforts are needed to improve the external validity of contemporary RCTs.

Very very late stent thrombosis: 9.5 years after DES implantation

Very late stent thrombosis (VLST) has been recognized as a class effect of 1st generation drug eluting stents (DES) implantation. Although rare, VLST has been reported between 1 and 4 years after DES implantation. Very very late stent thrombosis (VVLST) occurring more than 5 years after DES implantation is extremely rare. We report the first case of a VVLST from India occurring 3465 days (9.5 years) after DES implantation with a brief discussion on its pathogenesis and prevention.

Long-term clinical outcomes of everolimus-eluting stent versus paclitaxel-eluting stent in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Everolimus -eluting stent (EES) is common used in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). Our purpose is to evaluate long-term clinical outcomes of everolimus -eluting stent (EES) versus paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronaryinterventions (PCI) in randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

We searched Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CNKI, VIP and relevant websites ( https://scholar-google-com.ezproxy.lib.usf.edu/ ) for articles to compare outcomes between everolimus-eluting stent and paclitaxel-eluting stent without language or date restriction. RCTs that compared the use of everolimus -eluting stent and paclitaxel-eluting stent in PCI were included. Variables relating to patient, study characteristics, and clinical endpoints were extracted. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.2 software.

RESULTS

We identified 6 published studies (from three randomized trials) more on everolimus-eluting stent (n = 3352) than paclitaxel-eluting (n = 1639), with follow-up duration ranging from 3, 4 and 5 years. Three-year outcomes of everolimus-eluting stent compared to paclitaxel-eluting were as following: the everolimus-eluting stent significantly reduced all-cause death (relative risk [RR]:0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.46. to 0.82), MACE (RR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.41 to 0.77), MI (RR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.48 to 0.86), TLR (RR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.59 to 0.88), ID-TLR (RR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.59 to 0.92) and ST (RR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.32 to 0.90). There was no difference in TVR between the everolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting (RR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.58 to 1.10); Four-year outcomes of everolimus-eluting compared to paclitaxel-eluting: the everolimus-eluting significantly reduced MACE (RR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.18 to 0.98) and ID-TLR (RR: 0.47; 95 % CI: 0.23 to 0.97). There was no difference in MI (RR: 0.48; 95% CI: 0.16 to 1.46), TLR (RR: 0.46; 95% CI: 0.20 to 1.04) and ST ((RR: 0.34; 95% CI: 0.05 to 2.39). Five-year outcomes of everolimus-eluting stent compared to paclitaxel-eluting: There was no difference in ID-TLR (RR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.45 to 1.02) and ST (RR: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.28 to 1.80).

CONCLUSIONS

In the present meta-analysis, everolimus-eluting appeared to be safe and clinically effective in patients undergoing PCI in comparison to PES in 3-year clinical outcomes; there was similar no difference in reduction of ST between EES and PES in long-term(≥ 4 years) clinical follow-ups. Everolimus-eluting is more safety than paclitaxel-eluting in long-term clinical follow-ups, whether these effects can be applied to different patient subgroups warrants further investigation.

Role of percutaneous coronary intervention in the treatment of left main coronary artery disease

Revascularization with coronary artery bypass graft surgery is the choice of therapy in patients with left main (LM) coronary artery stenosis. During the last decade, the introduction of drug-eluting stents, together with antiplatelet and antithrombotic treatments, has improved the outcome of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) by reducing the number of repeat revascularizations and the risk of stent thrombosis. Many institutions inside and outside the United States have adopted stent treatment of unprotected LM coronary artery disease as a more routine strategy. However, coronary bypass surgery has improved as well by using more arterial grafts, better perioperative care, and optimizing medical treatment postoperatively. The advances in stent technique may reduce the gap between coronary surgery and PCIs further, but the results of the Evaluation of Xience Prime versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization study, randomizing patients with LM coronary artery disease between coronary bypass grafting and PCIs, will be needed to test whether PCIs is noninferior to coronary bypass surgery.

Pooled analysis of two randomized trials comparing titanium-nitride-oxide-coated stent versus drug-eluting stent in STEMI

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

We performed a pooled analysis based on patient-level data from the TITAX-AMI and BASE-ACS trials to evaluate the outcome of titanium-nitride-oxide-coated bioactive stents vs drug-eluting stents in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction at 2-year follow-up.

METHODS

The TITAX-AMI trial compared bioactive stents with paclitaxel-eluting stents in 425 patients with acute myocardial infarction. The BASE-ACS trial compared bioactive stents with everolimus-eluting stents in 827 patients with acute coronary syndrome. The primary endpoint for the pooled analysis was major adverse cardiac events: a composite of cardiac death, recurrent myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization at 2-year follow-up.

RESULTS

The pooled analysis included 501 patients; 245 received bioactive stents, and 256 received drug-eluting stents. The pooled bioactive stent group was associated with a risk ratio of 0.85 for major adverse cardiac events (95% confidence interval, 0.53-1.35; P=.49) compared to the pooled drug-eluting stent group. Similarly, the pooled bioactive stent group was associated with a risk ratio of 0.71 for cardiac death (95% confidence interval, 0.26-1.95; P=.51), 0.44 for recurrent myocardial infarction (95% confidence interval, 0.20-0.97; P=.04), and 1.39 for ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (95% confidence interval, 0.74-2.59; P=.30), compared to the pooled drug-eluting stent group. These results were confirmed by propensity-score adjusted analysis of the combined datasets.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, bioactive stents were associated with lower rates of recurrent myocardial infarction compared to drug-eluting stents at 2-year follow-up; yet, the rates of cardiac death and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization were similar.

Advances in stent technologies and their effect on clinical efficacy and safety

The introduction of intracoronary stents represented a major advance in interventional cardiology. While bare metal stents set the benchmark for improved safety over angioplasty, intimal hyperplasia and subsequent restenosis were important limitations. First-generation drug-eluting stents demonstrated significant improvements in efficacy, but not necessarily safety, and further technologic developments have focused on optimizing both. Current advances and understanding in stent design continue to improve on these concepts. This review summarizes past and present technology with particular emphasis on the principles underlying the efficacy and safety of drug-eluting stents, and offers a glimpse into the next generations of stents aimed at treating symptomatic coronary artery disease.

Everolimus- and sirolimus-eluting stents in patients with and without ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

Aims

Everolimus-eluting stents (EES) were superior to sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) in a dedicated myocardial infarction trial, a finding that was not observed in trials with low percentages of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Therefore, this study sought to investigate the influence of clinical presentation on outcome after EES and SES implantation.

Methods

A pooled population of 1602 randomised patients was formed from XAMI (acute MI trial) and APPENDIX-AMI (all-comer trial). Primary outcome was cardiac mortality, MI and target vessel revascularisation at 2 years. Secondary endpoints included definite/probable stent thrombosis (ST). Adjustment was done using Cox regression.

Results

In total, 902 EES and 700 SES patients were included, of which 44 % STEMI patients (EES 455; SES 257) and 56 % without STEMI (EES 447; SES 443). In the pooled population, EES and SES showed similar outcomes during follow-up. Moreover, no differences in the endpoints were observed after stratification according to presentation. Although a trend toward reduced early definite/probable ST was observed in EES compared with SES in STEMI patients, long-term ST rates were low and comparable.

Conclusions

EES and SES showed a similar outcome during 2-year follow-up, regardless of clinical presentation. Long-term safety was excellent for both devices, despite wide inclusion criteria and a large sub-population of STEMI patients.