Differential phosphoinositide 3-kinase signaling: implications for PTCA?

Impact of Diabetes Mellitus in Women Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Drug-Eluting Stents

BACKGROUND

Data examining the impact of diabetes mellitus (DM) on ischemic risk after percutaneous coronary intervention in women are limited as most clinical trial participants are male. We evaluated (1) the impact of DM on ischemic outcomes in women undergoing drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation and (2) whether the outcomes of new- versus early-generation DES vary by DM status.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We pooled patient-level data of 10 448 women undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with DES from 26 randomized trials. Baseline characteristics and 3-year clinical outcomes were stratified according to DM status (noninsulin-dependent and insulin-dependent) and DES generation. The primary end point was the composite of all-cause death or myocardial infarction. Secondary end points were definite or probable stent thrombosis and target lesion revascularization. Compared with women without DM (n=7154, 68.5%), adjusted risks (adjusted hazard ratios [95% CI]) for death or myocardial infarction among women with noninsulin-dependent DM (n=2241, 21.4%) and insulin-dependent DM (n=1053, 10.1%) were 1.30 (1.11-1.53) and 1.71 (1.41-2.07), respectively ( P_trend<0.001). Similar trends were observed for def/prob stent thrombosis and target lesion revascularization. Compared with early-generation DES, use of newer-generation DES was associated with significant reductions in death or myocardial infarction in the absence of DM whereas differences were nonsignificant in the presence of DM, with similar findings for def/prob stent thrombosis and target lesion revascularization.

CONCLUSIONS

The presence of DM is associated with substantial, graded, and durable risks for ischemic events among women undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with DES. The safety and efficacy profile of newer-generation DES is preserved among women without DM, while benefits are nonsignificant among women with DM.

Targeting AGGF1 (angiogenic factor with G patch and FHA domains 1) for Blocking Neointimal Formation After Vascular Injury

Background

Despite recent improvements in angioplasty and placement of drug‐eluting stents in treatment of atherosclerosis, restenosis and in‐stent thrombosis impede treatment efficacy and cause numerous deaths. Research efforts are needed to identify new molecular targets for blocking restenosis. We aim to establish angiogenic factor AGGF1 (angiogenic factor with G patch and FHA domains 1) as a novel target for blocking neointimal formation and restenosis after vascular injury.

Methods and Results

AGGF1 shows strong expression in carotid arteries; however, its expression is markedly decreased in arteries after vascular injury. AGGF1^+/− mice show increased neointimal formation accompanied with increased proliferation of vascular smooth muscle cells (VSMCs) in carotid arteries after vascular injury. Importantly, AGGF1 protein therapy blocks neointimal formation after vascular injury by inhibiting the proliferation and promoting phenotypic switching of VSMCs to the contractile phenotype in mice in vivo. In vitro, AGGF1 significantly inhibits VSMCs proliferation and decreases the cell numbers at the S phase. AGGF1 also blocks platelet‐derived growth factor‐BB–induced proliferation, migration of VSMCs, increases expression of cyclin D, and decreases expression of p21 and p27. AGGF1 inhibits phenotypic switching of VSMCs to the synthetic phenotype by countering the inhibitory effect of platelet‐derived growth factor‐BB on SRF expression and the formation of the myocardin/SRF/CArG‐box complex involved in activation of VSMCs markers. Finally, we show that AGGF1 inhibits platelet‐derived growth factor‐BB–induced phosphorylation of MEK1/2, ERK1/2, and Elk phosphorylation involved in the phenotypic switching of VSMCs, and that overexpression of Elk abolishes the effect of AGGF1.

Conclusions

AGGF1 protein therapy is effective in blocking neointimal formation after vascular injury by regulating a novel AGGF1‐MEK1/2‐ERK1/2‐Elk‐myocardin‐SRF/p27 signaling pathway.

1-year clinical outcomes of diabetic patients treated with everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds: a pooled analysis of the ABSORB and the SPIRIT trials

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate 1-year clinical outcomes of diabetic patients treated with the Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS).

BACKGROUND

Clinical outcomes of diabetic patients after BVS implantation have been unreported.

METHODS

This study included 101 patients in the ABSORB Cohort B trial and the first consecutive 450 patients with 1 year of follow-up in the ABSORB EXTEND trial. A total of 136 diabetic patients were compared with 415 nondiabetic patients. In addition, 882 diabetic patients treated with everolimus-eluting metal stents (EES) in pooled data from the SPIRIT trials (SPIRIT FIRST [Clinical Trial of the Abbott Vascular XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System], SPIRIT II [A Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System], SPIRIT III [Clinical Trial of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System (EECSS)], SPIRIT IV Clinical Trial [Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System]) were used for the comparison by applying propensity score matching. The primary endpoint was a device-oriented composite endpoint (DoCE), including cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization at 1-year follow-up.

RESULTS

The cumulative incidence of DoCE did not differ between diabetic and nondiabetic patients treated with the BVS (3.7% vs. 5.1%, p = 0.64). Diabetic patients treated with the BVS had a similar incidence of the DoCE compared with diabetic patients treated with EES in the matched study group (3.9% for the BVS vs. 6.4% for EES, p = 0.38). There were no differences in the incidence of definite or probable scaffold/stent thrombosis (0.7% for both diabetic and nondiabetic patients with the BVS; 1.0% for diabetic patients with the BVS vs. 1.7% for diabetic patients with EES in the matched study group).

CONCLUSIONS

In the present analyses, diabetic patients treated with the BVS showed similar rates of DoCEs compared with nondiabetic patients treated with the BVS and diabetic patients treated with EES at 1-year follow-up. (ABSORB Clinical Investigation, Cohort B; NCT00856856; ABSORB EXTEND Clinical Investigation; NCT01023789; Clinical Trial of the Abbott Vascular XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System [SPIRIT FIRST]; NCT00180453; A Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System [SPIRIT II]; NCT00180310; Clinical Trial of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System [EECSS] [SPIRIT III]; NCT00180479; Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System [SPIRIT IV Clinical Trial]; NCT00307047).

Drug-eluting stents in patients on chronic hemodialysis: paclitaxel-eluting stents vs. limus-eluting stents

BACKGROUND

Patients requiring chronic hemodialysis (HD) are at high risk for restenosis after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with bare metal stents. Outcome data on drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation in HD patients are limited and suggest superiority of paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) over limus-eluting stents (LES).

METHODS

In total, 218 consecutive patients were prospectively enrolled. A comparison of post-PCI outcomes up to 2 years was carried out between patients receiving PES (n=62) and LES (n=156; SES n=112, EES n=44). The primary end point was 2-year major adverse cardiac events [MACE; death, Q-wave myocardial infarction and target lesion revascularization (TLR)].

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were comparable. The overall prevalence of diabetes mellitus was 71%. On clinical follow-up to 2 years, MACE rates were similar [PES 32/51 (62.7%) vs. LES 77/132 (58.3%), p=0.59]; however, clinically-driven revascularization occurred more than twice as frequently in LES patients: TLR [PES 4/36 (11.1%) vs. LES 24/93 (25.8%), p=0.07] and target vessel revascularization [5/37 (13.5%) vs. 33/96 (34.4%), p=0.02]. Given that overall mortality was nominally higher for PES patients [31/50 (62.0%) vs. 61/127 (48.0%), p=0.09], a competing outcome analysis was implemented for TLR against mortality, which demonstrated that the trend for increased TLR with LES was no longer apparent (p=0.282). On multivariable adjustment, only diabetes mellitus was independently associated with TLR (use of PES was not).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients on chronic HD experience high rates of clinically driven TLR despite DES implantation. Use of PES does not demonstrate a significant advantage over LES in this population.

Clinical impact of second-generation everolimus-eluting stent compared with first-generation drug-eluting stents in diabetes mellitus patients: insights from a nationwide coronary intervention register

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to study the second-generation everolimus-eluting stent (EES) as compared with first-generation sirolimus-eluting (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) in diabetes mellitus (DM) patients.

BACKGROUND

There are limited data available comparing clinical outcomes in this setting with EES and SES, whereas studies comparing EES with PES are not powered for low-frequency endpoints.

METHODS

All DM patients treated with EES, PES, or SES from January 18, 2007, to July 29, 2011, from the SCAAR (Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registery) were included. The EES was compared with SES or PES for the primary composite endpoint of clinically driven detected restenosis, definite stent thrombosis (ST), and all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

In 4,751 percutaneous coronary intervention-treated DM patients, 8,134 stents were implanted (EES = 3,928, PES = 2,836, SES = 1,370). The EES was associated with significantly lower event rates compared with SES (SES vs. EES hazard ratio [HR]: 1.99; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.19 to 3.08). The same was observed when compared with PES (PES vs. EES HR: 1.33; 95% CI: 0.93 to 1.91) but did not reach statistical significance. These results were mainly driven by lower incidence of ST (SES vs. EES HR: 2.87; 95% CI: 1.08 to 7.61; PES vs. EES HR: 1.74, 95% CI: 0.82 to 3.71) and mortality (SES vs. EES HR: 2.02; 95% CI: 1.03 to 3.98; PES vs. EES HR: 1.69; 95% CI: 1.06 to 2.72). No significant differences in restenosis rates were observed between EES and SES or PES (SES vs. EES HR: 1.26; 95% CI: 0.77 to 2.08; PES vs. EES HR: 1.05; 95% CI: 0.71 to 1.55).

CONCLUSIONS

In all-comer DM patients the use of EES was associated with improved outcomes compared with SES and PES mainly driven by lower rates of ST and mortality. These results suggest better safety rather than efficacy with EES when compared with SES or PES.

Differential clinical responses to everolimus-eluting and Paclitaxel-eluting coronary stents in patients with and without diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

Some (but not all) prior trials have reported differential outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention with paclitaxel-eluting stents versus stents eluting rapamycin analogs according to the presence of diabetes mellitus. These studies lacked sufficient power to examine individual safety and efficacy end points.

METHODS AND RESULTS

To determine whether an interaction exists between the presence of diabetes mellitus and treatment with everolimus-eluting stents compared with paclitaxel-eluting stents, we pooled the databases from the Clinical Evaluation of the Xience V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Patients With De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions (SPIRIT) II, SPIRIT III, SPIRIT IV, and A Trial of Everolimus-Eluting Stents and Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents for Coronary Revascularization in Daily Practice (COMPARE) trials in which percutaneous coronary intervention was performed in 6780 patients, 1869 (27.6%) of whom had diabetes mellitus. Patients without diabetes mellitus treated with everolimus-eluting stents compared with paclitaxel-eluting stents had significantly reduced 2-year rates of mortality (1.9% versus 3.1%; P=0.01), myocardial infarction (2.5% versus 5.8%; P<0.0001), stent thrombosis (0.3% versus 2.4%; P<0.0001), and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (3.6% versus 6.9%; P<0.0001). In contrast, among patients with diabetes mellitus, there were no significant differences between the 2 stent types in any measured safety or efficacy parameter. Significant interactions were present between diabetic status and stent type for the 2-year end points of myocardial infarction (P=0.01), stent thrombosis (P=0.0006), and target lesion revascularization (P=0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

We have identified a substantial interaction between diabetes mellitus and stent type on clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention. In patients without diabetes mellitus, everolimus-eluting stents compared with paclitaxel-eluting stents resulted in substantial 2-year reductions in death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, and target lesion revascularization, whereas no significant differences in safety or efficacy outcomes were present in diabetic patients.

Randomized comparison of everolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents. 2-year follow-up from the SPIRIT (Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System) IV trial

OBJECTIVES

We sought to determine whether the differences in outcomes present between everolimus-eluting stents (EES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) in the SPIRIT (Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System) IV trial at 1 year were sustained with longer-term follow-up.

BACKGROUND

In the SPIRIT IV trial, patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention who were randomized to EES compared with PES experienced lower 1-year rates of target lesion failure (cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction [MI], or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization [TLR]), with significant reductions in the individual rates of MI, TLR, and stent thrombosis.

METHODS

We prospectively randomized 3,687 patients with up to 3 noncomplex previously untreated native coronary artery lesions to EES versus PES at 66 U.S. sites. Follow-up through 2 years is complete in 3,578 patents (97.0%).

RESULTS

Treatment with EES compared with PES reduced the 2-year rates of TLF (6.9% vs. 9.9%, p = 0.003), all MI (2.5% vs. 3.9%, p = 0.02), Q-wave MI (0.1% vs. 0.8%, p = 0.002), stent thrombosis (0.4% vs. 1.2%, p = 0.008), and ischemia-driven TLR (4.5% vs. 6.9%, p = 0.004), with nonsignificantly different rates of all-cause and cardiac mortality. Between 1 year and 2 years, there were no significant differences in adverse event rates between the 2 stent types.

CONCLUSIONS

In the large-scale, prospective, multicenter, randomized SPIRIT IV trial, the benefits of EES compared with those of PES present at 1 year were sustained at 2 years.

Everolimus-eluting versus paclitaxel-eluting stents in coronary artery disease

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have established the superiority of coronary everolimus-eluting stents over paclitaxel-eluting stents with respect to angiographic findings. However, these trials were not powered for superiority in clinical end points.

METHODS

We randomly assigned 3687 patients at 66 U.S. sites to receive everolimus-eluting stents or paclitaxel-eluting stents without routine follow-up angiography. The primary end point was the 1-year composite rate of target-lesion failure (defined as cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization).

RESULTS

Everolimus-eluting stents were superior to paclitaxel-eluting stents with respect to the primary end point of target-lesion failure (4.2% vs. 6.8%; relative risk, 0.62; 95% confidence interval, 0.46 to 0.82; P=0.001). Everolimus-eluting stents were also superior with respect to the major secondary end point of the 1-year rate of ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization (P=0.001) and were noninferior with respect to the major secondary end point of the 1-year composite rate of cardiac death or target-vessel myocardial infarction (P<0.001 for noninferiority; P=0.09 for superiority). The 1-year rates of myocardial infarction and stent thrombosis were also lower with everolimus-eluting stents than with paclitaxel-eluting stents (1.9% vs. 3.1%, P=0.02 for myocardial infarction; 0.17% vs. 0.85%, P=0.004 for stent thrombosis). Target-lesion failure was consistently reduced with everolimus-eluting stents as compared with paclitaxel-eluting stents in 12 prespecified subgroups, except in the subgroup of patients with diabetes (6.4% vs. 6.9%, P=0.80).

CONCLUSIONS

Everolimus-eluting stents, as compared with paclitaxel-eluting stents, resulted in reduced rates of target-lesion failure at 1 year, results that were consistent in all patients except those with diabetes, in whom the results were nonsignificantly different. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00307047.)