Comparison between two biodegradable polymer-based sirolimus-eluting stents with differing drug elution and polymer absorption kinetics: two-year clinical outcomes of the PANDA III trial

Quantitative flow ratio as a continuous predictor of myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND

The quantitative flow ratio (QFR) identifies functionally ischaemic lesions that may benefit more from percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) than from medical therapy.

AIMS

This study investigated the association between QFR and myocardial infarction (MI) as affected by PCI versus medical therapy.

METHODS

All vessels requiring measurement (reference diameter ≥2.5 mm and existence of at least one stenotic lesion with diameter stenosis of 50-90%) in the FAVOR III China (5,564 vessels) and PANDA-III trials (4,471 vessels) were screened and analysed for offline QFR. The present study reported clinical outcomes on a per-vessel level. Interaction between vessel treatment and QFR as a continuous variable was evaluated for the threshold of 2-year MI estimated by Cox proportional hazards model.

RESULTS

Compared with medical therapy at 2 years, PCI reduced the MI risk in vessels with a QFR ≤0.80 (3.0% vs 4.6%) but increased the MI risk in vessels with a QFR>0.80 (3.6% vs 1.2%). Additionally, continuous QFR showed an inverse association with spontaneous MI (hazard ratio [HR] 0.89, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.79-0.99; p=0.04) that was reduced by PCI compared to medical therapy (HR 0.26, 95% CI: 0.17-0.40; p<0.0001). The interaction indicated a net benefit for PCI over medical therapy to reduce total MI beginning at QFR ≤0.64.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study demonstrated a continuous, inverse relationship between the QFR value of a vessel and its subsequent risk for MI, and PCI, compared to medical therapy, reduced this risk beginning at a QFR value of 0.64. These novel findings provide physicians with an angiographic tool for optimising vessel selection for PCI.

Utility of the ACC/AHA Lesion Classification to Predict Outcomes After Contemporary DES Treatment: Individual Patient Data Pooled Analysis From 7 Randomized Trials

Background Use of the modified American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) lesion classification as a prognostic tool to predict short- and long-term clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention in the modern drug-eluting stent era is uncertain. Methods and Results Patient-level data from 7 prospective, randomized trials were pooled. Clinical outcomes of patients undergoing single lesion percutaneous coronary intervention with second-generation drug-eluting stent were analyzed according to modified ACC/AHA lesion class. The primary end point was target lesion failure (TLF: composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization). Clinical outcomes to 5 years were compared between patients treated for noncomplex (class A/B1) versus complex (class B2/C) lesions. Eight thousand five hundred sixteen patients (age 63.1±10.8 years, 70.5% male) were analyzed. Lesions were classified as A, B1, B2, and C in 7.9%, 28.5%, 33.7%, and 30.0% of cases, respectively. Target lesion failure was higher in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention of complex versus noncomplex lesions at 30 days (2.0% versus 1.1%, P=0.004), at 1 year (4.6% versus 3.0%, P=0.0005), and at 5 years (12.4% versus 9.2%, P=0.0001). By multivariable analysis, treatment of ACC/AHA class B2/C lesions was significantly associated with higher rate of 5-year target lesion failure (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.39 [95% CI, 1.17-1.64], P=0.0001) driven by significantly higher rates of target vessel myocardial infarction and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization. Conclusions In this pooled large-scale analysis, treating complex compared with noncomplex lesions according to the modified ACC/AHA classification with second-generation drug-eluting stent was associated with worse 5-year clinical outcomes. This historical classification system may be useful in the contemporary era for predicting early and late outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention.

Effects of diabetes mellitus on post-intervention coronary physiological assessment derived by quantitative flow ratio in patients with coronary artery disease underwent percutaneous coronary intervention

AIMS

To compare the prognostic implication of post-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) quantitative flow ratio (QFR) assessment in patients with and without diabetes enrolled in the all-comers, multicenter, randomized controlled PANDA III trial.

METHODS

All treated vessels in PANDA III trial were retrospectively assessed for post-PCI QFR. Vessels with available post-PCI QFR were further stratified into DM and non-DM cohorts, and prognostic performance of post-PCI QFR was compared in 2 cohorts. The primary outcome was 2-year vessel-oriented composite endpoint (VOCE), defined as composite of vessel-related cardiac death, vessel-related non-procedural myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization.

RESULTS

Of 2,989 treated vessels, 2,227 (74.5%) with available post-PCI QFR were included, while 548 were presence of DM and 1,679 were not. The performance of post-PCI QFR to predict 2-year VOCE were moderate in both DM (area under the curve [AUC] 0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.68 to 0.87) and non-DM cohorts (AUC 0.74, 95% CI: 0.67 to 0.82), while between-cohorts AUC difference was not significant (ΔAUC 0.03, P = 0.65). After multivariate adjustment, vessels with suboptimal post-PCI QFR results (≤0.92) were associated with higher risk of 2-year VOCE in both DM (adjusted HR 6.24, 95% CI: 2.40 to 16.2) and non-DM cohorts (adjusted HR 5.92, 95% CI: 3.28 to 10.7) without significant interaction (P for interaction 0.91).

CONCLUSIONS

This study, the first to directly compare clinical value of post-PCI QFR assessments in patients with and without DM, showed that a higher post-PCI QFR value was associated with improved long-term prognosis regardless of the presence of DM. Clinical Trial Registration Information URL: https://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov; Unique identifier: NCT02017275.

Outcomes of quantitative flow ratio-based percutaneous coronary intervention in an all-comers study

BACKGROUND

Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is a novel angiography-based physiological index for fast computation of fractional flow reserve without the use of a pressure wire or induction of hyperaemia.

AIMS

We sought to investigate the prevalence and prognostic implications of achieving physiology-consistent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) according to the baseline angiographic QFR in an all-comers cohort.

METHODS

QFR was retrospectively analysed from the angiograms of 1,391 patients enrolled in the randomised PANDA III trial. Patients in whom all functionally ischaemic vessels (baseline QFR ≤0.80) were treated and in whom all non-ischaemic vessels (baseline QFR >0.80) were deferred were termed as having had QFR-consistent treatment; otherwise, they were termed as having had QFR-inconsistent treatment. The major outcome was two-year major adverse cardiac events (MACE; a composite of all-cause death, all myocardial infarction (MI), or any ischaemia-driven revascularisation).

RESULTS

Overall, 814 (58.5%) patients had QFR-consistent PCI, while 577 (41.5%) patients received QFR-inconsistent PCI. Patients with QFR-consistent versus those with QFR-inconsistent treatment had a lower risk of two-year MACE (8.4% vs 14.7%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.56, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.41-0.78). After adjusting for differences in baseline covariates, two-year rates of MACE remained significantly lower in the QFR-consistent group (8.8% vs 13.6%; adjusted HR 0.64, 95% CI: 0.44-0.93), due mainly to reduced ischaemia-driven revascularisation (2.9% vs 8.0%; adjusted HR 0.35, 95% CI: 0.20-0.60).

CONCLUSIONS

In this post hoc analysis of an all-comers PCI trial, approximately 60% of patients were treated in accordance with what the QFR measurement would have recommended, the achievement of which was associated with improved two-year clinical outcomes. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02017275.

Post-PCI outcomes predicted by pre-intervention simulation of residual quantitative flow ratio using augmented reality

BACKGROUND

The simulated residual quantitative flow ratio (QFR) computed from pre-intervention three-dimensional (3-D) coronary angiograms, which could theoretically predict actual post-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) QFR value, can be used for enhanced PCI via augmented reality. The study sought to investigate the concordance between simulated residual QFR and actual post-PCI QFR, and the prognostic value of simulated residual QFR.

METHODS

QFR assessment was retrospectively performed in treated vessels from the all-comers PANDA III trial. Three-step analysis was performed: 1) concordance between simulated residual QFR and post-PCI QFR; 2) prognostic value of simulated residual QFR; and 3) forecast of outcomes by virtual randomized controlled trials (RCTs) between residual QFR and angiographic guidance.

RESULTS

Of 2989 treated vessels, 2146 (71.8%) with paired analyzable simulated residual QFR and post-PCI QFR were included. The simulated residual QFR and post-PCI QFR were strongly correlated (r = 0.976). Low simulated residual QFR (≤0.92) was independently associated with higher risk of 2-year vessel-oriented composite endpoint (adjusted hazard ratio: 5.50; 95% confidence interval: 3.03 to 10.0). Based upon 5000 iterations of virtual RCTs, simulated residual QFR-guided strategy was anticipated to have a 2.6% absolute reduction of 2-year incidence of target vessel failure compared with the angiography-guided strategy.

CONCLUSIONS

With high consistency to actual post-PCI QFR, the simulated residual QFR computed from pre-PCI 3-D coronary angiograms and augmented reality could predict functional outcome of the procedure and 2-year prognosis. Using data from PANDA III trial, the present study forecasted superiority of residual QFR-guided PCI strategy over angiographic guidance. Clinical Trial Registration Information URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02017275.

Randomized Comparison of Ridaforolimus-Eluting and Zotarolimus-Eluting Coronary Stents: 2-Year Clinical Outcomes From the BIONICS and NIREUS Trials

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to determine clinical outcomes between treatment groups over long-term follow-up.

BACKGROUND

The safety and efficacy of a ridaforolimus-eluting stent (RES) was evaluated in the BIONICS (BioNIR Ridaforolimus-Eluting Coronary Stent System in Coronary Stenosis) and NIREUS (BioNIR Ridaforolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System [BioNIR] European Angiography Study) trials, demonstrating noninferiority of RES in comparison with a zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) regarding 1-year target lesion failure (TLF) and 6-month angiographic late lumen loss, respectively.

METHODS

Patient-level data from the BIONICS (N = 1,919) and NIREUS (N = 302) randomized trials were pooled, and outcomes in patients implanted with RES and ZES compared. Broad inclusion criteria allowed enrollment of patients with acute coronary syndromes and complex lesions. The primary endpoint was the 2-year rate of TLF or clinically driven target lesion revascularization.

RESULTS

A total of 2,221 patients (age 63.2 ± 10.3 years; 79.7% men) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with RES (n = 1,159) or ZES (n = 1,062) were included. Clinical and angiographic characteristics were similar between groups. At 2 years, the primary endpoint of TLF was similar among patients implanted with RES and ZES (7.0% vs. 7.2%; p = 0.94). Rates of target lesion revascularization (4.8% RES vs. 4.1% ZES; p = 0.41) and target vessel-related myocardial infarction (3.1% RES vs. 3.8% ZES; p = 0.52) did not differ between groups. The overall rate of stent thrombosis was also similar (0.5% RES vs. 0.9% ZES; p = 0.39).

CONCLUSIONS

In a pooled analysis of 2 randomized trials, 2-year clinical outcomes were similar between patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with RES and ZES. These results support the long-term safety and efficacy of RES for the treatment of a broad population of patients with coronary artery disease.