Serial greyscale and radiofrequency intravascular ultrasound assessment of plaque modification and vessel geometry at proximal and distal edges of bare metal and first-generation drug-eluting stents

Five-Year Efficacy and Safety of TiNO-Coated Stents Versus Drug-Eluting Stents in Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Meta-Analysis

(1) Background: Percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) are performed with titanium-nitride-oxide-coated stents (TiNOSs) or drug-eluting stents (DESs). The initial completion of this prospective systematic literature review (SLR) of prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) showed that TiNOSs are non-inferior to DESs in major adverse cardiac event (MACE) rates and present a lower risk of recurrent myocardial infarction (MI) at 1-year follow-up. This iteration of the SLR protocol performs the critical assessment of 5-year follow-up outcomes with clinical validity and generalizability assessments. (2) Methods: The previously described SLR and meta-analysis protocol, per PRISMA, Cochrane methods, and GRADE, was applied to 5-year follow-up outcomes. (3) Results: Three RCTs were eligible, comprising 1620 patients with TiNOS vs. 1123 with DES. The pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals were MACE 0.82 [0.68, 0.99], MI 0.58 [0.44, 0.78], cardiac death (CD) 0.46 [0.28, 0.76], ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (TLR) 1.03 [0.79, 1.33], probable or definite stent thrombosis (ST) 0.32 [0.21, 0.59], and all-cause mortality (TD) 0.84 [0.63, 1.12]. The evidence certainty was high in MACE, CD, MI, and ST, and moderate in TLR and TD. (4) Conclusions: TiNOSs in ACS at 5-year follow-up appear safer than DESs and equally efficacious. The pooled RRs stratified by clinical presentation and stent type will be required to test this meta-analysis's clinical validity and generalize its results to patient populations with varying proportions of clinical presentations and DES options.

A pilot randomized trial of incentive strategies to promote HIV retesting in rural Uganda

Background

Retesting for HIV is critical to identifying newly-infected persons and reinforcing prevention efforts among at-risk adults. Incentives can increase one-time HIV testing, but their role in promoting retesting is unknown. We sought to test feasibility and acceptability of incentive strategies, including commitment contracts, to promote HIV retesting among at-risk adults in rural Uganda.

Methods

At-risk HIV-negative adults were enrolled in a pilot trial assessing feasibility and acceptability of incentive strategies to promote HIV retesting three months after enrollment. Participants were randomized (1:1:3) to: 1) no incentive; 2) standard cash incentive (~US$4); and 3) commitment contract: participants could voluntarily make a low- or high-value deposit that would be returned with added interest (totaling ~US$4 including the deposit) upon retesting or lost if participants failed to retest. Contracts sought to promote retesting by leveraging loss aversion and addressing present bias via pre-commitment. Outcomes included acceptability of trial enrollment, contract feasibility (proportion of participants making deposits), and HIV retesting uptake.

Results

Of 130 HIV-negative eligible adults, 123 (95%) enrolled and were randomized: 74 (60%) to commitment contracts, 25 (20%) to standard incentives, and 24 (20%) to no incentive. Of contract participants, 69 (93%) made deposits. Overall, 93 (76%) participants retested for HIV: uptake was highest in the standard incentive group (22/25 [88%]) and lowest in high-value contract (26/36 [72%]) and no incentive (17/24 [71%]) groups.

Conclusion

In a randomized trial of strategies to promote HIV retesting among at-risk adults in Uganda, incentive strategies, including commitment contracts, were feasible and had high acceptability. Our findings suggest use of incentives for HIV retesting merits further comparison in a larger trial.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT:02890459

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.

WITHDRAWN: Drug-eluting stents versus bare metal stents for angina or acute coronary syndromes

This review 'topic' has been included in work being carried out as part of a Health Technology Assessment commissioned by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence in England and Wales. Details of this research is available via www.nice.org.uk.

The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the HTA programme, NICE, NIHR, NHS or the Department of Health.

The review has been split into 2 reviews that will be published as "Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for stable ischaemic heart disease" and "Drug‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents for acute coronary syndrome".

The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication.

Framework to co-register longitudinal virtual histology-intravascular ultrasound data in the circumferential direction

Considerable efforts have been directed at identifying prognostic markers for rapidly progressing coronary atherosclerotic lesions that may advance into a high-risk (vulnerable) state. Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) has become a valuable clinical tool to study the natural history of coronary artery disease (CAD). While prospectively IVUS studies have provided tremendous insight on CAD progression, and its association with independent markers (e.g., wall shear stress), they are limited by the inability to examine the focal association between spatially heterogeneous variables (in both circumferential and axial directions). Herein, we present a framework to automatically co-register longitudinal (in-time) virtual histology-intravascular ultrasound (VH-IVUS) imaging data in the circumferential direction (i.e., rotate follow-up image so circumferential basis coincides with corresponding baseline image). Multivariate normalized cross correlation was performed on paired images (n = 636) from five patients using three independent VH-IVUS defined parameters: artery thickness, VH-IVUS defined plaque constituents, and VH-IVUS perivascular imaging data. Results exhibited high correlation between co-registration rotation angles determined automatically versus manually by an expert reader ( r(2) = 0.90). Furthermore, no significant difference between automatic and manual co-registration angles was observed ( 91.31 ±1.04(°) and 91.07 ±1.04(°), respectively; p = 0.48) and Bland-Altman analysis yielded excellent agreement ( bias = 0.24(°), 95% CI +/- 16.33(°)). In conclusion, we have developed, verified, and validated an algorithm that automatically co-registers VH-IVUS imaging data that will allow for the focal examination of CAD progression.