Long-Term Clinical Outcomes of Final Kissing Ballooning in Coronary Bifurcation Lesions Treated With the 1-Stent Technique: Results From the COBIS II Registry (Korean Coronary Bifurcation Stenting Registry)

ObjectivesThis study investigated the impact of final kissing ballooning (FKB) after main vessel (MV) stenting on outcomes in patients with coronary bifurcation lesions after application of the 1-stent technique.BackgroundAlthough FKB has been established as the standard method for bifurcation lesions treated with a 2-stent strategy, its efficacy in a 1-stent approach is highly controversial.MethodsThis study enrolled 1,901 patients with a bifurcation lesion with a side branch diameter ≥2.3 mm, treated solely with the 1-stent technique using a drug-eluting stent from 18 centers in Korea between January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2009. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACE)—cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization. Propensity score-matching analysis was also performed.ResultsFKB was performed in 620 patients and the post minimal lumen diameter of the MV and side branch was larger in the FKB group than in the non-FKB group. During follow-up (median 36 months), the incidence of MACE (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.46 to 0.99; p = 0.048) was lower in the FKB group than the non-FKB group. After propensity score matching (545 pairs), the FKB group had a lower incidence of MACE (adjusted HR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.30 to 0.85; p = 0.01), and target lesion revascularization in the MV (adjusted HR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.93; p = 0.03) and both vessels (adjusted HR: 0.47, 95% CI: 0.25 to 0.90; p = 0.02) than in the non-FKB group.ConclusionsIn coronary bifurcation lesions, we demonstrated that the 1-stent technique with FKB was associated with a favorable long-term clinical outcome, mainly driven by the reduction of target lesion revascularization in the MV or both vessels as a result of an increase in minimal lumen diameter. (Korean Coronary Bifurcation Stenting Registry II [COBIS II]: NCT01642992)     

Randomized Comparison of Everolimus-Eluting Stents and Sirolimus-Eluting Stents in Patients With ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction: RACES-MI Trial

ObjectivesThe aim of the current study was to compare everolimus-eluting stents (EES) with sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) in patients undergoing primary angioplasty.BackgroundDrug-eluting stents may offer benefits in terms of repeat revascularization. However, as shown for first-generation drug-eluting stents, they may be counterbalanced by a potential higher risk of stent thrombosis, especially among patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). No data have been reported so far on the long-term benefits and safety of the new generation of drug-eluting stents in STEMI.MethodsConsecutive STEMI patients admitted within 12 h of symptom onset and undergoing primary angioplasty and stent implantation at a tertiary center with 24-h primary percutaneous coronary intervention capability were randomly assigned to SES or EES. The primary endpoint was a major adverse cardiac event at 3-year follow-up. The secondary endpoints were death, reinfarction, definite or probable stent thrombosis, and target vessel revascularization at 3-year follow-up. No patient was lost to follow-up.ResultsFrom April 2007 to May 2009, 500 patients with STEMI were randomized to EES (n = 250) or SES (n = 250). No difference was observed in terms of baseline demographic and clinical characteristics between the groups. No difference was observed between the groups in terms of number of implanted stents per patient or total stent length. However, a larger reference diameter was observed with SES (3.35 ± 0.51 mm vs. 3.25 ± 0.51 mm, p = 0.001), whereas patients randomized to EES more often received glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (54.4% vs. 42.4%, p = 0.006). Follow-up data were available in all patients (1,095 ± 159 days). No significant difference was observed between EES and SES in major adverse cardiac events (16% vs. 20.8%, adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 0.75 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.5 to 1.13], p = 0.17), cardiac death (4.4% vs. 5.6%, adjusted HR: 0.77 [95% CI: 0.35 to 1.71], p = 0.53), recurrent MI (6.4% vs. 10%, adjusted HR: 0.62 [95% CI: 0.33 to 1.16], p = 0.13), and target vessel revascularization (4.8% vs. 4.8%, adjusted HR: 1.00 [95% CI: 0.45 to 2.32], p = 0.99). However, EES was associated with a significant reduction in stent thrombosis (1.6% vs. 5.2%, adjusted HR: 0.3 [95% CI: 0.1 to 0.92], p = 0.035).ConclusionsThis study shows that among STEMI patients undergoing primary angioplasty, EES has similar efficacy as SES, but is associated with a significant reduction in stent thrombosis. (Randomized Comparison of Everolimus Eluting Stents and Sirolimus Eluting Stent in Patients With ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction [RACES-MI]; NCT01684982)     

Long-Term Outcomes of Neointimal Hyperplasia Without Neoatherosclerosis After Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to investigate the correlation between in-stent neointimal tissue without features of neoatherosclerosis and long-term clinical outcomes.BackgroundRecent studies have reported differential morphological characteristics of in-stent neointimal tissue assessed by optical coherence tomography (OCT).MethodsThe study population consisted of 336 patients with 368 drug-eluting stent-treated lesions. Patients received a follow-up OCT examination without any intervention. OCT-based neointima was categorized as homogeneous (n = 227 lesions in 208 patients), heterogeneous (n = 79 lesions in 73 patients), or layered (n = 62 lesions in 55 patients). Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (a composite of cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization) were assessed according to neointimal patterns during long-term clinical follow-up after OCT examination.ResultsThe time interval between stent implantation and OCT examination was similar among the 3 groups (p = 0.64). On multivariate logistic regression analysis, the significant determinant for the heterogeneous neointima was age (odds ratio [OR]: 1.037, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.007 to 1.068, p = 0.015) and an initial clinical presentation of acute coronary syndrome (OR: 1.967, 95% CI: 1.159 to 3.339, p = 0.012). The overall median follow-up duration for all patients after follow-up OCT examination was 31.0 months, and this was statistically different among the heterogeneous group (22.0 months), the homogeneous group (34.0 months), and the layered group (28.0 months, overall p = 0.002). MACE occurred more frequently in patients with heterogeneous neointima over a median 31-month follow-up period after OCT examination (13.7% vs. 2.9% in homogeneous vs. 7.3% in layered, p = 0.001). A propensity score–adjusted Cox regression analysis showed that independent risk factors for MACE were inclusion in the heterogeneous neointima (hazard ratio: 3.925, 95% CI: 1.445 to 10.662, p = 0.007) and minimal lumen cross-sectional area (hazard ratio: 0.368, 95% CI: 0.242 to 0.560, p < 0.001).ConclusionsDetermination of neointimal characteristics is helpful in predicting long-term clinical outcomes. Our data suggest that heterogeneous lesions are linked to poor long-term clinical prognoses.     

Clinical Outcomes and Revascularization Strategies in Patients With Low-Flow,Low-Gradient Severe Aortic Valve Stenosis According to the Assigned Treatment Modality

ObjectivesThis study compared clinical outcomes and revascularization strategies among patients presenting with low ejection fraction, low-gradient (LEF-LG) severe aortic stenosis (AS) according to the assigned treatment modality.BackgroundThe optimal treatment modality for patients with LEF-LG severe AS and concomitant coronary artery disease (CAD) requiring revascularization is unknown.MethodsOf 1,551 patients, 204 with LEF-LG severe AS (aortic valve area <1.0 cm², ejection fraction <50%, and mean gradient <40 mm Hg) were allocated to medical therapy (MT) (n = 44), surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) (n = 52), or transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) (n = 108). CAD complexity was assessed using the SYNTAX score (SS) in 187 of 204 patients (92%). The primary endpoint was mortality at 1 year.ResultsLEF-LG severe AS patients undergoing SAVR were more likely to undergo complete revascularization (17 of 52, 35%) compared with TAVR (8 of 108, 8%) and MT (0 of 44, 0%) patients (p < 0.001). Compared with MT, both SAVR (adjusted hazard ratio [adj HR]: 0.16; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.07 to 0.38; p < 0.001) and TAVR (adj HR: 0.30; 95% CI: 0.18 to 0.52; p < 0.001) improved survival at 1 year. In TAVR and SAVR patients, CAD severity was associated with higher rates of cardiovascular death (no CAD: 12.2% vs. low SS [0 to 22], 15.3% vs. high SS [>22], 31.5%; p = 0.037) at 1 year. Compared with no CAD/complete revascularization, TAVR and SAVR patients undergoing incomplete revascularization had significantly higher 1-year cardiovascular death rates (adj HR: 2.80; 95% CI: 1.07 to 7.36; p = 0.037).ConclusionsAmong LEF-LG severe AS patients, SAVR and TAVR improved survival compared with MT. CAD severity was associated with worse outcomes and incomplete revascularization predicted 1-year cardiovascular mortality among TAVR and SAVR patients.     

Long-Term Efficacy and Safety of Paclitaxel-Eluting Balloon for the Treatment of Drug-Eluting Stent Restenosis: 3-Year Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial

ObjectivesThis study sought to investigate the long-term comparative efficacy and safety of paclitaxel-eluting balloon (PEB), paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES), or balloon angioplasty (BA) for the treatment of drug-eluting stent restenosis.BackgroundThe optimal treatment of drug-eluting stent restenosis remains unknown. Although PEB has shown encouraging results, the long-term clinical efficacy and safety of PEB remains poorly defined.MethodsA total of 402 patients with clinically significant restenosis in limus-eluting stents were randomly assigned to receive PEB (n = 137), PES (n = 131), or BA (n = 134). For this analysis, PEB versus PES and PEB versus BA were compared. The primary efficacy and safety endpoints were target lesion revascularization and the composite of death or myocardial infarction.ResultsAt a median follow-up of 3 years, the risk of target lesion revascularization was comparable with PEB versus PES (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.46, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.91 to 2.33; p = 0.11) and lower with PEB versus BA (HR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.34 to 0.74; p < 0.001). The risk of death/myocardial infarction tended to be lower with PEB versus PES (HR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.28 to 1.07; p = 0.08), due to a lower risk of death (HR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.17 to 0.87; p = 0.02). The risk of death/myocardial infarction was similar with PEB versus BA (HR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.46 to 2.0; p = 0.91).ConclusionsAt 3 years, the use of PEB as compared with PES to treat patients with limus-eluting stent restenosis has similar efficacy and safety. PEB remains superior to BA. The sustained efficacy without trade-off in safety supports the role of PEB as treatment option for patients with drug-eluting stent restenosis. (Intracoronary Stenting and Angiographic Results: Drug Eluting Stent In-Stent Restenosis: 3 Treatment Approaches [ISAR-DESIRE 3]; NCT00987324)     

Impact of the Complexity of Bifurcation Lesions Treated With Drug-Eluting Stents: The DEFINITION Study (Definitions and impact of complEx biFurcation lesIons on clinical outcomes after percutaNeous coronary IntervenTIOn using drug-eluting steNts)

ObjectivesThe present study established criteria to differentiate simple from complex bifurcation lesions and compared 1-year outcomes stratified by lesion complexity after provisional stenting (PS) and 2-stent techniques using drug-eluting stents.BackgroundCurrently, no criterion can distinguish between simple and complex coronary bifurcation lesions. Comparisons of PS and 2-stent strategies stratified by lesion complexity have also not been reported previously.MethodsCriteria of bifurcation complexity in 1,500 patients were externally tested in another 3,660 true bifurcation lesions after placement of drug-eluting stents. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of a major adverse cardiac event (MACE) at 12 months. The secondary endpoint was the rate of stent thrombosis (ST).ResultsComplex (n = 1,108) bifurcation lesions were associated with a higher 1-year rate of MACE (16.8%) compared with simple (n = 2,552) bifurcation lesions (8.9%) (p < 0.001). The in-hospital ST and 1-year target lesion revascularization rates after 2-stent techniques in the simple group (1.0% and 5.6%, respectively) were significantly different from those after PS (0.2% [p = 0.007] and 3.2% [p = 0.009], respectively); however, 1-year MACE rates were not significantly different between the 2 groups. For complex bifurcation lesions, 2-stent techniques had lower rates of 1-year cardiac death (2.8%) and in-hospital MACE (5.0%) compared with PS (5.3%, p = 0.047; 8.4%, p = 0.031).ConclusionsComplex bifurcation lesions had higher rates of 1-year MACE and ST. The 2-stent and PS techniques were overall equivalent in 1-year MACE. However, 2-stent techniques for complex lesions elicited a lower rate of cardiac death and in-hospital MACE but higher rates of in-hospital ST and revascularization at 1 year for simple lesions.     

Radial Versus Femoral Access for Coronary Angiography/Intervention in Women With Acute Coronary Syndromes: Insights From the RIVAL Trial (Radial Vs femorAL access for coronary intervention)

ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy and safety of radial versus femoral access in women undergoing coronary angiography/intervention.BackgroundThe risk of bleeding and vascular access site complications are higher in women than in men.MethodsIn a pre-specified RIVAL (RadIal Vs femorAL access for coronary intervention) subgroup analysis, we compared outcomes in women (n = 1,861) and men (n = 5,160) randomized to radial versus femoral access.ResultsOverall, women were at higher risk of major vascular complications compared with men (4.7% vs. 1.7%; p < 0.0001). Major vascular complications were significantly reduced with radial access in women (3.1% vs. 6.1%; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.5; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.32 to 0.78; p = 0.002) and in men (0.7% vs. 2.8%; HR: 0.27; 95% CI: 0.17 to 0.45; p < 0.0001; interaction p = 0.092). Crossover rates were higher with radial compared with femoral access in women (11.1% vs. 1.9%; HR: 5.88; p < 0.0001) and men (6.3% vs. 1.9%; HR: 3.32; p < 0.0001; interaction p = 0.054). Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) success rates were similar irrespective of access site (women: HR: 1.05; p = 0.471; men: HR: 1.00; p = 0.888; interaction p = 0.674), with no differences in PCI complications. In multivariable analyses, female sex was an independent predictor of major vascular complications (HR: 2.39; 95% CI: 1.76 to 3.25; p < 0.0001). There were consistent findings for women and men, with no difference for the primary composite endpoint of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and non–coronary artery bypass grafting bleeding (women: 3.9% vs. 5.0%; HR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.50 to 1.19; men: 3.54% vs. 3.5%; HR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.75 to −1.34; interaction p = 0.325).ConclusionsWomen undergoing coronary angiography and PCI have a higher risk of vascular access site complications compared with men, and radial access is an effective method to reduce these complications.     

The Effect of Post-Exercise Ankle-Brachial Index on Lower Extremity Revascularization

ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of post-exercise ankle-brachial index (ABI) on the incidence of lower extremity (LE) revascularization, cardiovascular outcomes, and all-cause mortality in patients with normal and abnormal resting ABI.BackgroundThe clinical and prognostic value of post-exercise ABI in the setting of normal or abnormal resting ABI remains uncertain.MethodsA total of 2,791 consecutive patients with ABI testing between September 2005 and January 2010 were classified into group 1: normal resting (NR)/normal post-exercise (NE); group 2: NR/abnormal post-exercise (AE); group 3: abnormal resting (AR)/NE; and group 4: AR/AE. Abnormal post-exercise ABI was defined as a drop of >20% from resting ABI as per the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines. The primary endpoint was incidence of LE revascularization. Secondary endpoints were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and all-cause mortality. Associations between post-exercise ABI and outcomes were adjusted using multivariable Cox proportional hazard and propensity analyses.ResultsCompared with group 1 (NR/NE), group 2 (NR/AE) had increased LE revascularization (propensity-matched adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 6.63, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.13 to 14.04; p < 0.001) but no differences in MACE or all-cause mortality. When resting ABI was abnormal, group 4 (AR/AE) compared with group 3 (AR/NE), abnormal post-exercise ABI was still associated with increased LE revascularization (adjusted HR: 1.59, 95% CI: 1.11 to 2.28; p = 0.01), which persisted after propensity matching (adjusted HR: 2.32, 95% CI: 1.52 to 3.54; p < 0.001). Compared with group 1 (NR/NE) and after propensity matching, group 4 (AR/AE) had a significant increase in MACE (adjusted HR: 1.44, 95% CI: 1.09 to 1.90; p = 0.009) and a trend toward increased all-cause mortality (adjusted HR: 1.37, 95% CI: 0.99 to 1.88; p = 0.052); however, group 3 (AR/NE) did not.ConclusionsPost-exercise ABI appears to offer both clinical (lower extremity revascularization) and prognostic information in those with normal and abnormal resting ABI.     

Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of New-Generation Versus Early-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents According to Complexity of Coronary Artery Disease: A Patient-Level Pooled Analysis of 6,081 Patients

ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to compare the 2-year safety and effectiveness of new- versus early-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) according to the severity of coronary artery disease (CAD) as assessed by the SYNTAX (Synergy between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery) score.BackgroundNew-generation DES are considered the standard-of-care in patients with CAD undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. However, there are few data investigating the effects of new- over early-generation DES according to the anatomic complexity of CAD.MethodsPatient-level data from 4 contemporary, all-comers trials were pooled. The primary device-oriented clinical endpoint was the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization (TLR). The principal effectiveness and safety endpoints were TLR and definite stent thrombosis (ST), respectively. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated at 2 years for overall comparisons, as well as stratified for patients with lower (SYNTAX score ≤11) and higher complexity (SYNTAX score >11).ResultsA total of 6,081 patients were included in the study. New-generation DES (n = 4,554) compared with early-generation DES (n = 1,527) reduced the primary endpoint (HR: 0.75 [95% CI: 0.63 to 0.89]; p = 0.001) without interaction (p = 0.219) between patients with lower (HR: 0.86 [95% CI: 0.64 to 1.16]; p = 0.322) versus higher CAD complexity (HR: 0.68 [95% CI: 0.54 to 0.85]; p = 0.001). In patients with SYNTAX score >11, new-generation DES significantly reduced TLR (HR: 0.36 [95% CI: 0.26 to 0.51]; p < 0.001) and definite ST (HR: 0.28 [95% CI: 0.15 to 0.55]; p < 0.001) to a greater extent than in the low-complexity group (TLR p_int = 0.059; ST p_int = 0.013). New-generation DES decreased the risk of cardiac mortality in patients with SYNTAX score >11 (HR: 0.45 [95% CI: 0.27 to 0.76]; p = 0.003) but not in patients with SYNTAX score ≤11 (p_int = 0.042).ConclusionsNew-generation DES improve clinical outcomes compared with early-generation DES, with a greater safety and effectiveness in patients with SYNTAX score >11.     

Relation Between Bioresorbable Scaffold Sizing Using QCA-Dmax and Clinical Outcomes at 1 Year in 1,232 Patients From 3 Study Cohorts (ABSORB Cohort B,ABSORB EXTEND,and ABSORB II)

ObjectivesThis study sought to investigate the clinical outcomes based on the assessment of quantitative coronary angiography–maximal lumen diameter (Dmax).BackgroundAssessment of pre-procedural Dmax of proximal and distal sites has been used for Absorb scaffold size selection in the ABSORB studies.MethodsA total of 1,248 patients received Absorb scaffolds in the ABSORB Cohort B (ABSORB Clinical Investigation, Cohort B) study (N = 101), ABSORB EXTEND (ABSORB EXTEND Clinical Investigation) study (N = 812), and ABSORB II (ABSORB II Randomized Controlled Trial) trial (N = 335). The incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (a composite of cardiac death, any myocardial infarction [MI], and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization) was analyzed according to the Dmax subclassification of scaffold oversize group versus scaffold nonoversize group.ResultsOf 1,248 patients, pre-procedural Dmax was assessed in 1,232 patients (98.7%). In 649 (52.7%) patients, both proximal and distal Dmax values were smaller than the nominal size of the implanted scaffold (scaffold oversize group), whereas in 583 (47.3%) of patients, the proximal and/or distal Dmax were larger than the implanted scaffold (scaffold nonoversize group). The rates of MACE and MI at 1 year were significantly higher in the scaffold oversize group than in the scaffold nonoversize group (MACE 6.6% vs. 3.3%; log-rank p < 0.01, all MI: 4.6% vs. 2.4%; log-rank p = 0.04), mainly driven by a higher MI rate within 1 month post-procedure (3.5% vs. 1.9%; p = 0.08). The independent MACE determinants were both Dmax smaller than the scaffold nominal size (odds ratio [OR]: 2.13, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.22 to 3.70; p < 0.01) and the implantation of overlapping scaffolds (OR: 2.10, 95% CI: 1.17 to 3.80; p = 0.01).ConclusionsImplantation of an oversized Absorb scaffold in a relatively small vessel appears to be associated with a higher 1-year MACE rate driven by more frequent early MI. (ABSORB Clinical Investigation, Cohort B [ABSORB Cohort B], NCT00856856; ABSORB EXTEND Clinical Investigation [ABSORB EXTEND], NCT01023789; ABSORB II Randomized Controlled Trial [ABSORB II], NCT01425281)     

Safety and Effectiveness of Everolimus-Eluting Stents in Chronic Total Coronary Occlusion Revascularization: Results From the EXPERT CTO Multicenter Trial (Evaluation of the XIENCE Coronary Stent,Performance, and Technique in Chronic Total Occlusions)

ObjectivesThis study sought to evaluate procedural and clinical outcomes among patients undergoing chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using contemporary methods and everolimus-eluting stents (EES).BackgroundLimited studies have detailed the procedural and late-term safety and efficacy of CTO revascularization among multiple centers applying modern techniques and with newer-generation drug-eluting stents.MethodsAmong 20 centers, 250 consecutive patients were enrolled for attempted CTO PCI. Procedural and in-hospital clinical outcomes were examined in addition to the 1-year primary endpoint of death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization (major adverse cardiac events [MACE]).ResultsDemographic, lesion, and procedural characteristics included prior bypass surgery: 9.9%; diabetes: 40.1%; lesion length: 36.1 ± 18.5 mm; and stent length: 51.7 ± 27.2 mm. Procedural success, defined as guidewire recanalization with no in-hospital MACE, was 96.4%. Success with antegrade-only methods was 97.9% and 86.2% by retrograde/combined methods, respectively. Compared with a pre-specified performance goal derived from 6 prior CTO drug-eluting stent trials (1-year MACE: 24.4%), treatment with EES was associated with significantly lower composite adverse events for both intent-to-treat (18.5%, 1-sided upper confidence interval: 23.4%, p = 0.025) and per-protocol populations (8.2%, 1-sided upper confidence interval: 12.3%, p < 0.0001). Target lesion revascularization at 1 year was 6.3%. Dual antiplatelet therapy adherence was 53.9% at 1 year, yet subacute definite stent thrombosis occurred in only 2 patients (0.9%), and late probable stent thrombosis occurred in 1 patient (0.5%).ConclusionsIn a multicenter registration trial representing contemporary technique and EES, favorable procedural success and late-term clinical outcomes support CTO PCI in a patient population with high lesion complexity. (EXPERT CTO: Evaluation of the XIENCE PRIME LL and XIENCE Nano Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent Coronary Stents, Performance, and Technique in Chronic Total Occlusions; NCT01435031)     

Three-Year Outcomes After Revascularization With Everolimus- and Sirolimus-Eluting Stents From the SORT OUT IV Trial

ObjectivesThe study sought to compare the risk of late outcome with a focus on very late definite stent thrombosis of the everolimus-eluting stent (EES) with that of the sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) at 3-year follow-up.BackgroundIn the SORT OUT IV (SORT OUT IV Trial), comparing the EES with the SES in patients with coronary artery disease, the EES was noninferior to the SES at 9 months. The SORT OUT IV trial provides long-term head-to-head randomized comparison of the EES with the SES.MethodsWe prospectively randomized 2,774 patients in the SORT OUT IV trial. Follow-up through 3 years was complete in 2,771 patients (99.9%). The 3-year pre-specified endpoints were composites of safety and efficacy (major adverse cardiac events [MACE]: cardiac death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, and definite stent thrombosis).ResultsAt 3 years, the composite endpoint MACE occurred in 9.8% of the EES group and in 11.1% of the SES group (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.89, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.70 to 1.12). Overall rate of definite stent thrombosis was lower in the EES group (0.2% vs. 1.4%; HR: 0.15, 95% CI: 0.04 to 0.50), which was largely attributable to a lower risk of very late definite stent thrombosis: 0.1% versus 0.8% (HR: 0.09, 95% CI: 0.01 to 0.70).ConclusionsAt 3-year follow-up, the MACE rate did not differ significantly between EES- and SES-treated patients. A significant reduction of overall and very late definite stent thrombosis was found in the EES group. (The SORT OUT IV TRIAL [SORT OUT IV]; NCT00552877).     

Survival of Transcatheter Mitral Valve Repair Compared With Surgical and Conservative Treatment in High-Surgical-Risk Patients

ObjectivesThe goal of this study was to compare survival between transcatheter mitral valve (MV) repair using MitraClip system (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, California), MV-surgery, and conservative treatment in high-surgical-risk patients symptomatic with severe mitral valve regurgitation (MR).BackgroundUp to 50% of patients with symptomatic severe MR are denied for surgery due to high perioperative risk. Transcatheter MV repair might be an alternative.MethodsConsecutive patients (n = 139) treated with transcatheter MV repair were included. Comparator surgically (n = 53) and conservatively (n = 59) treated patients were identified retrospectively. Surgical risk was based on the logistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (log EuroSCORE) or the presence of relevant risk factors, as judged by the heart team.ResultsThe log EuroSCORE was higher in the transcatheter MV repair group (23.9 ± 16.1%) than in the surgically (14.2 ± 8.9%) and conservatively (18.7 ± 13.2%, p < 0.0001) treated patients. Left ventricular ejection fraction was higher in surgical patients (43.9 ± 14.4%, p = 0.003), with similar values for the transcatheter MV repair (36.8 ± 15.3%) and conservatively treated (34.5 ± 16.5%) groups. After 1 year of follow-up, the transcatheter MV repair and surgery groups showed similar survival rates (85.8% and 85.2%, respectively), whereas 67.7% of conservatively treated patients survived. The same trend was observed after the second and third years. After weighting for propensity score and controlling for risk factors, both the transcatheter MV repair (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.41, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.22 to 0.78, p = 0.006) and surgical (HR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.30 to 0.88, p = 0.014) groups showed better survival than the conservatively treated group. The transcatheter MV repair and surgical groups did not differ (HR: 1.25, 95% CI: 0.72 to 2.16, p = 0.430).ConclusionsDespite a higher log EuroSCORE, high-surgical-risk patients with symptomatic severe MR treated with transcatheter MV repair show similar survival rates compared with surgically treated patients, with both displaying survival benefit compared with conservative treatment.     

Outcomes After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Stents in Patients Treated With Thoracic External Beam Radiation for Cancer

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to assess outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with stents in patients treated with thoracic external beam radiation therapy (EBRT).BackgroundThoracic EBRT for cancer is associated with long-term cardiotoxic sequelae. The impact of EBRT on patients requiring coronary stents is unclear.MethodsWe analyzed outcomes after PCI in cancer survivors treated with curative thoracic EBRT before and after stenting between 1998 and 2012. Reference groups were propensity-matched cohorts with stenting but no EBRT. Primary endpoint was target lesion revascularization (TLR), a clinical surrogate for restenosis. Secondary endpoints included myocardial infarction (MI) and cardiac and overall mortality.ResultsWe identified 115 patients treated with EBRT a median 3.6 years after stenting (group A) and 45 patients treated with EBRT a median 2.2 years before stenting (group B). Long-term mean TLR rates in group A (3.2 vs. 6.6%; hazard ratio: 0.6; 95% confidence interval: 0.2 to 1.6; p = 0.31) and group B (9.2 vs. 9.7%; hazard ratio: 1.2; 95% confidence interval: 0.4 to 3.4; p = 0.79) were similar to rates in corresponding control patients (group A: 1,390 control patients; group B: 439 control patients). Three years post-PCI, group A had higher overall mortality (48.6% vs. 13.9%; p < 0.001) but not MI (4.8% vs. 4.3%; p = 0.93) or cardiac mortality (2.3% vs. 3.6%; p = 0.66) rates versus control patients. There were no significant differences in MI, cardiac, or overall mortality rates in group B.ConclusionsThoracic EBRT is not associated with increased stent failure rates when used before or after PCI. A history of PCI should not preclude the use of curative thoracic EBRT in cancer patients or vice versa. Optimal treatment of cancer should be the goal.     

Diagnostic and Prognostic Implications of Coronary Flow Capacity: A Comprehensive Cross-Modality Physiological Concept in Ischemic Heart Disease

ObjectivesThe purpose of this study is to evaluate whether coronary flow capacity (CFC) improves discrimination of patients at risk for major adverse cardiac events (MACE) compared with coronary flow reserve (CFR) alone, and to study the diagnostic and prognostic implications of CFC in relation to contemporary diagnostic tests for ischemic heart disease (IHD), including fractional flow reserve (FFR).BackgroundAlthough IHD results from a combination of focal obstructive, diffuse, and microcirculatory involvement of the coronary circulation, its diagnosis remains focused on focal obstructive causes. CFC comprehensively documents flow impairment in IHD, regardless of its origin, by interpreting CFR in relation to maximal flow (hyperemic average peak flow velocity [hAPV]), and overcomes the limitations of using CFR alone. This is governed by the understanding that ischemia occurs in vascular beds with substantially reduced hAPV and CFR, whereas ischemia is unlikely when hAPV or CFR is high.MethodsIntracoronary pressure and flow were measured in 299 vessels (228 patients), where revascularization was deferred in 154. Vessels were stratified as having normal, mildly reduced, moderately reduced, or severely reduced CFC using CFR thresholds derived from published data and corresponding hAPV percentiles. The occurrence of MACE after deferral of revascularization was recorded during 11.9 years of follow-up (quartile 1: 10.0 years, quartile 3: 13.4 years).ResultsCombining CFR and hAPV improved the prediction of MACE over CFR alone (p = 0.01). After stratification in CFC, MACE rates throughout follow-up were strongly associated with advancing impairment of CFC (p = 0.002). After multivariate adjustment, mildly and moderately reduced CFC were associated with a 2.1-fold (95% confidence interval: 1.1 to 4.0; p = 0.017), and 7.1-fold (95% confidence interval: 2.9 to 17.1; p < 0.001) increase in MACE hazard, respectively, compared with normal CFC. Severely reduced CFC was identified by FFR ≤0.80 in 90% of cases, although ≥40% of vessels with normal or mildly reduced CFC still had an FFR ≤0.80.ConclusionsCFC provides a cross-modality platform for the diagnosis and risk-stratification of IHD and enriches the interpretation of contemporary diagnostic tests in IHD.     

Impact of Balloon Post-Dilation on Clinical Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With the Self-Expanding CoreValve Prosthesis

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to assess the incidence and clinical impact of balloon post-dilation (BPD) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with the CoreValve prosthesis (Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota).BackgroundBPD is a widely adopted strategy to reduce the degree of paraprosthetic regurgitation in case of transcatheter heart valve underexpansion. However, controversies still remain regarding its real effectiveness and safety.MethodsThe ClinicalService (a nation-based data repository and medical care project) dataset was analyzed. All patients were dichotomized according to the need for BPD during the index procedure.ResultsAmong 1,376 patients, BPD of the transcatheter heart valve was performed in 272 (19.8%). In 37% of cases, it was unsuccessful at reducing the paravalvular regurgitation to mild or less. No case of valve embolization, new intravalvular regurgitation, coronary occlusion, and aortic root injury occurred during BPD. There were no statistically significant differences between the 2 groups in the incidence of in-hospital all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, neurological events, myocardial infarction, bleeding, conversion to open-chest surgery, and the need for a permanent pacemaker. The need for BPD did not emerge as an independent risk factor for all-cause (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 1.33, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.81 to 2.19, p = 0.264) and cardiovascular (adjusted HR: 1.48, 95% CI: 0.74 to 2.97, p = 0.265) mortality at 1 year after the procedure. In addition, BPD did not predispose to higher odds of neurological events during 12 months after TAVR (HR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.45 to 1.88, p = 0.815).ConclusionsThis large study showed that BPD after TAVR was safe and not associated with increased rates of cerebrovascular events, mortality, myocardial infarction, and aortic root injury.     

Randomized Comparisons Between Different Stenting Approaches for Bifurcation Coronary Lesions With or Without Side Branch Stenosis

ObjectivesThis study sought to evaluate the optimal percutaneous coronary intervention techniques using drug-eluting stents for bifurcation coronary lesions.BackgroundThe optimal bifurcation stenting technique needs to be evaluated.MethodsThe trial included 2 randomization studies separated by the presence of side branch (SB) stenosis for patients having non–left main bifurcation lesions. For 306 patients without SB stenosis, the routine final kissing balloon or leave-alone approaches were compared. Another randomization study compared the crush or single-stent approaches for 419 patients with SB stenosis.ResultsBetween the routine final kissing balloon and leave-alone groups for nondiseased SB lesions, angiographic restenosis occurred in 17.9% versus 9.3% (p = 0.064), comprising 15.1% versus 3.7% for the main branch (p = 0.004) and 2.8% versus 5.6% for the SB (p = 0.50) from 214 patients (69.9%) receiving 8-month angiographic follow-up. Incidence of major adverse cardiac events including death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization over 1 year was 14.0% versus 11.6% between the routine final kissing balloon and leave-alone groups (p = 0.57). In another randomization study for diseased SB lesions, 28.2% in the single-stent group received SB stents. From 300 patients (71.6%) receiving angiographic follow-up, between the crush and single-stent groups, angiographic restenosis rate was 8.4% versus 11.0% (p = 0.44), comprising 5.2% versus 4.8% for the main branch (p = 0.90) and 3.9% versus 8.3% for the SB (p = 0.12). One-year major adverse cardiac events rate between the crush and single-stent groups was 17.9% versus 18.5% (p = 0.84).ConclusionsAngiographic and clinical outcomes were excellent after percutaneous coronary intervention using drug-eluting stents with any stent technique for non–left main bifurcation lesions once the procedure was performed successfully.     

Randomized Comparison of FFR-Guided and Angiography-Guided Provisional Stenting of True Coronary Bifurcation Lesions: The DKCRUSH-VI Trial (Double Kissing Crush Versus Provisional Stenting Technique for Treatment of Coronary Bifurcation Lesions VI)

ObjectivesThis study sought to compare the outcomes of fractional flow reserve (FFR)–guided and angiography (Angio)–guided provisional side-branch (SB) stenting for true coronary bifurcation lesions.BackgroundAngio-guided provisional SB stenting after stenting of the main vessel provides favorable outcomes for the majority of coronary bifurcation lesions. Whether an FFR-guided provisional stenting approach is superior has not been studied.MethodsA total of 320 patients with single Medina 1,1,1 and 0,1,1 coronary bifurcation lesions undergoing stenting with a provisional SB approach were randomly assigned 1:1 to Angio-guided and FFR-guided groups. SB stenting was performed for Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction flow grade <3, ostial SB stenosis >70%, or greater than type A dissection after main vessel stenting in the Angio-guided group and for SB-FFR <0.80 in the FFR-guided group. The primary endpoint was the 1-year composite rate of major adverse cardiac events (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and clinically driven target vessel revascularization).ResultsComparing the Angio-guided and FFR-guided groups, treatment of the SB (balloon or stenting) was performed in 63.1% and 56.3% of lesions respectively (p = 0.07); stenting of the SB was attempted in 38.1% and 25.9%, respectively (p = 0.01); and, when attempted, stenting was successful in 83.6% and 73.3% of SBs, respectively (p = 0.01). The 1-year composite major adverse cardiac event rate was 18.1% in both groups (hazard ratio: 0.91, 95% confidence interval: 0.48 to 1.88; p = 1.00). The 1-year target vessel revascularization and stent thrombosis rates were 6.9% and 5.6% (p = 0.82) and 1.3% and 0.6% (p = 0.56) in the Angio-guided and FFR-guided groups, respectively.ConclusionsIn this multicenter, randomized trial, angiographic and FFR guidance of provisional SB stenting of true coronary bifurcation lesions provided similar 1-year clinical outcomes. (Randomized Study on DK Crush Technique Versus Provisional Stenting Technique for Coronary Artery Bifurcation Lesions; ChiCTR-TRC-07000015)     

Acute Kidney Injury in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease Undergoing Internal Carotid Artery Stent Implantation

ObjectivesThis study sought to investigate acute kidney injury (AKI) following carotid artery stenting (CAS).BackgroundFew data exist on AKI following CAS.MethodsThis study evaluated 126 chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients who underwent CAS. The risk for contrast-induced AKI was defined by the Mehran score. Hemodynamic depression (i.e., periprocedural systolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg or heart rate <60 beats/min), AKI (i.e., an increase of ≥0.3 mg/dl in the serum creatinine concentration at 48 h), and 30-day major adverse events (including death, stroke, and acute myocardial infarction) were assessed.ResultsAKI occurred in 26 patients (21%). Although baseline kidney function and contrast volume were similar in the AKI group and the non-AKI group, the risk score was higher (10 ± 3 vs. 8 ± 3; p = 0.032), and hemodynamic depression (mostly due to hypotension) (65.5% vs. 35%; p = 0.005) was more common in the AKI group. The threshold of hemodynamic depression duration for AKI development was 2.5 min (sensitivity 54%, specificity 82%). Independent predictors of AKI were hemodynamic depression (odds ratio [OR]: 4.01; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.07 to 15.03; p = 0.009), risk score (OR: 1.29; 95% CI: 1.03 to 1.60; p = 0.024), and male sex (OR: 6.07; 95% CI: 1.18 to 31.08; p = 0.021). Independent predictors of 30-day major adverse events that occurred more often in the AKI group (19.5% vs. 7%; p = 0.058) were AKI (HR: 4.83; 95% CI: 1.10 to 21.24; p = 0.037) and hemodynamic depression (HR: 5.58; 95% CI: 1.10 to 28.31; p = 0.038).ConclusionsAKI in CKD patients undergoing CAS is mostly due to hemodynamic depression and is associated with a higher 30-day major adverse events rate.     

Safety of Prasugrel Loading Doses in Patients Pre-Loaded With Clopidogrel in the Setting of Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Results of a Nonrandomized Observational Study

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to assess the safety of the concurrent administration of a clopidogrel and prasugrel loading dose in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention.BackgroundPrasugrel is one of the preferred P2Y₁₂ platelet receptor antagonists for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients. The use of prasugrel was evaluated clinically in clopidogrel-naive patients.MethodsBetween September 2009 and October 2012, a total of 2,023 STEMI patients were enrolled in the COMFORTABLE (Comparison of Biomatrix Versus Gazelle in ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction [STEMI]) and the SPUM-ACS (Inflammation and Acute Coronary Syndromes) studies. Patients receiving a prasugrel loading dose were divided into 2 groups: 1) clopidogrel and a subsequent prasugrel loading dose; and 2) a prasugrel loading dose. The primary safety endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium types 3 to 5 bleeding in hospital at 30 days.ResultsOf 2,023 patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention, 427 (21.1%) received clopidogrel and a subsequent prasugrel loading dose, 447 (22.1%) received a prasugrel loading dose alone, and the remaining received clopidogrel only. At 30 days, the primary safety endpoint was observed in 1.9% of those receiving clopidogrel and a subsequent prasugrel loading dose and 3.4% of those receiving a prasugrel loading dose alone (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.25 to 1.30, p = 0.18). The HAS-BLED (hypertension, abnormal renal/liver function, stroke, bleeding history or predisposition, labile international normalized ratio, elderly, drugs/alcohol concomitantly) bleeding score tended to be higher in prasugrel-treated patients (p = 0.076). The primary safety endpoint results, however, remained unchanged after adjustment for these differences (clopidogrel and a subsequent prasugrel loading dose vs. prasugrel only; HR: 0.54 [95% CI: 0.23 to 1.27], p = 0.16). No differences in the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or stroke were observed at 30 days (adjusted HR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.27 to 1.62, p = 0.36).ConclusionsThis observational, nonrandomized study of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients suggests that the administration of a loading dose of prasugrel in patients pre-treated with a loading dose of clopidogrel is not associated with an excess of major bleeding events. (Comparison of Biomatrix Versus Gazelle in ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction [STEMI] [COMFORTABLE]; NCT00962416; and Inflammation and Acute Coronary Syndromes [SPUM-ACS]; NCT01000701).