Effect of Intravascular Ultrasound–Guided Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation: 5-Year Follow-Up of the IVUS-XPL Randomized Trial

ObjectivesThe goal of this study was to evaluate whether the beneficial effect of use of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) is sustained for long-term follow-up.BackgroundThe use of IVUS promoted favorable 1-year clinical outcome in the IVUS-XPL (Impact of Intravascular Ultrasound Guidance on the Outcomes of Xience Prime Stents in Long Lesions) trial. It is not known, however, whether this effect is sustained for long-term follow-up.MethodsThe IVUS-XPL trial randomized 1,400 patients with long coronary lesions (implanted stent length ≥28 mm) to receive IVUS-guided (n = 700) or angiography-guided (n = 700) everolimus-eluting stent implantation. Five-year clinical outcomes were investigated in patients who completed the original trial. The primary outcome was the composite of major adverse cardiac events, including cardiac death, target lesion–related myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization at 5 years, analyzed by intention-to-treat.ResultsFive-year follow-up was completed in 1,183 patients (85%). Major adverse cardiac events at 5 years occurred in 36 patients (5.6%) receiving IVUS guidance and in 70 patients (10.7%) receiving angiographic guidance (hazard ratio: 0.50; 95% confidence interval: 0.34 to 0.75; p = 0.001). The difference was driven mainly by a lower risk for target lesion revascularization (31 [4.8%] vs. 55 [8.4%]; hazard ratio: 0.54; 95% confidence interval: 0.33 to 0.89; p = 0.007). By landmark analysis, major adverse cardiac events between 1 and 5 years occurred in 17 patients (2.8%) receiving IVUS guidance and in 31 patients (5.2%) receiving angiographic guidance (hazard ratio: 0.53; 95% confidence interval: 0.29 to 0.95; p = 0.031).ConclusionsCompared with angiography-guided stent implantation, IVUS-guided stent implantation resulted in a significantly lower rate of major adverse cardiac events up to 5 years. Sustained 5-year clinical benefits resulted from both within 1 year and from 1 to 5 years post-implantation. (Impact of Intravascular Ultrasound Guidance on the Outcomes of Xience Prime Stents in Long Lesions [IVUS-XPL Study]: Retrospective and Prospective Follow-Up Study; NCT03866486)     

Clinical Impact of Intravascular Ultrasound–Guided Fluoropolymer-Based Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation for Femoropopliteal Lesions

BackgroundTreatment with a fluoropolymer-based drug-eluting stent (FP-DES has been widely applied to the contemporary femoropopliteal practice with durable outcomes. Nevertheless, the impact of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) utilization on clinical outcomes after FP-DES implantation has not been determined.ObjectivesThis study aimed to investigate the impact of IVUS on 1-year clinical outcomes after FP-DES) implantation for femoropopliteal lesions in patients with symptomatic peripheral artery disease.MethodsAs a subanalysis of the CAPSICUM (contemporary outcomes after paclitaxel-eluting peripheral stent implantation for symptomatic lower limb ischemia with superficial femoral or proximal popliteal lesion) study, the present investigation analyzed 1,091 patients with symptomatic peripheral artery disease who underwent endovascular therapy with FP-DES for femoropopliteal lesions. One-year clinical outcomes were compared between patients treated with IVUS and those treated without IVUS after propensity score matching. The primary outcome measure was 1-year restenosis. The incidence of aneurysmal degeneration was also assessed.ResultsA total of 843 (77.2%) patients underwent IVUS-guided FP-DES implantation. After propensity score matching, the 1-year restenosis was not significantly different between the groups (11.5% [95% CI: 9.1%-14.0%] vs 15.5% [95% CI: 10.9%-20.1%]; P = 0.22). The frequency of aneurysmal degeneration at 1 year was significantly higher in the IVUS group than in the non-IVUS group (19.8% [95% CI: 16.3%-23.4%] vs 7.1% [95% CI: 3.3%-11.0%]; P < 0.001). IVUS use was associated with a lower restenosis risk in patients with chronic total occlusion but not in those without (P for interaction = 0.044).ConclusionsThe present study revealed that 1-year restenosis risk was not significantly different between the 2 groups, whereas the incidence of aneurysmal degeneration was significantly higher in the IVUS group.     

3-Year Clinical Outcomes After Implantation of Permanent-Polymer Versus Polymer-Free Stent: ReCre8 Landmark Analysis

ObjectivesThe aim of this analysis was to assess long-term clinical outcomes of the polymer-free Amphilimus-eluting stent (PF-AES) compared with a latest generation permanent-polymer drug-eluting stent (DES) in an all-comers population.BackgroundPF-AES possess multiple properties improving targeted drug elution without the presence of polymers. Evaluation of long-term clinical performance of PF-AES versus latest generation permanent-polymer DES has not yet been performed in a large randomized trial introducing shortened dual-antiplatelet therapy.MethodsIn this physician-initiated, multicenter, randomized, all-comers trial, patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with implantation of DES were enrolled. Patients were stratified for diabetes and troponin status and randomized to implantation of a permanent-polymer zotarolimus-eluting stent (PP-ZES) or a PF-AES. Dual-antiplatelet therapy duration was 12 months in troponin-positive patients and 1 month in troponin-negative patients. A noninferiority analysis was conducted to compare the 2 arms regarding target lesion failure (TLF) between 1 and 3 years.ResultsA total of 1,491 patients were randomized and treated. In this landmark analysis, between 1- and 3-year follow-up, TLF occurred in 35 patients (4.9%) in the PP-ZES arm and 37 PF-AES patients (5.1%). Clinical noninferiority of the PF-AES was confirmed, with a risk difference of 0.2% (upper limit 1-sided 95% CI: 2.2%; P_{noninferiority} = 0.0031).ConclusionsReCre8 (Randomized “All-Comer” Evaluation of a Permanent Polymer Resolute Integrity Stent Versus a Polymer Free Cre8 Stent) is the first randomized, multicenter trial with a head-to-head comparison of PP-ZES compared with PF-AES to investigate clinical outcomes of these new-generation DES in an all-comers population with long-term follow-up. On the basis of the present results, PF-AES are clinically noninferior to PP-ZES regarding TLF between 1 and 3 years. (Randomized “All-Comer” Evaluation of a Permanent Polymer Resolute Integrity Stent Versus a Polymer Free Cre8 Stent; NCT02328898)     

Drug-Coated Balloon Angioplasty Versus Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation in Patients With Coronary Stent Restenosis

BackgroundIn patients with coronary in-stent restenosis (ISR) requiring reintervention, it is unclear if the choice of treatment should depend on whether the restenotic stent was a bare-metal stent (BMS) or a drug-eluting stent (DES).ObjectivesThis study aimed to assess the comparative efficacy and safety of the 2 most frequently used treatments — angioplasty with drug-coated balloon (DCB) and repeat stenting DES — in patients with BMS-and DES-ISR.MethodsThe DAEDALUS (Difference in Antirestenotic Effectiveness of Drug-Eluting Stent and Drug-Coated Balloon Angioplasty for the Occurrence of Coronary In-Stent Restenosis) study was a pooled analysis of individual patient data from all 10 existing randomized clinical trials comparing DCB angioplasty with repeat DES implantation for the treatment of coronary ISR. In this pre-specified analysis, patients were stratified according to BMS- versus DES-ISR and treatment assigned. The primary efficacy endpoint was target lesion revascularization (TLR) at 3 years. The primary safety endpoint was a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or target lesion thrombosis at 3 years. Primary analysis was performed by mixed-effects Cox models accounting for the trial of origin. Secondary analyses included nonparsimonious multivariable adjustment accounting also for multiple lesions per patient and 2-stage analyses.ResultsA total of 710 patients with BMS-ISR (722 lesions) and 1,248 with DES-ISR (1,377 lesions) were included. In patients with BMS-ISR, no significant difference between treatments was observed in terms of primary efficacy (9.2% vs. 10.2%; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.51 to 1.37) and safety endpoints (8.7% vs. 7.5%; HR: 1.13; 95% CI: 0.65 to 1.96); results of secondary analyses were consistent. In patients with DES-ISR, the risk of the primary efficacy endpoint was higher with DCB angioplasty than with repeat DES implantation (20.3% vs. 13.4%; HR: 1.58; 95% CI: 1.16 to 2.13), whereas the risk of the primary safety endpoint was numerically lower (9.5% vs. 13.3%; HR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.47 to 1.00); results of secondary analyses were consistent. Regardless of the treatment used, the risk of TLR was lower in BMS- versus DES-ISR (9.7% vs. 17.0%; HR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.42 to 0.74), whereas safety was not significantly different between ISR types.ConclusionsAt 3-year follow-up, DCB angioplasty and repeat stenting with DES are similarly effective and safe in the treatment of BMS-ISR, whereas DCB angioplasty is significantly less effective than repeat DES implantation in the treatment DES-ISR, and associated with a nonsignificant reduction in the primary composite safety endpoint. Overall, DES-ISR is associated with higher rates of treatment failure and similar safety compared with BMS-ISR.     

Outcomes of Drug-Eluting Stent Thrombosis After Treatment for Acute Versus Chronic Coronary Syndrome

ObjectivesThe primary objective of the current analysis was to assess the association between the clinical presentation at index procedure and mortality in patients with second-generation drug-eluting stent thrombosis (G2-ST).BackgroundPatients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) have a higher risk for stent thrombosis (ST) as compared with those with chronic coronary syndrome (CCS). However, clinical outcomes of patients with G2-ST after treatment for ACS and CCS remain poorly understood.MethodsFrom the REAL-ST (Retrospective Multicenter Registry of ST After First- and Second-Generation Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation) registry, this study evaluated 313 patients with G2-ST. According to baseline clinical presentation, patients were divided into the 2 groups: the ACS and CCS groups (n = 147 and n = 166, respectively). The primary endpoint was the cumulative 3-year incidence of all-cause death after the index ST events. Timing of ST, target lesion revascularization, and recurrent ST were also assessed.ResultsEarly ST was more frequently observed in the ACS group (71.4% vs. 44.6%), while very late ST was less likely to occur in the ACS group than in the CCS group (11.6% vs. 30.7%). Cumulative 3-year incidence of all-cause death after the index ST events was comparable between the ACS and CCS groups (28.6% vs. 28.3%; hazard ratio: 1.14; 95% confidence interval: 0.75 to 1.73; p = 0.55). Compared with the CCS group, the ACS group showed higher incidences of target lesion revascularization and recurrent ST (23.8% vs. 17.2%; p = 0.06; and 9.9% vs. 1.4%; p = 0.001, respectively).ConclusionsPatients with G2-ST were associated with higher mortality irrespective of baseline clinical presentation.     

1-Year Outcomes of Fluoropolymer-Based Drug-Eluting Stent in Femoropopliteal Practice: Predictors of Restenosis and Aneurysmal Degeneration

ObjectivesThis study aimed to investigate the 1-year risk of restenosis and aneurysmal degeneration and explore the associated factors after femoropopliteal implantation of fluoropolymer-based drug-eluting stents (FP-DESs) for symptomatic atherosclerotic peripheral artery disease in real-world practice.BackgroundAlthough clinical trials have demonstrated that FP-DES implantation has favorable 1-year outcomes, its performance in real-world practice has not been well elucidated.MethodsThis multicenter, prospective, observational study evaluated 1,204 limbs (chronic limb-threatening ischemia: 34.8%, mean lesion length: 18.6 ± 9.9 cm, chronic total occlusion: 53.2%, bilateral wall calcification: 41.9%) of 1,097 patients with peripheral artery disease (age: 75 ± 9 years, men: 69.4%, diabetes mellitus: 60.8%, chronic kidney disease: 66.2%) undergoing Eluvia (Boston Scientific) drug-eluting stent implantation for femoropopliteal lesions. The primary outcome measure was 1-year restenosis, whereas the secondary outcome measures were 1-year occlusive restenosis, stent thrombosis, target lesion revascularization, and aneurysmal degeneration.ResultsThe 1-year occurrence rates of restenosis (12.9%), occlusive restenosis (9.2%), stent thrombosis (3.3%), target lesion revascularization (6.2%), and aneurysmal degeneration (16.8%) were found. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that dialysis, chronic limb-threatening ischemia, history of revascularization, a smaller reference vessel diameter, chronic total occlusion, and spot stenting were significantly associated with an increased risk of 1-year restenosis, whereas intravascular ultrasound use and subintimal wire passage were significantly associated with an increased risk of 1-year aneurysmal degeneration.ConclusionsThis study documented the 1-year clinical outcomes after femoropopliteal endovascular therapy with FP-DES implantation in real-world practice. The 1-year restenosis rate would be clinically acceptable, whereas the occurrence of occlusive restenosis and aneurysmal degeneration should be noted.     

Coronary Calcification and Long-Term Outcomes According to Drug-Eluting Stent Generation

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term impact of coronary artery calcification (CAC) on outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention and the respective performance of first- and second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES).BackgroundWhether contemporary DES have improved the long-term prognosis after percutaneous coronary intervention in lesions with severe CAC is unknown.MethodsIndividual patient data were pooled from 18 randomized trials evaluating DES, categorized according to the presence of angiography core laboratory–confirmed moderate or severe CAC. Major endpoints were the patient-oriented composite endpoint (death, myocardial infarction [MI], or any revascularization) and the device-oriented composite endpoint of target lesion failure (cardiac death, target vessel MI, or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization). Multivariate Cox proportional regression with study as a random effect was used to assess 5-year outcomes.ResultsA total of 19,833 patients were included. Moderate or severe CAC was present in 1 or more target lesions in 6,211 patients (31.3%) and was associated with increased 5-year risk for the patient-oriented composite endpoint (adjusted hazard ratio [adjHR]: 1.12; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.05 to 1.20) and target lesion failure (adjHR: 1.21; 95% CI: 1.09 to 1.34), as well as death, MI, and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization. In patients with CAC, use of second-generation DES compared with first-generation DES was associated with reductions in the 5-year risk for the patient-oriented composite endpoint (adjHR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.78 to 1.00) and target lesion failure (adjHR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.61 to 0.87), as well as death or MI, ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization, and stent thrombosis. The relative treatment effects of second-generation compared with first-generation DES were consistent in patients with and without moderate or severe CAC, although outcomes were consistently better with contemporary devices.ConclusionsIn this large-scale study, percutaneous coronary intervention of target lesion moderate or severe CAC was associated with adverse patient-oriented and device-oriented adverse outcomes at 5 years. These detrimental effects were mitigated with second-generation DES.     

Long-Term Outcomes of Biodegradable Versus Second-Generation Durable Polymer Drug-Eluting Stent Implantations for Myocardial Infarction

ObjectivesThis study sought to compare outcomes between biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stent (BP-DES) and second-generation durable polymer drug-eluting stent (DP-DES) implantations for acute myocardial infarction (MI) using a nationwide dataset.BackgroundData regarding outcomes of BP-DES versus second-generation DP-DES are inconclusive.MethodsAmong 13,104 patients with acute MI in a nationwide registry who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (November 2011 to December 2015), BP-DES and second-generation DP-DES were implanted in 2,261 (21.7%) and 8,182 patients (78.3%), respectively. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (all-cause death, recurrent MI, or any revascularization) were compared in multivariable Cox regression, propensity score (PS) matched, and underwent PS-adjusted analyses.ResultsMACE occurred in 1,492 (14.3%) patients during a median 723-day follow-up. MACE were less frequent with BP-DES implantation than with second-generation DP-DES implantation (entire cohort hazard ratio [HR]: 0.845; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.740 to 0.965; PS-matched HR: 0.669; 95% CI: 0.550 to 0.814). Risk of all-cause death (entire cohort HR: 0.831; 95% CI: 0.692 to 0.997; PS-matched HR: 0.752; 95% CI: 0.495 to 0.931), cardiac death (entire cohort HR: 0.685; 95% CI: 0.542 to 0.865; PS-matched HR: 0.613; 95% CI: 0.463 to 0.872), recurrent MI (entire cohort HR: 0.662; 95% CI: 0.466 to 0.941; PS-matched HR: 0.611; 95% CI: 0.427 to 0.898), and heart failure readmission (entire cohort HR: 0.625; 95% CI: 0.447 to 0.875; PS-matched HR: 0.584; 95% CI: 0.385 to 0.887) was less with BP-DES implantation. There were no significant group differences in the incidences of any revascularization, stroke, and definite or probable stent thrombosis.ConclusionsIn patients with acute MI who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention, BP-DES implantation is associated with improved outcomes compared with second-generation DP-DES implantation.     

2-Year Outcomes of the Eluvia Drug-Eluting Stent for the Treatment of Complex Femoropopliteal Lesions

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to evaluate the 2-year performance of a polymer-based drug-eluting stent (DES) for the treatment of complex femoropopliteal lesions.BackgroundDespite the promising early outcomes of the Eluvia DES, the long-term safety and efficacy of the device in a real-world scenario remain unclear.MethodsBetween March 2016 and December 2018, 130 patients (137 lesions) with symptomatic femoropopliteal disease were included in this study. The primary outcome measure of this analysis was primary patency. Secondary patency, freedom from target lesion revascularization, freedom from surgical conversion, and overall mortality and morbidity were additionally analyzed.ResultsThe majority of patients presented with lifestyle-limiting claudication (n = 90 [69%]). The mean lesion length was 194 ± 108 mm, 74% of the lesions (n = 101) were chronic total occlusions, and 72% (n = 99) were calcified. Moderate to severe calcification (Peripheral Arterial Calcium Scoring Scale score 3 or 4) was observed in 48% of the treated vessels (n = 67). At 24 months, the Kaplan-Meier estimate of primary patency was 71%, whereas both the secondary patency rate and freedom from target lesion revascularization were 80%. Overall survival amounted to 85%. Freedom from major amputation was 98%, while freedom from surgical conversion was 89%. Degeneration of the vessel wall was observed in 27 lesions (20%).ConclusionsIn this study, use of the Eluvia polymer-based DES for the treatment of complex femoropopliteal disease showed promising 2-year results. Nonetheless, a relatively high rate of vessel wall degeneration was observed after DES deployment.     

Platelet Reactivity and Clinical Outcomes After Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation: Results From the PTRG-DES Consortium

BackgroundThe long-term prognostic implication of platelet reactivity after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is not clearly known.ObjectivesThe impacts of platelet reactivity from the PTRG-DES consortium were assessed.MethodsThe primary endpoint was the major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) including all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, or stroke. Key secondary endpoints were all-cause mortality, major bleeding, and net adverse clinical events (NACE), including MACCE and bleeding.ResultsBetween 2003 and 2018, a total of 11,714 patients were enrolled and grouped into tertiles according to P2Y₁₂ reaction units (PRUs): high PRUs (≥253), intermediate PRUs (188-252), and low PRUs (<188). The Kaplan-Meier (KM) estimates of the primary outcome were significantly different across the groups; the high-PRU group showed the highest MACCE rate at 5 years (12.9%, 11.1%, and 7.0% in high-, intermediate-, and low-PRU groups, respectively; P < 0.001), as well as at 1 year (P < 0.001). The high-PRU group had the greatest KM estimates of all-cause death (8.2%, 5.9%, and 3.7%, respectively; P < 0.001) at 5 years without significant differences of major bleeding, and resultant of a higher KM estimates of NACE (15.7%, 13.6%, and 9.7%, respectively; P < 0.001). A PRU ≥252, the best cutoff value, was strongly related to MACCE (HR: 1.39; 95% CI: 1.11-1.74; P = 0.003) and all-cause death at 5 years after PCI (HR: 1.42; 95% CI: 1.04-1.94; P = 0.026). The optimal cutoff value of aspirin reaction units predicting the MACCE occurrence was ≥414 and was significantly associated with 5-year MACCE occurrence or all-cause death (P < 0.001).ConclusionsIn this large-scale cohort, high PRU was significantly associated with occurrence of MACCE, all-death death, and NACE at 5 years, as well as 1 year after PCI. (PTRG-DES Consortium [PTRG]; NCT04734028)     

Long-Term Outcomes of Coronary Stenting With and Without Use of Intravascular Ultrasound

ObjectivesThis study sought to explore if intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) use in real-world patients is associated with improved long-term outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).BackgroundThe benefit of IVUS use with PCI in real world is uncertain.MethodsWe identified Medicare patients who underwent PCI from 2009 to 2017 and evaluated the association of IVUS use with long-term risk of mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), and repeat revascularization. We used propensity score matching and inverse probability weighting to adjust for baseline characteristics. To account for hospital effects, patients undergoing IVUS-guided PCI were matched to non-IVUS patients in the same hospital and year. Sensitivity analyses comparing outcomes with and without IVUS in stable coronary artery disease and acute coronary syndrome, PCI with bare-metal stents and drug-eluting stents, complex and noncomplex PCI, and facilities with 1% to 5%, 5% to 10%, and >10% IVUS use were performed.ResultsOverall, IVUS was used in 5.6% of all PCI patients (105,787 out of 1,877,177 patients). Patients with IVUS-guided PCI had a higher prevalence of most comorbidities. In the propensity matched analysis, IVUS-guided PCI was associated with lower 1-year mortality (11.5% vs. 12.3%), MI (4.9% vs. 5.2%), and repeat revascularization (6.1% vs. 6.7%) (p < 0.001 for all). In inverse probability weighting analysis with a median follow-up of 3.7 years (interquartile range: 1.7 to 6.4 years), IVUS-guided PCI was associated with a lower risk of mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 0.903; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.885 to 0.922), MI (aHR: 0.899; 95% CI: 0.893 to 0.904), and repeat revascularization (aHR: 0.893; 95% CI: 0.887 to 0.898) (p < 0.001 for all). These findings were consistent in all subgroups in sensitivity analyses.ConclusionsIn this contemporary U.S. Medicare cohort, the use of IVUS guidance in PCI remains low. Use of IVUS is associated with lower long-term mortality, MI, and repeat revascularization.     

2-Year Clinical Outcomes of an Abluminal Groove–Filled Biodegradable-Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Compared With a Durable-Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stent

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to assess the 2-year clinical outcomes of the Firehawk stent (Shanghai MicroPort Medical Group, Shanghai, China), a novel abluminal groove–filled biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting coronary stent, compared with XIENCE (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, California), a durable-polymer everolimus-eluting coronary stent.BackgroundThe long-term outcomes of the Firehawk stent have not been evaluated beyond 1 year in a randomized all-comers clinical trial.MethodsThe TARGET All Comers study is a prospective, multicenter, all-comers, randomized, noninferiority trial conducted in Europe. A total of 1,653 patients were randomly assigned to undergo implantation of either the Firehawk or the XIENCE stent. The primary endpoint was target lesion failure, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization.ResultsAt 2-year follow-up, the incidence of target lesion failure was 8.7% in the Firehawk group versus 8.6% in the XIENCE group (p = 0.92). The event rates of individual components of the primary endpoint were comparable for the 2 groups. Landmark analyses between 1- and 2-year follow-up revealed no statistically significant difference of TLF for the Firehawk versus the XIENCE stent. Beyond 1 year, very late definite or probable stent thrombosis occurred in 3 patients (0.4%) in the Firehawk group and in 7 patients (0.9%) in the XIENCE group (p = 0.34).ConclusionsThe 2-year follow-up of the TARGET All Comers study confirms comparable safety and efficacy profiles of the Firehawk and XIENCE stents.     

Biodegradable- Versus Durable-Polymer Drug-Eluting Stents for STEMI: Final 2-Year Outcomes of the BIOSTEMI Trial

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to investigate the safety and efficacy of biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (BP-SES) compared with durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP-EES) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).BackgroundPrimary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is an effective treatment for patients with STEMI, and long-term outcomes are determined by the safety and efficacy profile of the newest generation drug-eluting stents.MethodsBIOSTEMI (A Comparison of an Ultrathin Strut Biodegradable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stent With a Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stent for Patients With Acute ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) was an investigator-initiated, multicenter, assessor-blind, randomized superiority trial using Bayesian methods. Patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI within 24 h of symptom onset were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive BP-SES (n = 649) or DP-EES (n = 651). The primary endpoint was target lesion failure (TLF), a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial reinfarction, and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization (TLR) at 2 years.ResultsBetween April 2016 and March 2018, 1,300 patients were included. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the 2 treatment groups. Follow-up through 2 years was complete in 1,221 patients (94%). At 2 years, TLF occurred in 33 patients (5.1%) treated with BP-SES and in 53 patients (8.1%) treated with DP-EES (rate ratio: 0.58; 95% Bayesian credible interval: 0.40 to 0.84; posterior probability of superiority = 0.998). The difference was driven by a lower incidence of clinically indicated TLR in patients treated with BP-SES compared with DP-EES (2.5% vs. 5.1%; rate ratio: 0.52; 95% Bayesian credible interval: 0.30 to 0.87; posterior probability of superiority = 0.993). There were no significant differences in rates of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial reinfarction, and definite stent thrombosis between the 2 treatment arms.ConclusionsIn patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI, BP-SES were superior to DP-EES with respect to TLF at 2 years. The difference was driven by lower rates of ischemia-driven TLR. (A Comparison of an Ultrathin Strut Biodegradable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stent With a Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stent for Patients With Acute ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention [BIOSTEMI]; NCT02579031)     

5-Year Outcomes Comparing Surgical Versus Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to compare 5-year cardiovascular, renal, and bioprosthetic valve durability outcomes in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).BackgroundPatients with severe AS and CKD undergoing TAVR or SAVR are a challenging, understudied clinical subset.MethodsIntermediate-risk patients with moderate to severe CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/m²) from the PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve) 2A trial (patients randomly assigned to SAPIEN XT TAVR or SAVR) and SAPIEN 3 Intermediate Risk Registry were pooled. The composite primary outcome of death, stroke, rehospitalization, and new hemodialysis was evaluated using Cox regression analysis. Patients with and without perioperative acute kidney injury (AKI) were followed through 5 years. A core laboratory–adjudicated analysis of structural valve deterioration and bioprosthetic valve failure was also performed.ResultsThe study population included 1,045 TAVR patients (512 SAPIEN XT, 533 SAPIEN 3) and 479 SAVR patients. At 5 years, SAVR was better than SAPIEN XT TAVR (52.8% vs 68.0%; P = 0.04) but similar to SAPIEN 3 TAVR (52.8% vs 58.7%; P = 0.89). Perioperative AKI was more common after SAVR than TAVR (26.3% vs 10.3%; P < 0.001) and was independently associated with long-term outcomes. Compared with SAVR, bioprosthetic valve failure and stage 2 or 3 structural valve deterioration were significantly greater for SAPIEN XT TAVR (P < 0.05) but not for SAPIEN 3 TAVR.ConclusionsIn intermediate-risk patients with AS and CKD, SAPIEN 3 TAVR and SAVR were associated with a similar risk for the primary endpoint at 5 years. AKI was more common after SAVR than TAVR, and SAPIEN 3 valve durability was comparable with that of surgical bioprostheses.     

Paclitaxel-Coated Balloon Angioplasty Versus Drug-Eluting Stent in Acute Myocardial Infarction: The REVELATION Randomized Trial

ObjectivesThis study sought to assess the efficacy and safety of a drug-coated balloon (DCB) strategy versus drug-eluting stent (DES) in primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).BackgroundIn primary percutaneous coronary intervention for STEMI, stenting has proved to be beneficial with regard to repeat revascularization, but not recurrent myocardial infarction or death, compared with balloon angioplasty alone. A strategy of DCB angioplasty without stenting might abolish the potential disadvantages of stent implantation while reducing the probability of restenosis observed in plain old balloon angioplasty.MethodsIn the prospective, randomized, single-center REVELATION trial, we compared DCB with DES in patients presenting with STEMI. Patients with a new, nonseverely calcified culprit lesion in a native coronary artery and a residual stenosis of <50% after pre-dilatation were randomized to treatment with a DCB or DES. The primary endpoint was fractional flow reserve at 9 months, allowing for a functional measurement of the infarct-related lesion.ResultsA total of 120 patients were included. At 9 months after enrolment, the mean fractional flow reserve value was 0.92 ± 0.05 in the DCB group (n = 35) and 0.91 ± 0.06 in the DES group (n = 38) (p = 0.27). One abrupt vessel closure requiring treatment occurred after treatment with DCB. Up to 9-months follow-up, 2 patients required nonurgent target lesion revascularization (1 in each group).ConclusionsIn the setting of STEMI, the DCB strategy was noninferior to DES in terms of fractional flow reserve assessed at 9 months. Furthermore, it seemed to be a safe and feasible strategy. (Revascularization With Paclitaxel-Coated Balloon Angioplasty Versus Drug-Eluting Stenting in Acute Myocardial Infarction [REVELATION]; NCT02219802)     

Prospective Evaluation of TMVR for Failed Surgical Annuloplasty Rings: MITRAL Trial Valve-in-Ring Arm 1-Year Outcomes

ObjectivesThe authors report 1-year outcomes of high-risk patients with failed surgical annuloplasty rings undergoing transseptal mitral valve–in–ring (MViR) with the SAPIEN 3 aortic transcatheter heart valve (THV).BackgroundThe MITRAL (Mitral Implantation of Transcatheter Valves) trial is the first prospective study evaluating transseptal MViR with the SAPIEN 3 aortic THV in high-risk patients with failed surgical annuloplasty rings.MethodsProspective enrollment of high-risk patients with symptomatic moderate to severe or severe mitral regurgitation (MR) or severe mitral stenosis and failed annuloplasty rings at 13 U.S. sites. The primary safety endpoint was technical success. The primary THV performance endpoint was absence of MR grade ≥2+ or mean mitral valve gradient ≥10 mm Hg (30 days and 1 year). Secondary endpoints included procedural success and all-cause mortality (30 days and 1 year).ResultsThirty patients were enrolled between January 2016 and October 2017 (median age 71.5 years [interquartile range: 67.0 to 76.8 years], 36.7% women, median Society of Thoracic Surgeons score 7.6% [interquartile range: 5.1% to 11.8%], 76.7% in New York Heart Association functional class III or IV). Technical success was 66.7% (driven primarily by need for a second valve in 6 patients). There was no intraprocedural mortality or conversion to surgery. The primary performance endpoint was achieved in 85.7% of survivors at 30 days (24 of 28) and 89.5% of patients alive at 1 year with echocardiographic data available (17 of 19). All-cause mortality at 30 days was 6.7% and at 1 year was 23.3%. Among survivors at 1-year follow-up, 84.2% were in New York Heart Association functional class I or II, the median mean mitral valve gradient was 6.0 mm Hg (interquartile range: 4.7 to 7.3 mm Hg), and all had ≤1+ MR.ConclusionsTransseptal MViR was associated with a 30-day mortality rate lower than predicted by the Society of Thoracic Surgeons score. At 1 year, transseptal MViR was associated with symptom improvement and stable THV performance.     

Ultrathin Bioresorbable-Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Thin Durable-Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stents for Coronary Revascularization: 3-Year Outcomes From the Randomized BIOFLOW V Trial

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to compare late-term clinical outcomes among patients treated with ultrathin-strut (60-μm) bioresorbable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (BP SES) and thin-strut (81μm) durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP EES).BackgroundEmerging evidence from comparative studies of drug-eluting stents demonstrates improved safety and efficacy with ultrathin-strut drug-eluting stents, but limited insight exists regarding late-term outcomes.MethodsBIOFLOW V (Biotronik Prospective Randomized Multicenter Study to Assess the Safety and Effectiveness of the Orsiro Sirolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Subjects With Up to Three De Novo or Restenotic Coronary Artery Lesions V) is an international randomized trial comparing coronary revascularization with BP SES and DP EES regarding the primary endpoint of 12-month target lesion failure. Analysis of pre-specified 3-year clinical outcomes was performed.ResultsAmong 1,334 patients randomized to treatment with BP SES (n = 884) or DP EES (n = 450), the 3-year rate of target lesion failure was 8.2% for BP SES and 13.6% for DP EES (p = 0.002), driven by differences in both target vessel myocardial infarction (MI) (5.0% vs. 9.2%; p = 0.003) and clinically driven target lesion revascularization (3.2% vs. 6.7%; p = 0.006). In landmark analysis, significant differences in target vessel MI and target lesion revascularization were observed favoring treatment with BP SES. Definite or probable late or very late stent thrombosis was significantly lower with BP SES (0.1% vs. 1.2%; p = 0.018). Cardiac death or MI rates were 7.7% and 11.7% (p = 0.017) for BP SES and DP EES, respectively.ConclusionsIn a large randomized trial, both target lesion failure and the outcomes of target vessel MI, clinically driven target lesion revascularization, and late or very late stent thrombosis at 3 years were significantly lower among patients treated with BP SES versus DP EES. The results endorse the continued superiority of ultrathin-strut BP SES compared with DP EES. (Safety and Effectiveness of the Orsiro Sirolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in Subjects With Coronary Artery Lesions [BIOFLOW-V]; NCT02389946)     

Impact of Intravascular Ultrasound on Long-Term Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to examine the impact of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)–guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) on long-term clinical outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI).BackgroundIVUS-guided PCI has been associated with improved cardiovascular outcomes. However, the beneficial effect of IVUS-guided PCI in patients with AMI in the drug-eluting stent era remains unclear.MethodsPatients who underwent PCI with drug-eluting stents were selected from 10,719 patients enrolled in a multicenter AMI registry. The included patients were classified into 2 groups according to the use or nonuse of IVUS. The primary outcome was a composite of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), including cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization, during long-term follow-up.ResultsA total of 9,846 patients were treated with IVUS-guided PCI (n = 2,032) or angiography-guided PCI (n = 7,814). IVUS-guided PCI was associated with reduced MACE (HR: 0.779; 95% CI: 0.689-0.880; P < 0.001). The results were consistent after multivariable regression and propensity score matching. One-year landmark analysis showed a lower risk for MACE within 1 year (HR: 0.766; 95% CI: 0650-0.903; P = 0.002) and beyond 1 year (HR: 0.796; 95% CI: 0663-0.956; P = 0.014) after index PCI.ConclusionsThe use of IVUS was associated with better long-term cardiovascular outcomes. The clinical benefit of IVUS was maintained both within and beyond 1 year after index PCI. The use of IVUS in PCI should be considered for patients with AMI.     

Improved 3-Year Cardiac Survival After IVUS–Guided Long DES Implantation: A Patient-Level Analysis From 2 Randomized Trials

ObjectivesThe present study aimed to evaluate long-term cardiac survival benefit for intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)- versus angiography-guided long drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation.BackgroundAlthough the long-term benefit of IVUS guidance for DES implantation has been reported from recent randomized trials, this benefit was primarily driven by the reduction in repeat revascularization. Thus, it remains uncertain whether IVUS guidance improved survival during long-term follow-up.MethodsWe pooled the data of 2 randomized trials (IVUS-XPL [Impact of Intravascular Ultrasound Guidance on the Outcomes of Xience Prime Stents in Long Lesions] and ULTIMATE [Intravascular Ultrasound Guided Drug Eluting Stents Implantation in All-Comers Coronary Lesions]) and compared IVUS guidance versus angiography guidance in 2,577 patients with long lesions treated with an implanted stent length ≥28 mm. The primary end point was cardiac death at 3 years.ResultsA 3-year clinical follow-up was completed in 96%. The primary end point of cardiac death occurred in 12 patients (1.0%) in the IVUS-guided group vs 28 patients (2.2%) in the angiography-guided group (HR: 0.43; 95% CI: 0.22-0.84; P = 0.011). In addition, target lesion–related myocardial infarction occurred in 3 patients (0.2%) in the IVUS-guided group and in 9 patients (0.7%) in the angiography-guided group (HR: 0.33; 95% CI: 0.09-1.22; P = 0.081), stent thrombosis developed in 3 patients (0.2%) in the IVUS-guided group and 9 patients (0.7%) in the angiography-guided group (HR: 0.33; 95% CI: 0.09-1.23; P = 0.082), and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization was observed in 47 patients (3.8%) in the IVUS-guided group and 80 patients (6.5%) in the angiography-guided group (HR: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.40-0.82; P = 0.002).ConclusionsIn this post hoc pooled patient-level analysis, the use of IVUS-guided long DES implantation compared with angiography-guided stent implantation improved long-term patient cardiac survival.     

Drug-Coated Balloon Versus Drug-Eluting Stent for Small Coronary Vessel Disease: PICCOLETO II Randomized Clinical Trial

ObjectivesThis study sought to compare the performance of a novel drug-coated balloon (DCB) (Elutax SV, Aachen Resonance, Germany), with an everolimus-eluting stent (EES) (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, California) in patients with de novo lesions.BackgroundSmall vessel coronary artery disease (SVD) represents one of the most attractive fields of application for DCB. To date, several devices have been compared with drug-eluting stents in this setting, with different outcomes.MethodsThe PICCOLETO II (Drug Eluting Balloon Efficacy for Small Coronary Vessel Disease Treatment) trial was an international, investigator-driven, multicenter, open-label, prospective randomized controlled trial where patients with de novo SVD lesions were randomized to DCB or EES. Primary study endpoint was in-lesion late lumen loss (LLL) at 6 months (independent core laboratory), with the noninferiority between the 2 arms hypothesized. Secondary endpoints were minimal lumen diameter, percent diameter stenosis at angiographic follow-up, and the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events at 12 months.ResultsBetween May 2015 and May 2018, a total of 232 patients were enrolled at 5 centers. After a median of 189 (interquartile range: 160 to 202) days, in-lesion LLL was significantly lower in the DCB group (0.04 vs. 0.17 mm; p = 0.001 for noninferiority; p = 0.03 for superiority). Percent diameter stenosis and minimal lumen diameter were not significantly different. At 12-month clinical follow-up, major adverse cardiac events occurred in 7.5% of the DES group and in 5.6% of the DCB group (p = 0.55). There was a numerically higher incidence of spontaneous myocardial infarction (4.7% vs. 1.9%; p = 0.23) and vessel thrombosis (1.8% vs. 0%; p = 0.15) in the DES arm.ConclusionsIn this multicenter randomized clinical trial in patients with de novo SVD lesions, a new-generation DCB was found superior to EES in terms of LLL as the angiographic pattern and comparable in terms of clinical outcome. (Drug Eluting Balloon Efficacy for Small Coronary Vessel Disease Treatment [PICCOLETO II]; NCT03899818)