Differential Prognostic Effect Between First- and Second-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents in Coronary Bifurcation Lesions: Patient-Level Analysis of the Korean Bifurcation Pooled Cohorts

ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to investigate the differential clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for coronary bifurcation lesions with 1- or 2-stenting techniques using first- or second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES).BackgroundThe 2-stenting technique has been regarded to have worse clinical outcomes than the 1-stenting technique after bifurcation PCI with first-generation DES. However, there has been a paucity of data comparing the 1- and 2-stenting techniques with the use of second-generation DES.MethodsPatient-level pooled analysis was performed with 3,162 patients undergoing PCI using first- or second-generation DES for bifurcation lesions from the “Korean Bifurcation Pooled Cohorts” (COBIS [Coronary Bifurcation Stenting] II, EXCELLENT [Registry to Evaluate Efficacy of Xience/Promus Versus Cypher in Reducing Late Loss After Stenting], and RESOLUTE-Korea [Registry to Evaluate the Efficacy of Zotarolimus-Eluting Stent]). The 3-year clinical outcomes were compared between 1- and 2-stenting techniques, stratified by the type of DES.ResultsWith first-generation DES, rates of target lesion failure (TLF) or patient-oriented composite outcome (POCO) (a composite of all death, any myocardial infarction, any repeat revascularization, and cerebrovascular accidents) at 3 years were significantly higher after the 2-stenting than the 1-stenting technique (TLF 8.6% vs. 17.5%; p < 0.001; POCO 18.1% vs. 28.5%, p < 0.001). With second-generation DES, however, there was no difference between 1- and 2-stenting techniques (TLF 5.4% vs. 5.8%; p = 0.768; POCO 11.2% vs. 12.9%; p = 0.995). The differential effects of 2-stenting technique on the prognosis according to the type of DES were also corroborated with similar results by the inverse probability weighted model. The 2-stenting technique was a significant independent predictor of TLF in first-generation DES (hazard ratio: 2.046; 95% confidence interval: 1.114 to 3.759; p < 0.001), but not in second-generation DES (hazard ratio: 0.667; 95% confidence interval: 0.247 to 1.802; p = 0.425).ConclusionsPatient-level pooled analysis of 3,162 patients in Korean Bifurcation Pooled Cohorts demonstrated that the 2-stenting technique showed comparable outcomes to 1-stenting technique with second-generation DES, which is different from the results of first-generation DES favoring the 1-stenting technique.     

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)     

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.     

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.     

Drug-Coated Balloons Versus Second-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents for the Management of Recurrent Multimetal-Layered In-Stent Restenosis

ObjectivesThis study aimed to investigate the clinical outcomes of patients presenting with recurrent drug-eluting stent (DES) in-stent restenosis (ISR) treated with a second-generation DES or with a drug-coated balloon (DCB).BackgroundTo date, there are no reports of DCB treatment and limited data with regard to the efficacy of further DES implantation for recurrent ISR.MethodsBetween January 2008 and December 2013, 171 lesions were assessed for eligibility (82 lesions in the second-generation DES group and 89 lesions in the DCB group).ResultsAcute gain was greater in the second-generation DES group (second-generation DES, 2.09 ± 0.53 mm vs. DCBs, 1.60 ± 0.62 mm, p < 0.001). The rates of major adverse cardiac events were comparable (at 1 year, DES 14.0% vs. DCBs 12.3%; at 2 years, DES 28.8% vs. DCBs 43.5%, p = 0.21). Major adverse cardiac event rates were mainly driven by target lesion revascularization (at 1 year, DES 12.5% vs. DCBs 10.9%; at 2 years, DES 27.7% vs. DCBs 38.3%; p = 0.40). Definite scaffold thrombosis occurred in 2 patients (1 patient in each group). Multivariable analysis revealed ISR recurrence within 1 year (hazard ratio: 2.43, 95% confidence interval: 1.14 to 5.18, p = 0.02) and lesion length (per 10-mm increase) (hazard ratio: 1.15, 95% confidence interval: 1.00 to 1.32, p = 0.049) to be independent predictors of TLR.ConclusionsThe results after both treatments were equivalent. ISR recurrence within 1 year of the first reintervention and lesion length were independent predictors of future target lesion revascularization. Larger studies are required to confirm the late (>1 year) differences with regard to clinical outcomes.     

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)     

Stent Thrombosis in Drug-Eluting or Bare-Metal Stents in Patients Receiving Dual Antiplatelet Therapy

ObjectivesThis study sought to compare rates of stent thrombosis and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) (composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) after coronary stenting with drug-eluting stents (DES) versus bare-metal stents (BMS) in patients who participated in the DAPT (Dual Antiplatelet Therapy) study, an international multicenter randomized trial comparing 30 versus 12 months of dual antiplatelet therapy in subjects undergoing coronary stenting with either DES or BMS.BackgroundDespite antirestenotic efficacy of coronary DES compared with BMS, the relative risk of stent thrombosis and adverse cardiovascular events is unclear. Many clinicians perceive BMS to be associated with fewer adverse ischemic events and to require shorter-duration dual antiplatelet therapy than DES.MethodsProspective propensity-matched analysis of subjects enrolled into a randomized trial of dual antiplatelet therapy duration was performed. DES- and BMS-treated subjects were propensity-score matched in a many-to-one fashion. The study design was observational for all subjects 0 to 12 months following stenting. A subset of eligible subjects without major ischemic or bleeding events were randomized at 12 months to continued thienopyridine versus placebo; all subjects were followed through 33 months.ResultsAmong 10,026 propensity-matched subjects, DES-treated subjects (n = 8,308) had a lower rate of stent thrombosis through 33 months compared with BMS-treated subjects (n = 1,718, 1.7% vs. 2.6%; weighted risk difference −1.1%, p = 0.01) and a noninferior rate of MACCE (11.4% vs. 13.2%, respectively, weighted risk difference −1.8%, p = 0.053, noninferiority p < 0.001).ConclusionsDES-treated subjects have long-term rates of stent thrombosis that are lower than BMS-treated subjects. (The Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Study [DAPT study]; NCT00977938)     

Clinical Outcome After DK Crush Versus Culotte Stenting of Distal Left Main Bifurcation Lesions: The 3-Year Follow-Up Results of the DKCRUSH-III Study

ObjectivesThe present study aimed to investigate the difference in major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 3 years after double-kissing (DK) crush versus culotte stenting for unprotected left main distal bifurcation lesions (LMDBLs).BackgroundThe multicenter and randomized DKCRUSH-III (Comparison of double kissing crush versus culotte stenting for unprotected distal left main bifurcation lesions: results from a multicenter, randomized, prospective study) showed that DK crush stenting was associated with fewer MACE at 1-year follow-up in patients with LMDBLs compared with culotte stenting. Here, we report the 3-year clinical outcome of the DKCRUSH-III study.MethodsA total of 419 patients with LMDBLs who were randomly assigned to either the DK crush or culotte group in the DKCRUSH-III study were followed for 3 year. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of a MACE at 3 years. Stent thrombosis (ST) was the safety endpoint. Patients were classified by simple and complex LMDBLs according to the DEFINITION (Definition and Impact of Complex Bifurcation Lesions on Clinical Outcomes After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Using Drug-Eluting Stents) study criteria.ResultsAt 3 years, MACE occurred in 49 patients the culotte group and in 17 patients in the DK crush group (cumulative event rates of 23.7% and 8.2%, respectively; p < 0.001), mainly driven by increased myocardial infarction (8.2% vs. 3.4%, respectively; p = 0.037) and target-vessel revascularization (18.8% vs. 5.8%, respectively; p < 0.001) between groups. Definite ST rate was 3.4% in the culotte group and 0% in the DK crush group (p = 0.007). Complex LMDBLs were associated with a higher rate of MACE (35.3%) at 3 years compared with a rate of 8.1% in patients with simple LMDBLs (p < 0.001), with an extremely higher rate in the culotte group (51.5% vs. 15.1%, p < 0.001).ConclusionsCulotte stenting for LMDBLs was associated with significantly increased rates of MACE and ST. (Double Kissing [DK] Crush Versus Culotte Stenting for the Treatment of Unprotected Distal Left Main Bifurcation Lesions: DKCRUSH-III, a Multicenter Randomized Study Comparing Double-Stent Techniques; ChiCTR-TRC-11001877)     

Correlates and Outcomes of Late and Very Late Drug-Eluting Stent Thrombosis: Results From DESERT (International Drug-Eluting Stent Event Registry of Thrombosis)

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to identify clinical, procedural, and angiographic correlates of late/very late drug-eluting stent (DES) thrombosis as well as to determine the clinical outcomes of these events.BackgroundLate/very late DES thromboses are a poorly studied phenomenon, partly due to the relative infrequency of these events, even in large cohort studies.MethodsIn the DESERT (International Drug-Eluting Stent Event Registry of Thrombosis), a retrospective, case-control registry, 492 cases of late/very late definite DES thrombosis from 21 international sites were matched in a 1:1 fashion with controls without stent thrombosis (ST). Controls were matched according to 2 criteria: same enrolling institution and date of initial DES implantation. Baseline and procedural variables were collected, and clinical follow-up was obtained for patients with ST as long as 1 year after the event. Offline quantitative coronary angiography was performed for a subset of 378 case-control pairs.ResultsThe majority of ST events occurred after 1 year (75%) and continued to occur for as long as 7.3 years. The clinical presentation of late/very late ST events was mainly myocardial infarction (66.7% ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and 22.0% non–ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction); in-hospital mortality was 3.8%. A minority of patients (30%) with ST were receiving dual-antiplatelet therapy at the time of the event. Independent clinical correlates of late/very late ST were younger age, African-American race, current smoking, multivessel disease, longer stented length, overlapping stents, and percutaneous coronary intervention of vein graft lesions. Independent angiographic correlates for late/very late ST were lesions within the left anterior descending artery or a bypass graft, thrombus, and a larger residual diameter stenosis after the initial DES implantation. Despite the large sample of ST cases, all identified correlates of late/very late ST had weak associations with subsequent ST (all odds ratios <2.5).ConclusionsDespite a large sample of ST cases and use of limited matching to maximize the identification of predictive factors associated with late/very late ST, the variables associated with the development of late/very late ST were only weakly predictive of subsequent events. Additionally, a relatively low observed mortality rate of ST in this series may reflect a different pathophysiology of these late/very late events compared with acute/subacute ST. (Drug Eluting Stent Registry of Thrombosis [DESERT]; NCT00812552).     

Acute Thrombogenicity of a Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stent Relative to Contemporary Drug-Eluting Stents With Biodegradable Polymer Coatings Assessed Ex Vivo in a Swine Shunt Model

ObjectivesThis study sought to evaluate whether the permanent fluoropolymer-coated Xience Xpedition everolimus-eluting stent (Xience-EES) exhibits lower acute thrombogenicity compared with contemporary drug-eluting stents (DES) with biodegradable polymer coatings in an acute swine shunt model.BackgroundPrevious pre-clinical and clinical experience suggests that several factors may influence the predisposition for acute thrombus formation of polymer-coated DES, including stent design and the polymer coating technology. It remains unclear whether relevant differences exist with respect to acute thrombogenicity, particularly between current commercial stent designs using permanent polymers and those using biodegradable polymers.MethodsAn ex vivo carotid to jugular arteriovenous porcine shunt model involving a test circuit of 3 in-line stents, was used to test acute thrombogenicity, where Xience-EES (n = 24) was compared with 4 CE-marked DES with biodegradable polymer coatings (BioMatrix Flex, Synergy, Nobori, and Orsiro [n = 6 each]). After 1 h of circulation, platelet aggregation in whole mount stents was evaluated by confocal microscopy with immunofluorescent staining against dual platelet markers (CD61/CD42b) along with scanning electron microscopy.ResultsXience-EES showed the least percentage of thrombus-occupied area as compared with the biodegradable polymer-coated DES, with a significant difference compared with BioMatrix Flex and Synergy (mean differences: [BioMatrix Flex: 15.54, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 11.34 to 19.75, p < 0.001; Synergy: 8.64, 95% CI: 4.43 to 12.84, p < 0.001; Nobori: 4.22, 95% CI: -0.06 to 8.49, p = 0.055; Orsiro: 2.95, 95% CI: -1.26 to 7.15, p = 0.286). The number of cell nuclei on strut surfaces was also the least in Xience-EES, with a significant difference relative to BioMatrix Flex, Nobori, and Orsiro (mean ratios: BioMatrix Flex: 4.73, 95% CI: 2.46 to 9.08, p < 0.001; Synergy: 1.44, 95% CI: 0.75 to 2.76, p = 0.51; Nobori: 5.97, 95% CI: 3.11 to 11.44, p < 0.001; Orsiro: 5.16, 95% CI: 2.69 to 9.91, p < 0.001).ConclusionsXience-EES’s overall design confers acute thromboresistance relative to contemporary DES with biodegradable coatings, with less platelet aggregation versus BioMatrix Flex and Synergy, and less inflammatory cell attachment versus BioMatrix Flex, Nobori, and Orsiro, in an ex vivo swine shunt model, which lends support to reported clinical findings of lower early stent thrombosis.     

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).