Sirolimus- vs paclitaxel-eluting stents in de novo coronary artery lesions: the REALITY trial: a randomized controlled trial

CONTEXT: Compared with bare metal stents, sirolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents have been shown to markedly improve angiographic and clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary revascularization, but their performance in the treatment of de novo coronary lesions has not been compared in a prospective multicenter study. OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety and efficacy of sirolimus-eluting vs paclitaxel-eluting coronary stents. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized comparative trial (the REALITY trial) conducted between August 2003 and February 2004, with angiographic follow-up at 8 months and clinical follow-up at 12 months. SETTING: Ninety hospitals in Europe, Latin America, and Asia. PATIENTS: A total of 1386 patients (mean age, 62.6 years; 73.1% men; 28.0% with diabetes) with angina pectoris and 1 or 2 de novo lesions (2.25-3.00 mm in diameter) in native coronary arteries. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive a sirolimus-eluting stent (n = 701) or a paclitaxel-eluting stent (n = 685). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary end point was in-lesion binary restenosis (presence of a more than 50% luminal-diameter stenosis) at 8 months. Secondary end points included 1-year rates of target lesion and vessel revascularization and a composite end point of cardiac death, Q-wave or non-Q-wave myocardial infarction, coronary artery bypass graft surgery, or repeat target lesion revascularization. RESULTS: In-lesion binary restenosis at 8 months occurred in 86 patients (9.6%) with a sirolimus-eluting stent vs 95 (11.1%) with a paclitaxel-eluting stent (relative risk [RR], 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61-1.17; P = .31). For sirolimus- vs paclitaxel-eluting stents, respectively, the mean (SD) in-stent late loss was 0.09 (0.43) mm vs 0.31 (0.44) mm (difference, -0.22 mm; 95% CI, -0.26 to -0.18 mm; P<.001), mean (SD) in-stent diameter stenosis was 23.1% (16.6%) vs 26.7% (15.8%) (difference, -3.60%; 95% CI, -5.12% to -2.08%; P<.001), and the number of major adverse cardiac events at 1 year was 73 (10.7%) vs 76 (11.4%) (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.69-1.27; P = .73). CONCLUSION: In this trial comparing sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting coronary stents, there were no differences in the rates of binary restenosis or major adverse cardiac events. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00235092.

10-year follow-up of a prospective randomized trial comparing bare-metal stenting with internal mammary artery grafting for proximal, isolated de novo left anterior coronary artery stenosis the SIMA (Stenting versus Internal Mammary Artery grafting) trial

OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to compare the long-term clinical outcome of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) with intracoronary stenting of patients with isolated proximal left anterior descending coronary artery. BACKGROUND: Although numerous trials have compared coronary angioplasty with bypass surgery, none assessed the clinical evaluation in the long term. METHODS: We evaluated the 10-year clinical outcome in the SIMA (Stent versus Internal Mammary Artery grafting) trial. Patients were randomly assigned to stent implantation versus CABG. RESULTS: Of 123 randomized patients, 59 underwent CABG and 62 received a stent (2 patients were excluded). Follow-up after 10 years was obtained for 98% of the randomized patients. Twenty-six patients (42%) in the percutaneous coronary intervention group and 10 patients (17%) in the CABG group reached an end point (p < 0.001). This difference was due to a higher need for additional revascularization. The incidences of death and myocardial infarction were identical at 10%. Progression of the disease requiring additional revascularization was rare (5%) and was similar for the 2 groups. Stent thrombosis occurred in 2 patients (3%). Angina functional class showed no significant differences between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Both stent implantation and CABG are safe and highly effective in relieving symptoms in patients with isolated, proximal left anterior descending coronary artery stenosis. Stenting with bare-metal stents is associated with a higher need for repeat interventions. The long-term prognosis for these patients is excellent with either mode of revascularization.

Revascularisation of coronary artery disease in patients with diabetes mellitus

Diabetes mellitus is becoming increasingly prevalent and magnifies the risk of cardiovascular complications. Endothelial dysfunction caused by oxidative stress is a hallmark of diabetes and is responsible for the ubiquitous manifestations of vascular disease in diabetics. Compared with non-diabetic patients, coronary artery disease is more severe and the clinical outcome impaired in diabetic patients undergoing revascularisation. Despite these limitations the benefit of revascularisation therapy is particularly pronounced in diabetics. The optimal revascularisation strategy (coronary artery bypass graft surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention) in diabetic patients with coronary artery disease depends on clinical and anatomical considerations.

Surgical versus percutaneous revascularization of coronary artery disease in diabetic patients

Morbidity and mortality related to coronary artery disease (CAD) remain a great challenge in patients with diabetes mellitus. Revascularization of CAD is an important therapeutic intervention owing to its impact on both symptoms and prognosis. The optimal revascularization strategy continues to evolve due to the advent of new technologies and improved peri-procedural outcome with both percutaneous coronary interventions and coronary artery bypass grafting. Although clinical outcome following coronary artery bypass is worse in diabetic as opposed to non-diabetic patients, surgical revascularization tends to be associated with better outcome in stable patients with multivessel disease and reduced left ventricular function. The advent of drug-eluting stents has challenged the supremacy of coronary artery bypass grafting and has become a valuable alternative to surgery. The safety and efficacy of drug-eluting stents in the treatment of patients with diabetes and multivessel disease is currently under investigation in several ongoing randomized controlled trials. Percutaneous coronary intervention is the therapy of choice in patients with acute coronary syndromes, particularly ST-elevation myocardial infarction. The focus of this review is to present the current evidence, define the role of percutaneous and surgical revascularization in the treatment of diabetic patients with CAD, and propose a tailored approach for clinical decision-making.

Extent of coronary artery disease and outcomes after ticagrelor administration in patients with an acute coronary syndrome: Insights from the PLATelet inhibition and patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial.

BACKGROUND Extensive coronary artery disease (CAD) is associated with higher risk. In this substudy of the PLATO trial, we examined the effects of randomized treatment on outcome events and safety in relation to the extent of CAD. METHODS Patients were classified according to presence of extensive CAD (defined as 3-vessel disease, left main disease, or prior coronary artery bypass graft surgery). The trial's primary and secondary end points were compared using Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS Among 15,388 study patients for whom the extent of CAD was known, 4,646 (30%) had extensive CAD. Patients with extensive CAD had more high-risk characteristics and experienced more clinical events during follow-up. They were less likely to undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (58% vs 79%, P < .001) but more likely to undergo coronary artery bypass graft surgery (16% vs 2%, P < .001). Ticagrelor, compared with clopidogrel, reduced the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke in patients with extensive CAD (14.9% vs 17.6%, hazard ratio [HR] 0.85 [0.73-0.98]) similar to its reduction in those without extensive CAD (6.8% vs 8.0%, HR 0.85 [0.74-0.98], Pinteraction = .99). Major bleeding was similar with ticagrelor vs clopidogrel among patients with (25.7% vs 25.5%, HR 1.02 [0.90-1.15]) and without (7.3% vs 6.4%, HR 1.14 [0.98-1.33], Pinteraction = .24) extensive CAD. CONCLUSIONS Patients with extensive CAD have higher rates of recurrent cardiovascular events and bleeding. Ticagrelor reduced ischemic events to a similar extent both in patients with and without extensive CAD, with bleeding rates similar to clopidogrel.

Value of age, creatinine, and ejection fraction (ACEF score) in assessing risk in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions in the 'All-Comers' LEADERS trial

Background— The age, creatinine, and ejection fraction (ACEF) score (age/left ventricular ejection fraction+1 if creatinine >2.0 mg/dL) has been established as an effective predictor of clinical outcomes in patients undergoing elective coronary artery bypass surgery; however, its utility in “all-comer” patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention is yet unexplored. Methods and Results— The ACEF score was calculated for 1208 of the 1707 patients enrolled in the LEADERS trial. Post hoc analysis was performed by stratifying clinical outcomes at the 1-year follow-up according to ACEF score tertiles: ACEFlow ≤1.0225, 1.0225< ACEFmid ≤1.277, and ACEFhigh >1.277. At 1-year follow-up, there was a significantly lower number of patients with major adverse cardiac event–free survival in the highest tertile of the ACEF score (ACEFlow=92.1%, ACEFmid=89.5%, and ACEFhigh=86.1%; P=0.0218). Cardiac death was less frequent in ACEFlow than in ACEFmid and ACEFhigh (0.7% vs 2.2% vs 4.5%; hazard ratio=2.22, P=0.002) patients. Rates of myocardial infarction were significantly higher in patients with a high ACEF score (6.7% for ACEFhigh vs 5.2% for ACEFmid and 2.5% for ACEFlow; hazard ratio=1.6, P=0.006). Clinically driven target-vessel revascularization also tended to be higher in the ACEFhigh group, but the difference among the 3 groups did not reach statistical significance. The rate of composite definite, possible, and probable stent thrombosis was also higher in the ACEFhigh group (ACEFlow=1.2%, ACEFmid=3.5%, and ACEFhigh=6.2%; hazard ratio=2.04, P<0.001). Conclusions— ACEF score may be a simple way to stratify risk of events in patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention with respect to mortality and risk of myocardial infarction.

Type A aortic dissection after nonaortic cardiac surgery

BACKGROUND Cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass is associated with mechanical manipulation of the ascending aorta that occasionally leads to type A aortic dissection (AAD). METHODS AND RESULTS One hundred three patients with surgical repair for AAD following nonaortic cardiac surgery were identified. With the use of logistic regression modeling, coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG), either isolated or combined with another procedure in the initial operation, was associated with significantly higher operative mortality in comparison with patients with non-CABG procedures at the time of AAD repair both for all patients (odds ratio, 2.90; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-7.72; P=0.033) and for patients with acute and chronic AAD≥30 days after the initial operation (odds ratio, 3.62; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-11.54; P=0.03). In patients who developed AAD late after the initial operation, operative mortality was highest in patients without preoperative coronary angiography and appropriate management of their native coronary artery disease and graft disease (odds ratio, 5.36; 95% confidence interval, 1.68-17.0; P=0.002). Nearly all the intimal dissection tears were located at sites of previous surgical trauma. Most of the ascending aortas that had dissected initially had a diameter≥40 mm with histological evidence of medial degeneration in resected tissue samples. CONCLUSIONS In patients who have undergone previous cardiac surgery, preexisting aortic wall pathology contributes to AAD with typical intimal damage at sites of mechanical trauma. The operative mortality was the highest in patients with previous CABG in comparison with patients with non-CABG procedures. Preoperative coronary angiography and operative management of native coronary and graft disease were significantly associated with outcome in patients with previous CABG.

Severe aortic stenosis and coronary artery disease

Coronary artery disease (CAD) and aortic stenosis (AS) share pathophysiological mechanisms and risk factors. Moreover, the prevalence of CAD increases among elderly patients with severe AS since disease progression is strongly associated with age for both CAD and AS. These factors contribute to the frequent coexistence of CAD and AS. Patients with concomitant AS and CAD are characterised by higher baseline risk profiles with a larger number of comorbidities as compared to patients with isolated AS. Therefore, adequate therapeutic strategies are crucial for the treatment of these patients. The number of patients undergoing concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) doubled during the last decade. Moreover, the development and rapid integration of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) into clinical practice in western European countries has further extended invasive treatment of AS to elderly high-risk patients not considered suitable candidates for SAVR, frequently presenting with CAD. The aim of this review article is to provide an overview on CAD prevalence, impact on clinical outcomes, and treatment strategies in patients with severe AS requiring SAVR or TAVI.

Revascularisation versus medical treatment in patients with stable coronary artery disease: network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE To investigate whether revascularisation improves prognosis compared with medical treatment among patients with stable coronary artery disease. DESIGN Bayesian network meta-analyses to combine direct within trial comparisons between treatments with indirect evidence from other trials while maintaining randomisation. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES A strategy of initial medical treatment compared with revascularisation by coronary artery bypass grafting or Food and Drug Administration approved techniques for percutaneous revascularization: balloon angioplasty, bare metal stent, early generation paclitaxel eluting stent, sirolimus eluting stent, and zotarolimus eluting (Endeavor) stent, and new generation everolimus eluting stent, and zotarolimus eluting (Resolute) stent among patients with stable coronary artery disease. DATA SOURCES Medline and Embase from 1980 to 2013 for randomised trials comparing medical treatment with revascularisation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE All cause mortality. RESULTS 100 trials in 93 553 patients with 262 090 patient years of follow-up were included. Coronary artery bypass grafting was associated with a survival benefit (rate ratio 0.80, 95% credibility interval 0.70 to 0.91) compared with medical treatment. New generation drug eluting stents (everolimus: 0.75, 0.59 to 0.96; zotarolimus (Resolute): 0.65, 0.42 to 1.00) but not balloon angioplasty (0.85, 0.68 to 1.04), bare metal stents (0.92, 0.79 to 1.05), or early generation drug eluting stents (paclitaxel: 0.92, 0.75 to 1.12; sirolimus: 0.91, 0.75 to 1.10; zotarolimus (Endeavor): 0.88, 0.69 to 1.10) were associated with improved survival compared with medical treatment. Coronary artery bypass grafting reduced the risk of myocardial infarction compared with medical treatment (0.79, 0.63 to 0.99), and everolimus eluting stents showed a trend towards a reduced risk of myocardial infarction (0.75, 0.55 to 1.01). The risk of subsequent revascularisation was noticeably reduced by coronary artery bypass grafting (0.16, 0.13 to 0.20) followed by new generation drug eluting stents (zotarolimus (Resolute): 0.26, 0.17 to 0.40; everolimus: 0.27, 0.21 to 0.35), early generation drug eluting stents (zotarolimus (Endeavor): 0.37, 0.28 to 0.50; sirolimus: 0.29, 0.24 to 0.36; paclitaxel: 0.44, 0.35 to 0.54), and bare metal stents (0.69, 0.59 to 0.81) compared with medical treatment. CONCLUSION Among patients with stable coronary artery disease, coronary artery bypass grafting reduces the risk of death, myocardial infarction, and subsequent revascularisation compared with medical treatment. All stent based coronary revascularisation technologies reduce the need for revascularisation to a variable degree. Our results provide evidence for improved survival with new generation drug eluting stents but no other percutaneous revascularisation technology compared with medical treatment.

Coronary artery disease in patients undergoing TAVI: why, what, when and how to treat.

Coronary artery disease (CAD) and aortic valve stenosis (AS) are frequently coexisting. It has been reported that CAD is present in 40% of patients with AS undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement, and in up to 60% of patients with AS undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Elderly patients with CAD and AS are characterised by higher baseline risk profiles as compared to patients with isolated AS, increasing the complexity of their therapeutic management. In patients with CAD and AS the combination of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and surgical aortic valve replacement has been shown to improve survival. Therefore, CABG is recommended in patients with CAD and AS undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement according to current guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association (ACCF/AHA). Conversely, whether the presence of CAD has any prognostic implications in elderly patients with severe AS undergoing TAVI is still a matter of debate. Of note, according to the most recent ESC guidelines on myocardial revascularisation, percutaneous revascularisation should be considered in patients undergoing TAVI with a stenosis >70% in proximal coronary segments (class IIa, level of evidence C). The aim of this article is to provide an overview of evidence supporting the need for coronary revascularisation in patients with severe AS and CAD undergoing TAVI, and to summarise optimal timing and treatment modalities for percutaneous coronary interventions in these patients.

Antiplatelet therapy for secondary prevention of coronary artery disease.

The choice and duration of antiplatelet therapy for secondary prevention of coronary artery disease (CAD) is determined by the clinical context and treatment strategy. Oral antiplatelet agents for secondary prevention include the cyclo-oxygenase-1 inhibitor aspirin, and the ADP dependent P2Y12 inhibitors clopidogrel, prasugrel and ticagrelor. Aspirin constitutes the cornerstone in secondary prevention of CAD and is complemented by clopidogrel in patients with stable CAD undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Among patients with acute coronary syndrome, prasugrel and ticagrelor improve net clinical outcome by reducing ischaemic adverse events at the expense of an increased risk of bleeding as compared with clopidogrel. Prasugrel appears particularly effective among patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction to reduce the risk of stent thrombosis compared with clopidogrel, and offered a greater net clinical benefit among patients with diabetes compared with patients without diabetes. Ticagrelor is associated with reduced mortality without increasing the rate of coronary artery bypass graft (CABG)-related bleeding as compared with clopidogrel. Dual antiplatelet therapy should be continued for a minimum of 1 year among patients with acute coronary syndrome irrespective of stent type; among patients with stable CAD treated with new generation drug-eluting stents, available data suggest no benefit to prolong antiplatelet treatment beyond 6 months.

Stable coronary artery disease: revascularisation and invasive strategies

Stable coronary artery disease is the most common clinical manifestation of ischaemic heart disease and a leading cause of mortality worldwide. Myocardial revascularisation is a mainstay in the treatment of symptomatic patients or those with ischaemia-producing coronary lesions, and reduces ischaemia to a greater extent than medical treatment. Documentation of ischaemia and plaque burden is fundamental in the risk stratification of patients with stable coronary artery disease, and several invasive and non-invasive techniques are available (eg, fractional flow reserve or intravascular ultrasound) or being validated (eg, instantaneous wave-free ratio and optical coherence tomography). The use of new-generation drug-eluting stents and arterial conduits greatly improve clinical outcome in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). PCI is feasible, safe, and effective in many patients with stable coronary artery disease who remain symptomatic despite medical treatment. In patients with multivessel and left main coronary artery disease, the decision between PCI or CABG is guided by the local Heart Team (team of different cardiovascular specialists, including non-invasive and invasive cardiologists, and cardiac surgeons), who carefully judge the possible benefits and risks inherent to PCI and CABG. In specific subsets, such as patients with diabetes and advanced, multivessel coronary artery disease, CABG remains the standard of care in view of improved protection against recurrent ischaemic adverse events.

Republished: Antiplatelet therapy for secondary prevention of coronary artery disease

The choice and duration of antiplatelet therapy for secondary prevention of coronary artery disease (CAD) is determined by the clinical context and treatment strategy. Oral antiplatelet agents for secondary prevention include the cyclo-oxygenase-1 inhibitor aspirin, and the ADP dependent P2Y12 inhibitors clopidogrel, prasugrel and ticagrelor. Aspirin constitutes the cornerstone in secondary prevention of CAD and is complemented by clopidogrel in patients with stable CAD undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Among patients with acute coronary syndrome, prasugrel and ticagrelor improve net clinical outcome by reducing ischaemic adverse events at the expense of an increased risk of bleeding as compared with clopidogrel. Prasugrel appears particularly effective among patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction to reduce the risk of stent thrombosis compared with clopidogrel, and offered a greater net clinical benefit among patients with diabetes compared with patients without diabetes. Ticagrelor is associated with reduced mortality without increasing the rate of coronary artery bypass graft (CABG)-related bleeding as compared with clopidogrel. Dual antiplatelet therapy should be continued for a minimum of 1 year among patients with acute coronary syndrome irrespective of stent type; among patients with stable CAD treated with new generation drug-eluting stents, available data suggest no benefit to prolong antiplatelet treatment beyond 6 months.

The current and future state of interventional cardiology: a critical appraisal

After 75 years of invasive and over 50 years of interventional cardiology, cardiac catheter-based procedures have become the most frequently used interventions of modern medicine. Patients undergoing a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) outnumber those with coronary artery bypass surgery by a factor of 2 to 4. The default approach to PCI is the implantation of a (drug-eluting) stent, in spite of the fact that it improves the results of balloon angioplasty only in about 25% of cases. The dominance of stenting over conservative therapy or balloon angioplasty on one hand and bypass surgery on the other hand is a flagrant example of how medical research is digested an applied in real life. Apart from electrophysiological interventions, closure ot the patent foramen ovale and percutaneous replacement of the aortic valve in the elderly have the potential of becoming daily routine procedures in catheterization laboratories around the world. Stem cell regeneration of vessels or heart muscle, on the other hand, may remain a dream never to come true.

Retaining perivascular tissue of human saphenous vein grafts protects against surgical and distension-induced damage and preserves endothelial nitric oxide synthase and nitric oxide synthase activity

OBJECTIVE: Conventional harvesting of saphenous vein used for coronary artery bypass surgery induces a vasospasm that is overcome by high-pressure distension. Saphenous vein harvested with its cushion of perivascular tissue by a "no touch" technique does not undergo vasospasm and distension is not required, leading to an improved graft patency. The aim of this study is to investigate the effect of surgical damage and high-pressure distension on endothelial integrity and endothelial nitric oxide synthase expression and activity in saphenous vein harvested with and without perivascular tissue. METHODS: Saphenous veins from patients (n = 26) undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery were prepared with and without perivascular tissue. We analyzed the effect of 300 mm Hg distension on morphology and endothelial nitric oxide synthase/nitric oxide synthase activity using a combination of immunohistochemistry, Western blot analysis, reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction, and enzyme assay in distended (with and without perivascular tissue) compared with nondistended (with and without perivascular tissue) segments. RESULTS: Distension induced substantial damage to the luminal endothelium (assessed by CD31 staining) and vessel wall. Endothelial nitric oxide synthase expression and activity were significantly reduced by high-pressure distension and removal of, or damage to, perivascular tissue. The effect of distension was significantly less for those with perivascular tissue than for those without perivascular tissue in most cases. CONCLUSION: The success of the saphenous vein used as a bypass graft is affected by surgical trauma and distension. Veins removed with minimal damage exhibit increased patency rates. We show that retention of perivascular tissue on saphenous vein prepared for coronary artery bypass surgery by the "no touch" technique protects against distension-induced damage, preserves vessel morphology, and maintains endothelial nitric oxide synthase/nitric oxide synthase activity.