Drug-eluting balloon versus standard balloon angioplasty for infrapopliteal arterial revascularization in critical limb ischemia: 12-month results from the IN.PACT DEEP randomized trial.

BACKGROUND Drug-eluting balloons (DEB) may reduce infrapopliteal restenosis and reintervention rates versus percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) and improve wound healing/limb preservation. OBJECTIVES The goal of this clinical trial was to assess the efficacy and safety of IN.PACT Amphirion drug-eluting balloons (IA-DEB) compared to PTA for infrapopliteal arterial revascularization in patients with critical limb ischemia (CLI). METHODS Within a prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial with independent clinical event adjudication and angiographic and wound core laboratories 358 CLI patients were randomized 2:1 to IA-DEB or PTA. The 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints through 12 months were clinically driven target lesion revascularization (CD-TLR) and late lumen loss (LLL). The primary safety endpoint through 6 months was a composite of all-cause mortality, major amputation, and CD-TLR. RESULTS Clinical characteristics were similar between the 2 groups. Significant baseline differences between the IA-DEB and PTA arms included mean lesion length (10.2 cm vs. 12.9 cm; p = 0.002), impaired inflow (40.7% vs. 28.8%; p = 0.035), and previous target limb revascularization (32.2% vs. 21.8%; p = 0.047). Primary efficacy results of IA-DEB versus PTA were CD-TLR of 9.2% versus 13.1% (p = 0.291) and LLL of 0.61 ± 0.78 mm versus 0.62 ± 0.78 mm (p = 0.950). Primary safety endpoints were 17.7% versus 15.8% (p = 0.021) and met the noninferiority hypothesis. A safety signal driven by major amputations through 12 months was observed in the IA-DEB arm versus the PTA arm (8.8% vs. 3.6%; p = 0.080). CONCLUSIONS In patients with CLI, IA-DEB had comparable efficacy to PTA. While primary safety was met, there was a trend towards an increased major amputation rate through 12 months compared to PTA. (Study of IN.PACT Amphirion™ Drug Eluting Balloon vs. Standard PTA for the Treatment of Below the Knee Critical Limb Ischemia [INPACT-DEEP]; NCT00941733).

The Importance of Patency in Patients with Critical Limb Ischemia Undergoing Endovascular Revascularization for Infrapopliteal Arterial Disease.

Critical limb ischemia (CLI) represents the most severe form of peripheral arterial disease (PAD) and frequently occurs in medically frail patients. CLI patients frequently exhibit multi-segmental PAD commonly including the tibial arterial segment. Endovascular therapy has been established as first-line revascularization strategy for most CLI patients. Restenosis was reported to occur in up to more than two-thirds of CLI patients undergoing angioplasty of complex tibial arterial obstructions. Nevertheless, favorable clinical outcomes were observed for infrapopliteal angioplasty when compared with bypass surgery, despite higher patency rates for the latter. Based on these observations, infrapopliteal patency was considered to be only of secondary importance upon clinical outcomes in CLI patients. In contrast to these earlier observations, however, recent findings from two randomized clinical trials indicate that infrapopliteal patency does impact on clinical outcomes in CLI patients. The purpose of the present manuscript is to provide a critical reappraisal of the present literature on the clinical importance of tibial arterial patency in CLI patients undergoing endovascular revascularization and to discuss utility and limitations of currently available anti-restenosis technologies.

Nitinol Stent Oversizing in Patients Undergoing Popliteal Artery Revascularization: A Finite Element Study

Nitinol stent oversizing is frequently performed in peripheral arteries to ensure a desirable lumen gain. However, the clinical effect of mis-sizing remains controversial. The goal of this study was to provide a better understanding of the structural and hemodynamic effects of Nitinol stent oversizing. Five patient-specific numerical models of non-calcified popliteal arteries were developed to simulate the deployment of Nitinol stents with oversizing ratios ranging from 1.1 to 1.8. In addition to arterial biomechanics, computational fluid dynamics methods were adopted to simulate the physiological blood flow inside the stented arteries. Results showed that stent oversizing led to a limited increase in the acute lumen gain, albeit at the cost of a significant increase in arterial wall stresses. Furthermore, localized areas affected by low Wall Shear Stress increased with higher oversizing ratios. Stents were also negatively impacted by the procedure as their fatigue safety factors gradually decreased with oversizing. These adverse effects to both the artery walls and stents may create circumstances for restenosis. Although the ideal oversizing ratio is stent-specific, this study showed that Nitinol stent oversizing has a very small impact on the immediate lumen gain, which contradicts the clinical motivations of the procedure.

Perspectives on the 2014 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on Myocardial Revascularization: Fifty Years of Revascularization: Where Are We and Where Are We Heading?

The joint European Society of Cardiology and European Association of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (ESC/EACTS) guidelines on myocardial revascularization collect and summarize the evidence regarding decision-making, diagnostics, and therapeutics in various clinical scenarios of coronary artery disease, including elective, urgent, and emergency settings. The 2014 document updates and extends the effort started in 2010, year of the first edition of these guidelines. Importantly, this latest edition provides a systematic review of all randomized clinical trials performed since 1980, comparing different strategies of myocardial revascularization, including coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), balloon angioplasty, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with bare-metal stents (BMS) and first- and second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES). This review aims to highlight the most relevant novelties introduced by the 2014 edition of the ESC/EACTS myocardial revascularization guidelines as compared with the previous edition and to describe similarities and differences with the American societies' guidelines.

Efficacy and safety of a novel bioabsorbable polymer-coated, everolimus-eluting coronary stent: the EVOLVE II Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND Drug eluting stents with durable polymers may be associated with hypersensitivity, delayed healing, and incomplete endothelialization, which may contribute to late/very late stent thrombosis and the need for prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy. Bioabsorbable polymers may facilitate stent healing, thus enhancing clinical safety. The SYNERGY stent is a thin-strut, platinum chromium metal alloy platform with an ultrathin bioabsorbable Poly(D,L-lactide-co-glycolide) abluminal everolimus-eluting polymer. We performed a multicenter, randomized controlled trial for regulatory approval to determine noninferiority of the SYNERGY stent to the durable polymer PROMUS Element Plus everolimus-eluting stent. METHODS AND RESULTS Patients (n=1684) scheduled to undergo percutaneous coronary intervention for non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndrome or stable coronary artery disease were randomized to receive either the SYNERGY stent or the PROMUS Element Plus stent. The primary end point of 12-month target lesion failure was observed in 6.7% of SYNERGY and 6.5% PROMUS Element Plus treated subjects by intention-to-treat (P=0.83 for difference; P=0.0005 for noninferiority), and 6.4% in both the groups by per-protocol analysis (P=0.0003 for noninferiority). Clinically indicated revascularization of the target lesion or definite/probable stent thrombosis were observed in 2.6% versus 1.7% (P=0.21) and 0.4% versus 0.6% (P=0.50) of SYNERGY versus PROMUS Element Plus-treated subjects, respectively. CONCLUSIONS In this randomized trial, the SYNERGY bioabsorbable polymer everolimus-eluting stent was noninferior to the PROMUS Element Plus everolimus-eluting stent with respect to 1-year target lesion failure. These data support the relative safety and efficacy of SYNERGY in a broad range of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01665053.

Minimal invasive extracorporeal circulation should become the standard practice in coronary revascularization surgery†.

We read with great interest the large-scale network meta-analysis by Kowalewski et al. comparing clinical outcomes of patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) operated on using minimal invasive extracorporeal circulation (MiECC) or off-pump (OPCAB) with those undergoing surgery on conventional cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) [1]. The authors actually integrated into single study two recently published meta-analysis comparing MiECC and OPCAB with conventional CPB, respectively [2, 3] into a single study. According to the results of this study, MiECC and OPCAB are both strongly associated with improved perioperative outcomes following CABG when compared with CABG performed on conventional CPB. The authors conclude that MiECC may represent an attractive compromise between OPCAB and conventional CPB. After carefully reading the whole manuscript, it becomes evident that the role of MiECC is clearly undervalued. Detailed statistical analysis using the surface under the cumulative ranking probabilities indicated that MiECC represented the safer and more effective intervention regarding all-cause mortality and protection from myocardial infarction, cerebral stroke, postoperative atrial fibrillation and renal dysfunction when compared with OPCAB. Even though no significant statistical differences were demonstrated between MiECC and OPCAB, the superiority of MiECC is obvious by the hierarchy of treatments in the probability analysis, which ranked MiECC as the first treatment followed by OPCAB and conventional CPB. Thus, MiECC does not represent a compromise between OPCAB and conventional CPB, but an attractive dominant technique in CABG surgery. These results are consistent with the largest published meta-analysis by Anastasiadis et al. comparing MiECC versus conventional CPB including a total of 2770 patients. A significant decrease in mortality was observed when MiECC was used, which was also associated with reduced risk of postoperative myocardial infarction and neurological events [4]. Similarly, another recent meta-analysis by Benedetto et al. compared MiECC versus OPCAB and resulted in comparable outcomes between these two surgical techniques [5]. As stated in the text, superiority of MiECC observed in the current network meta-analysis, when compared with OPCAB, could be attributed to the fact that MiECC offers the potential for complete revascularization, whereas OPCAB poses a challenge for unexperienced surgeons; especially when distal marginal branches on the lateral and/or posterior wall of the heart need revascularization. This is reflected by a significantly lower number of distal anastomoses performed in OPCAB when compared with conventional CPB. Therefore, taking into consideration the literature published up to date, including the results of the current article, we advocate that MiECC should be integrated in the clinical practice guidelines as a state-of-the-art technique and become a standard practice for perfusion in coronary revascularization surgery.

Impact of Diabetic Status on Outcomes After Revascularization With Drug-Eluting Stents in Relation to Coronary Artery Disease Complexity: Patient-Level Pooled Analysis of 6081 Patients.

BACKGROUND Diabetes mellitus and angiographic coronary artery disease complexity are intertwined and unfavorably affect prognosis after percutaneous coronary interventions, but their relative impact on long-term outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents remains controversial. This study determined drug-eluting stents outcomes in relation to diabetic status and coronary artery disease complexity as assessed by the Synergy Between PCI With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) score. METHODS AND RESULTS In a patient-level pooled analysis from 4 all-comers trials, 6081 patients were stratified according to diabetic status and according to the median SYNTAX score ≤11 or >11. The primary end point was major adverse cardiac events, a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization within 2 years. Diabetes mellitus was present in 1310 patients (22%), and new-generation drug-eluting stents were used in 4554 patients (75%). Major adverse cardiac events occurred in 173 diabetics (14.5%) and 436 nondiabetic patients (9.9%; P<0.001). In adjusted Cox regression analyses, SYNTAX score and diabetes mellitus were both associated with the primary end point (P<0.001 and P=0.028, respectively; P for interaction, 0.07). In multivariable analyses, diabetic versus nondiabetic patients had higher risks of major adverse cardiac events (hazard ratio, 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.53; P=0.026) and target lesion revascularization (hazard ratio, 1.54; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-2.01; P=0.002) but similar risks of cardiac death (hazard ratio, 1.41; 95% confidence interval, 0.96-2.07; P=0.08) and myocardial infarction (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.64-1.22; P=0.45), without significant interaction with SYNTAX score ≤11 or >11 for any of the end points. CONCLUSIONS In this population treated with predominantly new-generation drug-eluting stents, diabetic patients were at increased risk for repeat target-lesion revascularization consistently across the spectrum of disease complexity. The SYNTAX score was an independent predictor of 2-year outcomes but did not modify the respective effect of diabetes mellitus. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifiers: NCT00297661, NCT00389220, NCT00617084, and NCT01443104.

Ultrathin Strut Biodegradable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Durable-Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stent for Percutaneous Coronary Revascularization: 2-Year Results of the BIOSCIENCE Trial.

BACKGROUND No data are available on the long-term performance of ultrathin strut biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (BP-SES). We reported 2-year clinical outcomes of the BIOSCIENCE (Ultrathin Strut Biodegradable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stent for Percutaneous Coronary Revascularisation) trial, which compared BP-SES with durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP-EES) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS AND RESULTS A total of 2119 patients with minimal exclusion criteria were assigned to treatment with BP-SES (n=1063) or DP-EES (n=1056). Follow-up at 2 years was available for 2048 patients (97%). The primary end point was target-lesion failure, a composite of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically indicated target-lesion revascularization. At 2 years, target-lesion failure occurred in 107 patients (10.5%) in the BP-SES arm and 107 patients (10.4%) in the DP-EES arm (risk ratio [RR] 1.00, 95% CI 0.77-1.31, P=0.979). There were no significant differences between BP-SES and DP-EES with respect to cardiac death (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.62-1.63, P=0.984), target-vessel myocardial infarction (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.60-1.39, P=0.669), target-lesion revascularization (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.81-1.71, P=0.403), and definite stent thrombosis (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.56-3.44, P=0.485). There were 2 cases (0.2%) of definite very late stent thrombosis in the BP-SES arm and 4 cases (0.4%) in the DP-EES arm (P=0.423). In the prespecified subgroup of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, BP-SES was associated with a lower risk of target-lesion failure compared with DP-EES (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.23-0.99, P=0.043, Pinteraction=0.026). CONCLUSIONS Comparable safety and efficacy profiles of BP-SES and DP-EES were maintained throughout 2 years of follow-up. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01443104.

Revascularization Treatment of Emergency Patients with Acute ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction in Switzerland: Results from a Nationwide, Cross-Sectional Study in Switzerland for 2010-2011

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular diseases are the leading cause of death worldwide and in Switzerland. When applied, treatment guidelines for patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) improve the clinical outcome and should eliminate treatment differences by sex and age for patients whose clinical situations are identical. In Switzerland, the rate at which STEMI patients receive revascularization may vary by patient and hospital characteristics. AIMS: To examine all hospitalizations in Switzerland from 2010-2011 to determine if patient or hospital characteristics affected the rate of revascularization (receiving either a percutaneous coronary intervention or a coronary artery bypass grafting) in acute STEMI patients. DATA AND METHODS: We used national data sets on hospital stays, and on hospital infrastructure and operating characteristics, for the years 2010 and 2011, to identify all emergency patients admitted with the main diagnosis of acute STEMI. We then calculated the proportion of patients who were treated with revascularization. We used multivariable multilevel Poisson regression to determine if receipt of revascularization varied by patient and hospital characteristics. RESULTS: Of the 9,696 cases we identified, 71.6% received revascularization. Patients were less likely to receive revascularization if they were female, and 80 years or older. In the multivariable multilevel Poisson regression analysis, there was a trend for small-volume hospitals performing fewer revascularizations but this was not statistically significant while being female (Relative Proportion = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.86 to 0.97) and being older than 80 years was still associated with less frequent revascularization. CONCLUSION: Female and older patients were less likely to receive revascularization. Further research needs to clarify whether this reflects differential application of treatment guidelines or limitations in this kind of routine data.