Long-Term Comparison of Everolimus-Eluting and Biolimus-Eluting Stents in All-Comer Patients

AIMS: Second-generation everolimus-eluting stents (EES) are safer and more efficient than first-generation paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES). Third-generation biolimus-eluting stents (BES) have been found to be non-inferior to PES. To date, there is no available comparative study between EES and BES. We aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of BES with biodegradable polymer compared to EES with durable polymer at a follow-up of two years in an unselected population of consecutively enrolled patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: A group of 814 consecutive patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was enrolled between 2007 and 2010, of which 527 were treated with EES and 287 with BES implantation. Clinical outcome was compared in 200 pairs using propensity score matching. The primary endpoint was a composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI) and target vessel revascularisation (TVR) at two-year follow-up. Median follow-up was 22 months. The primary outcome occurred in 11.5% of EES and 10.5% of BES patients (HR 1.11, 95% CI: 0.61-2.00, p=0.74). At two years, there was no significant difference with regard to death (HR 0.49, 95% CI: 0.18-1.34, p=0.17), cardiac death (HR 0.14, 95% CI: 0.02-1.14, p=0.66) or MI (HR 6.10, 95% CI: 0.73-50.9, p=0.10). Stent thrombosis (ST) incidence was evenly distributed between EES (n=2) and BES (n=2) (p-value=1.0). CONCLUSIONS: This first clinical study failed to demonstrate any significant difference regarding safety or efficacy between these two types and generations of drug-eluting stents (DES).

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.

Impact of vessel size on angiographic and clinical outcomes of revascularization with biolimus-eluting stent with biodegradable polymer and sirolimus-eluting stent with durable polymer the LEADERS trial substudy

OBJECTIVES: We assessed the impact of vessel size on outcomes of stenting with biolimus-eluting degradable polymer stent (BES) and sirolimus-eluting permanent polymer stent (SES) within a randomized multicenter trial (LEADERS). BACKGROUND: Stenting of small vessels might be associated with higher rates of adverse events. METHODS: "All-comer" patients (n = 1,707) were randomized to BES and SES. Post-hoc-stratified analysis of angiographic and clinical outcomes at 9 months and 1 year, respectively, was performed for vessels with reference diameter 2.75 mm. RESULTS: Of 1,707 patients, 429 patients in the BES group with 576 lesions and 434 patients in the SES group with 557 lesions had only small vessels treated (50.6% of the patient cohort). In patients with small vessels there was no significant difference in overall major adverse cardiac events (MACE) rate (12.1% vs. 11.8%; p = 0.89) or target lesion revascularization (TLR) rate (9.6% vs. 7.4%; p = 0.26) between BES and SES. The MACE and TLR rates in the small-vessel patient population were higher than in the large-vessel population. The TLR rate was 9.6% versus 2.6%, and MACE rate was 12.1% versus 7.1% for small versus large vessels in the BES arm (TLR: hazard ratio [HR] = 3.724, p = 0.0013; MACE: HR = 1.720, p = 0.0412). In the SES arm, TLR was 7.4% versus 5.1%, and MACE was 11.8% versus 10.3% in small versus large vessels (TLR: HR = 1.435, p = 0.2594; MACE: HR = 1.149, p = 0.5546). CONCLUSIONS: Prevalence of small vessel disease is high in an "all-comer" population with higher TLR and MACE rates. The BES and SES seem equivalent in treatment outcomes of small vessels in this "all-comer" patient population.

Biolimus-eluting biodegradable polymer versus sirolimus-eluting permanent polymer stent performance in long lesions: results from the LEADERS multicentre trial substudy

AIMS: Lesion length remains a predictor of target lesion revascularisation and results of long lesion stenting remain poor. Sirolimus-eluting stents have been shown to perform better than paclitaxel eluting stents in long lesions. In this substudy of the LEADERS trial, we compared the performance of biolimus biodegradable polymer (BES) and sirolimus permanent polymer stents (SES) in long lesions. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 1,707 'all-comer' patients were randomly allocated to treatment with BES and SES. A stratified analysis of angiographic and clinical outcomes at nine months and one year, respectively was performed for vessels with lesion length <20 mm versus >20 mm (as measured by quantitative angiography).Of 1,707 patients, 592 BES patients with 831 lesions and 619 SES patients with 876 lesions had only short lesions treated. One hundred and fifty-three BES patients with 166 lesions and 151 SES patients with 162 lesions had long lesions. There were no significant differences in baseline clinical characteristics, except for higher number of patients with long lesions presenting with acute myocardial infarction in both stent groups. Long lesions tended to have lower MLD and greater percent diameter stenosis at baseline than short lesions. Late loss was greater for long lesions than short lesions. There was no statistically significant difference in late loss between BES and SES stents (0.32+/-0.69 vs 0.24+/-0.57, p=0.59). Binary in-segment restenosis was present in 23.2% versus 13.1% of long lesions treated with BES and SES, respectively (p=0.042). In patients with long lesions, the overall MACE rate was similar for BES and SES (17% vs 14.6%; p=0.62). There was a trend towards higher overall TLR rate with BES (12.4 % vs 6.0%; HR=2.06; p=0.07) and clinically driven TLR (10.5% vs 5.3%: HR 1.94; p=0.13). Rates of definite stent thrombosis were 3.3% in the long lesion group and 1.3-1.7 % in the short lesion group. CONCLUSIONS: BES and SES appear similar with respect to MACE in long lesions in this "all-comer" patient population. However, long lesions tended to have a higher rate of binary in-segment restenosis and TLR following BES than SES treatment.

Comparison of everolimus- and biolimus-eluting stents with everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold stents: study protocol of the randomized controlled EVERBIO II

BACKGROUND: Second-generation everolimus-eluting stents (EES) and third generation biolimus-eluting stents (BES) have been shown to be superior to first-generation paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) and second-generation sirolimus-eluting stents (SES). However, neointimal proliferation and very late stent thrombosis is still an unresolved issue of drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation overall. The Absorb™ (Abbott Vascular, Abbott Park, IL, USA) is the first CE approved DES with a bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) thought to reduce long-term complication rates. The EVERBIO II trial was set up to compare the BVS safety and efficacy with both EES and BES in all patients viable for inclusion. METHODS/DESIGN: The EVERBIO II trial is a single-center, assessor-blinded, randomized trial. The study population consists of all patients aged≥18 years old undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Exclusion criterion is where the lesion cannot be treated with BVS (reference vessel diameter>4.0 mm). A total of 240 patients will be enrolled and randomly assigned into 3 groups of 80 with either BVS, EES or BES implantation. All patients will undergo a follow-up angiography study at 9 months. Clinical follow-up for up to 5 years will be conducted by telephone. The primary endpoint is in-segment late lumen loss at 9 months measured by quantitative coronary angiography. Secondary endpoints are patient-oriented major adverse cardiac event (MACE) (death, myocardial infarction and target-vessel revascularization), device-oriented MACE (cardiac death, myocardial infarction and target-lesion revascularization), stent thrombosis according to ARC and binary restenosis at follow-up 12 months angiography. DISCUSSION: EVERBIO II is an independent, randomized study, aiming to compare the clinical efficacy, angiographic outcomes and safety of BVS, EES and BES in all comer patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial listed in clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01711931.

Biolimus-eluting stent with biodegradable polymer improves clinical outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction

OBJECTIVE To investigate clinical outcomes of coronary intervention using a biolimus-eluting stent (BES) compared with a sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in the Limus Eluted from A Durable versus ERodable Stent (LEADERS) coating trial at the final 5-year follow-up. METHODS The LEADERS trial is a multicentre all-comer study, where patients (n=1707) were randomised to percutaneous intervention with either BES containing biodegradable polymer or SES containing durable polymer. Out of 1707 patients enrolled in this trial, 573 patients had percutaneous coronary intervention for AMI (BES=280, SES=293) and were included in the current analysis. Patient-oriented composite endpoint (POCE, including all death, all myocardial infarction (MI) and all revascularisations), major adverse cardiac events (MACE, including cardiac death, MI and clinically indicated target vessel revascularisation) and stent thrombosis were assessed at 5-year follow-up. RESULTS The baseline clinical, angiographic and procedural characteristics were well matched between BES and SES groups. In all patients with AMI, coronary intervention with a BES, compared with SES, significantly reduced POCE (28.9% vs 42.3%; relative risk (RR) 0.61, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.82, p=0.001) at 5-year follow-up. There was also a reduction in MACE rate in the BES group (18.2% vs 25.9%; RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.95, p=0.025); however, there was no difference in cardiac death and stent thrombosis. In patients with ST-elevation MI (STEMI), coronary intervention with BES significantly reduced POCE (24.4% vs 39.3%; RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.85, p=0.006), MACE (12.6% vs 25.0%; RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.83, p=0.008) and cardiac death (3.0% vs 11.4%; RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.75, p=0.007), along with a trend towards reduction in definite stent thrombosis (3.7% vs 8.6%; RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.18, p=0.088), compared with SES. CONCLUSIONS BES, compared with SES, significantly improved safety and efficacy outcomes in patients with AMI, especially those with STEMI, at 5-year follow-up. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER NCT 00389220.

Comparison of zotarolimus- and everolimus-eluting coronary stents: final 5-year report of the RESOLUTE all-comers trial

BACKGROUND Newer-generation drug-eluting stents that release zotarolimus or everolimus have been shown to be superior to the first-generation drug-eluting stents. However, data comparing long-term safety and efficacy of zotarolimus- (ZES) and everolimus-eluting stents (EES) are limited. RESOLUTE all-comers (Randomized Comparison of a Zotarolimus-Eluting Stent With an Everolimus-Eluting Stent for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) trial compared these 2 stents and has shown that ZES was noninferior to EES at 12-month for the primary end point of target lesion failure. We report the secondary clinical outcomes at the final 5-year follow-up of this trial. METHODS AND RESULTS RESOLUTE all-comer clinical study is a prospective, multicentre, randomized, 2-arm, open-label, noninferiority trial with minimal exclusion criteria. Patients (n=2292) were randomly assigned to treatment with either ZES (n=1140) or EES (n=1152). Patient-oriented composite end point (combination of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and any revascularizations), device-oriented composite end point (combination of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization), and major adverse cardiac events (combination of all-cause death, all myocardial infarction, emergent coronary bypass surgery, or clinically indicated target lesion revascularization) were analyzed at 5-year follow-up. The 2 groups were well-matched at baseline. Five-year follow-up data were available for 98% patients. There were no differences in patient-oriented composite end point (ZES 35.3% versus EES 32.0%, P=0.11), device-oriented composite end point (ZES 17.0% versus EES 16.2%, P=0.61), major adverse cardiac events (ZES 21.9% versus EES 21.6%, P=0.88), and definite/probable stent thrombosis (ZES 2.8% versus EES 1.8%, P=0.12). CONCLUSIONS At 5-year follow-up, ZES and EES had similar efficacy and safety in a population of patients who had minimal exclusion criteria. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00617084.

Anatomic characteristics and clinical implications of angiographic coronary thrombus: insights from a patient-level pooled analysis of SYNTAX, RESOLUTE, and LEADERS Trials.

BACKGROUND The distribution of thrombus-containing lesions (TCLs) in an all-comer population admitted with a heterogeneous clinical presentation (stable, ustable angina, or an acute coronary syndrome) and treated with percutaneous coronary intervention is yet unclear, and the long-term prognostic implications are still disputed. This study sought to assess the distribution and prognostic implications of coronary thrombus, detected by coronary angiography, in a population recruited in all-comer percutaneous coronary intervention trials. METHODS AND RESULTS Patient-level data from 3 contemporary coronary stent trials were pooled by an independent academic research organization (Cardialysis, Rotterdam, the Netherlands). Clinical outcomes in terms of major adverse cardiac events (major adverse cardiac events, a composite of death, myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization), death, myocardial infarction, and repeated revascularization were compared between patients with and without angiographic TCL. Preprocedural TCL was present in 257 patients (5.8%) and absent in 4193 (94.2%) patients. At 3-year follow-up, there was no difference for major adverse cardiac events (25.3 versus 25.4%; P=0.683); all-cause death (7.4 versus 6.8%; P=0.683); myocardial infarction (5.8 versus 6.0%; P=0.962), and any revascularizations (17.5 versus 17.7%; P=0.822) between patients with and without TCL. The comparison of outcomes in groups weighing the jeopardized myocardial by TCL also did not show a significant difference. TCL were seen more often in the first 2 segments of the right (43.6%) and left anterior descending (36.8%) coronary arteries. The association of TCL and bifurcation lesions was present in 40.1% of the prespecified segments. CONCLUSIONS TCL involved mainly the proximal coronary segments and did not have any effect on clinical outcomes. A more detailed thrombus burden quantification is required to investigate its prognostic implications. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifiers: NCT00114972, NCT01443104, NCT00617084.

Incremental Value of the CRUSADE, ACUITY, and HAS-BLED Risk Scores for the Prediction of Hemorrhagic Events After Coronary Stent Implantation in Patients Undergoing Long or Short Duration of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy

BACKGROUND Multiple scores have been proposed to stratify bleeding risk, but their value to guide dual antiplatelet therapy duration has never been appraised. We compared the performance of the CRUSADE (Can Rapid Risk Stratification of Unstable Angina Patients Suppress Adverse Outcomes With Early Implementation of the ACC/AHA Guidelines), ACUITY (Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage Strategy), and HAS-BLED (Hypertension, Abnormal Renal/Liver Function, Stroke, Bleeding History or Predisposition, Labile INR, Elderly, Drugs/Alcohol Concomitantly) scores in 1946 patients recruited in the Prolonging Dual Antiplatelet Treatment After Grading Stent-Induced Intimal Hyperplasia Study (PRODIGY) and assessed hemorrhagic and ischemic events in the 24- and 6-month dual antiplatelet therapy groups. METHODS AND RESULTS Bleeding score performance was assessed with a Cox regression model and C statistics. Discriminative and reclassification power was assessed with net reclassification improvement and integrated discrimination improvement. The C statistic was similar between the CRUSADE score (area under the curve 0.71) and ACUITY (area under the curve 0.68), and higher than HAS-BLED (area under the curve 0.63). CRUSADE, but not ACUITY, improved reclassification (net reclassification index 0.39, P=0.005) and discrimination (integrated discrimination improvement index 0.0083, P=0.021) of major bleeding compared with HAS-BLED. Major bleeding and transfusions were higher in the 24- versus 6-month dual antiplatelet therapy groups in patients with a CRUSADE score >40 (hazard ratio for bleeding 2.69, P=0.035; hazard ratio for transfusions 4.65, P=0.009) but not in those with CRUSADE score ≤40 (hazard ratio for bleeding 1.50, P=0.25; hazard ratio for transfusions 1.37, P=0.44), with positive interaction (Pint=0.05 and Pint=0.01, respectively). The number of patients with high CRUSADE scores needed to treat for harm for major bleeding and transfusion were 17 and 15, respectively, with 24-month rather than 6-month dual antiplatelet therapy; corresponding figures in the overall population were 67 and 71, respectively. CONCLUSIONS Our analysis suggests that the CRUSADE score predicts major bleeding similarly to ACUITY and better than HAS BLED in an all-comer population with percutaneous coronary intervention and potentially identifies patients at higher risk of hemorrhagic complications when treated with a long-term dual antiplatelet therapy regimen. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00611286.

Using technology to enhance decision making

We focus here on decision making in the everyday clinical situation and do not address decision making in politics and administration, although obviously it affects clinical practice and vice versa. For example, decisions against providing sufficient face-to-face psychotherapy is one factor that may increase the demand for Internet therapy, and vice versa—that is, the use of technology for therapy, as in Internet therapy, might influence to what extent face-to-face therapy needs to be provided. It is obvious that the aggregation of information for political and administrative decisions can take advantage of technology. If technology is used professionally, this should contribute to better informed decisions and less dependency on information provided by lobbyists who might not work in the interest of high-quality service for those who need it. An optimistic view is thus that technology works in favor of patients on this level as well. In the interest of keeping the focus of this chapter manageable, we also do not address treatments fully delivered over the Internet or computers, as for the example described in Comer and Barlow (2014), although such treatments, as they unfold, of course also include decision making.