SPIRIT Women, evaluation of the safety and efficacy of the XIENCE V everolimus-eluting stent system in female patients: referral time for coronary intervention and 2-year clinical outcomes

SPIRIT Women is the first interventional trial dedicated exclusively to women, focusing on symptoms at presentation, referral time to coronary intervention and the safety and performance of the XIENCE V stent.

Safety and outcome of patients with an acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction transferred for primary coronary intervention: the Neuchâtel experience

BACKGROUND: Transferring patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) for primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) from a community hospital to a PCI centre has been evaluated in randomised trials and shown to be safe and effective. A prolonged transfer time may restrict the benefit of this strategy. AIM: We sought to assess 1) safety of transfer from Neuchâtel to Berne, 2) time intervals of patients transferred either directly from on-site or after evaluation in the local emergency room, and 3) clinical long-term outcome. METHODS AND RESULTS: 42 patients with STEMI eligible for reperfusion therapy were prospectively included between January 2003 and June 2004. Twenty patients (48%, group 1) were directly transferred to the PCI centre from on-site. Twenty-two were transferred after initial treatment in the local emergency room: 11 patients (26%, group 2) presented spontaneously at the hospital and 11 patients (26%, group 3) were admitted by the rescue team. No major complication occurred during transport. Median transport time was 33 minutes. Median time from first healthcare contact to balloon consisted of 131 minutes in group 1, 158 minutes in group 2 and 174 minutes in group 3. The overall rate of Major Adverse Cardiac Events (MACE) at 6 months amounted to 9.5%. CONCLUSIONS: Transfer for primary PCI of our patients with acute STEMI was safe. Direct transfer from on-site to the PCI centre reduced the time of ischaemia. The overall MACE rate was low.

Safety of Prasugrel Loading Doses in Patients Pre-Loaded With Clopidogrel in the Setting of Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Results of a Nonrandomized Observational Study.

OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to assess the safety of the concurrent administration of a clopidogrel and prasugrel loading dose in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. BACKGROUND Prasugrel is one of the preferred P2Y12 platelet receptor antagonists for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients. The use of prasugrel was evaluated clinically in clopidogrel-naive patients. METHODS Between September 2009 and October 2012, a total of 2,023 STEMI patients were enrolled in the COMFORTABLE (Comparison of Biomatrix Versus Gazelle in ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction [STEMI]) and the SPUM-ACS (Inflammation and Acute Coronary Syndromes) studies. Patients receiving a prasugrel loading dose were divided into 2 groups: 1) clopidogrel and a subsequent prasugrel loading dose; and 2) a prasugrel loading dose. The primary safety endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium types 3 to 5 bleeding in hospital at 30 days. RESULTS Of 2,023 patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention, 427 (21.1%) received clopidogrel and a subsequent prasugrel loading dose, 447 (22.1%) received a prasugrel loading dose alone, and the remaining received clopidogrel only. At 30 days, the primary safety endpoint was observed in 1.9% of those receiving clopidogrel and a subsequent prasugrel loading dose and 3.4% of those receiving a prasugrel loading dose alone (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.25 to 1.30, p = 0.18). The HAS-BLED (hypertension, abnormal renal/liver function, stroke, bleeding history or predisposition, labile international normalized ratio, elderly, drugs/alcohol concomitantly) bleeding score tended to be higher in prasugrel-treated patients (p = 0.076). The primary safety endpoint results, however, remained unchanged after adjustment for these differences (clopidogrel and a subsequent prasugrel loading dose vs. prasugrel only; HR: 0.54 [95% CI: 0.23 to 1.27], p = 0.16). No differences in the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or stroke were observed at 30 days (adjusted HR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.27 to 1.62, p = 0.36). CONCLUSIONS This observational, nonrandomized study of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients suggests that the administration of a loading dose of prasugrel in patients pre-treated with a loading dose of clopidogrel is not associated with an excess of major bleeding events. (Comparison of Biomatrix Versus Gazelle in ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction [STEMI] [COMFORTABLE]; NCT00962416; and Inflammation and Acute Coronary Syndromes [SPUM-ACS]; NCT01000701).

Aesthetic outcome and oncological safety of nipple-areola complex replantation after mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction

Immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) has become an established procedure for women necessitating mastectomy. Traditionally, the nipple-areola complex (NAC) is resected during this procedure. The NAC, in turn, is a principal factor determining aesthetic outcome after breast reconstruction, and due to its particular texture and shape, a natural-looking NAC can barely be reconstructed with other tissues. The aim of this study was to assess the oncological safety as well as morbidity and aesthetic outcome after replantation of the NAC some days after IBR. Retrospective analysis of 85 patients receiving 88 mastectomies and IBR between 1998 and 2007 was conducted. NAC (n=29) or the nipple alone (n=23) were replanted 7 days (median, range 2-10 days) after IBR in 49 patients, provided the subareolar tissue was histologically negative for tumour infiltration. Local recurrence rate was assessed after 49 months (median, range 6-120 months). Aesthetic outcome was evaluated by clinical assessment during routine follow-up at least 12 months after the last intervention. Malignant involvement of the subareolar tissue was found in eight cases (9.1%). Patients qualifying for NAC replantation were in stage 0 in 29%, stage I in 15%, stage IIa in 31%, stage IIb in 17% and stage III in 8%. Total or partial necrosis occurred in 69% and 26% if the entire NAC or only the nipple were replanted, respectively (P<0.01). Depigmentation was seen in 52% and corrective surgery was done in 11 out of 52 NAC or nipple replantations. Local recurrence and isolated regional lymph node metastasis were observed in one single case each. Another 5.8% of the patients showed distant metastases. We conclude that the replantation of the NAC in IBR is oncologically safe, provided the subareolar tissue is free of tumour. However, the long-term aesthetic outcome of NAC replantation is not satisfying, which advocates replanting the nipple alone.

Safety of diagnostic balloon occlusion in normal coronary arteries

Diagnostic coronary balloon occlusion (CBO) is mandatory for collateral function assessment, during angioscopy and optical coherence imaging, and when using certain coronary protection devices against emboli. Thus far, the safety of diagnostic CBO regarding procedural and long-term complications in normal coronary arteries has not been studied. In 316 patients, diagnostic CBO was performed for collateral function measurement in 426 angiographically normal vessels. The angioplasty balloon was inflated for 60 to 120 seconds using inflation pressures of 1 to 3 atm, followed by control angiography during and after CBO. Patients were divided into groups with entirely normal (n = 133) and partially normal (n = 183) vessels. Primary end points were procedural and long-term complications. De novo stenosis development was assessed by quantitative coronary angiography in 35% of the patients. Secondary end points were cardiac events at 5 years of follow-up. Procedural complications occurred in 1 patient (0.2%). In 150 repeat angiographic procedures in 92 patients (follow-up duration 10 +/- 15 months), quantitative coronary angiography revealed no difference in percentage diameter narrowing between baseline and follow-up (4.1% vs 3.9%, p = 0.69). During follow-up periods of 14 and 72 months, respectively, a new stenotic lesion was detected in 1 patient in each group (1.3%). Major cardiac events and percutaneous coronary intervention for stable angina were less frequent in the group with entirely normal than with partially normal vessels (0.8% vs 5.5%, p = 0.02, and 0.8% vs 18%, p <0.0001). In conclusion, low-inflation pressure diagnostic CBO in angiographically normal coronary arteries bears a minimal risk for procedural and long-term complications and can therefore be regarded as a safe procedure.

Multi-vessel stenting during primary percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction. A single-center experience

BACKGROUND: Recanalization of the culprit lesion is the main goal of primary angioplasty for acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction and multivessel disease are, therefore, usually subjected to staged procedures, with the primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) confined to recanalization of the infarct-related artery (IRA). Theoretically at least, early relief of stenoses of non-infarct-related arteries could promote collateral circulation, which could help to limit the infarct size. However, the safety and feasibility of such an approach has not been adequately established. METHODS: In this single-center prospective study we examined 73 consecutive patients who had an acute STEMI and at least one or more lesions > or = 70% in a major epicardial vessel other than the infarct-related artery. In the first 28 patients, forming the multi-vessel (MV) PCI group, all lesions were treated during the primary procedure. In the following 45 patients, forming the culprit-only (CO) PCI group, only the culprit lesion was treated during the initial procedure, followed by either planned-staged or ischemia-driven revascularization of the non-culprit lesions. Fluoroscopy time and contrast dye amount were compared between both groups, and patients were followed up for one year for major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and other significant clinical events. RESULTS: The two groups were well balanced in terms of clinical characteristics, number of diseased vessels and angiographic characteristics of the culprit lesion. In the MV-PCI group, 2.51 lesions per patient were treated using 2.96 +/- 1.34 stents (1.00 lesions and 1.76 +/- 1.17 stents in the CO-PCI group, both p < 0.001). The fluoroscopy time increased from 10.3 (7.2-16.9) min in the CO-PCI group to 12.5 (8.5-19.3) min in the MV-PCI group (p = 0.22), and the amount of contrast used from 200 (180-250) ml to 250 (200-300) ml, respectively (p = 0.16). Peak CK and CK-MB were significantly lower in patients of the MV-PCI group (843 +/- 845 and 135 +/- 125 vs 1652 +/- 1550 and 207 +/- 155 U/l, p < 0.001 and 0.01, respectively). Similar rates of major adverse cardiac events at one year were observed in the two groups (24% and 28% in multi-vessel and culprit treatment groups, p = 0.73). The incidence of new revascularization in both infarct- and non-infarct-related arteries was also similar (24% and 28%, respectively, p = 0.73). CONCLUSION: We may state from this limited experience that a multi-vessel stenting approach for patients with acute STEMI and multi-vessel disease is feasible and probably safe during routine clinical practice. Our data suggest that this approach may help to limit the infarct size. However, larger studies, perhaps using drug-eluting stents, are still needed to further evaluate the safety and efficiency of this procedure, and whether it is associated with a lower need of subsequent revascularization and lower costs.

Effects of an educational patient safety campaign on patients' safety behaviours and adverse events

Rationale, aims and objectives  The study aims to investigate the effects of a patient safety advisory on patients' risk perceptions, perceived behavioural control, performance of safety behaviours and experience of adverse incidents. Method  Quasi-experimental intervention study with non-equivalent group comparison was used. Patients admitted to the surgical department of a Swiss large non-university hospital were included. Patients in the intervention group received a safety advisory at their first clinical encounter. Outcomes were assessed using a questionnaire at discharge. Odds ratios for control versus intervention group were calculated. Regression analysis was used to model the effects of the intervention and safety behaviours on the experience of safety incidents. Results  Two hundred eighteen patients in the control and 202 in the intervention group completed the survey (75 and 77% response rates, respectively). Patients in the intervention group were less likely to feel poorly informed about medical errors (OR = 0.55, P = 0.043). There were 73.1% in the intervention and 84.3% in the control group who underestimated the risk for infection (OR = 0.51, CI 0.31-0.84, P = 0.009). Perceived behavioural control was lower in the control group (meanCon  = 3.2, meanInt  = 3.5, P = 0.010). Performance of safety-related behaviours was unaffected by the intervention. Patients in the intervention group were less likely to experience any safety-related incident or unsafe situation (OR for intervention group = 0.57, CI 0.38-0.87, P = 0.009). There were no differences in concerns for errors during hospitalization. There were 96% of patients (intervention) who would recommend other patients to read the advisory. Conclusions  The results suggest that the safety advisory decreases experiences of adverse events and unsafe situations. It renders awareness and perceived behavioural control without increasing concerns for safety and can thus serve as a useful instrument for communication about safety between health care workers and patients.

Long-term comparison of everolimus-eluting stents with sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents for percutaneous coronary intervention of saphenous vein grafts

Aims: Newer-generation everolimus-eluting stents (EES) have been shown to improve clinical outcomes compared with early-generation sirolimus-eluting (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Whether this benefit is maintained among patients with saphenous vein graft (SVG) disease remains controversial. Methods and results: We assessed cumulative incidence rates (CIR) per 100 patient years after inverse probability of treatment weighting to compare clinical outcomes. The pre-specified primary endpoint was the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), and target vessel revascularisation (TVR). Out of 12,339 consecutively treated patients, 288 patients (5.7%) underwent PCI of at least one SVG lesion with EES (n=127), SES (n=103) or PES (n=58). Up to four years, CIR of the primary endpoint were 58.7 for EES, 45.2 for SES and 45.6 for PES with similar adjusted risks between groups (EES vs. SES; HR 0.94, 95% CI: 0.55-1.60, EES vs. PES; HR 1.07, 95% CI: 0.60-1.91). Adjusted risks showed no significant differences between stent types for cardiac death, MI and TVR. Conclusions: Among patients undergoing PCI for SVG lesions, newer-generation EES have similar safety and efficacy to early-generation SES and PES during long-term follow-up to four years.

Mechanical antithrombotic intervention by LAA occlusion in atrial fibrillation

Stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) is often associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. Oral anticoagulation remains the first-line approach to stroke prevention in such individuals; however, for a considerable proportion of patients, traditional treatment using warfarin is limited by a number of factors, such as the inconvenience of frequent therapeutic monitoring and the risk of haemorrhage. The development of new oral anticoagulants with improved efficacy and safety profiles has provided viable options for oral anticoagulation therapy in patients with nonvalvular (nonrheumatic AF). Nonetheless, in patients who have an increased risk of major haemorrhage, a nonpharmacological approach to antithrombotic therapy remains an attractive alternative. The left atrial appendage (LAA) has been found to be the source of >90% of thrombi in patients with nonvalvular AF; thus, prevention of thrombus formation via transcatheter mechanical LAA occlusion is a novel therapeutic target for stroke prevention in this patient population. In this Review, we present the rationale for LAA occlusion in patients with AF, the available occlusion devices and their clinical evidence to date. We also discuss the roles of various imaging techniques in device implantation and the management strategy for associated procedural complications.

The Impact of Renal Impairment on Long-Term Safety and Effectiveness of Drug-Eluting Stents

BACKGROUND Renal impairment (RI) is associated with impaired prognosis in patients with coronary artery disease. Clinical and angiographic outcomes of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with the use of drug-eluting stents (DES) in this patient population are not well established. METHODS We pooled individual data for 5,011 patients from 3 trials with the exclusive and unrestricted use of DES (SIRTAX - N = 1,012, LEADERS - N = 1,707, RESOLUTE AC - N = 2,292). Angiographic follow-up was available for 1,544 lesions. Outcomes through 2 years were stratified according to glomerular filtration rate (normal renal function: GFR≥90 ml/min; mild RI: 90

4-year clinical outcomes and predictors of repeat revascularization in patients treated with new-generation drug-eluting stents: a report from the RESOLUTE All-Comers trial (A Randomized Comparison of a Zotarolimus-Eluting Stent With an Everolimus-Eluting Stent for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention)

OBJECTIVES The aim of the study was to investigate 4-year outcomes and predictors of repeat revascularization in patients treated with the Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stent (R-ZES) (Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minnesota) and XIENCE V everolimus-eluting stent (EES) (Abbott Vascular, Abbott Park, Illinois) in the RESOLUTE (A Randomized Comparison of a Zotarolimus-Eluting Stent With an Everolimus-Eluting Stent for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) All-Comers trial. BACKGROUND Data on long-term outcomes of new-generation drug-eluting stents are limited, and predictors of repeat revascularization due to restenosis and/or progression of disease are largely unknown. METHODS Patients were randomly assigned to treatment with the R-ZES (n = 1,140) or the EES (n = 1,152). We assessed pre-specified safety and efficacy outcomes at 4 years including target lesion failure and stent thrombosis. Predictors of revascularization at 4 years were identified by Cox regression analysis. RESULTS At 4 years, the rates of target lesion failure (15.2% vs. 14.6%, p = 0.68), cardiac death (5.4% vs. 4.7%, p = 0.44), and target vessel myocardial infarction (5.3% vs. 5.4%, p = 1.00), clinically-indicated target lesion revascularization (TLR) (7.0% vs. 6.5%, p = 0.62), and definite/probable stent thrombosis (2.3% vs. 1.6%, p = 0.23) were similar with the R-ZES and EES. Independent predictors of TLR were age, insulin-treated diabetes, SYNTAX (Synergy between PCI with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery) score, treatment of saphenous vein grafts, ostial lesions, and in-stent restenosis. Independent predictors of any revascularization were age, diabetes, previous percutaneous coronary intervention, absence of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, smaller reference vessel diameter, SYNTAX score, and treatment of left anterior descending, right coronary artery, saphenous vein grafts, ostial lesions, or in-stent restenosis. CONCLUSIONS R-ZES and EES demonstrated similar safety and efficacy throughout 4 years. TLR represented less than one-half of all repeat revascularization procedures. Patient- and lesion-related factors predicting the risk of TLR and any revascularization showed considerable overlap. (A Randomized Comparison of a Zotarolimus-Eluting Stent With an Everolimus-Eluting Stent for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention [RESOLUTE-AC]; NCT00617084).

Drug-eluting stents compared to bare-metal stents improve short-term survival in patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention: a nationwide prospective analysis of the AMIS Plus registry

BACKGROUND Recently, it has been suggested that the type of stent used in primary percutaneous coronary interventions (pPCI) might impact upon the outcomes of patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Indeed, drug-eluting stents (DES) reduce neointimal hyperplasia compared to bare-metal stents (BMS). Moreover, the later generation DES, due to its biocompatible polymer coatings and stent design, allows for greater deliverability, improved endothelial healing and therefore less restenosis and thrombus generation. However, data on the safety and performance of DES in large cohorts of AMI is still limited. AIM To compare the early outcome of DES vs. BMS in AMI patients. METHODS This was a prospective, multicentre analysis containing patients from 64 hospitals in Switzerland with AMI undergoing pPCI between 2005 and 2013. The primary endpoint was in-hospital all-cause death, whereas the secondary endpoint included a composite measure of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) of death, reinfarction, and cerebrovascular event. RESULTS Of 20,464 patients with a primary diagnosis of AMI and enrolled to the AMIS Plus registry, 15,026 were referred for pPCI and 13,442 received stent implantation. 10,094 patients were implanted with DES and 2,260 with BMS. The overall in-hospital mortality was significantly lower in patients with DES compared to those with BMS implantation (2.6% vs. 7.1%,p < 0.001). The overall in-hospital MACCE after DES was similarly lower compared to BMS (3.5% vs. 7.6%, p < 0.001). After adjusting for all confounding covariables, DES remained an independent predictor for lower in-hospital mortality (OR 0.51,95% CI 0.40-0.67, p < 0.001). Since groups differed as regards to baseline characteristics and pharmacological treatment, we performed a propensity score matching (PSM) to limit potential biases. Even after the PSM, DES implantation remained independently associated with a reduced risk of in-hospital mortality (adjusted OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.39-0.76, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS In unselected patients from a nationwide, real-world cohort, we found DES, compared to BMS, was associated with lower in-hospital mortality and MACCE. The identification of optimal treatment strategies of patients with AMI needs further randomised evaluation; however, our findings suggest a potential benefit with DES.

The effectiveness and safety of rescue treatments in 108 patients with steroid-refractory ulcerative colitis with sequential rescue therapies in a subgroup of patients

BACKGROUND: Among patients with steroid-refractory ulcerative colitis (UC) in whom a first rescue therapy has failed, a second line salvage treatment can be considered to avoid colectomy. AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of second or third line rescue therapy over a one-year period. METHODS: Response to single or sequential rescue treatments with infliximab (5mg/kg intravenously (iv) at week 0, 2, 6 and then every 8weeks), ciclosporin (iv 2mg/kg/daily and then oral 5mg/kg/daily) or tacrolimus (0.05mg/kg divided in 2 doses) in steroid-refractory moderate to severe UC patients from 7 Swiss and 1 Serbian tertiary IBD centers was retrospectively studied. The primary endpoint was the one year colectomy rate. RESULTS: 60% of patients responded to the first rescue therapy, 10% went to colectomy and 30% non-responders were switched to a 2(nd) line rescue treatment. 66% of patients responded to the 2(nd) line treatment whereas 34% failed, of which 15% went to colectomy and 19% received a 3(rd) line rescue treatment. Among those, 50% patients went to colectomy. Overall colectomy rate of the whole cohort was 18%. Steroid-free remission rate was 39%. The adverse event rates were 33%, 37.5% and 30% for the first, second and third line treatment respectively. CONCLUSION: Our data show that medical intervention even with 2(nd) and 3(rd) rescue treatments decreased colectomy frequency within one year of follow up. A longer follow-up will be necessary to investigate whether sequential therapy will only postpone colectomy and what percentage of patients will remain in long-term remission.

Safety and efficacy of resolute zotarolimus-eluting stents compared with everolimus-eluting stents: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND Although new-generation drug-eluting stents represent the standard of care among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, there remains debate about differences in efficacy and the risk of stent thrombosis between the Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stent (R-ZES) and the everolimus-eluting stent (EES). The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the R-ZES compared with EES in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS AND RESULTS A systematic literature search of electronic resources was performed using specific search terms until September 2014. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed comparing clinical outcomes between patients treated with R-ZES and EES up to maximum available follow-up. The primary efficacy end point was target-vessel revascularization. The primary safety end point was definite or probable stent thrombosis. Secondary safety end points were cardiac death and target-vessel myocardial infarction. Five trials were identified, including a total of 9899 patients. Compared with EES, R-ZES had similar risks of target-vessel revascularization (risk ratio [RR], 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90-1.24; P=0.50), definite or probable stent thrombosis (RR, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.86-1.85; P=0.24), cardiac death (RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.79-1.30; P=0.91), and target-vessel myocardial infarction (RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.89-1.36; P=0.39). Moreover, R-ZES and EES had similar risks of late definite or probable very late stent thrombosis (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.53-2.11; P=0.87). No evidence of significant heterogeneity was observed across trials. CONCLUSIONS R-ZES and EES provide similar safety and efficacy among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.