Three-year outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention with next-generation zotarolimus-eluting stents for de novo coronary bifurcation lesions.

AIMS To investigate the outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in bifurcation versus non-bifurcation lesions using the next-generation Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stent (R-ZES). METHODS AND RESULTS We analyzed 3-year pooled data from the RESOLUTE All-Comers trial and the RESOLUTE International registry. The R-ZES was used in 2772 non-bifurcation lesion patients and 703 bifurcation lesion patients, of which 482 were treated with a simple-stent technique (1 stent used to treat the bifurcation lesion) and 221 with a complex bifurcation technique (2 or more stents used). The primary endpoint was 3-year target lesion failure (TLF, defined as the composite of death from cardiac causes, target vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically-indicated target lesion revascularization [TLR]), and was 13.3% in bifurcation vs 11.3% in non-bifurcation lesion patients (adjusted P=.06). Landmark analysis revealed that this difference was driven by differences in the first 30 days between bifurcation vs non-bifurcation lesions (TLF, 6.6% vs 2.7%, respectively; adjusted P<.001), which included significant differences in each component of TLF and in-stent thrombosis. Between 31 days and 3 years, TLF, its components, and stent thrombosis did not differ significantly between bifurcation lesions and non-bifurcation lesions (TLF, 7.7% vs 9.0%, respectively; adjusted P=.50). CONCLUSION The 3-year risk of TLF following PCI with R-ZES in bifurcation lesions was not significantly different from non-bifurcation lesions. However, there was an increased risk associated with bifurcation lesions during the first 30 days; beyond 30 days, bifurcation lesions and non-bifurcation lesions yielded similar 3-year outcomes.

Performance of the resolute zotarolimus-eluting stent in small vessels.

BACKGROUND Drug eluting stents for the treatment of small vessel coronary artery disease have traditionally yielded inferior clinical outcomes compared to the use of DES in large vessels. The benefit of the second-generation Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stent (R-ZES) in small vessels was examined. METHODS Two-year clinical outcomes from five combined R-ZES studies were compared between patients with small (reference vessel diameter [RVD] ≤2.5 mm; n = 1,956) and large (RVD >2.5 mm; n = 3174) vessels. RESULTS Despite a higher incidence of comorbidities in the small vessel group, there was no significant difference in target lesion failure (TLF) (10.1% vs. 8.7%; P = 0.54) at 2 years. When the subgroup of patients with diabetes was examined (n = 1,553) there was no significant difference in 2-year TLF in small compared to large vessels (11.2% vs. 11.1%; P = 0.17). Similarly, within the small vessel cohort, no significant difference was seen regarding TLF at 2 years between people with and without diabetes (11.2% vs 9.6%; P = 0.28). CONCLUSION When used for the treatment of small vessels, the R-ZES appears to provide acceptable clinical results at 2 years when compared to its performance in large vessels.

Lack of association between dual antiplatelet therapy use and stent thrombosis between 1 and 12 months following resolute zotarolimus-eluting stent implantation.

AIM The optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) following the use of new generation drug-eluting stents is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS The association between DAPT interruption and the rates of stent thrombosis (ST) and cardiac death/target-vessel myocardial infarction (CD/TVMI) in patients receiving a Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stent (R-ZES) was analysed in 4896 patients from the pooled RESOLUTE clinical programme. Daily acetylsalicylate (ASA) and a thienopyridine for 6-12 months were prescribed. A DAPT interruption was defined as any interruption of ASA and/or a thienopyridine of >1 day; long interruptions were >14 days. Three groups were analysed: no interruption, interruption during the first month, and >1-12 months. There were 1069 (21.83%) patients with a DAPT interruption and 3827 patients with no interruption. Among the 166 patients in the 1-month interruption group, 6 definite/probable ST events occurred (3.61%; all long DAPT interruptions), and among the 903 patients in the >1-12 months (60% occurred between 6 and 12 months) interruption group, 1 ST event occurred (0.11%; 2-day DAPT interruption). Among patients with no DAPT interruption, 32 ST events occurred (0.84%). Rates of CD/TVMI were 6.84% in the 1-month long interruption group, 1.41% in the >1-12 months long interruption group, and 4.08% in patients on continuous DAPT. CONCLUSION In a pooled population of patients receiving an R-ZES, DAPT interruptions within 1 month are associated with a high risk of adverse outcomes. Dual antiplatelet therapy interruptions between 1 and 12 months were associated with low rates of ST and adverse cardiac outcomes. Randomized clinical trials are needed to determine whether early temporary or permanent interruption of DAPT is truly safe. CLINICAL TRIALSGOV IDENTIFIERS NCT00617084; NCT00726453; NCT00752128; NCT00927940.

Five-year results of a randomised comparison of titanium-nitride-oxide-coated stents with zotarolimus-eluting stents for coronary revascularisation.

Aims: Stents with a passive coating of titanium-nitride-oxide (TiNO) have been compared with Endeavor® zotarolimus-eluting stents (E-ZES) with regard to the primary endpoint of in-stent late lumen loss at six to eight months. The objective of the present analysis was to compare the long-term outcomes of TiNO stents with E-ZES up to five years of clinical follow-up. Methods and results: A total of 302 patients had been randomly allocated to treatment with TiNO or E-ZES. Up to five years of follow-up, major adverse cardiac events (MACE), the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or clinically indicated target vessel revascularisation (TLR), were observed in 27.6% of patients treated with TiNO stents and 25.3% of patients treated with E-ZES (RR 1.13, 95% CI: 0.72-1.75, p=0.60), with the majority of events related to clinically indicated TVR (TiNO 21.7% versus E-ZES 20.7%, RR 1.10, 95% CI: 0.67-1.81). There were no differences with respect to individual events including cardiac death, myocardial infarction or stent thrombosis between the two treatment arms up to five years of follow-up. A majority of patients remained free from angina throughout the entire study duration (TiNO 77.3% versus E-ZES 76.1%, p=0.92). Conclusions: Final five-year outcomes of the TIDE trial comparing TiNO stents with E-ZES revealed increased rates of MACE driven primarily by clinically indicated TVR. The TIDE trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00492908.

Comparison of a Novel Biodegradable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stent With a Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stent: Results of the Randomized BIOFLOW-II Trial.

BACKGROUND Biodegradable polymers for release of antiproliferative drugs from drug-eluting stents aim to improve vascular healing. We assessed noninferiority of a novel ultrathin strut drug-eluting stent releasing sirolimus from a biodegradable polymer (Orsiro, O-SES) compared with the durable polymer Xience Prime everolimus-eluting stent (X-EES) in terms of the primary end point in-stent late lumen loss at 9 months. METHODS AND RESULTS A total of 452 patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to treatment with O-SES (298 patients, 332 lesions) or X-EES (154 patients, 173 lesions) in a multicenter, noninferiority trial. The primary end point was in-stent late loss at 9 months. O-SES was noninferior to X-EES for the primary end point (0.10±0.32 versus 0.11±0.29 mm; difference=0.00063 mm; 95% confidence interval, -0.06 to 0.07; Pnoninferiority<0.0001). Clinical outcome showed similar rates of target-lesion failure at 1 year (O-SES 6.5% versus X-EES 8.0%; hazard ratio=0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.40-1.68; log-rank test: P=0.58) without cases of stent thrombosis. A subgroup of patients (n=55) underwent serial optical coherence tomography at 9 months, which demonstrated similar neointimal thickness among lesions allocated to O-SES and X-EES (0.10±0.04 mm versus 0.11±0.04 mm; -0.01 [-0.04, -0.01]; P=0.37). Another subgroup of patients (n=56) underwent serial intravascular ultrasound at baseline and 9 months indicating a potential difference in neointimal area at follow-up (O-SES, 0.16±0.33 mm(2) versus X-EES, 0.43±0.56 mm(2); P=0.04). CONCLUSIONS Compared with durable polymer X-EES, novel biodegradable polymer-based O-SES was found noninferior for the primary end point in-stent late lumen loss at 9 months. Clinical event rates were comparable without cases of stent thrombosis throughout 1 year of follow-up. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01356888.

Clinical Outcomes According to Diabetic Status in Patients Treated With Biodegradable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stents: Prespecified Subgroup Analysis of the BIOSCIENCE Trial.

BACKGROUND Ultrathin strut biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (BP-SES) proved noninferior to durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP-EES) for a composite clinical end point in a population with minimal exclusion criteria. We performed a prespecified subgroup analysis of the Ultrathin Strut Biodegradable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stent for Percutaneous Coronary Revascularisation (BIOSCIENCE) trial to compare the performance of BP-SES and DP-EES in patients with diabetes mellitus. METHODS AND RESULTS BIOSCIENCE trial was an investigator-initiated, single-blind, multicentre, randomized, noninferiority trial comparing BP-SES versus DP-EES. The primary end point, target lesion failure, was a composite of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization within 12 months. Among a total of 2119 patients enrolled between February 2012 and May 2013, 486 (22.9%) had diabetes mellitus. Overall diabetic patients experienced a significantly higher risk of target lesion failure compared with patients without diabetes mellitus (10.1% versus 5.7%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.27-2.56; P=0.001). At 1 year, there were no differences between BP-SES versus DP-EES in terms of the primary end point in both diabetic (10.9% versus 9.3%; HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.67-2.10; P=0.56) and nondiabetic patients (5.3% versus 6.0%; HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.58-1.33; P=0.55). Similarly, no significant differences in the risk of definite or probable stent thrombosis were recorded according to treatment arm in both study groups (4.0% versus 3.1%; HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.49-3.41; P=0.60 for diabetic patients and 2.4% versus 3.4%; HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.39-1.25; P=0.23, in nondiabetics). CONCLUSIONS In the prespecified subgroup analysis of the BIOSCIENCE trial, clinical outcomes among diabetic patients treated with BP-SES or DP-EES were comparable at 1 year. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01443104.

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).

Report of a European Society of Cardiology-European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions task force on the evaluation of coronary stents in Europe: executive summary.

The evaluation for European Union market approval of coronary stents falls under the Medical Device Directive that was adopted in 1993. Specific requirements for the assessment of coronary stents are laid out in supplementary advisory documents. In response to a call by the European Commission to make recommendations for a revision of the advisory document on the evaluation of coronary stents (Appendix 1 of MEDDEV 2.7.1), the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) established a Task Force to develop an expert advisory report. As basis for its report, the ESC-EAPCI Task Force reviewed existing processes, established a comprehensive list of all coronary drug-eluting stents that have received a CE mark to date, and undertook a systematic review of the literature of all published randomized clinical trials evaluating clinical and angiographic outcomes of coronary artery stents between 2002 and 2013. Based on these data, the TF provided recommendations to inform a new regulatory process for coronary stents. The main recommendations of the task force include implementation of a standardized non-clinical assessment of stents and a novel clinical evaluation pathway for market approval. The two-stage clinical evaluation plan includes recommendation for an initial pre-market trial with objective performance criteria (OPC) benchmarking using invasive imaging follow-up leading to conditional CE-mark approval and a subsequent mandatory, large-scale randomized trial with clinical endpoint evaluation leading to unconditional CE-mark. The data analysis from the systematic review of the Task Force may provide a basis for determination of OPC for use in future studies. This paper represents an executive summary of the Task Force's report.