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.

Safety profile of prasugrel and clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes in Switzerland.

OBJECTIVE To assess safety up to 1 year of follow-up associated with prasugrel and clopidogrel use in a prospective cohort of patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS). METHODS Between 2009 and 2012, 2286 patients invasively managed for ACS were enrolled in the multicentre Swiss ACS Bleeding Cohort, among whom 2148 patients received either prasugrel or clopidogrel according to current guidelines. Patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) preferentially received prasugrel, while those with non-STEMI, a history of stroke or transient ischaemic attack, age ≥75 years, or weight <60 kg received clopidogrel or reduced dose of prasugrel to comply with the prasugrel label. RESULTS After adjustment using propensity scores, the primary end point of clinically relevant bleeding events (defined as the composite of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium, BARC, type 3, 4 or 5 bleeding) at 1 year, occurred at a similar rate in both patient groups (prasugrel/clopidogrel: 3.8%/5.5%). Stratified analyses in subgroups including patients with STEMI yielded a similar safety profile. After adjusting for baseline variables, no relevant differences in major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events were observed at 1 year (prasugrel/clopidogrel: cardiac death 2.6%/4.2%, myocardial infarction 2.7%/3.8%, revascularisation 5.9%/6.7%, stroke 1.0%/1.6%). Of note, this study was not designed to compare efficacy between prasugrel and clopidogrel. CONCLUSIONS In this large prospective ACS cohort, patients treated with prasugrel according to current guidelines (ie, in patients without cerebrovascular disease, old age or underweight) had a similar safety profile compared with patients treated with clopidogrel. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER SPUM-ACS: NCT01000701; COMFORTABLE AMI: NCT00962416.

Radial versus femoral access in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing invasive management: a randomised multicentre trial.

BACKGROUND It is unclear whether radial compared with femoral access improves outcomes in unselected patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing invasive management. METHODS We did a randomised, multicentre, superiority trial comparing transradial against transfemoral access in patients with acute coronary syndrome with or without ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction who were about to undergo coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to radial or femoral access with a web-based system. The randomisation sequence was computer generated, blocked, and stratified by use of ticagrelor or prasugrel, type of acute coronary syndrome (ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, troponin positive or negative, non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome), and anticipated use of immediate percutaneous coronary intervention. Outcome assessors were masked to treatment allocation. The 30-day coprimary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events, defined as death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, and net adverse clinical events, defined as major adverse cardiovascular events or Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) major bleeding unrelated to coronary artery bypass graft surgery. The analysis was by intention to treat. The two-sided α was prespecified at 0·025. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01433627. FINDINGS We randomly assigned 8404 patients with acute coronary syndrome, with or without ST-segment elevation, to radial (4197) or femoral (4207) access for coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention. 369 (8·8%) patients with radial access had major adverse cardiovascular events, compared with 429 (10·3%) patients with femoral access (rate ratio [RR] 0·85, 95% CI 0·74-0·99; p=0·0307), non-significant at α of 0·025. 410 (9·8%) patients with radial access had net adverse clinical events compared with 486 (11·7%) patients with femoral access (0·83, 95% CI 0·73-0·96; p=0·0092). The difference was driven by BARC major bleeding unrelated to coronary artery bypass graft surgery (1·6% vs 2·3%, RR 0·67, 95% CI 0·49-0·92; p=0·013) and all-cause mortality (1·6% vs 2·2%, RR 0·72, 95% CI 0·53-0·99; p=0·045). INTERPRETATION In patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing invasive management, radial as compared with femoral access reduces net adverse clinical events, through a reduction in major bleeding and all-cause mortality. FUNDING The Medicines Company and Terumo.

Metamizole-associated adverse events: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND Metamizole is used to treat pain in many parts of the world. Information on the safety profile of metamizole is scarce; no conclusive summary of the literature exists. OBJECTIVE To determine whether metamizole is clinically safe compared to placebo and other analgesics. METHODS We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and several clinical trial registries. We screened the reference lists of included trials and previous systematic reviews. We included randomized controlled trials that compared the effects of metamizole, administered to adults in any form and for any indication, to other analgesics or to placebo. Two authors extracted data regarding trial design and size, indications for pain medication, patient characteristics, treatment regimens, and methodological characteristics. Adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), and dropouts were assessed. We conducted separate meta-analyses for each metamizole comparator, using standard inverse-variance random effects meta-analysis to pool the estimates across trials, reported as risk ratios (RRs). We calculated the DerSimonian and Laird variance estimate T2 to measure heterogeneity between trials. The pre-specified primary end point was any AE during the trial period. RESULTS Of the 696 potentially eligible trials, 79 trials including almost 4000 patients with short-term metamizole use of less than two weeks met our inclusion criteria. Fewer AEs were reported for metamizole compared to opioids, RR = 0.79 (confidence interval 0.79 to 0.96). We found no differences between metamizole and placebo, paracetamol and NSAIDs. Only a few SAEs were reported, with no difference between metamizole and other analgesics. No agranulocytosis or deaths were reported. Our results were limited by the mediocre overall quality of the reports. CONCLUSION For short-term use in the hospital setting, metamizole seems to be a safe choice when compared to other widely used analgesics. High-quality, adequately sized trials assessing the intermediate- and long-term safety of metamizole are needed.

Clinical impact of gastrointestinal bleeding in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions.

BACKGROUND The risk factors and clinical sequelae of gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) in the current era of drug-eluting stents, prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy, and potent P2Y12 inhibitors are not well established. We determined the frequency, predictors, and clinical impact of GIB after percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) in a contemporary cohort of consecutive patients treated with unrestricted use of drug-eluting stents. METHODS AND RESULTS Between 2009 and 2012, all consecutive patients undergoing PCI were prospectively included in the Bern PCI Registry. Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) GIB and cardiovascular outcomes were recorded within 1 year of follow-up. Among 6212 patients, 84.1% received new-generation drug-eluting stents and 19.5% received prasugrel. At 1 year, GIB had occurred in 65 patients (1.04%); 70.8% of all events and 84.4% of BARC ≥3B events were recorded >30 days after PCI. The majority of events (64.4%) were related to upper GIB with a more delayed time course compared with lower GIB. Increasing age, previous GIB, history of malignancy, smoking, and triple antithrombotic therapy (ie, oral anticoagulation plus dual antiplatelet therapy) were independent predictors of GIB in multivariable analysis. GIB was associated with increased all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 3.40; 95% confidence interval, 1.67-6.92; P=0.001) and the composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (adjusted hazard ratio, 3.75; 95% confidence interval, 1.99-7.07; P<0.001) and was an independent predictor of all-cause mortality during 1 year. CONCLUSIONS Among unselected patients undergoing PCI, GIB has a profound effect on prognosis. Triple antithrombotic therapy emerged as the single drug-related predictor of GIB in addition to patient-related risk factors within 1 year of PCI. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02241291.

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.

Consensus on the Need for a Hierarchical List of Patient-reported Pain Outcomes for Metaanalyses of Knee Osteoarthritis Trials: An OMERACT Objective.

OBJECTIVE Although protocol registration for systematic reviews is still not mandatory, reviewers should be strongly encouraged to register the protocol to identify the methodological approach, including all outcomes of interest. This will minimize the likelihood of biased decisions in reviews, such as selective outcome reporting. A group of international experts convened to address issues regarding the need to develop hierarchical lists of outcome measurement instruments for a particular outcome for metaanalyses. METHODS Multiple outcome measurement instruments exist to measure the same outcome. Metaanalysis of knee osteoarthritis (OA) trials, and the assessment of pain as an outcome, was used as an exemplar to assess how Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT), the Cochrane Collaboration, and other international initiatives might contribute in this area. The meeting began with formal presentations of background topics, empirical evidence from the literature, and a brief introduction to 2 existing hierarchical lists of pain outcome measurement instruments recommended for metaanalyses of knee OA trials. RESULTS After discussions, most participants agreed that there is a need to develop a methodology for generation of hierarchical lists of outcome measurement instruments to guide metaanalyses. Tools that could be used to steer development of such a prioritized list are the COSMIN checklist (Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement Instruments) and the OMERACT Filter 2.0. CONCLUSION We list meta-epidemiological research agenda items that address the frequency of reported outcomes in trials, as well as methodologies to assess the best measurement properties (i.e., truth, discrimination, and feasibility).

Aspiration Thrombectomy for Treatment of ST-segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: a Meta-analysis of 26 Randomized Trials in 11 943 Patients.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES There is continued debate about the routine use of aspiration thrombectomy in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Our aim was to evaluate clinical and procedural outcomes of aspiration thrombectomy-assisted primary percutaneous coronary intervention compared with conventional primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. METHODS We performed a meta-analysis of 26 randomized controlled trials with a total of 11 943 patients. Clinical outcomes were extracted up to maximum follow-up and random effect models were used to assess differences in outcomes. RESULTS We observed no difference in the risk of all-cause death (pooled risk ratio = 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-1.04; P = .124), reinfarction (pooled risk ratio = 0.85; 95% confidence interval, 0.67-1.08; P = .176), target vessel revascularization (pooled risk ratio = 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-1.00; P = .052), or definite stent thrombosis (pooled risk ratio = 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.49-1.16; P = .202) between the 2 groups at a mean weighted follow-up time of 10.4 months. There were significant reductions in failure to reach Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction 3 flow (pooled risk ratio = 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.81; P < .001) or myocardial blush grade 3 (pooled risk ratio = 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.65-0.89; P = .001), incomplete ST-segment resolution (pooled risk ratio = 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.62-0.84; P < .001), and evidence of distal embolization (pooled risk ratio = 0.61; 95% confidence interval, 0.46-0.81; P = .001) with aspiration thrombectomy but estimates were heterogeneous between trials. CONCLUSIONS Among unselected patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, aspiration thrombectomy-assisted primary percutaneous coronary intervention does not improve clinical outcomes, despite improved epicardial and myocardial parameters of reperfusion. Full English text available from:www.revespcardiol.org/en.

The association between in-stent neoatherosclerosis and native coronary artery disease progression: a long-term angiographic and optical coherence tomography cohort study.

AIMS The purpose of the present study was to investigate the relationship between in-stent neoatherosclerosis (NA) and native atherosclerosis progression of untreated coronary segments. METHODS AND RESULTS In-stent NA was assessed by optical coherence tomography (OCT) among patients included in the SIRTAX-LATE OCT study 5 years after drug-eluting stent (DES) (sirolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents) implantation. Neoatherosclerosis was defined as the presence of fibroatheroma or fibrocalcific plaque within the neointima of stented segments with a longitudinal extension >1.0 mm. Atherosclerosis progression in untreated native coronary segments was evaluated by serial quantitative coronary angiography (QCA). The change in minimal lumen diameter (MLD) was serially assessed within matched segments at baseline and 5-year angiographic follow-up. The key clinical endpoint was non-target lesion (non-TL) revascularization throughout 5 years. A total of 88 patients with 88 lesions were available for OCT analysis 5 years after DES implantation. In-stent NA was observed in 16% of lesions with the majority of plaques being fibroatheromas (11.4%) followed by fibrocalcific plaques (5.7%). A total of 704 non-TL segments were serially evaluated by QCA. Between baseline and 5-year follow-up, the reduction in MLD was significantly more pronounced in patients with NA (-0.25 mm, 95% CI -0.36 to -0.17 mm) when compared with patients without NA (-0.13 mm, 95% CI -0.17 to -0.10 mm, P = 0.002). Similarly, non-TL revascularization was more frequent in patients with NA (78.6%) when compared with patients without NA (44.6%, P = 0.028) throughout 5 years. CONCLUSIONS In-stent NA is more common among patients with angiographic and clinical evidence of native atherosclerosis progression suggesting similar pathophysiological mechanisms.SIRTAX trial is registered at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00617084.

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.

Bivalirudin or Unfractionated Heparin in Acute Coronary Syndromes.

Background Conflicting evidence exists on the efficacy and safety of bivalirudin administered as part of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with an acute coronary syndrome. Methods We randomly assigned 7213 patients with an acute coronary syndrome for whom PCI was anticipated to receive either bivalirudin or unfractionated heparin. Patients in the bivalirudin group were subsequently randomly assigned to receive or not to receive a post-PCI bivalirudin infusion. Primary outcomes for the comparison between bivalirudin and heparin were the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) and net adverse clinical events (a composite of major bleeding or a major adverse cardiovascular event). The primary outcome for the comparison of a post-PCI bivalirudin infusion with no post-PCI infusion was a composite of urgent target-vessel revascularization, definite stent thrombosis, or net adverse clinical events. Results The rate of major adverse cardiovascular events was not significantly lower with bivalirudin than with heparin (10.3% and 10.9%, respectively; relative risk, 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81 to 1.09; P=0.44), nor was the rate of net adverse clinical events (11.2% and 12.4%, respectively; relative risk, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.03; P=0.12). Post-PCI bivalirudin infusion, as compared with no infusion, did not significantly decrease the rate of urgent target-vessel revascularization, definite stent thrombosis, or net adverse clinical events (11.0% and 11.9%, respectively; relative risk, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.11; P=0.34). Conclusions In patients with an acute coronary syndrome, the rates of major adverse cardiovascular events and net adverse clinical events were not significantly lower with bivalirudin than with unfractionated heparin. The rate of the composite of urgent target-vessel revascularization, definite stent thrombosis, or net adverse clinical events was not significantly lower with a post-PCI bivalirudin infusion than with no post-PCI infusion. (Funded by the Medicines Company and Terumo Medical; MATRIX ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01433627 .).

Age- and Gender-related Disparities in Primary Percutaneous Coronary Interventions for Acute ST-segment elevation Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND Previous analyses reported age- and gender-related differences in the provision of cardiac care. The objective of the study was to compare circadian disparities in the delivery of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) according to the patient's age and gender. METHODS We investigated patients included into the Acute Myocardial Infarction in Switzerland (AMIS) registry presenting to one of 11 centers in Switzerland providing primary PCI around the clock, and stratified patients according to gender and age. FINDINGS A total of 4723 patients presented with AMI between 2005 and 2010; 1319 (28%) were women and 2172 (54%) were ≥65 years of age. More than 90% of patients <65 years of age underwent primary PCI without differences between gender. Elderly patients and particularly women were at increased risk of being withheld primary PCI (males adj. HR 4.91, 95% CI 3.93-6.13; females adj. HR 9.31, 95% CI 7.37-11.75) as compared to males <65 years of age. An increased risk of a delay in door-to-balloon time >90 minutes was found in elderly males (adj HR 1.66 (95% CI 1.40-1.95), p<0.001) and females (adj HR 1.57 (95% CI 1.27-1.93), p<0.001), as well as in females <65 years (adj HR 1.47 (95% CI 1.13-1.91), p = 0.004) as compared to males <65 years of age, with significant differences in circadian patterns during on- and off-duty hours. CONCLUSIONS In a cohort of patients with AMI in Switzerland, we observed discrimination of elderly patients and females in the circadian provision of primary PCI.