Impact of Clinical Presentation (Stable Angina Pectoris vs Unstable Angina Pectoris or Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction vs ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction) on Long-Term Outcomes in Women Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Drug-Eluting Stents

The long-term risk associated with different coronary artery disease (CAD) presentations in women undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES) is poorly characterized. We pooled patient-level data for women enrolled in 26 randomized clinical trials. Of 11,577 women included in the pooled database, 10,133 with known clinical presentation received a DES. Of them, 5,760 (57%) had stable angina pectoris (SAP), 3,594 (35%) had unstable angina pectoris (UAP) or non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), and 779 (8%) had ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) as clinical presentation. A stepwise increase in 3-year crude cumulative mortality was observed in the transition from SAP to STEMI (4.9% vs 6.1% vs 9.4%; p <0.01). Conversely, no differences in crude mortality rates were observed between 1 and 3 years across clinical presentations. After multivariable adjustment, STEMI was independently associated with greater risk of 3-year mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 3.45; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.99 to 5.98; p <0.01), whereas no differences were observed between UAP or NSTEMI and SAP (HR 0.99; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.34; p = 0.94). In women with ACS, use of new-generation DES was associated with reduced risk of major adverse cardiac events (HR 0.58; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.98). The magnitude and direction of the effect with new-generation DES was uniform between women with or without ACS (pinteraction = 0.66). In conclusion, in women across the clinical spectrum of CAD, STEMI was associated with a greater risk of long-term mortality. Conversely, the adjusted risk of mortality between UAP or NSTEMI and SAP was similar. New-generation DESs provide improved long-term clinical outcomes irrespective of the clinical presentation in women.

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.

Antiplatelet therapy duration following bare metal or drug-eluting coronary stents: the dual antiplatelet therapy randomized clinical trial

IMPORTANCE Despite antirestenotic efficacy of coronary drug-eluting stents (DES) compared with bare metal stents (BMS), the relative risk of stent thrombosis and adverse cardiovascular events is unclear. Although dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) beyond 1 year provides ischemic event protection after DES, ischemic event risk is perceived to be less after BMS, and the appropriate duration of DAPT after BMS is unknown. OBJECTIVE To compare (1) rates of stent thrombosis and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE; composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) after 30 vs 12 months of thienopyridine in patients treated with BMS taking aspirin and (2) treatment duration effect within the combined cohorts of randomized patients treated with DES or BMS as prespecified secondary analyses. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS International, multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial comparing extended (30-months) thienopyridine vs placebo in patients taking aspirin who completed 12 months of DAPT without bleeding or ischemic events after receiving stents. The study was initiated in August 2009 with the last follow-up visit in May 2014. INTERVENTIONS Continued thienopyridine or placebo at months 12 through 30 after stent placement, in 11,648 randomized patients treated with aspirin, of whom 1687 received BMS and 9961 DES. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Stent thrombosis, MACCE, and moderate or severe bleeding. RESULTS Among 1687 patients treated with BMS who were randomized to continued thienopyridine vs placebo, rates of stent thrombosis were 0.5% vs 1.11% (n = 4 vs 9; hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; 95% CI, 0.15-1.64; P = .24), rates of MACCE were 4.04% vs 4.69% (n = 33 vs 38; HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.57-1.47; P = .72), and rates of moderate/severe bleeding were 2.03% vs 0.90% (n = 16 vs 7; P = .07), respectively. Among all 11,648 randomized patients (both BMS and DES), stent thrombosis rates were 0.41% vs 1.32% (n = 23 vs 74; HR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.19-0.50; P < .001), rates of MACCE were 4.29% vs 5.74% (n = 244 vs 323; HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.62-0.87; P < .001), and rates of moderate/severe bleeding were 2.45% vs 1.47% (n = 135 vs 80; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among patients undergoing coronary stent placement with BMS and who tolerated 12 months of thienopyridine, continuing thienopyridine for an additional 18 months compared with placebo did not result in statistically significant differences in rates of stent thrombosis, MACCE, or moderate or severe bleeding. However, the BMS subset may have been underpowered to identify such differences, and further trials are suggested. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00977938.

Prevention of Rebleeding From Esophageal Varices in Patients With Cirrhosis Receiving Small-Diameter Stents Versus Hemodynamically Controlled Medical Therapy

BACKGROUND & AIMS Patients with cirrhosis and variceal hemorrhage have a high risk of rebleeding. We performed a prospective randomized trial to compare the prevention of rebleeding in patients given a small-diameter covered stent vs those given hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG)-based medical therapy prophylaxis. METHODS We performed an open-label study of patients with cirrhosis (92% Child class A or B, 70% alcoholic) treated at 10 medical centers in Germany. Patients were assigned randomly more than 5 days after variceal hemorrhage to groups given a small covered transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic stent-shunt (TIPS) (8 mm; n = 90), or medical reduction of portal pressure (propranolol and isosorbide-5-mononitrate; n = 95). HVPG was determined at the time patients were assigned to groups (baseline) and 2 weeks later. In the medical group, patients with an adequate reduction in HVPG (responders) remained on the drugs whereas nonresponders underwent only variceal band ligation. The study was closed 10 months after the last patient was assigned to a group. The primary end point was variceal rebleeding. Survival, safety (adverse events), and quality of life (based on the Short Form-36 health survey) were secondary outcome measures. RESULTS A significantly smaller proportion of patients in the TIPS group had rebleeding within 2 years (7%) than in the medical group (26%) (P = .002). A slightly higher proportion of patients in the TIPS group experienced adverse events, including encephalopathy (18% vs 8% for medical treatment; P = .05). Rebleeding occurred in 6 of 23 patients (26%) receiving medical treatment before hemodynamic control was possible. Per-protocol analysis showed that rebleeding occurred in a smaller proportion of the 32 responders (18%) than in nonresponders who received variceal band ligation (31%) (P = .06). Fifteen patients from the medical group (16%) underwent TIPS placement during follow-up evaluation, mainly for refractory ascites. Survival time and quality of life did not differ between both randomized groups. CONCLUSIONS Placement of a small-diameter, covered TIPS was straightforward and prevented variceal rebleeding in patients with Child A or B cirrhosis more effectively than drugs, which often required step-by-step therapy. However, TIPS did not increase survival time or quality of life and produced slightly more adverse events. Clinical Trial no: ISRCTN 16334693.

Safety and Efficacy of New-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents in Women at High Risk for Atherothrombosis: From the Women in Innovation and Drug-Eluting Stents Collaborative Patient-Level Pooled Analysis

BACKGROUND The safety and efficacy of new-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) in women with multiple atherothrombotic risk (ATR) factors is unclear. METHODS AND RESULTS We pooled patient-level data for women enrolled in 26 randomized trials. Study population was categorized based on the presence or absence of high ATR, which was defined as having history of diabetes mellitus, prior percutaneous or surgical coronary revascularization, or prior myocardial infarction. The primary end point was major adverse cardiovascular events defined as a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization at 3 years of follow-up. Out of 10 449 women included in the pooled database, 5333 (51%) were at high ATR. Compared with women not at high ATR, those at high ATR had significantly higher risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (15.8% versus 10.6%; adjusted hazard ratio: 1.53; 95% confidence interval: 1.34-1.75; P=0.006) and all-cause mortality. In high-ATR risk women, the use of new-generation DES was associated with significantly lower risk of 3-year major adverse cardiovascular events (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.69; 95% confidence interval: 0.52-0.92) compared with early-generation DES. The benefit of new-generation DES on major adverse cardiovascular events was uniform between high-ATR and non-high-ATR women, without evidence of interaction (Pinteraction=0.14). At landmark analysis, in high-ATR women, stent thrombosis rates were comparable between DES generations in the first year, whereas between 1 and 3 years, stent thrombosis risk was lower with new-generation devices. CONCLUSIONS Use of new-generation DES even in women at high ATR is associated with a benefit consistent over 3 years of follow-up and a substantial improvement in very-late thrombotic safety.

A Randomized Comparison of Reservoir-Based Polymer-Free Amphilimus-Eluting Stents Versus Everolimus-Eluting Stents With Durable Polymer in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus: The RESERVOIR Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of amphilimus-eluting stents (AES) with that of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM). BACKGROUND The AES is a polymer-free drug-eluting stent that elutes sirolimus formulated with an amphiphilic carrier from laser-dug wells. This technology could be associated with a high efficacy in patients with DM. METHODS This was a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial. Patients with DM medically treated with oral glucose-lowering agents or insulin and de novo coronary lesions were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to AES or EES. The primary endpoint was the neointimal (NI) volume obstruction assessed by optical coherence tomography at 9-month follow-up. RESULTS A total of 116 lesions in 112 patients were randomized. Overall, 40% were insulin-treated patients, with a median HbA1c of 7.3% (interquartile range: 6.7% to 8.0%). The primary endpoint, NI volume obstruction, was 11.97 ± 5.94% for AES versus 16.11 ± 18.18% for EES, meeting the noninferiority criteria (p = 0.0003). Pre-specified subgroup analyses showed a significant interaction between stent type and glycemic control (p = 0.02), with a significant reduction in NI hyperplasia in the AES group in patients with the higher HbA1c (p = 0.03). By quantitative coronary angiography, in-stent late loss was 0.14 ± 0.24 for AES versus 0.24 ± 0.57 mm for EES (p = 0.27), with a larger minimal lumen diameter at follow-up for AES (p = 0.02), mainly driven by 2 cases of occlusive restenosis in the EES group. CONCLUSIONS AES are noninferior to EES for the coronary revascularization of patients with DM. These results suggest a high efficacy of the AES and may support the potential benefit of this stent in patients with DM. (A Randomized Comparison of Reservoir-Based Polymer-Free Amphilimus-Eluting Stents Versus Everolimus-Eluting Stents With Durable Polymer in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus [RESERVOIR]; NCT01710748).

Three-year efficacy and safety of new- versus early-generation drug-eluting stents for unprotected left main coronary artery disease insights from the ISAR-LEFT MAIN and ISAR-LEFT MAIN 2 trials.

BACKGROUND In percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) patients new-generation drug-eluting stent (DES) has reduced adverse events in comparison to early-generation DES. The aim of the current study was to investigate the long-term clinical efficacy and safety of new-generation DES versus early-generation DES for PCI of unprotected left main coronary artery (uLMCA) disease. METHODS The patient-level data from the ISAR-LEFT MAIN and ISAR-LEFT MAIN 2 randomized trials were pooled. The clinical outcomes of PCI patients assigned to new-generation DES (everolimus- or zotarolimus-eluting stent) versus early-generation DES (paclitaxel- or sirolimus-eluting stent) were studied. The primary endpoint was the composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization and stroke (MACCE, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event). RESULTS In total, 1257 patients were available. At 3 years, the risk of MACCE was comparable between patients assigned to new-generation DES or early-generation DES (28.2 versus 27.5 %, hazard ratio-HR 1.03, 95 % confidence intervals-CI 0.83-1.26; P = 0.86). Definite/probable stent thrombosis was low and comparable between new-generation DES and early-generation DES (0.8 versus 1.6 %, HR 0.52, 95 % CI 0.18-1.57; P = 0.25); in patients treated with new-generation DES no cases occurred beyond 30 days. Diabetes increased the risk of MACCE in patients treated with new-generation DES but not with early-generation DES (P interaction = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS At 3-year follow-up, a PCI with new-generation DES for uLMCA disease shows comparable efficacy to early-generation DES. Rates of stent thrombosis were low in both groups. Diabetes significantly impacts the risk of MACCE at 3 years in patients treated with new-generation DES for uLMCA disease. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT00133237; NCT00598637.

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.