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).

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.

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.

Twelve or 30 months of dual antiplatelet therapy after drug-eluting stents.

BACKGROUND Dual antiplatelet therapy is recommended after coronary stenting to prevent thrombotic complications, yet the benefits and risks of treatment beyond 1 year are uncertain. METHODS Patients were enrolled after they had undergone a coronary stent procedure in which a drug-eluting stent was placed. After 12 months of treatment with a thienopyridine drug (clopidogrel or prasugrel) and aspirin, patients were randomly assigned to continue receiving thienopyridine treatment or to receive placebo for another 18 months; all patients continued receiving aspirin. The coprimary efficacy end points were stent thrombosis and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) during the period from 12 to 30 months. The primary safety end point was moderate or severe bleeding. RESULTS A total of 9961 patients were randomly assigned to continue thienopyridine treatment or to receive placebo. Continued treatment with thienopyridine, as compared with placebo, reduced the rates of stent thrombosis (0.4% vs. 1.4%; hazard ratio, 0.29 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.17 to 0.48]; P<0.001) and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (4.3% vs. 5.9%; hazard ratio, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.59 to 0.85]; P<0.001). The rate of myocardial infarction was lower with thienopyridine treatment than with placebo (2.1% vs. 4.1%; hazard ratio, 0.47; P<0.001). The rate of death from any cause was 2.0% in the group that continued thienopyridine therapy and 1.5% in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.36 [95% CI, 1.00 to 1.85]; P=0.05). The rate of moderate or severe bleeding was increased with continued thienopyridine treatment (2.5% vs. 1.6%, P=0.001). An elevated risk of stent thrombosis and myocardial infarction was observed in both groups during the 3 months after discontinuation of thienopyridine treatment. CONCLUSIONS Dual antiplatelet therapy beyond 1 year after placement of a drug-eluting stent, as compared with aspirin therapy alone, significantly reduced the risks of stent thrombosis and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events but was associated with an increased risk of bleeding. (Funded by a consortium of eight device and drug manufacturers and others; DAPT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00977938.).

Antiplatelet therapy for secondary prevention of coronary artery disease.

The choice and duration of antiplatelet therapy for secondary prevention of coronary artery disease (CAD) is determined by the clinical context and treatment strategy. Oral antiplatelet agents for secondary prevention include the cyclo-oxygenase-1 inhibitor aspirin, and the ADP dependent P2Y12 inhibitors clopidogrel, prasugrel and ticagrelor. Aspirin constitutes the cornerstone in secondary prevention of CAD and is complemented by clopidogrel in patients with stable CAD undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Among patients with acute coronary syndrome, prasugrel and ticagrelor improve net clinical outcome by reducing ischaemic adverse events at the expense of an increased risk of bleeding as compared with clopidogrel. Prasugrel appears particularly effective among patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction to reduce the risk of stent thrombosis compared with clopidogrel, and offered a greater net clinical benefit among patients with diabetes compared with patients without diabetes. Ticagrelor is associated with reduced mortality without increasing the rate of coronary artery bypass graft (CABG)-related bleeding as compared with clopidogrel. Dual antiplatelet therapy should be continued for a minimum of 1 year among patients with acute coronary syndrome irrespective of stent type; among patients with stable CAD treated with new generation drug-eluting stents, available data suggest no benefit to prolong antiplatelet treatment beyond 6 months.

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.

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.

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.

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 .).

Biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents for primary percutaneous coronary revascularisation of acute myocardial infarction.

AIMS Our aim was to compare the safety and efficacy of a novel, ultrathin strut, biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (BP-SES) with a thin strut, durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent (DP-EES) in a pre-specified subgroup of patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) enrolled in the BIOSCIENCE trial. METHODS AND RESULTS The BIOSCIENCE trial is an investigator-initiated, single-blind, multicentre, randomised non-inferiority trial (NCT01443104). Randomisation was stratified according to the presence or absence of STEMI. The primary endpoint, target lesion failure (TLF), is a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically indicated target lesion revascularisation within 12 months. Between February 2012 and May 2013, 407 STEMI patients were randomly assigned to treatment with BP-SES or DP-EES. At one year, TLF occurred in seven (3.4%) patients treated with BP-SES and 17 (8.8%) patients treated with DP-EES (RR 0.38, 95% CI: 0.16-0.91, p=0.024). Rates of cardiac death were 1.5% in the BP-SES group and 4.7% in the DP-EES group (RR 0.31, 95% CI: 0.08-1.14, p=0.062); rates of target vessel myocardial infarction were 0.5% and 2.6% (RR 0.18, 95% CI: 0.02-1.57, p=0.082), respectively, and rates of clinically indicated target lesion revascularisation were 1.5% in the BP-SES group versus 2.1% in the DP-EES group (RR 0.69, 95% CI: 0.16-3.10, p=0.631). There was no difference in the risk of definite stent thrombosis. CONCLUSIONS In this pre-specified subgroup analysis, BP-SES was associated with a lower rate of target lesion failure at one year compared to DP-EES in STEMI patients. These findings require confirmation in a dedicated STEMI trial.

First generation versus second generation drug-eluting stents for the treatment of bifurcations: 5-year follow-up of the LEADERS all-comers randomized trial.

BACKGROUND Historically, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of bifurcation lesions was associated with worse procedural and clinical outcomes when compared with PCI of non-bifurcation lesions. Newer generation drug-eluting stents (DES) might improve long-term clinical outcomes after bifurcation PCI. METHODS AND RESULTS The LEADERS trial was a 10-center, assessor-blind, non-inferiority, all-comers trial, randomizing 1,707 patients to treatment with a biolimus A9(TM) -eluting stent (BES) with an abluminal biodegradable polymer or a sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) with a durable polymer (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00389220). Five-year clinical outcomes were compared between patients with and without bifurcation lesions and between BES and SES in the bifurcation lesion subgroup. There were 497 (29%) patients with at least 1 bifurcation lesion (BES = 258; SES = 239). At 5-year follow-up, the composite endpoint of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI) and clinically-indicated (CI) target vessel revascularization (TVR) was observed more frequently in the bifurcation group (26.6% vs. 22.4%, P = 0.049). Within the bifurcation lesion subgroup, no differences were observed in (cardiac) death or MI rates between BES and SES. However, CI target lesion revascularization (TLR) (10.1% vs. 15.9%, P = 0.0495), and CI TVR (12.0% vs. 19.2%, P = 0.023) rates were significantly lower in the BES group. Definite/probable stent thrombosis (ST) rate was numerically lower in the BES group (3.1% vs. 5.9%, P = 0.15). Very late (>1 year) definite/probable ST rates trended to be lower with BES (0.4% vs. 3.1%, P = 0.057). CONCLUSIONS In the treatment of bifurcation lesions, use of BES led to superior long-term efficacy compared with SES. Safety outcomes were comparable between BES and SES, with an observed trend toward a lower rate of very late definite/probable ST between 1 and 5 years with the BES. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of New-Generation Versus Early-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents According to Complexity of Coronary Artery Disease: A Patient-Level Pooled Analysis of 6,081 Patients.

OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study was to compare the 2-year safety and effectiveness of new- versus early-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) according to the severity of coronary artery disease (CAD) as assessed by the SYNTAX (Synergy between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery) score. BACKGROUND New-generation DES are considered the standard-of-care in patients with CAD undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. However, there are few data investigating the effects of new- over early-generation DES according to the anatomic complexity of CAD. METHODS Patient-level data from 4 contemporary, all-comers trials were pooled. The primary device-oriented clinical endpoint was the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization (TLR). The principal effectiveness and safety endpoints were TLR and definite stent thrombosis (ST), respectively. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated at 2 years for overall comparisons, as well as stratified for patients with lower (SYNTAX score ≤11) and higher complexity (SYNTAX score >11). RESULTS A total of 6,081 patients were included in the study. New-generation DES (n = 4,554) compared with early-generation DES (n = 1,527) reduced the primary endpoint (HR: 0.75 [95% CI: 0.63 to 0.89]; p = 0.001) without interaction (p = 0.219) between patients with lower (HR: 0.86 [95% CI: 0.64 to 1.16]; p = 0.322) versus higher CAD complexity (HR: 0.68 [95% CI: 0.54 to 0.85]; p = 0.001). In patients with SYNTAX score >11, new-generation DES significantly reduced TLR (HR: 0.36 [95% CI: 0.26 to 0.51]; p < 0.001) and definite ST (HR: 0.28 [95% CI: 0.15 to 0.55]; p < 0.001) to a greater extent than in the low-complexity group (TLR pint = 0.059; ST pint = 0.013). New-generation DES decreased the risk of cardiac mortality in patients with SYNTAX score >11 (HR: 0.45 [95% CI: 0.27 to 0.76]; p = 0.003) but not in patients with SYNTAX score ≤11 (pint = 0.042). CONCLUSIONS New-generation DES improve clinical outcomes compared with early-generation DES, with a greater safety and effectiveness in patients with SYNTAX score >11.

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.

Republished: Antiplatelet therapy for secondary prevention of coronary artery disease

The choice and duration of antiplatelet therapy for secondary prevention of coronary artery disease (CAD) is determined by the clinical context and treatment strategy. Oral antiplatelet agents for secondary prevention include the cyclo-oxygenase-1 inhibitor aspirin, and the ADP dependent P2Y12 inhibitors clopidogrel, prasugrel and ticagrelor. Aspirin constitutes the cornerstone in secondary prevention of CAD and is complemented by clopidogrel in patients with stable CAD undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Among patients with acute coronary syndrome, prasugrel and ticagrelor improve net clinical outcome by reducing ischaemic adverse events at the expense of an increased risk of bleeding as compared with clopidogrel. Prasugrel appears particularly effective among patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction to reduce the risk of stent thrombosis compared with clopidogrel, and offered a greater net clinical benefit among patients with diabetes compared with patients without diabetes. Ticagrelor is associated with reduced mortality without increasing the rate of coronary artery bypass graft (CABG)-related bleeding as compared with clopidogrel. Dual antiplatelet therapy should be continued for a minimum of 1 year among patients with acute coronary syndrome irrespective of stent type; among patients with stable CAD treated with new generation drug-eluting stents, available data suggest no benefit to prolong antiplatelet treatment beyond 6 months.