Ischemia-driven Target Lesion Revascularization Research Articles

Three-Year Clinical Outcomes With the Cilotax Dual Drug-Eluting Stent vs Everolimus-Eluting Stents in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction.

This study compared the safety and effectiveness of paclitaxel/cilostazol-eluting Cilotax stents with those of everolimus-eluting stents in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Real-world data from the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry were examined. A total of 5,472 patients with acute myocardial infarction underwent percutaneous coronary intervention with Cilotax stents (n = 212) or everolimus-eluting stents (n = 5,260). The primary end point was the 3-year rate of target lesion failure. The other end points were major adverse cardiovascular events (a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization), target vessel revascularization, and stent thrombosis. A propensity score matching analysis was performed to adjust for potential confounders by using a logistic regression model; propensity score matching generated 2 well-balanced groups (Cilotax group, n = 180; everolimus-eluting stents group, n = 170; N = 350). After propensity score matching, baseline clinical characteristics were similar between the groups. After percutaneous coronary intervention, compared with the everolimus-eluting stents group, the Cilotax group more often had major adverse cardiovascular events (24.1% vs 18.5%; P = .042), myocardial infarction (8.0% vs 3.2%; P < .001), target lesion revascularization (8.0% vs 2.6%; P < .001), target vessel revascularization (11.3% vs 4.5%; P < .001), and stent thrombosis (4.7% vs 0.5%; P < .001) before matching. Even after matching, the Cilotax group had more frequent target lesion revascularization (9.4% vs 2.9%; P = .22) and stent thrombosis (5.6% vs 1.2%; P = .34). In patients with acute myocardial infarction who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention, use of the Cilotax stent was associated with higher rates of target lesion revascularization, target vessel revascularization, and stent thrombosis than were everolimus-eluting stents. Use of the Cilotax dual drugeluting stent should be avoided in the treatment of myocardial infarction.

Intravascular ultrasound-guided versus angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock.

The benefits of intravascular ultrasonography (IVUS)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the clinical context of cardiogenic shock (CS) complicating acute myocardial infarction are lacking. We aimed to investigate the impact of IVUS-guided PCI in patients with AMI and CS. From the pooled data based on a series of Korean AMI registries during 2011-2020, we identified 1418 consecutive patients who underwent PCI with second generation drug-eluting stent (DES) for AMI and CS. The primary endpoint was the 1-year rate of target lesion failure (TLF), defined as the composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and ischemic-driven target lesion revascularization. In total, 294 (20.7%) and 1124 (79.3%) underwent IVUS-guided and angiography-guided PCI with second generation DES implantation, respectively. The 1-year TLF was not significantly different between groups after IPTW analysis (hazard ratio 0.93, 95% confidence interval 0.65-1.34, p = 0.70). Additionally, the adjusted landmark analysis for TLF at 30days and between 30days and 1year after PCI demonstrated no significant difference between the groups. In conclusion, in patients with AMI and CS who underwent PCI with second-generation DES, IVUS-guided PCI did not improve the 1-year TLF compared with angiography-guided PCI.Registration: URL: http://cris.nih.go.kr . KCT0000863 and KCT0008355.

Physiological Assessment with iFR prior to FFR Measurement in Left Main Disease.

Despite guideline-based recommendation of the interchangeable use of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) and fractional flow reserve (FFR) to guide revascularization decision-making, iFR/FFR could demonstrate different physiological or clinical outcomes in some specific patient or lesion subsets. Therefore, we sought to investigate the impact of difference between iFR and FFR-guided revascularization decision-making on clinical outcomes in patients with left main disease (LMD). In this international multicenter registry of LMD with physiological interrogation, we identified 275 patients in whom physiological assessment was performed with both iFR/FFR. Major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) was defined as a composite of death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization. The receiver-operating characteristic analysis was performed for both iFR/FFR to predict MACE in respective patients in whom revascularization was deferred and performed. In 153 patients of revascularization deferral, MACE occurred in 17.0% patients. The optimal cut-off values of iFR and FFR to predict MACE were 0.88 (specificity:0.74; sensitivity:0.65) and 0.76 (specificity:0.81; sensitivity:0.46), respectively. The area under the curve (AUC) was significantly higher for iFR than FFR (0.74; 95%CI 0.62-0.85 vs. 0.62; 95%CI 0.48-0.75; p = 0.012). In 122 patients of coronary revascularization, MACE occurred in 13.1% patients. The optimal cut-off values of iFR and FFR were 0.92 (specificity:0.93; sensitivity:0.25) and 0.81 (specificity:0.047; sensitivity:1.00), respectively. The AUCs were not significantly different between iFR and FFR (0.57; 95%CI 0.40-0.73 vs. 0.46; 95%CI 0.31-0.61; p = 0.43). While neither baseline iFR nor FFR was predictive of MACE in patients in whom revascularization was performed, iFR-guided deferral seemed to be safer than FFR-guided deferral.

Quantitative Coronary Angiography vs Intravascular Ultrasonography to Guide Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation

Although intravascular ultrasonography (IVUS) guidance promotes favorable outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), many catheterization laboratories worldwide lack access. To investigate whether systematic implementation of quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) to assist angiography-guided PCI could be an alternative strategy to IVUS guidance during stent implantation. This randomized, open-label, noninferiority clinical trial enrolled adults (aged ≥18 years) with chronic or acute coronary syndrome and angiographically confirmed native coronary artery stenosis requiring PCI. Patients were enrolled in 6 cardiac centers in Korea from February 23, 2017, to August 23, 2021, and follow-up occurred through August 25, 2022. All principal analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat principle. After successful guidewire crossing of the first target lesion, patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either QCA- or IVUS-guided PCI. The primary outcome was target lesion failure at 12 months, defined as a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization. The trial was designed assuming an event rate of 8%, with the upper limit of the 1-sided 97.5% CI of the absolute difference in 12-month target lesion failure (QCA-guided PCI minus IVUS-guided PCI) to be less than 3.5 percentage points for noninferiority. The trial included 1528 patients who underwent PCI with QCA guidance (763; mean [SD] age, 64.1 [9.9] years; 574 males [75.2%]) or IVUS guidance (765; mean [SD] age, 64.6 [9.5] years; 622 males [81.3%]). The post-PCI mean (SD) minimum lumen diameter was similar between the QCA- and IVUS-guided PCI groups (2.57 [0.55] vs 2.60 [0.58] mm, P = .26). Target lesion failure at 12 months occurred in 29 of 763 patients (3.81%) in the QCA-guided PCI group and 29 of 765 patients (3.80%) in the IVUS-guided PCI group (absolute risk difference, 0.01 percentage points [95% CI, -1.91 to 1.93 percentage points]; hazard ratio, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.60-1.68]; P = .99). There was no difference in the rates of stent edge dissection (1.2% vs 0.7%, P = .25), coronary perforation (0.2% vs 0.4%, P = .41), or stent thrombosis (0.53% vs 0.66%, P = .74) between the QCA- and IVUS-guided PCI groups. The risk of the primary end point was consistent regardless of subgroup, with no significant interaction. Findings of this randomized clinical trial indicate that QCA and IVUS guidance during PCI showed similar rates of target lesion failure at 12 months. However, due to the lower-than-expected rates of target lesion failure in this trial, the findings should be interpreted with caution. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02978456.

Paclitaxel-Coated Balloon vs Uncoated Balloon for Coronary In-Stent Restenosis

Drug-coated balloons offer a potentially beneficial treatment strategy for the management of coronary in-stent restenosis. However, none have been previously evaluated or approved for use in coronary circulation in the United States. To evaluate whether a paclitaxel-coated balloon is superior to an uncoated balloon in patients with in-stent restenosis undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. AGENT IDE, a multicenter randomized clinical trial, enrolled 600 patients with in-stent restenosis (lesion length <26 mm and reference vessel diameter >2.0 mm to ≤4.0 mm) at 40 centers across the United States between May 2021 and August 2022. One-year clinical follow-up was completed on October 2, 2023. Participants were randomized in a 2:1 allocation to undergo treatment with a paclitaxel-coated (n = 406) or an uncoated (n = 194) balloon. The primary end point of 1-year target lesion failure-defined as the composite of ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or cardiac death-was tested for superiority. Among 600 randomized patients (mean age, 68 years; 157 females [26.2%]; 42 Black [7%], 35 Hispanic [6%] individuals), 574 (95.7%) completed 1-year follow-up. The primary end point at 1 year occurred in 17.9% in the paclitaxel-coated balloon group vs 28.6% in the uncoated balloon group, meeting the criteria for superiority (hazard ratio [HR], 0.59 [95% CI, 0.42-0.84]; 2-sided P = .003). Target lesion revascularization (13.0% vs 24.7%; HR, 0.50 [95% CI, 0.34-0.74]; P = .001) and target vessel-related myocardial infarction (5.8% vs 11.1%; HR, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.28-0.92]; P = .02) occurred less frequently among patients treated with paclitaxel-coated balloon. The rate of cardiac death was 2.9% vs 1.6% (HR, 1.75 [95% CI, 0.49-6.28]; P = .38) in the coated vs uncoated balloon groups, respectively. Among patients undergoing coronary angioplasty for in-stent restenosis, a paclitaxel-coated balloon was superior to an uncoated balloon with respect to the composite end point of target lesion failure. Paclitaxel-coated balloons are an effective treatment option for patients with coronary in-stent restenosis. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04647253.

P2Y12 Inhibitor Monotherapy vs Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Deployment of a Drug-Eluting Stent

P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy after dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT; a P2Y12 inhibitor plus aspirin) for a brief duration has recently emerged as an attractive alternative for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with a drug-eluting stent. To investigate whether P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy after 3 months of DAPT was noninferior to 12 months of DAPT following PCI with a drug-eluting stent. The Short-Term Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Deployment of Bioabsorbable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stent (SHARE) open-label, noninferiority randomized clinical trial was conducted from December 15, 2017, through December 14, 2020. Final 1-year clinical follow-up was completed in January 2022. This study was a multicenter trial that was conducted at 20 hospitals in South Korea. Patients who underwent successful PCI with bioabsorbable polymer everolimus-eluting stents were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned to receive P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy after 3 months of DAPT (n = 694) or 12 months of DAPT (n = 693). The primary outcome was a net adverse clinical event, a composite of major bleeding (based on Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 or type 5 bleeding) and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, stroke, or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization) between 3 and 12 months after the index PCI. The major secondary outcomes were major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events and major bleeding. The noninferiority margin was 3.0%. Of the total 1452 eligible patients, 65 patients were excluded before the 3-month follow-up, and 1387 patients (mean [SD] age, 63.0 [10.7] years; 1055 men [76.1%]) were assigned to P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy (n = 694) or DAPT (n = 693). Between 3 and 12 months of follow-up, the primary outcome (using Kaplan-Meier estimates) occurred in 9 patients (1.7%) in the P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy group and in 16 patients (2.6%) in the DAPT group (absolute difference, -0.93 [1-sided 95% CI, -2.64 to 0.77] percentage points; P < .001 for noninferiority). For the major secondary outcomes (using Kaplan-Meier estimates), major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events occurred in 8 patients (1.5%) in the P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy group and in 12 patients (2.0%) in the DAPT group (absolute difference, -0.49 [95% CI, -2.07 to 1.09] percentage points; P = .54). Major bleeding occurred in 1 patient (0.2%) in the P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy group and in 5 patients (0.8%) in the DAPT group (absolute difference, -0.60 [95% CI, -1.33 to 0.12] percentage points; P = .10). In patients with coronary artery disease undergoing PCI with the latest generation of drug-eluting stents, P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy after 3-month DAPT was not inferior to 12-month DAPT for net adverse clinical events. Considering the study population and lower-than-expected event rates, further research is required in other populations. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03447379.

Intervención coronaria percutánea guiada por tomografía de coherencia óptica frente a guiada por ecografía intravascular en pacientes con infarto agudo de miocardio

Introduction and objectivesOptical coherence tomography (OCT)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) yields clinical outcomes comparable to intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-guided PCI in patients with stable ischemic heart disease. However, there is a scarcity of data comparing the clinical outcomes of OCT-guided and IVUS-guided PCI in the setting of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). We sought to compare the clinical outcomes of OCT-guided vs IVUS-guided PCI for patients with AMI in the era of second-generation drug-eluting stent (DES). MethodsWe identified 5260 consecutive patients who underwent PCI with a second-generation DES for AMI under IVUS or OCT guidance from pooled data derived from a series of Korean AMI registries between 2011 and 2020. The primary endpoint was the 1-year rate of target lesion failure, defined as a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization. ResultsA total of 535 (10.2%) and 4725 (89.8%) patients were treated under OCT and IVUS guidance, respectively. The 1-year target lesion failure rates were comparable between the OCT and IVUS groups before and after propensity score matching (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95%CI, 0.42-2.05, P=.84). The OCT utilization rate did not exceed 5% of total patients treated with second-generation DES implantation during the study period. The primary factors for the selection of OCT over IVUS were the absence of chronic kidney disease, non-left main vessel disease, single-vessel disease, stent diameter <3mm, and stent length ≤ 25mm. ConclusionsOCT-guided PCI in patients with AMI treated with a second-generation DES provided comparable clinical outcomes for 1-year target lesion failure compared with IVUS-guided PCI.

Coronary Angiography, Intravascular Ultrasound, and Optical Coherence Tomography for Guiding of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

Results from multiple randomized clinical trials comparing outcomes after intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)- and optical coherence tomography (OCT)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with invasive coronary angiography (ICA)-guided PCI as well as a pivotal trial comparing the 2 intravascular imaging (IVI) techniques have provided mixed results. Major electronic databases were searched to identify eligible trials evaluating at least 2 PCI guidance strategies among ICA, IVUS, and OCT. The 2 coprimary outcomes were target lesion revascularization and myocardial infarction. The secondary outcomes included ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization, target vessel myocardial infarction, death, cardiac death, target vessel revascularization, stent thrombosis, and major adverse cardiac events. Frequentist random-effects network meta-analyses were conducted. The results were replicated by Bayesian random-effects models. Pairwise meta-analyses of the direct components, multiple sensitivity analyses, and pairwise meta-analyses IVI versus ICA were supplemented. The results from 24 randomized trials (15 489 patients: IVUS versus ICA, 46.4%, 7189 patients; OCT versus ICA, 32.1%, 4976 patients; OCT versus IVUS, 21.4%, 3324 patients) were included in the network meta-analyses. IVUS was associated with reduced target lesion revascularization compared with ICA (odds ratio [OR], 0.69 [95% CI, 0.54-0.87]), whereas no significant differences were observed between OCT and ICA (OR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.63-1.09]) and OCT and IVUS (OR, 1.21 [95% CI, 0.88-1.66]). Myocardial infarction did not significantly differ between guidance strategies (IVUS versus ICA: OR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.70-1.19]; OCT versus ICA: OR, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.68-1.11]; OCT versus IVUS: OR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.69-1.33]). These results were consistent with the secondary outcomes of ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization, target vessel myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization, and sensitivity analyses generally did not reveal inconsistency. OCT was associated with a significant reduction of stent thrombosis compared with ICA (OR, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.26-0.92]) but only in the frequentist analysis. Similarly, the results in terms of survival between IVUS or OCT and ICA were uncertain across analyses. A total of 25 randomized trials (17 128 patients) were included in the pairwise meta-analyses IVI versus ICA where IVI guidance was associated with reduced target lesion revascularization, cardiac death, and stent thrombosis. IVI-guided PCI was associated with a reduction in ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization compared with ICA-guided PCI, with the difference most evident for IVUS. In contrast, no significant differences in myocardial infarction were observed between guidance strategies.

Long-Term Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Outcomes in Chronic Versus Acute Coronary Syndromes (TARGET All Comers Trial)

In the Targeted therapy with a localised abluminal coated, low-dose sirolimus-eluting, biodegreadable polymer coronary stent (TARGET; NCT02520180) All Comers trial the biodegradable polymer (BP) sirolimus-eluting FIREHAWK stent was noninferior to the durable polymer (DP) everolimus-eluting XIENCE stent with respect to target lesion failure (TLF) at 1 and 5 years; however, the long-term safety and efficacy in the setting of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) are not known. We sought to assess the long-term outcomes in ACS versus chronic coronary syndromes (CCS) with BP sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) versus DP everolimus-eluting stent (EES). The TARGET AC study was a multicenter, open-label, noninferiority trial of all comer patients randomly allocated 1:1 to BP SES or DP EES (stratified by ST-elevation myocardial infarction and study site). In this predefined substudy, the outcomes were compared based on clinical presentation (ACS vs CCS) and treatment allocation. A total of 1,653 patients were enrolled (728 with ACS and 922 with CCS), with 94% completing the 5-year follow-up. The baseline characteristics were well-matched between the 2 stent types; however, co-morbidities were more prevalent in the CCS than in the ACS population. TLF (15.5% vs 17.7%, p = 0.24), patient-oriented outcomes (32.0% vs 34.4%, p = 0.31), and stent thrombosis (4.1% vs 3.3%, p = 0.40) were similar between patients with ACS and patients with CCS. In the ACS cohort, the outcomes at 5 years for BP SES versus DP EES were similar for TLF (16.0% vs 14.9%, p = 0.70), ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (5.6% vs 8.3%, p = 0.17), and definite/probable stent thrombosis (2.7% vs 4.6%, p = 0.18). The same was true for the CCS cohort, with 5-year outcomes for BP SES versus DP EES for TLF (18.0% vs 17.4%, p = 0.82), ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (6.4% vs 5.0%, p = 0.37), and definite/probable stent thrombosis (3.0% vs 1.8%, p = 0.26). In conclusion, in the TARGET AC trial, 1 in 3 patients had a major adverse event at 5 years, irrespective of CCS or ACS presentation. Long-term, the BP sirolimus-eluting FIREHAWK stent was as safe and effective as the DP everolimus-eluting XIENCE stent across the spectrum of clinical presentations.

A more-Comers populAtion trEated with an ultrathin struts polimer-free Sirolimus stent: an Italian post-maRketing study (the CAESAR registry).

The use of contemporary drug-eluting stents (DES) has significantly improved outcomes of patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, concerns exist regarding the long-term proinflammatory effects of durable polymer coatings used in most DES, potentially leading to long-term adverse events. First-generation polymer-free stent technologies, such as sirolimus- and probucol-eluting stents (PF-SES), have shown an excellent safety and efficacy profile. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the new ultrathin Coroflex ISAR NEO PF-SES, in a more-comers PCI population. The CAESAR (a more-Comers populAtion trEated with an ultrathin struts polimer-free Sirolimus stent: An Italian post-maRketing study) registry is a multicenter, prospective study conducted in Italy, enrolling more-comers CAD patients undergoing PCI with the Coroflex ISAR NEO stent. Patients with left main (LM) disease, cardiogenic shock (CS), or severely reduced left-ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) were excluded. The primary endpoint was target-lesion revascularization (TLR) at 1 year. A total of 425 patients were enrolled at 13 centers (mean age 66.9 ± 11.6 years, Diabetes mellitus 29%, acute coronary syndrome 67%, chronic total occlusion 9%). Of these, 40.9% had multivessel disease (MVD) and in 3.3% cases, the target lesion was in-stent restenosis (ISR). Clinical device success was reached in 422 (99.6%) cases. At 1 year, only two (0.5%) subjects presented ischemia-driven TLR. The 1-year rates of target vessel revascularization and MACE were 0.5% and 5.1%, respectively. Major bleeding was observed in four (1.0%) patients. In this multicenter, prospective registry, the use of a new ultrathin Coroflex ISAR NEO PF-SES in a more-comers PCI population showed good safety and efficacy at 1 year.

Impact of Target Lesion Revascularization on Long-Term Mortality After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Left Main Disease

BackgroundAlthough target lesion revascularization (TLR) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for unprotected left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease is not rare, its timing of occurrence and prognostic impact on long-term mortality is uncertain. ObjectivesThis study sought to investigate TLR incidence over time and its impact on mortality after PCI with drug-eluting stents (DES) for LMCA disease. MethodsUsing a pooled data from 4 multicenter observational registries (IRIS-DES [Interventional Cardiology Research Incorporation Society-Drug-Eluting Stents], IRIS-MAIN [Interventional Cardiology Research Incorporation Society-Left MAIN Revascularization], MAIN-COMPARE [Revascularization for Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis: Comparison of Percutaneous Coronary Angioplasty Versus Surgical Revascularization], and PRECOMBAT [PREmier of Randomized COMparison of Bypass Surgery versus AngioplasTy Using Drug-Eluting Stent in Patients with Left Main Coronary Artery Disease]), we evaluated 1,397 patients with LMCA disease treated with DES and available long-term mortality data. The association between TLR and the 10-year risk of mortality was examined by multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression, with TLR as a time-varying covariate. ResultsDuring maximum follow-up of 10 years (median 6.8 years), TLR occurred in 118 patients and its 10-year cumulative incidence was 10.8%. TLR mostly occurred within 2 years after initial PCI and decreased over time: early-stage TLR (within 2 years) in 73 (61.9%) patients and late-stage TLR (beyond 2 years) in 45 (38.1%) patients. Among all TLR patients, 23 patients underwent coronary artery bypass grafting and 95 underwent repeat PCI. In the time-varying multivariable Cox model, the presence of TLR was not significantly associated with an increased risk of mortality (adjusted HR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.50-1.63; P = 0.73). ConclusionsAlthough the incidence of ischemia-driven TLR was mostly common within 2 years after left main PCI, TLR occurred steadily during the 10-year follow-up period. However, given that such patients were optimally revascularized, the prognostic impact of TLR on mortality was not substantial. (Evaluation of the First, Second, and New Drug-Eluting Stents in Routine Clinical Practice [IRIS-DES]; NCT01186133; Observational Study for Left Main Disease Treatment [IRIS-MAIN]; NCT01341327; Ten-Year Outcomes of Stents Versus Coronary-Artery Bypass Grafting for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease [MAIN COMPARE]; NCT02791412; Bypass Surgery Versus Angioplasty Using Sirolimus-Eluting Stent in Patients With Left Main Coronary Artery Disease [PRECOMBAT]; NCT00422968)

Five-Year Efficacy and Safety of TiNO-Coated Stents Versus Drug-Eluting Stents in Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Meta-Analysis.

(1) Background: Percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) are performed with titanium-nitride-oxide-coated stents (TiNOSs) or drug-eluting stents (DESs). The initial completion of this prospective systematic literature review (SLR) of prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) showed that TiNOSs are non-inferior to DESs in major adverse cardiac event (MACE) rates and present a lower risk of recurrent myocardial infarction (MI) at 1-year follow-up. This iteration of the SLR protocol performs the critical assessment of 5-year follow-up outcomes with clinical validity and generalizability assessments. (2) Methods: The previously described SLR and meta-analysis protocol, per PRISMA, Cochrane methods, and GRADE, was applied to 5-year follow-up outcomes. (3) Results: Three RCTs were eligible, comprising 1620 patients with TiNOS vs. 1123 with DES. The pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals were MACE 0.82 [0.68, 0.99], MI 0.58 [0.44, 0.78], cardiac death (CD) 0.46 [0.28, 0.76], ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (TLR) 1.03 [0.79, 1.33], probable or definite stent thrombosis (ST) 0.32 [0.21, 0.59], and all-cause mortality (TD) 0.84 [0.63, 1.12]. The evidence certainty was high in MACE, CD, MI, and ST, and moderate in TLR and TD. (4) Conclusions: TiNOSs in ACS at 5-year follow-up appear safer than DESs and equally efficacious. The pooled RRs stratified by clinical presentation and stent type will be required to test this meta-analysis's clinical validity and generalize its results to patient populations with varying proportions of clinical presentations and DES options.

Long-term outcomes with biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: 5-year follow-up of the BIOSTEMI randomised superiority trial

Biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents improve early stent-related clinical outcomes compared to durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. The long-term advantages of biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents after complete degradation of its polymer coating in patients with STEMI remains however uncertain. BIOSTEMI Extended Survival (BIOSTEMI ES) was an investigator-initiated, follow-up extension study of the BIOSTEMI prospective, multicentre, single-blind, randomised superiority trial that compared biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents with durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents in patients with STEMI undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention at ten hospitals in Switzerland. All individuals who had provided written informed consent for participation in the BIOSTEMI trial were eligible for this follow-up study. The primary endpoint was target lesion failure, defined as a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial re-infarction, or clinically indicated target lesion revascularisation, at 5 years. Superiority of biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents over durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents was declared if the Bayesian posterior probability for a rate ratio (RR) of less than 1 was greater than 0·975. Analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat principle. The study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05484310. Between April 26, 2016, and March 9, 2018, 1300 patients with STEMI (1622 lesions) were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to treatment with biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (649 patients, 816 lesions) or durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (651 patients, 806 lesions). At 5 years, the primary composite endpoint of target lesion failure occurred in 50 (8%) patients treated with biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents and in 72 (11%) patients treated with durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (difference of -3%; RR 0·70, 95% Bayesian credible interval 0·51-0·95; Bayesian posterior probability for superiority 0·988). In patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for STEMI, biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents were superior to durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents with respect to target lesion failure at 5 years of follow-up. The difference was driven by a numerically lower risk for ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularisation. Biotronik.

Novel Stentless Strategy With Perfusion and Drug-Coated Balloons for Treating Acute Coronary Syndrome

BackgroundThe challenge with the stentless strategy is that the method of optimal predilatation, and predictors of success remain unknown. Studies involving the stentless strategy prior to predilatation are limited. This study aimed to evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of a new stentless strategy for treating acute coronary syndrome (ACS) using gradual, prolonged predilation with a perfusion balloon combined with a drug-coated balloon (DCB). MethodsThis was a single-center, prospective, single-arm study. A total of 30 patients with ACS underwent gradual, prolonged predilation using a perfusion balloon for 10 minutes, followed by additional dilation using a DCB. The primary end point was target vessel failure at 24 months. Secondary end points were a composite of acute end points, including stentless strategy success rate, procedural complications, final grade of coronary dissection, acute coronary occlusion, in-hospital major adverse cardiac events, and a chronic end point of target vessel failure at 24 months. ResultsA successful stentless strategy was achieved in 24 patients (80%), and 2 (8.3%) patients required ischemic-driven target lesion revascularization in the chronic phase. Six (20%) patients required stent placement due to type C dissection or acute recoil. No acute occlusion and in-hospital major adverse cardiac events were reported. ConclusionsA novel stentless strategy using predilation with a perfusion balloon and DCB may be helpful for the revascularization of patients with ACS.

OPTImized coronary interventions eXplaIn the bEst cliNical outcomEs (OPTI-XIENCE) study. Rationale and study design

IntroductionClinical events may occur after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), particularly in complex lesions and complex patients. The optimization of PCI result, using pressure guidewire and intracoronary imaging techniques, may reduce the risk of these events. The hypothesis of the present study is that the clinical outcome of patients with indication of PCI and coronary stent implantation that are at high risk of events can be improved with an unrestricted use of intracoronary tools that allow PCI optimization. Methods and analysisObservational prospective multicenter international study, with a follow-up of 12 months, including 1064 patients treated with a cobalt‑chromium everolimus-eluting stent. Inclusion criteria include any of the following: Lesion length > 28 mm; Reference vessel diameter < 2.5 mm or > 4.25 mm; Chronic total occlusion; Bifurcation with side branch ≥2.0 mm;Ostial lesion; Left main lesion; In-stent restenosis; >2 lesions stented in the same vessel; Treatment of >2 vessels; Acute myocardial infarction; Renal insufficiency; Left ventricular ejection fraction <30 %; Staged procedure. The control group will be comprised by a similar number of matched patients included in the “extended risk” cohort of the XIENCE V USA study. The primary endpoint will be the 1-year rate of target lesion failure (TLF) (composite of ischemia-driven TLR, myocardial infarction (MI) related to the target vessel, or cardiac death related to the target vessel). Secondary endpoints will include overall mortality, cardiovascular mortality, acute myocardial infarction, TVR, TLR, target vessel failure, and definitive or probable stent thrombosis at 1 year. ImplicationsThe ongoing OPTI-XIENCE study will contribute to the growing evidence supporting the use of intra-coronary imaging techniques for stent optimization in patients with complex coronary lesions.

OCT or Angiography Guidance for PCI in Complex Bifurcation Lesions

BackgroundImaging-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is associated with better clinical outcomes than angiography-guided PCI. Whether routine optical coherence tomography (OCT) guidance in PCI of lesions involving coronary-artery branch points (bifurcations) improves clinical outcomes as compared with angiographic guidance is uncertain.MethodsWe conducted a multicenter, randomized, open-label trial at 38 centers in Europe. Patients with a clinical indication for PCI and a complex bifurcation lesion identified by means of coronary angiography were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to OCT-guided PCI or angiography-guided PCI. The primary end point was a composite of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as death from a cardiac cause, target-lesion myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization at a median follow-up of 2 years.ResultsWe assigned 1201 patients to OCT-guided PCI (600 patients) or angiography-guided PCI (601 patients). A total of 111 patients (18.5%) in the OCT-guided PCI group and 116 (19.3%) in the angiography-guided PCI group had a bifurcation lesion involving the left main coronary artery. At 2 years, a primary end-point event had occurred in 59 patients (10.1%) in the OCT-guided PCI group and in 83 patients (14.1%) in the angiography-guided PCI group (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.50 to 0.98; P=0.035). Procedure-related complications occurred in 41 patients (6.8%) in the OCT-guided PCI group and 34 patients (5.7%) in the angiography-guided PCI group.ConclusionsAmong patients with complex coronary-artery bifurcation lesions, OCT-guided PCI was associated with a lower incidence of MACE at 2 years than angiography-guided PCI. (Funded by Abbott Vascular and others; OCTOBER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03171311.)

A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing BioMime Sirolimus-Eluting Stent With Everolimus-Eluting Stent: Two-Year Outcomes of the meriT-V Trial.

Drug-eluting stents (DESs) based on biodegradable polymers (BPs) have been introduced to reduce the risk for late and very late stent thrombosis (ST), which were frequently observed with earlier generations of DES designs based on durable polymers (DPs); however, randomized controlled trials on these DES designs are scarce. The meriT-V trial is a randomized, active-controlled, non-inferiority trial with a prospective, multicenter design that evaluated the 2-year efficacy of a novel third-generation, ultra-thin strut, BP-based BioMime sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) versus the DP-based XIENCE everolimus-eluting stent (EES) for the treatment of de novo lesions. The meriT-V is a randomized trial that enrolled 256 patients at 15 centers across Europe and Brazil. Here, we report the outcomes of the extended follow-up period of 2 years. The randomization of enrolled patients was in a 2:1 ratio; the enrolled patients received either the BioMime SES (n = 170) or the XIENCE EES (n = 86). The three-point major adverse cardiac event (MACE), defined as a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), or ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization (ID-TVR), was considered as the composite safety and efficacy endpoint. Ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (ID-TLR) was evaluated as well as the frequency of definite/probable ST, based on the first Academic Research Consortium definitions. The trial had a 2-year follow-up completion rate of 98.44% (n = 252/256 patients), and the clinical outcomes assessment showed a nonsignificant difference in the cumulative rate of three-point MACE between both arms (BioMime vs. XIENCE: 7.74% vs. 9.52%, P = 0.62). Even the MI incidences in the BioMime arm were insignificantly lower than those of the XIENCE arm (1.79% vs. 5.95%, P = 0.17). Late ST was observed in 1.19% cases of the XIENCE arm, while there were no such cases in the BioMime arm (P = 0.16). The objective comparisons between the novel BP-based BioMime SES and the well-established DP-based XIENCE EES in this randomized controlled trial show acceptable outcomes of both the devices in the cardiac deaths, MI, ID-TVR, and ST. Moreover, since there were no incidences of cardiac death in the entire study sample over the course of 2 years, we contend that the findings of the study are highly significant for both these DES designs. In this preliminary comparative trial, the device safety of BioMime SES can be affirmed to be acceptable, considering the lower three-point MACE rate and absence of late ST in the BioMime arm over the 2-year period.

Percutaneous coronary intervention with ridaforolimus-eluting stents in long lesions: the BIONICS 38 mm prospective trial.

The ridaforolimus-eluting stent (RES) system is a novel cobalt alloy-based coronary stent with a durable elastomeric polymer eluting ridaforolimus. The aim of this trial was to assess the performance of a 38 mm RES in long coronary lesions. A prospective, multicenter, single-arm, open-label clinical trial. Clinical follow-up was performed at 30 days, 6 months, and 1 year after the procedure. Target lesions were located in native coronary arteries or bypass graft conduits, with visually estimated diameters of ≥2.75 mm to ≤4.25 mm. The primary endpoint was combined efficacy (final in-stent residual diameter stenosis <30%) without 30-day major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (composite of cardiac death, any myocardial infarction), or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization. A total of 50 patients were enrolled in the study. Fourteen (28%) had acute coronary syndromes; 17 (34%) had diabetes. The mean lesion length was 32.4 mm ± 8.3, reference vessel diameter 2.88 mm ± 0.45, minimal lumen diameter 0.80 mm ± 0.41, and percent diameter stenosis 72.6% ± 13.2. The primary endpoint was achieved in 88% (44/50) of the patients (95% confidence interval: 75.7-95.5%). Thirty-day and 1-year MACE rates were 6% and 8%, respectively. Target lesion failure after 1 year occurred in three patients (6%). Forty-seven lesions (94%) were treated successfully, with final in-stent diameter stenosis of < 30% [95% confidence interval: (84-99%). Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of long lesions with a 38 mm RES achieved satisfactory results, and support the safety and efficacy of PCI with RES in patients with long lesions. (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03702608).

Safety and Efficacy of a Hybrid Approach Combining a Paclitaxel-Coated Balloon With a New Generation Drug-Eluting Stent in Patients With De Novo True Coronary Bifurcation Lesions

BackgroundThe use of drug-coated balloon in the management of true bifurcation lesions appears to be an attractive option to reduce the rate of stent thrombosis and restenosis particularly at the level of the side branch ostium. We aim to assess the safety and the efficacy of a hybrid approach combining a drug-eluting stent in the main branch and a drug-coated balloon to treat the side branch ostium in patients with de novo true bifurcation. MethodsFrom September 2020 to March 2022, 45 patients with a de novo true bifurcation lesion Medina (1.1.1) or Medina (0.1.1) were enrolled. All patients underwent a percutaneous coronary intervention with the hybrid approach. Clinical assessment with functional stress imaging test was scheduled at 6 months. In case of documented ischemia, coronary angiography was performed. The primary endpoint was the composite of target lesion failure at 6 months including cardiac death, target vessel MI or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization. The secondary endpoints were technical success, defined by performing the percutaneous coronary intervention without an additional drug-eluting stent at the level of the side branch ostium, and clinical success, defined by a technical success associated with the absence of severe complications during in-hospital phase. ResultsThe immediate results show a technical success of the procedure in the majority of cases (88.9 %) with a low rate of bailout side branch stenting (11.1 %). The clinical success was obtained in 86.7 % and only one patient experienced a severe in-hospital complication. A side branch ostial lesion length > 10 mm was the only independent predictor of clinical failure of the procedure (OR 12.49, 95 % CI 1.17–133.6; p = 0.037). At 6 months, the TLF was low and occurred in 1 patient (2.2 %). No cardiac death was observed. No TVMI was observed. Importantly, at 6 months, no side branch thrombosis was observed. ConclusionThe use of a hybrid approach combining a drug-eluting stent in the main branch and a drug-coated balloon in the side branch to treat true bifurcation lesions appears to be safe and efficient with few immediate complications and with satisfactory results at mid-term follow up.

Physiology-guided PCI versus CABG for left main coronary artery disease: insights from the DEFINE-LM registry

There have been no studies comparing clinical outcomes of physiology-guided revascularization in patients with unprotected left main coronary disease (ULMD) between percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) vs. coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). The aim of this study was to assess the long-term clinical outcomes between PCI and CABG of patients with physiologically significant ULMD. From an international multicenter registry of ULMD patients interrogated with instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), we analyzed data from 151 patients (85 PCI vs. 66 CABG) who underwent revascularization according to the cutoff value of iFR ≤ 0.89. Propensity score matching was employed to adjust for baseline clinical characteristics. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization. The secondary endpoints were the individual components of the primary endpoint. Mean age was 66.6 (± 9.2) years, 79.2% male. Mean SYNTAX score was 22.6 (± 8.4) and median iFR was 0.83 (IQR 0.74–0.87). After performing propensity score matching analysis, 48 patients treated with CABG were matched to those who underwent PCI. At a median follow-up period of 2.8 years, the primary endpoint occurred in 8.3% in PCI group and 20.8% in CABG group, respectively (HR 3.80; 95% CI 1.04–13.9; p = 0.043). There was no difference in each component of the primary event (p > 0.05 for all). Within the present study, iFR-guided PCI was associated with lower cardiovascular events rate in patients with ULMD and intermediate SYNTAX score, as compared to CABG.Graphical abstractState-of-the-art PCI vs. CABG for ULMD. Study design and primary endpoint in patients with physiologically significant ULMD. MACE was defined as the composite of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization. The blue line denotes the PCI arm, and the red line denotes the CABG arm. PCI was associated with significantly lower risk of MACE than CABG. CABG: coronary artery bypass grafting; iFR: instantaneous wave-free ratio; MACE: major adverse cardiovascular events; PCI: percutaneous coronary intervention; ULMD: unprotected left main coronary artery disease.