Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions Research Articles

Favorable Vasomotor Function after Drug-Coated Balloon-Only Angioplasty of De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions.

Balloon-injured coronary segments are known to harbor abnormal vasomotion. We evaluated whether de novo coronary lesions treated using drug-coated balloon (DCB) are prone to vasospasm and how they respond to ergonovine and nitrate. Among 132 DCB angioplasty recipients followed, 89 patients underwent ergonovine provocation test at 6–9 months follow-up. Within-subject ergonovine- and nitrate-induced diameter changes were compared among three different sites: DCB-treated vs. angiographically normal vs. segment showing prominent vasoreactivity (spastic). No patient experienced clinically refractory vasospastic angina or symptom-driven revascularization during follow-up. Ergonovine induced vasospasm in seven patients; all were multifocal spasm either involving (n = 2) or rather sparing DCB-treated segments (n = 5). None showed focal spasm that exclusively involved DCB-treated lesions. Among 27 patients with vasospastic features, DCB-treated segments showed less vasoconstriction than spastic counterparts (p < 0.001). A total of 110 DCB-treated lesions were analyzed to assess vasomotor function. Vasomotor function, defined as a combined constrictor and dilator response, was comparable between DCB-treated and angiographically normal segments (p = 0.173), while significant differences were observed against spastic counterparts (p < 0.001). In our study, DCB-treated lesions were not particularly vulnerable to vasospasm and were found to have vasomotor function similar to angiographically normal segments, supporting safety of DCB-only strategy in treating de novo native coronary lesions.

TCTAP A-036 A Non-randomized, Clinical Registry of the DynamX Novolimus Eluting Coronary Bioadaptor System in the Treatment of Patients with De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions - “DynamX Hong Kong Registry”

TCTAP A-036 A Non-randomized, Clinical Registry of the DynamX Novolimus Eluting Coronary Bioadaptor System in the Treatment of Patients with De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions - “DynamX Hong Kong Registry”

TCT-165 5-Year Clinical Results of a Randomized Trial Evaluating the Absorb Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold Versus Metallic Drug-Eluting Stent in De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions: Data From the ABSORB Japan Trial

TCT-165 5-Year Clinical Results of a Randomized Trial Evaluating the Absorb Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold Versus Metallic Drug-Eluting Stent in De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions: Data From the ABSORB Japan Trial

TCTAP A-058 Favorable Outcomes for Systemic Pharmacokinetic Study of Sirolimus-eluting Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold System in Treating De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesion: A Sub Study of MeRes-1 Trial

MeRes100 (Meril Life Science, Gujarat, India) is a novel Sirolimus-eluting BioResorbable Vascular Scaffold System (BRS). This sub study of MeRes-1 trial evaluated the systemic release of sirolimus from the MeRes100 BRS applied for the treatment of de novo native coronary artery lesions. The MeRes-1

TCTAP A-003 First-in-human Evaluation of a Novel Poly-L-lactide Based Sirolimus-eluting Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold for the Treatment of De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions: MeRes-1 Trial

The life-long presence of the metallic prosthesis interferes with the restoration of vasomotion and restricts quality lesion imaging during repeat surgical or percutaneous treatment. As a solution to this, we assessed safety and efficacy of a novel Poly-L-Lactide based Sirolimus-eluting

Economic Outcomes of Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds Versus Everolimus-Eluting Stents in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: 1-Year Results From the ABSORB III Trial

ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the economic impact of the Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold compared with the Xience everolimus-eluting stent in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. BackgroundThe ABSORB III trial (Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffolds for Coronary Artery Disease) demonstrated that the Absorb scaffold was noninferior to the Xience stent with respect to target lesion failure at 1 year. Whether health care costs differ between the Absorb scaffold and the Xience stent is unknown. MethodsWe performed a prospective health economic study alongside the ABSORB III trial, in which patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for stable or unstable angina were randomized to receive the Absorb scaffold (n = 1,322) or Xience stent (n = 686). Resource use data were collected through 1 year of follow-up. Costs were assessed using resource-based accounting (for procedures), MedPAR data (for other index hospitalization costs), and Medicare reimbursements (for follow-up costs and physician fees). ResultsInitial procedural costs were higher with the Absorb scaffold than the Xience stent ($6,316 ± 1,892 vs. $6,103 ± 1,895; p = 0.02), driven mainly by greater balloon catheter use and the higher cost of the scaffold in the Absorb group. Nonetheless, index hospitalization costs ($15,035 ± 2,992 for Absorb vs. $14,903 ± 3,449 for Xience; p = 0.37) and total 1-year costs ($17,848 ± 6,110 for Absorb vs. $17,498 ± 7,411 for Xience; p = 0.29) were similar between the 2 groups. ConclusionsAlthough initial procedural costs were higher with the Absorb scaffold, there were no differences in total 1-year health care costs between the 2 cohorts. Longer term follow-up is needed to determine whether meaningful cost savings emerge after scaffold resorption. (A Clinical Evaluation of Absorb™ BVS, the Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold in the Treatment of Subjects With de Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions; NCT01751906)

Overview of the 2016 U.S. Food and Drug Administration Circulatory System Devices Advisory Panel Meeting on the Absorb Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold System.

This study aims to describe the discussions and recommendations made during the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Circulatory System Device Panel pre-market approval application for the Absorb Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold (BVS) System. The Absorb BVS System is a first-of-its-kind fully bioresorbable percutaneous coronary intervention technology. The absorb BVS was studied in the ABSORB III (A Clinical Evaluation of Absorb BVS, the Everolimus Eluting Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold in the Treatment of Subjects with de Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions) trial, the pivotal U.S. investigational device exemption trial. Observational report of the FDA Circulatory System Device Panel pre-market approval application meeting held on March 15, 2016. The U.S. FDA Circulatory System Device Panel members reviewed the ABSROB III trial outcomes and additional post hoc analyses presented by the sponsor and the FDA. The ABSORB III trial met the primary endpoint of noninferiority of Absorb BVS compared with the control, XIENCE drug-eluting stent, for target lesion failure at 1 year. Although a higher numerical trend for adverse outcomes was reported for the Absorb BVS, there were no statistical differences between Absorb BVS and XIENCE for any safety or effectiveness components for target lesion failure or for the secondary pre-specified outcomes. Panel members raised concerns with regard to the ABSORB III results and post hoc analyses focusing mainly on the noninferiority design of the trial, the apparent safety issues of the Absorb BVS in small vessels, the mismatch of visually versus intravascular imaging assessed vessel size found in ABSORB III and its implications on the adequate device labeling, the safety of Absorb BVS in specific patient and lesion subsets, and the post-approval commitments of the sponsor. Following panel discussions and the evidence presented, the panel voted for approval of the device.

5-Year Results of a Randomized Comparison of XIENCE V Everolimus-Eluting and TAXUS Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents: Final Results From the SPIRIT III Trial (Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Patients With De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions)

This study sought to evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) in patients with obstructive coronary artery disease. The use of EES compared to PES has been shown to result in improved clinical outcomes in patients undergoing PCI. However, there have been concerns regarding the durability of these benefits over longer-term follow-up. SPIRIT III was a prospective, multicenter trial in which 1,002 patients were randomized 2:1 to EES versus PES. Endpoints included ischemia-driven target vessel failure (TVF) (death, myocardial infarction (MI), or ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization [TVR]), the pre-specified primary endpoint), target lesion failure (TLF) (cardiac death, target-vessel MI, or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization [TLR]), major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (cardiac death, MI, or ischemia-driven TLR), their individual components and stent thrombosis. Five-year follow-up was available in 91.9% of patients. Treatment with EES versus PES resulted in lower 5-year Kaplan-Meier rates of TVF (19.3% vs. 24.5%, p = 0.05), TLF (12.7% vs. 19.0%, p= 0.008), and MACE (13.2% vs. 20.7%, p = 0.007). EES also resulted in reduced rates of all-cause death (5.9% vs. 10.1%, p = 0.02), with nonsignificantly different rates of MI, stent thrombosis, and TLR, and no evidence of late catch-up of TLR over time. At 5 years after treatment, EES compared to PES resulted in durable benefits in composite safety and efficacy measures as well as all-cause mortality. Additionally, the absolute difference in TLR between devices remained stable over time without deterioration of effect during late follow-up.

Everolimus-eluting stents in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: Final 3-year results of the Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Subjects With de Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions trial

We compared the outcomes of patients treated with everolimus-eluting stents (EES) versus paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) at 3 years from the large-scale randomized SPIRIT IV trial. SPIRIT IV is the largest randomized trial comparing the outcomes of EES and PES. The present report represents the final long-term follow-up analysis from this study. A total of 3,687 patients were randomized 2:1 to EES or PES, stratified by presence of diabetes mellitus and lesion characteristics. Prespecified subgroups were compared for interaction with stent allocation. The primary end point was target lesion failure (TLF) (the composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction [MI], or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization). At 3 years, TLF occurred in 9.2% versus 11.7% of EES- and PES-treated patients (hazard ratio [HR] 0.78 [0.63-0.97], P = .02). The incidence of death or MI was 5.9% versus 9.1%, respectively (HR 0.67 [0.52-0.85], P = .001), and there was a 64% reduction in stent thrombosis (Academic Research Consortium definite or probable definition) with EES (0.59% vs 1.60%, HR 0.36 [0.18-0.72], P = .003). The difference in target lesion revascularization at 3 years did not reach statistical significance (6.2% vs 7.8%, respectively, HR 0.78 [0.60-1.01], P = .06). There was no significant interaction between treatment allocation and any of the subgroups, including diabetes. When compared with PES, EES provides durable and significant reduction in TLF, especially due to its enhanced safety profile, with lower rates of death or MI and stent thrombosis up to 3 years.

TCT-20 Two-Year Clinical Follow-Up of the FIREHAWK Abluminal Groove-Filled Biodegradable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stent in the Treatment of Patients with De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions: The TARGET I Trial

TCT-20 Two-Year Clinical Follow-Up of the FIREHAWK Abluminal Groove-Filled Biodegradable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stent in the Treatment of Patients with De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions: The TARGET I Trial

TCT-32 First Report of the Four Year Clinical Results of The ABSORB Trial Evaluating the Absorb Everolimus Eluting Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold in the Treatment of Patients with de Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions

TCT-32 First Report of the Four Year Clinical Results of The ABSORB Trial Evaluating the Absorb Everolimus Eluting Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold in the Treatment of Patients with de Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions

Meta-Analysis of Everolimus-Eluting Versus Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents in Coronary Artery Disease: Final 3-Year Results of the SPIRIT Clinical Trials Program (Clinical Evaluation of the Xience V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Patients With De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions)

This study sought to investigate whether the everolimus-eluting stent (EES) is superior to the paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) with respect to long-term individual clinical outcomes. Individual studies have indicated a clinical advantage of coronary EES compared with PES with respect to restenosis and the composite endpoint of major adverse cardiac events. However, these trials were not powered for superiority in low-frequency event rates and have reported limited data beyond 1-year follow-up. We conducted a meta-analysis of the final 3-year results from the international SPIRIT (Clinical Evaluation of the Xience V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Patients With De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions) II, III, and IV clinical trials. Individual patient data from 4,989 patients who were prospectively randomized to treatment with EES (n = 3,350) or PES (n = 1,639) were pooled for analysis. At 3-year follow-up, EES was superior to PES in reducing the following event rates: target lesion failure (8.9% vs. 12.5%, hazard ratio [HR]: 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.59 to 0.85; p = 0.0002), all-cause mortality (3.2% vs 5.1%, HR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.49 to 0.86; p = 0.003), myocardial infarction (3.2% vs. 5.1%, HR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.48 to 0.85; p = 0.002), cardiac death or myocardial infarction (4.4% vs. 6.3%, HR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.54 to 0.90; p = 0.005), ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (6.0% vs. 8.2%, HR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.58 to 0.90; p = 0.004), stent thrombosis (0.7% vs. 1.7%, HR: 0.45, 95% CI: 0.26 to 0.78; p = 0.003), and major adverse cardiac events (9.4% vs. 13.0%, HR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.60 to 0.85; p = 0.0002). No interaction was present between stent type and the 3-year relative rates of target lesion failure across a broad range of subgroups, with the exception of diabetes and vessel (left anterior descending vs. other). In this large dataset with 3-year follow-up, coronary implantation of EES compared with PES resulted in reduced rates of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization, stent thrombosis, and target lesion failure. Further research is warranted to characterize possible interactions between stent type, diabetes, and vessel.

The “Final” 5-Year Follow-Up From the ENDEAVOR IV Trial Comparing a Zotarolimus-Eluting Stent With a Paclitaxel-Eluting Stent

This study sought to report the final 5-year outcomes of the ENDEAVOR IV (A Randomized, Controlled Trial of the Medtronic Endeavor Drug [ABT-578] Eluting Coronary Stent System Versus the Taxus Paclitaxel-Eluting Coronary Stent System in De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions) trial comparing the Endeavor zotarolimus-eluting stent (E-ZES) (Medtronic, Santa Rosa, California) with the Taxus paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) (Boston Scientific, Natick, Massachusetts) in patients with single de novo coronary lesions. Primary results of the ENDEAVOR IV trial demonstrated similar clinical outcomes with E-ZES and PES. Concerns with regard to late adverse clinical events with drug-eluting stents highlight the need for long-term follow-up with these devices. Late outcomes after the use of E-ZES and PES were examined in the multicenter randomized ENDEAVOR IV trial in cumulative and landmark analyses. Assessed outcomes were related to device efficacy and patient safety. At 5 years, clinical data were available for 722 (93.4%) E-ZES patients and 718 (92.6%) PES patients. Overall rates of target lesion revascularization (7.7% vs. 8.6%, p = 0.70) and target vessel failure were similar (17.2% vs. 21.1%, p = 0.061) with E-ZES compared with PES. The incidence of cardiac death or myocardial infarction (MI) was lower with E-ZES (6.4% vs. 9.1%, p = 0.048), primarily driven by a lower rate of target vessel MI with E-ZES (2.6% vs. 6.0%, p = 0.002). Although overall definite/probable stent thrombosis rates were similar between stents (1.3% vs. 2%, p = 0.42), rates of very late stent thrombosis (0.4% vs. 1.8%, p = 0.012) and late MI events (1.3% vs. 3.5%, p = 0.008) were significantly lower with E-ZES compared with PES. These data demonstrate the durable efficacy and safety of E-ZES compared with PES for the treatment of de novo coronary lesions. Significant improvements in late safety outcomes were observed with E-ZES but should be considered hypothesis-generating, given the limited statistical power of the trial. (The ENDEAVOR IV Clinical Trial: A Trial of a Coronary Stent System in Coronary Artery Lesions; NCT00217269).

Evaluation of XIENCE V Everolimus-Eluting and Taxus Express2 Paclitaxel-Eluting Coronary Stents in Patients With Jailed Side Branches From the SPIRIT IV Trial at 2 Years

The aim of this study was to determine whether patients from the Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Patients With de Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions (SPIRIT) IV trial who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention, who had target lesions with jailed side branches, had improved clinical outcomes when treated with the XIENCE V versus Taxus Express(2) drug-eluting stent. In the SPIRIT III randomized trial, patients with target lesions with jailed side branches after XIENCE V compared with Taxus Express(2) implantation had lower 2-year rates of major adverse cardiac events. The SPIRIT IV trial represents a larger more diverse patient population compared with SPIRIT III. In the large-scale, prospective, multicenter, randomized SPIRIT IV trial, 3,687 patients who underwent coronary stenting with up to 3 de novo native coronary artery lesions were randomized 2:1 to receive XIENCE V versus Taxus Express(2) stents. Two-year clinical outcomes of patients with or without jailed side branches after stenting were compared. A jailed side branch was defined as any side branch >1.0 mm in diameter within the target segment being stented, excluding bifurcations deemed to require treatment. Of the 3,687 patients in SPIRIT IV, a total of 1,426 had side branches that were jailed during angioplasty of the target lesion. Patients with jailed side branches after XIENCE V compared with Taxus Express(2) implantation had significantly lower 2-year rates of target lesion failure (6.5% vs 11.9%, p= 0.001), major adverse cardiac events (6.6% vs 12.2%, p= 0.0008), ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization (4.1% vs 7.9%, p= 0.004), and stent thrombosis (0.6% vs 2.8%, p= 0.001). In conclusion, patients with jailed side branches after stenting with XIENCE V compared to Taxus Express(2) devices had superior clinical outcomes at 2 years in the large-scale randomized SPIRIT IV trial.

Incidence and Short-Term Clinical Outcomes of Small Side Branch Occlusion After Implantation of an Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold: An Interim Report of 435 Patients in the ABSORB-EXTEND Single-Arm Trial in Comparison With an Everolimus-Eluting Metallic Stent in the SPIRIT First and II Trials

The aim of this study was to investigate the incidence and clinical sequelae of small side branch occlusion (SBO) after Absorb (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, California) bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) implantation. The thicker strut of metallic stents potentially contributes to a higher incidence of SBO. We performed a post-hoc angiographic assessment of 1,209 side branches in 435 patients enrolled in the ABSORB-EXTEND single-arm trial (ABSORB EXTEND Clinical Investigation: A Continuation in the Clinical Evaluation of the ABSORB Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold [BVS] System in the Treatment of Subjects With de Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions), in comparison with 682 side branches in 237 patients treated with the everolimus-eluting metallic stent (EES) in the SPIRIT (A Clinical Evaluation of an Investigational Device. The Abbott XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Patients With de Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions) first and II trials. Any visible side branches originating within the device implantation site or the 5-mm proximal and distal margins were included in the angiographic assessment. The SBO was defined as a reduction in Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction flow grade 0 or 1. Post-procedural SBO was observed in 73 side branches (6.0%) in BVS group and 28 side branches (4.1%) in EES group (p = 0.09). Patients with post-procedural SBO were significantly associated with an increased incidence of in-hospital myocardial infarction (6.5% in SBO group vs. 0.5% in non-SBO group, p < 0.01). Multivariable analysis revealed that BVS was an independent predictor of post-procedural SBO (odds ratio: 2.09; 95% confidence interval: 1.18 to 3.68). By stratified analysis, BVS demonstrated a higher incidence of post-procedural SBO compared with EES only in small side branches with a reference vessel diameter ≤0.5 mm (10.5% vs. 3.9%, p = 0.03 between the groups, p for interaction = 0.08). Bioresorbable vascular scaffold was associated with a higher incidence of post-procedural SBO compared with EES. This effect was more pronounced with small side branches with a reference vessel diameter ≤0.5 mm. (ABSORB EXTEND Clinical Investigation: A Continuation in the Clinical Evaluation of the ABSORB Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold [BVS] System in the Treatment of Subjects With de Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions: NCT01023789).

TCT-35 Evaluation of the Absorb Everolimus Eluting Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold (Absorb BVS) in the Treatment of Patients with de Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions: 3 Year Clinical Results of the ABSORB Cohort B1 Trial

TCT-35 Evaluation of the Absorb Everolimus Eluting Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold (Absorb BVS) in the Treatment of Patients with de Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions: 3 Year Clinical Results of the ABSORB Cohort B1 Trial

Five-Year Optical Coherence Tomography Follow-Up of an Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold

A 58-year-old man, included in cohort A of the Bioabsorbable Vascular Solutions First in Man Clinical Investigation: A Clinical Evaluation of the Bioabsorbable Vascular Solutions Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Patients With Single de Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions (ABSORB) trial,1 had undergone implantation of a bioresorbable everolimus-eluting scaffold (BVS; Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA) in June 2006 because of stable angina class III with a positive exercise test (Figure 1). He had a positive family history for coronary artery disease. At implantation, his total cholesterol was 207 mg/dL, his low-density lipoprotein level was 130 mg/dL, and his high-density lipoprotein level was 71 mg/dL. Coronary angiography revealed a single lesion at the middle left anterior descending artery that was treated with a 3.0×12 mm BVS, and he was discharged on a treatment regimen of dual antiplatelet therapy (aspirin clopidogrel) for 6 months and atorvastatin 20 mg. His lipid profile 2 years after implantation showed a total cholesterol of 144.3 mg/dL, a low-density lipoprotein level of 65 mg/dL, and a high-density lipoprotein level of 60 mg/dL. Figure 1. Coronary angiography of the left anterior descending artery before ( A and B ) and after ( C and D ) intervention …

Five-year results of the Multicenter Randomized Controlled Open-Label Study of the CYPHER Sirolimus-Eluting Stent in the Treatment of Diabetic Patients with De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions (SCORPIUS) study: A German multicenter investigation on the effectiveness of sirolimus-eluting stents in diabetic patients

Because a delayed arterial healing response after drug-eluting stent implantation has raised concerns about safety in diabetic patients, long-term effects of treatment with sirolimus-eluting stent (SES), as compared with bare-metal stent (BMS), have to be established. The aim of the 5-year follow-up of the randomized, controlled, open-label multicenter SCORPIUS study was to assess long-term safety and efficacy of the CYPHER (Cordis, Johnson & Johnson, Bridgewater, NJ) SES in percutaneous coronary intervention of diabetic patients. A total of 190 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus were randomized to receive either a SES (n = 95) or a BMS (n = 95). Dual-antiplatelet therapy (aspirin plus clopidogrel) was prescribed for at least 6 months. Clinical follow-up data were scheduled at 1, 8, and 12 months and 5 years. Treatment with SES resulted in a 16% decrease in the rate of major adverse cardiac events (36% vs 52%; hazard ratio 0.6, 95% CI 0.4-0.9; P = .02). This reduction in major adverse cardiac events with SES at 5 years was mostly attributable to a lower number of repeat target lesion revascularization (13% vs 29%; hazard ratio 0.4, 95% CI 0.2-0.7; P = .003). No differences between groups were observed for safety end points (all-cause mortality 21% vs 21%, cardiac death 15% vs 13%, repeat myocardial infarction 8% vs 9%, and stent thrombosis 5% vs 6%) at 5 years. The 5-year follow-up of the SCORPIUS trial demonstrates the long-term antirestenotic efficacy of SES in diabetic patients with significantly reduced target lesion revascularization and comparable rates of mortality, myocardial infarction, and stent thrombosis compared with BMS.

A New Era of Prospective Real-World Safety Evaluation: Primary Report of XIENCE V USA (XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System Condition-of-Approval Post-Market Study)

The XIENCE V USA (XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System Condition-of-Approval Post-Market study) sought to: 1) evaluate the safety of everolimus-eluting coronary stent systems (EECSS) in a contemporary cohort of real-world subjects; and 2) prospectively test the quality of event reporting with analysis of matched patients from the randomized SPIRIT IV (Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Subjects With de Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions) trial. Randomized trials have demonstrated the safety and efficacy of EECSS in selected "standard-risk" patients. The XIENCE V USA trial was a prospective, multicenter, single-arm study in unselected patients. The primary endpoint was Academic Research Consortium (ARC)-defined definite and probable stent thrombosis (ST); the co-primary endpoint was the composite of cardiac death and myocardial infarction at 1 year. Secondary analyses included: 1) stratification by standard-risk and extended-risk cohorts; and 2) late ST after dual antiplatelet therapy interruption. Of 5,054 participants (1,875 standard-risk; 3,179 extended-risk), 4,958 (98.1%) reached 1-year follow-up. The rate of ARC-defined definite and probable ST was 0.84% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.60% to 1.14%) in the overall population and 0.33% (95% CI: 0.12% to 10.72%) and 1.14% (95% CI: 0.80% to 11.58%) in the standard-risk and extended-risk cohorts, respectively. No late ST was observed after dual antiplatelet therapy interruption in either cohort after 6 months. The composite rate of cardiac death and ARC-defined myocardial infarction was 6.5% (95% CI: 5.79% to 17.17%) in the overall population, 3.8% (95% CI: 2.98% to 14.78%) in the standard-risk cohort, and 8.0% (95% CI: 7.09% to 19.02%) in the extended-risk cohort. This study comprehensively reports ST rates for EECSS in a contemporary real-world population. The absence of ST after dual antiplatelet therapy interruption beyond 6 months in standard-risk and high-risk patients is notable. Consistent safety outcomes between matched standard-risk cohorts from the XIENCE V USA study and the SPIRIT IV randomized trial suggest that this study affords a reliable benchmark for understanding the safety of EECSS in the context of real-world clinical practice. (XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System [EECSS] USA Post-Approval Study; NCT00676520).

Impact of Lesion Length and Vessel Size on Clinical Outcomes After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Everolimus- Versus Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents: Pooled Analysis From the SPIRIT (Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System) and COMPARE (Second-generation everolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents in real-life practice) Randomized Trials

The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of reference vessel diameter (RVD) and lesion length (LL) on the relative safety and efficacy of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES). Lesion length and RVD are well-known predictors of adverse events after percutaneous coronary intervention. Patient-level data were pooled from the randomized SPIRIT (Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System) II, III, IV and COMPARE (Second-generation everolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents in real-life practice) trials. Quantitative angiographic core laboratory data were available for 6,183 patients randomized to EES (n = 3,944) or PES (n = 2,239). Long lesions and small vessels were defined as LL >median (13.4 mm) and RVD ≤median (2.65 mm), respectively. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (consisting of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization) were assessed at 2 years, according to stent type in 3 groups: short lesions in large vessels (group A, n = 1,297); long lesions or small vessels but not both (group B, n = 2,981); and long lesions in small vessels (group C, n = 1,905). The pooled 2-year MACE rates were 5.6%, 8.2%, and 10.4% in Groups A, B, and C, respectively (p < 0.0001). There was no significant interaction between lesion group and stent type (p = 0.64), indicating lower MACE with EES compared with PES regardless of LL and RVD. However, the absolute difference was largest in Groups B and C. In Group A, 2-year MACE rates were not significantly different between EES and PES (4.8% vs. 7.0%, respectively, p = 0.11). In contrast, EES was associated with lower 2-year rates of MACE in Group B (6.6% vs. 11.2%, p < 0.01) and in Group C (9.1% vs. 12.7%, p = 0.008) as well as lower rates of myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization, and stent thrombosis. Multivariable analysis confirmed EES versus PES as an independent predictor of freedom from MACE in Groups B and C. Patients with short lesions in large vessels have low rates of MACE at 2 years after treatment with either EES or PES. In higher-risk patients with long lesions and/or small vessels, EES results in significant improvements in both clinical safety and efficacy outcomes. (A Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Patients With de Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions; NCT00180310; SPIRIT III: A Clinical Evaluation of the Investigational Device XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System [EECSS] in the Treatment of Subjects With de Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions; NCT00180479; SPIRIT IV Clinical Trial: Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Subjects With de Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions; NCT00307047; A Randomized Controlled Trial of Everolimus-eluting Stents and Paclitaxel-eluting Stents for Coronary Revascularization in Daily Practice: The COMPARE Trial; NCT01016041).