Randomized Clinical Comparison of the Dual-Therapy CD34 Antibody-Covered Sirolimus-Eluting Combo Stent With the Sirolimus-Eluting Orsiro Stent in Patients Treated With Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: The SORT OUT X Trial.

BACKGROUND: Target lesion failure remains an issue with contemporary drug-eluting stents. Thus, the dual-therapy sirolimus-eluting and CD34+ antibody-coated Combo stent (DTS) was designed to further improve early healing. This study aimed to investigate whether the DTS is noninferior to the sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent (SES) in an all-comers patient population. METHODS: The SORT OUT X (Combo Stent Versus Orsiro Stent) trial, was a large-scale, randomized, multicenter, single-blind, 2-arm, noninferiority trial with registry-based follow-up. The primary end point target lesion failure was a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization within 12 months, analyzed using intention-to-treat. The trial was powered for assessing target lesion failure noninferiority of the DTS compared with the SES with a predetermined noninferiority margin of 0.021. RESULTS: A total of 3146 patients were randomized to treatment with the DTS (1578 patients; 2008 lesions) or SES (1568 patients; 1982 lesions). At 12 months, intention-to-treat analysis showed that 100 patients (6.3%) assigned the DTS and 58 patients (3.7%) assigned the SES met the primary end point (absolute risk difference, 2.6% [upper limit of 1-sided 95% CI, 4.1%]; P (noninferiority)=0.76). The SES was superior to the DTS (incidence rate ratios for target lesion failure, 1.74 [95% CI, 1.26-2.41]; P=0.00086). The difference was explained mainly by a higher incidence of target lesion revascularization in the DTS group compared with the SES group (53 [3.4%] vs. 24 [1.5%]; incidence rate ratio, 2.22 [95% CI, 1.37-3.61]; P=0.0012). CONCLUSIONS: The DTS did not confirm noninferiority to the SES for target lesion failure at 12 months in an all-comer population. The SES was superior to the DTS mainly because the DTS was associated with an increased risk of target lesion revascularization. However, rates of death, cardiac death, and myocardial infarction at 12 months did not differ significantly between the 2 stent groups. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03216733.

Randomized Comparison of the Polymer-Free Biolimus-Coated BioFreedom Stent With the Ultrathin Strut Biodegradable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Orsiro Stent in an All-Comers Population Treated With Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: The SORT OUT IX Trial.

BACKGROUND: In patients with increased bleeding risk, the biolimus A9-coated BioFreedom stent, a stainless steel drug-coated stent free from polymer, has shown superiority compared with a bare-metal stent. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the BioFreedom stent is noninferior to a modern ultrathin strut biodegradable polymer cobalt-chromium sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent in an all-comers patient population treated with percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS: The SORT OUT IX trial (Scandinavian Organization for Randomized Trials With Clinical Outcome IX), was a large-scale, registry-based, randomized, multicenter, single-blind, 2-arm, noninferiority trial. The primary end point, major adverse cardiovascular events, was defined as the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction not related to any segment other than the target lesion, or target lesion revascularization within 1 year, analyzed by intention-to-treat. The trial was powered to assess noninferiority for major adverse cardiovascular events of the BioFreedom stent compared with the Orsiro stent with a predetermined noninferiority margin of 0.021. RESULTS: Between December 14, 2015 and April 21, 2017, 3151 patients were assigned to treatment with the BioFreedom stent (1572 patients, 1966 lesions) or to the Orsiro stent (1579 patients, 1985 lesions). Five patients were lost to follow-up because of emigration (99.9% follow-up rate). Mean age was 66.3±10.9, diabetes mellitus was seen in 19.3% of patients, and 53% of the patients had acute coronary syndromes. At 1 year, intention-to-treat analysis showed that 79 (5.0%) patients, who were assigned the BioFreedom stent, and 59 (3.7%), who were assigned the Orsiro stent, met the primary end point (absolute risk difference 1.29% [upper limit of one-sided 95% CI 2.50%]; Pnoninferiority=0.14). Significantly more patients in the BioFreedom stent group had target lesion revascularization than those in the Orsiro stent group (55 [3.5%] vs 20 [1.3%], rate ratio 2.77 [95% CI, 1.66-4.62]; P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The biolimus A9-coated BioFreedom polymer-free stent did not meet criteria for noninferiority for major adverse cardiovascular events at 12 months when compared with the ultrathin strut biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent in an all-comers population Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02623140.

Effect of remote ischaemic conditioning on clinical outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI): a single-blind randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Remote ischaemic conditioning with transient ischaemia and reperfusion applied to the arm has been shown to reduce myocardial infarct size in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). We investigated whether remote ischaemic conditioning could reduce the incidence of cardiac death and hospitalisation for heart failure at 12 months. METHODS: We did an international investigator-initiated, prospective, single-blind, randomised controlled trial (CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI) at 33 centres across the UK, Denmark, Spain, and Serbia. Patients (age >18 years) with suspected STEMI and who were eligible for PPCI were randomly allocated (1:1, stratified by centre with a permuted block method) to receive standard treatment (including a sham simulated remote ischaemic conditioning intervention at UK sites only) or remote ischaemic conditioning treatment (intermittent ischaemia and reperfusion applied to the arm through four cycles of 5-min inflation and 5-min deflation of an automated cuff device) before PPCI. Investigators responsible for data collection and outcome assessment were masked to treatment allocation. The primary combined endpoint was cardiac death or hospitalisation for heart failure at 12 months in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02342522) and is completed. FINDINGS: Between Nov 6, 2013, and March 31, 2018, 5401 patients were randomly allocated to either the control group (n=2701) or the remote ischaemic conditioning group (n=2700). After exclusion of patients upon hospital arrival or loss to follow-up, 2569 patients in the control group and 2546 in the intervention group were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. At 12 months post-PPCI, the Kaplan-Meier-estimated frequencies of cardiac death or hospitalisation for heart failure (the primary endpoint) were 220 (8·6%) patients in the control group and 239 (9·4%) in the remote ischaemic conditioning group (hazard ratio 1·10 [95% CI 0·91-1·32], p=0·32 for intervention versus control). No important unexpected adverse events or side effects of remote ischaemic conditioning were observed. INTERPRETATION: Remote ischaemic conditioning does not improve clinical outcomes (cardiac death or hospitalisation for heart failure) at 12 months in patients with STEMI undergoing PPCI. FUNDING: British Heart Foundation, University College London Hospitals/University College London Biomedical Research Centre, Danish Innovation Foundation, Novo Nordisk Foundation, TrygFonden.

Impact of diabetes on clinical outcomes after revascularization with sirolimus-eluting and biolimus-eluting stents with biodegradable polymer from the SORT OUT VII trial.

OBJECTIVES: In this substudy of the SORT OUT VII trial, the clinical outcomes among patient with diabetes mellitus treated with Orsiro sirolimus-eluting stent (O-SES; Biotronik, Bülach, Switzerland) or Nobori biolimus-eluting stent (N-BES; Terumo, Tokyo, Japan) were compared. BACKGROUND: Diabetes is associated with increased risk of target lesion failure (TLF) after percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS: In total, 2525 patients were randomized to stent implantation with O-SES (n = 1261, diabetes: n = 236) or N-BES (n = 1264, diabetes: n = 235). The primary endpoint, TLF, was a composite of cardiac death, target-lesion myocardial infarction (MI), or target lesion revascularization (TLR) within 2 years. RESULTS: At 2 year, TLF did not differ between O-SES vs N-BES in diabetic (9.3% vs 9.4%; RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.54-1.78) patients. The individual components of the primary endpoint did not differ among stent type. In diabetics, cardiac death occurred in 3% of O-SES-treated and in 3.8% of N-BES-treated patients (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.29-2.08), MI occurred in 3.0% of O-SES-treated and in 3.8% of N-BES-treated patients (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.28-2.06) and TLR occurred in 5,5% of O-SES-treated and in 6.0% of N-BES-treated patients (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.43-1.95). CONCLUSION: TLF did not differ between O-SES- and N-BES-treated diabetic patients.

Deferred versus conventional stent implantation in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (DANAMI 3-DEFER): an open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite successful treatment of the culprit artery lesion by primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with stent implantation, thrombotic embolisation occurs in some cases, which impairs the prognosis of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). We aimed to assess the clinical outcomes of deferred stent implantation versus standard PCI in patients with STEMI. METHODS: We did this open-label, randomised controlled trial at four primary PCI centres in Denmark. Eligible patients (aged >18 years) had acute onset symptoms lasting 12 h or less, and ST-segment elevation of 0·1 mV or more in at least two or more contiguous electrocardiographic leads or newly developed left bundle branch block. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), via an electronic web-based system with permuted block sizes of two to six, to receive either standard primary PCI with immediate stent implantation or deferred stent implantation 48 h after the index procedure if a stabilised flow could be obtained in the infarct-related artery. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, hospital admission for heart failure, recurrent infarction, and any unplanned revascularisation of the target vessel within 2 years' follow-up. Patients, investigators, and treating clinicians were not masked to treatment allocation. We did analysis by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01435408. FINDINGS: Between March 1, 2011, and Feb 28, 2014, we randomly assigned 1215 patients to receive either standard PCI (n=612) or deferred stent implantation (n=603). Median follow-up time was 42 months (IQR 33-49). Events comprising the primary endpoint occurred in 109 (18%) patients who had standard PCI and in 105 (17%) patients who had deferred stent implantation (hazard ratio 0·99, 95% CI 0·76-1·29; p=0·92). Procedure-related myocardial infarction, bleeding requiring transfusion or surgery, contrast-induced nephopathy, or stroke occurred in 28 (5%) patients in the conventional PCI group versus 27 (4%) patients in the deferred stent implantation group, with no significant differences between groups. INTERPRETATION: In patients with STEMI, routine deferred stent implantation did not reduce the occurrence of death, heart failure, myocardial infarction, or repeat revascularisation compared with conventional PCI. Results from ongoing randomised trials might shed further light on the concept of deferred stenting in this patient population. FUNDING: Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation, and Danish Council for Strategic Research.

Complete revascularisation versus treatment of the culprit lesion only in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease (DANAMI-3­PRIMULTI): an open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary disease have a worse prognosis compared with individuals with single-vessel disease. We aimed to study the clinical outcome of patients with STEMI treated with fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided complete revascularisation versus treatment of the infarct-related artery only. METHODS: We undertook an open-label, randomised controlled trial at two university hospitals in Denmark. Patients presenting with STEMI who had one or more clinically significant coronary stenosis in addition to the lesion in the infarct-related artery were included. After successful percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the infarct-related artery, patients were randomly allocated (in a 1:1 ratio) either no further invasive treatment or complete FFR-guided revascularisation before discharge. Randomisation was done electronically via a web-based system in permuted blocks of varying size by the clinician who did the primary PCI. All patients received best medical treatment. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, non-fatal reinfarction, and ischaemia-driven revascularization of lesions in non-infarct-related arteries and was assessed when the last enrolled patient had been followed up for 1 year. Analysis was on an intention-to-treat basis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01960933. FINDINGS: From March, 2011, to February, 2014, we enrolled 627 patients to the trial; 313 were allocated no further invasive treatment after primary PCI of the infarct-related artery only and 314 were assigned complete revascularization guided by FFR values. Median follow-up was 27 months (range 12­44 months). Events comprising the primary endpoint were recorded in 68 (22%) patients who had PCI of the infarct-related artery only and in 40 (13%) patients who had complete revascularisation (hazard ratio 0∙56, 95% CI 0∙38­0∙83; p=0∙004). INTERPRETATION: In patients with STEMI and multivessel disease, complete revascularisation guided by FFR measurements significantly reduces the risk of future events compared with no further invasive intervention after primary PCI. This effect is driven by significantly fewer repeat revascularisations, because all-cause mortality and non-fatal reinfarction did not differ between groups. Thus, to avoid repeat revascularisation, patients can safely have all their lesions treated during the index admission. Future studies should clarify whether complete revascularization should be done acutely during the index procedure or at later time and whether it has an effect on hard endpoints. FUNDING: Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation and Danish Council for Strategic Research.

Zotarolimus-eluting durable-polymer-coated stent versus a biolimus-eluting biodegradable-polymer-coated stent in unselected patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (SORT OUT VI): a randomised non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: New-generation drug-eluting coronary stents have reduced the risk of coronary events, especially in patients with complex disease or lesions. To what extent different stent platforms, polymers, and antiproliferative drugs affect outcomes, however, is unclear. We investigated the safety and efficacy of a third-generation stent by comparing a highly biocompatible durable-polymer-coated zotarolimus-eluting stent with a biodegradable-polymer-coated biolimus-eluting stent. METHODS: This open-label, randomised, multicentre, non-inferiority trial was done at three sites across western Denmark. All patients who presented with stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes and at least one coronary artery lesion (more than 50% stenosis) from March, 2011, to August, 2012, were assessed for eligibility. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either the durable-polymer zotarolimus-eluting stent or the biodegradable-polymer biolimus-eluting stent. The primary endpoint was a composite of safety (cardiac death and myocardial infarction not clearly attributable to a non-target lesion) and efficacy (target-lesion revascularisation) at 12 months, analysed by intention to treat. The trial was powered to assess non-inferiority of durable-polymer zotarolimus-eluting stent compared with the biodegradable-polymer biolimus-eluting stent with a predetermined non-inferiority margin of 0·025. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01956448. FINDINGS: Of 7103 screened, 1502 patients with 1883 lesions were assigned to receive the durable-polymer zotarolimus-eluting stent and 1497 patients with 1791 lesions to receive the biodegradable-polymer biolimus-eluting stent. 79 (5·3%) and 75 (5·0%) patients, respectively, met the primary endpoint (absolute risk difference 0·0025, upper limit of one-sided 95% CI 0·016%; p=0·004). The individual components of the primary endpoint did not differ significantly between stent types at 12 months. INTERPRETATION: The durable-polymer-coated zotarolimus-eluting stent was non-inferior to the biodegradable-polymer-coated biolimus-eluting stent in unselected patients. FUNDING: Medtronic Cardiovascular and Biosensors Interventional Technologies.

Safety and tolerability of regadenoson for myocardial perfusion imaging - first Danish experience.

OBJECTIVES: Evaluating safety and tolerability of the selective A2A receptor agonist, regadenoson, in patients referred for single photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI). DESIGN: Observational study of patients referred for MPI stress testing using a 400 µg regadenoson (Rapiscan(®)) bolus. Hemodynamic variables and severity of adverse events (AE) were recorded before, during, and after administration. RESULTS: A total of 232 patients were included. One or more AE were reported in 90% of patients; the AEs were graded mostly mild to moderate in severity, resolved spontaneously, and were mainly dyspnea, headache, and chest pain. No advanced heart block or bronchospasm were seen. Transient ST-segment changes developed in 10 patients. The maximum increase in heart rate was 19 ± 11 beats/minute. The mean systolic blood pressure decreased from 144 to 139 mmHg (p < 0.0001). Medical intervention was required in three patients: one case with severe hypotension and two cases with chest pain that was relieved with sublingual nitroglycerin. One patient died the day after stress MPI for reasons considered unrelated to regadenoson. CONCLUSION: Regadenoson for MPI is easy to use with a high frequency of AEs, which are generally mild in severity, transient, and resolve spontaneously.

Effects of intracoronary melatonin on ischemia-reperfusion injury in ST-elevation myocardial infarction.

Acute coronary occlusion is effectively treated by primary percutaneous coronary intervention. However, myocardial ischemia-reperfusion injury is at the moment an unavoidable consequence of the procedure. Oxidative stress is central in the development of ischemia-reperfusion injury. Melatonin, an endogenous hormone, acts through antioxidant mechanisms and could potentially minimize the myocardial injury. The aim of the experimental study was to examine the cardioprotective effects of melatonin in a porcine closed-chest reperfused infarction model. A total of 20 landrace pigs were randomized to a dosage of 200 mg (0.4 mg/mL) melatonin or placebo (saline). The intervention was administered intracoronary and intravenous. Infarct size, area at risk and microvascular obstruction were determined ex vivo by cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging. Myocardial salvage index was calculated. The plasma levels of high-sensitive troponin T were assessed repeatedly. The experimenters were blinded with regard to treatment regimen. Melatonin did not significantly increase myocardial salvage index compared with placebo [melatonin 21.8% (16.1; 24.8) vs. placebo 20.2% (16.9; 27.0), p = 1.00]. The extent of microvascular obstruction was similar between the groups [melatonin 3.8% (2.7; 7.1) vs. placebo 3.7% (1.3; 7.7), p = 0.96]. The area under the curve for high-sensitive troponin T release was insignificantly reduced by 32% in the melatonin group [AUC melatonin 12,343.9 (6,889.2; 20,147.4) ng h/L vs. AUC placebo 18,285.3 (5,180.4; 23,716.8) ng h/L, p = 0.82]. Combined intracoronary and intravenous treatment with melatonin did not reduce myocardial reperfusion injury. The lack of a positive effect could be due to an ineffective dose of melatonin, a type II error or the timing of administration.

Differential clinical outcomes after 1 year versus 5 years in a randomised comparison of zotarolimus-eluting and sirolimus-eluting coronary stents (the SORT OUT III study): a multicentre, open-label, randomised superiority trial.

BACKGROUND: In head-to-head comparisons of coronary drug-eluting stents, the primary endpoint is traditionally assessed after 9-12 months. However, the optimum timepoint for this assessment remains unclear. In this study, we assessed clinical outcomes at up to 5 years' follow-up in patients who received two different types of drug-eluting stents. METHODS: We undertook this multicentre, open-label, randomised superiority trial at five percutaneous coronary intervention centres in Denmark. We randomly allocated 2332 eligible adult patients (≥18 years of age) with an indication for drug-eluting stent implantation to the zotarolimus-eluting Endeavor Sprint stent (Medtronic, Santa Rosa, CA, USA) or the sirolimus-eluting Cypher Select Plus stent (Cordis, Johnson & Johnson, Warren, NJ, USA). Randomisation of participants was achieved by computer-generated block randomisation and a telephone allocation service. The primary endpoint of the SORT OUT III study was a composite of major adverse cardiac events-cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularisation-at 9 months' follow-up. In this study, endpoints included the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events and definite stent thrombosis at follow-up times of up to 5 years. Analysis was by intention to treat. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00660478. FINDINGS: We randomly allocated 1162 patients to receive the zotarolimus-eluting stent and 1170 to the sirolimus-eluting stent. At 5-year follow-up, rates of major adverse cardiac events were similar in patients treated with both types of stents (zotarolimus-eluting stents 197/1162 [17.0%] vs sirolimus-eluting stents 182/1170 [15.6%]; odds ratio [OR] 1.10, 95% CI 0.88-1.37; p=0.40). This finding was indicative of the directly contrasting results for rates of major adverse cardiac events at 1-year follow up (zotarolimus 93/1162 [8.0%] vs sirolimus 46/1170 [3.9%]; OR 2.13, 95% CI 1.48-3.07; p<0.0001) compared with those at follow-up between 1 and 5 years (104 [9.0%] vs 136 [11.6%]; OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.59-1.02; p=0.071). At 1-year follow-up, definite stent thrombosis was more frequent after implantation of the zotarolimus-eluting stent (13/1162 [1.1%]) than the sirolimus-eluting stent (4/1170 [0.3%]; OR 3.34, 95% CI 1.08-10.3; p=0.036), whereas the opposite finding was recorded for between 1 and 5 years' follow-up (zotarolimus-eluting stent 1/1162 [0.1%] vs sirolimus-eluting stent 21/1170 [1.8%], OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.01-0.36; p=0.003). 26 of 88 (30%) target lesion revascularisations in the zotarolimus-eluting stent group occurred between 1 and 5 years' follow-up, whereas 54 of 70 (77%) of those in the sirolimus-eluting stent group occurred during this follow-up period. INTERPRETATION: The superiority of sirolimus-eluting stents compared with zotarolimus-eluting stents at 1-year follow-up was lost after 5 years. The traditional 1-year primary endpoint assessment therefore might be insufficient to predict 5-year clinical outcomes in patients treated with coronary drug-eluting stent implantation. FUNDING: Cordis and Medtronic.

Biolimus-eluting biodegradable polymer-coated stent versus durable polymer-coated sirolimus-eluting stent in unselected patients receiving percutaneous coronary intervention (SORT OUT V): a randomised non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Third-generation biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents might reduce the risk of stent thrombosis compared with first-generation permanent polymer drug-eluting stents. We aimed to further investigate the effects of a biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stent compared with a durable polymer-coated sirolimus-eluting stent in a population-based setting. METHODS: This randomised, multicentre, all-comer, non-inferiority trial was undertaken at three sites across western Denmark. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with chronic stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes, and at least one coronary artery lesion (>50% diameter stenosis). We randomly assigned patients (1:1) using an independently managed computer-generated allocation sequence to receive either a biolimus-eluting biodegradable polymer stent (Nobori, Terumo, Tokyo, Japan) or a sirolimus-eluting permanent polymer stent (Cypher Select Plus, Cordis, Johnson & Johnson, Warren, NJ, USA). The primary endpoint was a composite of safety (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, definite stent thrombosis) and efficacy (target vessel revascularisation) at 9 months, analysed by intention to treat (non-inferiority margin of 0·02). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01254981. FINDINGS: From July, 2009, to January, 2011, we assigned 1229 patients (1532 lesions) to receive the biolimus-eluting stent and 1239 (1555 lesions) to receive the sirolimus-eluting stent. One patient was lost to follow-up because of emigration. Intention-to-treat analysis showed that 50 (4·1%) patients who were assigned the biolimus-eluting stent and 39 (3·1%) who were assigned the sirolimus-eluting stent met the primary endpoint (risk difference 0·9% [upper limit of one-sided 95% CI 2·1%]; p(non-inferiority)=0·06). Significantly more patients in the biolimus-eluting stent group had definite stent thrombosis at 12 months than did those in the sirolimus-eluting stent group (9 [0·7%] vs 2 [0·2%], risk difference 0·6% [95% CI 0·0-1·1]; p=0·034). Per-protocol analysis showed that 45 (3·8%) of 1193 patients who received a biolimus-eluting stent and 39 (3·2%) of 1208 who received a sirolimus-eluting stent met the primary endpoint (risk difference 0·5% [upper limit of one-sided 95% CI 1·8%]; p(non-inferiority)=0·03). INTERPRETATION: At 1 year follow-up, the biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting Nobori stent did not improve clinical results compared with a first-generation sirolimus-eluting stent. We will need to obtain long-term data before we can make recommendations for the role of this biolimus-eluting stent in routine clinical practice. FUNDING: Terumo and Cordis (Johnson & Johnson).

Similar five-year outcome with paclitaxel- and sirolimus-eluting coronary stents.

OBJECTIVE: Millions of patients were treated with the sirolimus-eluting Cypher™ and the paclitaxel-eluting Taxus™ coronary stents with potential late-occurring increase in event rates. Therefore, the long-term outcome follow-up is of major clinical interest. DESIGN: In total, 2.098 unselected patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), non-STEMI, stable or unstable angina pectoris were randomized to receive Cypher™ (n = 1.065) or Taxus™ (n = 1.033) stents and were followed for 5 years. RESULTS: The primary end-point; the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction and target vessel revascularization (major adverse cardiac event, MACE), occurred in 467 patients (22.3%); Cypher™ n = 222 (20.8%), Taxus™ n = 245 (23.7%), ns. Definite and probable stent thrombosis occurred in 107 patients (5.1%); Cypher™ n = 51 (4.8%), Taxus™ n = 56 (5.4%), ns. No statistically significant differences were found in the elements of the primary end-point or in other secondary end-points between the two stent groups. After one year, the annual rates of stent thrombosis and MACE remained constant. CONCLUSIONS: During 5-year follow-up, the Cypher™ and the Taxus™ coronary stents had similar clinical outcome with no signs of increasing rates of adverse events over time.

Randomized comparison of everolimus-eluting and sirolimus-eluting stents in patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention: the Scandinavian Organization for Randomized Trials with Clinical Outcome IV (SORT OUT IV).

BACKGROUND: Among drug-eluting stents released to date, the sirolimus-eluting stent has demonstrated the least amount of late lumen loss, but its efficacy and safety have not been compared head-to-head with the next-generation everolimus-eluting stent. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Scandinavian Organization for Randomized Trials with Clinical Outcome IV (SORT OUT IV) trial was a randomized multicenter, single-blind, all-comer, 2-arm, noninferiority trial comparing the everolimus-eluting stent with the sirolimus-eluting stent in patients with coronary artery disease. The primary end point was a composite of safety (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, definite stent thrombosis) and efficacy (target vessel revascularization) parameters. The noninferiority criterion was a risk difference of 0.015. Intention-to-treat analyses were done at 9- and 18-month follow-ups. A total of 1390 patients were assigned to receive the everolimus-eluting stent and 1384 patients to the sirolimus-eluting stent. At the 9-month follow-up, 68 patients (4.9%) treated with the everolimus-eluting stent compared with 72 patients (5.2%) treated with the sirolimus-eluting stent experienced the primary end point (hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.67-1.31; P for noninferiority=0.01). At the 18-month follow-up, this differential remained: 99 patients (7.2%) treated with the everolimus-eluting stent versus 105 (7.6%) treated with the sirolimus-eluting stent (hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.71-1.23). At the 9-month follow-up, the rate of definite stent thrombosis was higher in the sirolimus-eluting group (2 patients [0.1%] versus 9 patients [0.7%]; hazard ratio, 0.22; 95% confidence interval, 0.05-1.02). At the 18-month follow-up, this difference was sustained (3 patients [0.2%] versus 12 patients [0.9%]; hazard ratio, 0.25; 95% confidence interval, 0.07-0.88). CONCLUSION: The everolimus-eluting stent was found to be noninferior to the sirolimus-eluting stent. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00552877.

Exercise-based real-time telerehabilitation for older patients recently discharged after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: An extended feasibility study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the extended feasibility of a telerehabilitation program and its effects on physical performance in older adults who have recently undergone transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). METHODS: In this single-center feasibility study, patients underwent an eight-week telerehabilitation program, involving web-based home exercise training twice weekly, an activity tracker, access to an informative website, and one online session with a nurse, starting one-week postoperative. Data collection was performed before surgery and three months postoperative. The feasibility of the intervention was based on recruitment and adherence to the program. As a secondary outcome, we evaluated the change in six-minute walk distance from before surgery to three months postoperative. RESULTS: Forty-one patients scheduled for TAVI were assessed for eligibility; 15 patients (37%) were enrolled. Of these, eight were excluded after surgery due to tiredness (n = 2), non-cardiac related hospital readmission (n = 2), fluctuating health (n = 1), death during hospital stay (n = 1), and reduced cognition (n = 2). Seven patients completed the eight-week web-based intervention and were evaluated three months postoperative. Their median (IQR) age was 83 [81, 87] years, and the sample comprised three men and four women. Their walked distance improved from median (IQR) 262 [199, 463] before surgery, to 381 [267, 521] meters three months postoperative. No adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: Web-based telerehabilitation, including supervised exercise training, in older adults who have recently undergone TAVI was feasible for a small number of patients who completed the eight-week intervention. This was reflected in an improvement in their walked distance three months after the surgery. However, the low recruitment and retention rates do question the overall feasibility of this intervention in a frail, older population of post-TAVI patients.

Dual-therapy CD34 antibody-covered sirolimus-eluting COMBO stents versus sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stents in patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention: the three-year outcomes of the SORT OUT X randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Target lesion failure (TLF) remains an issue with contemporary drug-eluting stents. The dual-therapy sirolimus-eluting and CD34 antibody-coated COMBO stent (DTS) was designed to improve early healing. AIMS: We aimed to compare the 3-year outcomes of the DTS and the sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent (SES) in all-comer patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS: The SORT OUT X trial is a prospective multicentre randomised clinical trial with a registry-based follow-up comparing DTS and SES. The primary endpoint, TLF, is a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction or target lesion revascularisation (TLR). RESULTS: A total of 3,146 patients were randomised to treatment with the DTS (1,578 patients) or the SES (1,568 patients). At 3 years, an intention-to-treat analysis showed that 155 patients (9.8%) who were assigned the DTS and 118 patients (7.5%) who were assigned the SES met the primary endpoint (incidence rate ratio for TLF=1.33, 95% confidence interval: 1.04-1.70; p=0.02). This difference was caused by a significantly higher TLF rate in the DTS group compared to the SES group within the first year, which was mainly explained by a higher incidence of TLR in the DTS group compared to the SES group. Of note, the TLF rates were almost identical from 1 year to 3 years in both stent groups. CONCLUSIONS: At 3 years, the SES was superior to the DTS, mainly because the DTS was associated with an increased risk of TLF within the first year but not from 1 to 3 years. CLINICALTRIALS: gov: NCT03216733.

Randomized comparison of final kissing balloon dilatation versus no final kissing balloon dilatation in patients with coronary bifurcation lesions treated with main vessel stenting: the Nordic-Baltic Bifurcation Study III.

BACKGROUND: It is unknown whether the preferred 1-stent bifurcation stenting approach with stenting of the main vessel (MV) and optional side branch stenting using drug-eluting stents should be finalized by a kissing balloon dilatation (FKBD). Therefore, we compared strategies of MV stenting with and without FKBD. METHODS AND RESULTS: We randomized 477 patients with a bifurcation lesion to FKBD (n=238) or no FKBD (n=239) after MV stenting. The primary end point was major adverse cardiac events: cardiac death, non-procedure-related index lesion myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization, or stent thrombosis within 6 months. The 6-month major adverse cardiac event rates were 2.1% and 2.5% (P=1.00) in the FKBD and no-FKBD groups, respectively. Procedure and fluoroscopy times were longer and more contrast media was needed in the FKBD group than in the no-FKBD group. Three hundred twenty-six patients had a quantitative coronary assessment. At 8 months, the rate of binary (re)stenosis in the entire bifurcation lesion (MV and side branch) was 11.0% versus 17.3% (P=0.11), in the MV was 3.1% versus 2.5% (P=0.68), and in the side branch was 7.9% versus 15.4% (P=0.039) in the FKBD versus no-FKBD groups, respectively. In patients with true bifurcation lesions, the side branch restenosis rate was 7.6% versus 20.0% (P=0.024) in the FKBD and no-FKBD groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: MV stenting strategies with and without FKBD were associated with similar clinical outcomes. FKBD reduced angiographic side branch (re)stenosis, especially in patients with true bifurcation lesions. The simple no-FKBD procedures resulted in reduced use of contrast media and shorter procedure and fluoroscopy times. Long-term data on stent thrombosis are needed. Clinical Trial Registration- URL: http://clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00914199.

Exercise-Based Real-time Telerehabilitation for Older Adult Patients Recently Discharged After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: Mixed Methods Feasibility Study.

BACKGROUND: The use of telehealth technology to improve functional recovery following transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has not been investigated. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we aimed to examine the feasibility of exercise-based cardiac telerehabilitation after TAVI. METHODS: This was a single-center, prospective, nonrandomized study using a mixed methods approach. Data collection included testing, researchers' observations, logbooks, and individual patient interviews, which were analyzed using a content analysis approach. The intervention lasted 3 weeks and consisted of home-based web-based exercise training, an activity tracker, a TAVI information website, and 1 web-based session with a nurse. RESULTS: Of the initially included 13 patients, 5 (40%) completed the study and were interviewed; the median age was 82 (range 74-84) years, and the sample comprised 3 men and 2 women. Easy access to supervised exercise training at home with real-time feedback and use of the activity tracker to count daily steps were emphasized by the patients who completed the intervention. Reasons for patients not completing the program included poor data coverage, participants' limited information technology skills, and a lack of functionality in the systems used. No adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Exercise-based telerehabilitation for older people after TAVI, in the population as included in this study, and delivered as a web-based intervention, does not seem feasible, as 60% (8/13) of patients did not complete the study. Those completing the intervention highly appreciated the real-time feedback during the web-based training sessions. Future studies should address aspects that support retention rates and enhance patients' information technology skills.

Perspectives on Participation in a Feasibility Study on Exercise-Based Cardiac Telerehabilitation After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: Qualitative Interview Study Among Patients and Health Professionals.

BACKGROUND: Aortic valve stenosis affects approximately half of people aged ≥85 years, and the recommended surgical treatment for older patients is transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Despite strong evidence for its advantages, low attendance rate in cardiac rehabilitation is observed among patients after TAVI. Cardiac telerehabilitation (CTR) has proven comparable with center-based rehabilitation; however, no study has investigated CTR targeting patients after TAVI. On the basis of participatory design, an exercise-based CTR program (TeleTAVI) was developed, which included a web-based session with a cardiac nurse, a tablet containing an informative website, an activity tracker, and supervised home-based exercise sessions that follow the national recommendations for cardiac rehabilitation. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to explore patients' and health professionals' experiences with using health technologies and participating in the exercise-based CTR program, TeleTAVI. METHODS: This study is a part of a feasibility study and will only report patients' and health professionals' experiences of being a part of TeleTAVI. A total of 11 qualitative interviews were conducted using a semistructured interview guide (n=7, 64% patients and n=4, 36% health professionals). Patient interviews were conducted after 8 weeks of participation in TeleTAVI, and interviews with health professionals were conducted after the end of the program. The analysis was conducted as inductive content analysis to create a condensed meaning presented as themes. RESULTS: Reticence toward using the website was evident with reduced curiosity to explore it, and reduced benefit from using the activity tracker was observed, as the patients' technical competencies were challenged. This was also found when using the tablet for web-based training sessions, leading to patients feeling worried before the training, as they anticipated technical problems. Disadvantages of the TeleTAVI program were technical problems and inability to use hands-on guidance with the patients. However, both physiotherapists and patients reported a feeling of improvement in patients' physical fitness. The home training created a feeling of safety, supported adherence, and made individualization possible, which the patients valued. A good relationship and continuity in the contact with health professionals seemed very important for the patients and affected their positive attitude toward the program. CONCLUSIONS: The home-based nature of the TeleTAVI program seems to provide the opportunity to support individualization, autonomy, independence, and adherence to physical training in addition to improvement in physical capability in older patients. Despite technological challenges, basing the relationship between the health professionals and patients on continuity may be beneficial for patients. Prehabilitation may also be considered, as it may create familiarity toward technology and adherence to the training.

Angiographic outcome in patients treated with deferred stenting after ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction-results from DANAMI-3-DEFER.

AIMS: Stent implantation during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) occasionally results in flow disturbances and distal embolization, which may cause adverse clinical outcomes. Deferred stent implantation seems to reduce the impairment on myocardial function, although the mechanisms have not been clarified. We sought to evaluate whether deferred stenting could reduce flow disturbance in patients treated with primary PCI. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with STEMI included in the DANAMI-3-DEFER trial were randomized to deferred versus immediate stent implantation. The primary and secondary outcomes of this substudy were the incidences of slow/no reflow and distal embolization. A total of 1205 patients were included. Deferred stenting (n = 594) resulted in lower incidences of distal embolization [odds ratio (OR) 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46-0.98, P = 0.040] and slow/no reflow (OR 0.60, 95%CI 0.37-0.97, P = 0.039). In high-risk subgroups, the protective effect was greatest in patients >65 years of age (slow/no reflow: OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.17-0.72, P = 0.004 and distal embolization: OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.18-0.63, P = 0.001), in patients presenting with occluded culprit artery at admission (slow/no reflow: OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.16-0.65, P = 0.001 and distal embolization: OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.31-0.96, P = 0.036) and in patients with thrombus grade >3 (slow/no reflow: OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.20-0.67, P = 0.001 and distal embolization: OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.24-0.64, P < 0.001) with a significant P for interaction for all. CONCLUSION: Deferred stent implantation reduces the incidences of slow/no reflow and distal embolization, especially in older patients and in those with total coronary occlusion or high level of thrombus burden.

Clinical outcomes of no stenting in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing deferred primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

BACKGROUND: ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is treated with stenting, but the underlying stenosis is often not severe, and stenting may potentially be omitted. AIMS: The aim of the study was to investigate outcomes of patients with STEMI treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) without stenting. METHODS: Patients were identified through the DANAMI-3-DEFER study. Stenting was omitted in the patients with stable flow after initial PCI and no significant residual stenosis on the deferral procedure, who were randomised to deferred stenting. These patients were compared to patients randomised to conventional PCI treated with immediate stenting. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, recurrent myocardial infarction (MI), and target vessel revascularisation (TVR). RESULTS: Of 603 patients randomised to deferred stenting, 84 were treated without stenting, and in patients randomised to conventional PCI (n=612), 590 were treated with immediate stenting. Patients treated with no stenting had a median stenosis of 40%, median vessel diameter of 2.9 mm, and median lesion length of 11.4 mm. During a median follow-up of 3.4 years, the composite endpoint occurred in 14% and 16% in the no and immediate stenting groups, respectively (unadjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.48-1.60; p=0.66). The association remained non-significant after adjusting for confounders (adjusted HR 0.53, 95% CI: 0.22-1.24; p=0.14). The rates of TVR and recurrent MI were 2% vs 4% (p=0.70) and 4% vs 6% (p=0.43), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with STEMI, with no significant residual stenosis and stable flow after initial PCI, treated without stenting, had comparable event rates to patients treated with immediate stenting.