Biomarkers for risk stratification of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention: Insights from the Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes trial.

BACKGROUND: The incremental prognostic value of admission measurements of biomarkers beyond clinical characteristics and extent of coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is unclear. METHODS: Centrally analyzed plasma for biomarker measurements was available in 5,385 of the STEMI patients treated with PPCI in the PLATO trial. Extent of CAD was graded by operators in association with PPCI. We evaluated the prognostic value of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), and growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF-15) beyond clinical characteristics and extent of CAD using Cox proportional hazards analyses, C-index, and net reclassification improvement (NRI). Outcomes were cardiovascular death (CVD) and spontaneous myocardial infarction (MI). RESULTS: Angiographic data on extent of CAD improved the prediction of CVD compared to clinical risk factors alone, increasing the C-index from 0.760 to 0.778, total NRI of 0.31. Biomarker information provided additional prognostic value for CVD beyond clinical risk factors and extent of CAD, C-indices ranging from 0.792 to 0.795 for all biomarkers, but with a higher NRI for NT-proBNP. Extent of CAD and high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T were not associated with spontaneous MI. The prediction of spontaneous MI beyond clinical characteristics and extent of CAD (C-index 0.647) was improved by both NT-proBNP (C-index 0.663, NRI 0.22) and GDF-15 (C-index 0.652, NRI 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Biomarker measurement on admission is feasible and provides incremental risk stratification in patients with STEMI treated with PPCI, with NT-proBNP and GDF-15 being most valuable due to the association with both CVD and spontaneous MI.

Safety and efficacy of everolimus- versus sirolimus-eluting stents: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 11 randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: While EES have proven superior to paclitaxel-eluting stents, it remains uncertain whether EES improve clinical outcomes compared to SES, which are the most efficacious among the first-generation drug-eluting stents. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing the efficacy and safety of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) versus sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS: From online and offline search until December 2011, we identified 11 randomized trials (total 12,869 patients). The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events. RESULTS: The risk of major adverse cardiac events did not differ significantly between the patients treated with EES versus SES [OR, 0.90 (95% CI, 0.77-1.04); P = .162]. However, we found a significant reduction in the risk of repeat revascularization in the EES arm [OR, 0.85 (95% CI, 0.71-1.00); P = .047]. There were no significant differences regarding the risk of cardiac death [OR, 0.97 (95% CI, 0.74-1.27); P = .834], or myocardial infarction [OR, 0.95 (95% CI, 0.75-1.20), P = .656]. The risk of definite or probable stent thrombosis tended to be lower [OR, 0.68 (95% CI, 0.45-1.02); P = .065], while definite ST was significantly lower [OR, 0.44 (95% CI, 0.25-0.80); P = .007] with EES. CONCLUSIONS: In a large systematic overview of comparative trials involving percutaneous revascularization with drug-eluting stents, treatment with EES significantly reduced the risk of repeat revascularization and definite ST compared to SES. We found no significant differences in the risk of cardiac death or myocardial infarction.

The incidence and relevance of site-reported vs. patient-reported angina: insights from the ABSORB II randomized trial comparing Absorb everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold with XIENCE everolimus-eluting metallic stent.

AIMS: In the ABSORB II trial, comparing Absorb™ bioresorbable vascular scaffold with metallic XIENCE™ everolimus-eluting stent (EES), a difference was found in site-reported new or worsening angina using adverse event (AE) reporting. However, the clinical relevance of this site-reported angina is unclear. The aim of the present study was therefore to investigate the clinical relevance of site-reported angina by evaluating its relation with cardiac endpoints, cardiovascular resource utilization (including diagnostics and treatment), positive exercise stress tolerance tests (ETTs), and Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ). METHODS AND RESULTS: Site-reported new or worsening angina was captured on cardiac AE forms. There was a wide variation in the total number of days with site-reported angina (overall interquartile range 35-279 days). Patients with site-reported angina showed higher rates of cardiovascular events [including the patient-oriented composite endpoint of all deaths, all myocardial infarctions (MI), or all revascularizations (21.1 vs. 4.2%, P < 0.0001), all MIs (2.3 vs. 0%, P = 0.03), and all revascularizations (21.1 vs. 0.7%, P < 0.0001)], cardiovascular resource utilization (including stress tests, anti-anginal medication, diagnostic angiographies, and hospitalization), and positive ETTs (51.9 vs. 14.9%, P < 0.001), compared with those without site-reported angina. Furthermore, an event-based analysis of the SAQ showed that patients with ongoing angina within the recall period of 4 weeks prior to the SAQ assessment have clinically and statistically significant decrements of >14 points in SAQ scores compared with those with no reported angina. CONCLUSIONS: We showed that the site-reported angina through AE reporting may be clinically relevant because of their relation with cardiovascular events (mostly repeat revascularizations), cardiovascular resource utilization, ETT, and SAQ. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01425281; Unique identifier: NCT01425281.

Long-term follow-up of second-generation everolimus-eluting stents versus first-generation sirolimus-eluting stents in acute myocardial infarction: three-year results of the XAMI trial.

AIMS: Evaluation of the long-term safety and efficacy of second-generation everolimus-eluting stents (EES) versus first-generation sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: Six hundred and twenty-five patients were randomised (2:1) to EES or SES in the multicentre XAMI (XienceV stent vs. Cypher stent in Primary PCI for Acute Myocardial Infarction) trial. The primary endpoint was cardiac death, non-fatal AMI or any target vessel revascularisation (TVR) at one year, with a planned follow-up of three years. At three-year follow-up, the primary endpoint was 8.0% for EES and 10.5% for SES (p=0.30). Cardiac death was low and comparable in both groups (EES: 2.5% versus SES: 2.7%; p=0.86), as was definite/probable stent thrombosis (EES: 2.3% versus SES 3.2%; p=0.60). CONCLUSIONS: The event rate at three years in this all-comer, randomised, multicentre AMI trial was low, including stent thrombosis, with no significant difference between first- and second-generation DES. Registration of trial:http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=1123 Candidate number: 2869; NTR number: NTR1123.

Two-year results of an open-label randomized comparison of everolimus-eluting stents and sirolimus-eluting stents.

BACKGROUND: Second generation drug-eluting stents were developed to improve the safety and efficacy of first generation stents. So far, limited long term randomized data exist comparing the second generation everolimus-eluting stents (EES) with first generation sirolimus-eluting stents (SES). METHODS: A prospective, open-label, randomized, single center trial comparing EES and SES in all-comer patients. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiac mortality, myocardial infarction and target vessel revascularization. Secondary endpoints included individual components of the composite, along with target lesion revascularization and stent thrombosis. RESULTS: In total, 977 patients were randomized, of which 498 patients to EES and 479 to SES. Average age was 65.2 ± 11.2 years and 71.6% of the population was male. Fifty percent of patients were treated for acute coronary syndrome, more often for ST-elevation myocardial infarctions in EES patients (13.7% vs. 9.2% in SES). In contrast, SES patients more often had prior interventions and showed more calcified lesions. Two-year follow-up was available in 98% of patients. The primary endpoint occurred in 10.7% of EES patients compared to 10.6% of SES patients (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.68-1.48). Additionally, secondary endpoints were similar between groups. The rate of stent thrombosis was low for both stent types. CONCLUSION: In this all-comer population, there were no differences in endpoints between EES and SES during two-year follow-up. Stent thrombosis rates were low, supporting the safety of drug-eluting stent appliance in clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: TrialRegister.nl NTR3170.

Influence of gender on ischemic times and outcomes after ST-elevation myocardial infarction.

Previous studies investigating the influence of gender on ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction have reported conflicting results. The aim of this study was to assess the influence of gender on ischemic times and outcomes after ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction in patients treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention in modern practice. The present multicenter registry included consecutive patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarctions treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention at 3 hospitals. Adjusted mortality rates were calculated using Cox proportional-hazards analyses. In total, 3,483 patients were included, of whom 868 were women (25%). Women were older, had a higher risk factor burden, and more frequently had histories of malignancy. Men more often had cardiac histories and peripheral vascular disease. Ischemic times were longer in women (median 192 minutes [interquartile range 141 to 286] vs 175 minutes [interquartile range 128 to 279] in men, p = 0.002). However, multivariate linear regression showed that this was due to age and co-morbidity. All-cause mortality was higher at 7 days (6.0% in women vs 3.0% in men, p <0.001) and at 1 year (9.9% in women vs 6.6% in men, p = 0.001). After adjustment, female gender predicted 7 day all-cause mortality (hazard ratio 1.61, 95% confidence interval 1.06 to 2.46) and cardiac mortality (hazard ratio 1.58, 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 2.42) but not 1-year mortality. Moreover, gender was an independent effect modifier for cardiogenic shock, leading to substantially worse outcomes in women. In conclusion, ischemic times remain longer in women because of age and co-morbidity. Female gender independently predicted early all-cause and cardiac mortality after primary percutaneous coronary intervention, and a strong interaction between gender and cardiogenic shock was observed.

Outcome after ST elevation myocardial infarction in patients with cancer treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

The simultaneous occurrence of cancer and coronary heart disease is increasing in the Western world. Nevertheless, the influence of cancer on ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has not been investigated extensively. This multicenter registry included patients with STEMI treated with primary PCI from 2006 to 2009. Patients were stratified according to history of cancer, and primary focus lay on all-cause and cardiac mortalities during 1-year follow-up. Adjusted effect sizes were calculated using Cox proportional hazard models. In total, 208 patients had a history of cancer (diagnosed ≤6 months ago in 20.7%, 6 months to 3 years ago in 21.7%, and >3 years ago in 57.6%) and 3,215 patients had no history of cancer. Chemotherapy had been administered previously to 23% of patients with cancer. Patients with cancer were older, more frequently women, and more commonly known with previous myocardial infarction or anemia. Reperfusion rates were similar after PCI. Patients with cancer showed greater all-cause (17.4% vs 6.5% in other patients) and cardiac mortalities at 1 year (10.7% vs 5.4% in other patients) because of high early cardiac death (23.8%) in recently diagnosed patients with cancer. After adjustment, a recent cancer diagnosis predicted cardiac mortality at 7 days (hazard ratio 3.34, 95% confidence interval 1.57 to 7.08). The adverse prognosis was partly explained by anemia and occurrence of cardiogenic shock, whereas outcome was independent of cancer treatment. In conclusion, patients with cancer showed greater mortality after STEMI. A cancer diagnosis in the 6 months before primary PCI was strongly associated with early cardiac mortality.

Second-generation everolimus-eluting stents versus first-generation sirolimus-eluting stents in acute myocardial infarction. 1-year results of the randomized XAMI (XienceV Stent vs. Cypher Stent in Primary PCI for Acute Myocardial Infarction) trial.

OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of second-generation everolimus-eluting stents (EES) with first-generation sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) in primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute myocardial infarction (AMI). BACKGROUND: Drug-eluting stents (DES) in AMI are still feared for possible late and very late stent thrombosis (ST). Newer-generation DES, with more hemocompatible polymers and improved healing, may show promise regarding increased efficacy of DES with improved safety. However, no randomized trials in AMI are available. METHODS: A total of 625 patients with AMI were randomized (2:1) to receive EES or SES in the XAMI (XienceV Stent vs Cypher Stent in Primary PCI for Acute Myocardial Infarction) trial. Primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 1 year consisting of cardiac death, nonfatal AMI, or any target vessel revascularization. The study was powered for noninferiority of EES. Secondary endpoints comprised ST rates and MACE rate up to 3 years. RESULTS: The MACE rate was 4.0% for EES and 7.7% for SES; the absolute difference was -3.7% (95% confidence interval: -8.28 to -0.03; p = 0.048) and relative risk was 0.52 (95% confidence interval: 0.27 to 1.00). One-year cardiac mortality was low at 1.5% for EES versus 2.7% for SES (p = 0.36), and 1-year incidence of definite and/or probable ST was 1.2% for EES versus 2.7% for SES (p = 0.21). CONCLUSIONS: In this all-comer, randomized, multicenter AMI trial, second-generation EES was noninferior to SES, and superiority for MACE was suggested. ST rate in EES at 1-year was low, but long-term follow-up and larger studies will have to show whether very late ST rates will also be improved in newer DES. (XienceV Stent vs Cypher Stent in Primary PCI for Acute Myocardial Infarction [XAMI]; NTR1123).

The impact of patient and lesion complexity on clinical and angiographic outcomes after revascularization with zotarolimus- and everolimus-eluting stents: a substudy of the RESOLUTE All Comers Trial (a randomized comparison of a zotarolimus-eluting stent with an everolimus-eluting stent for percutaneous coronary intervention).

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of patient and lesion complexity on outcomes with newer-generation zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZES) and everolimus-eluting stents (EES). BACKGROUND: Clinical and angiographic outcomes of newer-generation stents have not been described among complex patients. METHODS: Patients enrolled in the RESOLUTE All Comers trial (A Randomized Comparison of a Zotarolimus-Eluting Stent With an Everolimus-Eluting Stent for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) were stratified into "complex" and "simple." RESULTS: Of 2,292 patients, 1,520 (66.3%) were complex and treated with ZES (n = 764) or EES (n = 756). Event rates were higher among complex patients, and results did not differ between ZES and EES, regardless of complexity. At 1 year, target lesion failure was 8.9% in ZES- and 9.7% in EES-treated complex patients (p = 0.66) and 6.8% in ZES- and 5.7% in EES-treated simple patients (p = 0.55). Rates of cardiac death (1.3% vs. 2.2%, p = 0.24), target-vessel myocardial infarction (4.3% vs. 4.4%, p = 0.90), and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization (4.4% vs. 4.0%, p = 0.80) were similar for both stent types among complex patients. Definite or probable stent thrombosis occurred in 20 (1.3%) complex patients with no difference between ZES (1.7%) and EES (0.9%, p = 0.26). Angiographic follow-up showed similar results for ZES and EES in terms of in-stent percentage diameter stenosis (22.2 ± 15.4% vs. 21.4 ± 15.8%, p = 0.67) and in-segment binary restenosis (6.6% vs. 8.0%, p = 0.82) in the complex group. CONCLUSIONS: In this all-comers randomized trial, major adverse cardiovascular events were more frequent among complex than simple patients. The newer-generation ZES and EES proved to be safe and effective, regardless of complexity, with similar clinical and angiographic outcomes for both stent types through 1 year. (RESOLUTE-III All Comers Trial: A Randomized Comparison of a Zotarolimus-Eluting Stent With an Everolimus-Eluting Stent for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention; NCT00617084).