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.

Distance to invasive heart centre, performance of acute coronary angiography, and angioplasty and associated outcome in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a nationwide study.

AIMS: To evaluate whether the distance from the site of event to an invasive heart centre, acute coronary angiography (CAG)/percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and hospital-level of care (invasive heart centre vs. local hospital) is associated with survival in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: Nationwide historical follow-up study of 41 186 unselected OHCA patients, in whom resuscitation was attempted between 2001 and 2013, identified through the Danish Cardiac Arrest Registry. We observed an increase in the proportion of patients receiving bystander CPR (18% in 2001, 60% in 2013, P < 0.001), achieving return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) (10% in 2001, 29% in 2013, P < 0.001) and being admitted directly to an invasive centre (26% in 2001, 45% in 2013, P < 0.001). Simultaneously, 30-day survival rose from 5% in 2001 to 12% in 2013, P < 0.001. Among patients achieving ROSC, a larger proportion underwent acute CAG/PCI (5% in 2001, 27% in 2013, P < 0.001). The proportion of patients undergoing acute CAG/PCI annually in each region was defined as the CAG/PCI index. The following variables were associated with lower mortality in multivariable analyses: direct admission to invasive heart centre (HR 0.91, 95% CI: 0.89-0.93), CAG/PCI index (HR 0.33, 95% CI: 0.25-0.45), population density above 2000 per square kilometre (HR 0.94, 95% CI: 0.89-0.98), bystander CPR (HR 0.97, 95% CI: 0.95-0.99) and witnessed OHCA (HR 0.87, 95% CI: 0.85-0.89), whereas distance to the nearest invasive centre was not associated with survival. CONCLUSION: Admission to an invasive heart centre and regional performance of acute CAG/PCI were associated with improved survival in OHCA patients, whereas distance to the invasive centre was not. These results support a centralized strategy for immediate post-resuscitation care in OHCA 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.

Percutaneous coronary angioplasty versus coronary artery bypass grafting in treatment of unprotected left main stenosis (NOBLE): a prospective, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is the standard treatment for revascularisation in patients with left main coronary artery disease, but use of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for this indication is increasing. We aimed to compare PCI and CABG for treatment of left main coronary artery disease. METHODS: In this prospective, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial, patients with left main coronary artery disease were enrolled in 36 centres in northern Europe and randomised 1:1 to treatment with PCI or CABG. Eligible patients had stable angina pectoris, unstable angina pectoris, or non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Exclusion criteria were ST-elevation myocardial infarction within 24 h, being considered too high risk for CABG or PCI, or expected survival of less than 1 year. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (MACCE), a composite of all-cause mortality, non-procedural myocardial infarction, any repeat coronary revascularisation, and stroke. Non-inferiority of PCI to CABG required the lower end of the 95% CI not to exceed a hazard ratio (HR) of 1·35 after up to 5 years of follow-up. The intention-to-treat principle was used in the analysis if not specified otherwise. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, number NCT01496651. FINDINGS: Between Dec 9, 2008, and Jan 21, 2015, 1201 patients were randomly assigned, 598 to PCI and 603 to CABG, and 592 in each group entered analysis by intention to treat. Kaplan-Meier 5 year estimates of MACCE were 29% for PCI (121 events) and 19% for CABG (81 events), HR 1·48 (95% CI 1·11-1·96), exceeding the limit for non-inferiority, and CABG was significantly better than PCI (p=0·0066). As-treated estimates were 28% versus 19% (1·55, 1·18-2·04, p=0·0015). Comparing PCI with CABG, 5 year estimates were 12% versus 9% (1·07, 0·67-1·72, p=0·77) for all-cause mortality, 7% versus 2% (2·88, 1·40-5·90, p=0·0040) for non-procedural myocardial infarction, 16% versus 10% (1·50, 1·04-2·17, p=0·032) for any revascularisation, and 5% versus 2% (2·25, 0·93-5·48, p=0·073) for stroke. INTERPRETATION: The findings of this study suggest that CABG might be better than PCI for treatment of left main stem coronary artery disease. FUNDING: Biosensors, Aarhus University Hospital, and participating sites.

Long-term prognosis of patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction according to coronary arteries atherosclerosis extent on coronary angiography: a historical cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) without obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) are often managed differently than those with obstructive CAD, therefore we aimed in this study to examine the long-term prognosis of patients with NSTEMI according to the degree of CAD on coronary angiography (CAG). METHODS: We examined 8.889 consecutive patients admitted for first time NSTEMI during 2000-2011, to whom CAG was performed. Patients were classified by CAG into: 0-vessel disease (0VD), diffuse atherosclerosis (DA) (0% < stenosis <50%), 1-vessel disease (1VD), 2VD, and 3VD with stenosis ≥50%. Follow-up period: 13 years (median 4.5). RESULTS: One-year mortality for NSTEMI patients with 0VD was 3.7%, DA 5.7%, 1VD 2.5%, 2VD 4.8%, and 3VD 11.5%. Non-diabetic 0VD patients had higher risk of mortality than 1VD patients (HR:1.59; 95% CI:1.21-2.02; P < 0.001), while those with diabetes mellitus (DM) had not significantly different risk. In addition 0VD group had higher risk of heart failure (HF) (HR 1.61; 95% CI: 1.39-1.88; P < 0.001), and lower risk of recurrent MI (HR:0.55; 95% CI:0.39-0.77; P < 0.001) compared with 1VD. For patients with DA; mortality and HF risks were higher than 1VD and not different than 2VD, while recurrent MI risk was not different than 1VD and lower than 2VD. Finally, the DA group had higher risk of mortality if they had DM, higher risk of recurrent MI, and not different risk of HF and stroke compared with the 0VD group patients. CONCLUSION: Patients with NSTEMI and non-obstructive CAD (both normal coronaries and diffuse atherosclerosis) have a comparable prognosis to patients with one- or two-vessel disease. Patients with diffuse atherosclerosis have worse prognosis than those with angiographically normal coronary arteries.

Coronary bifurcation lesions treated with simple or complex stenting: 5-year survival from patient-level pooled analysis of the Nordic Bifurcation Study and the British Bifurcation Coronary Study.

AIMS: Randomized trials of coronary bifurcation stenting have shown better outcomes from a simple (provisional) strategy rather than a complex (planned two-stent) strategy in terms of short-term efficacy and safety. Here, we report the 5-year all-cause mortality based on pooled patient-level data from two large bifurcation coronary stenting trials with similar methodology: the Nordic Bifurcation Study (NORDIC I) and the British Bifurcation Coronary Study: old, new, and evolving strategies (BBC ONE). METHODS AND RESULTS: Both multicentre randomized trials compared simple (provisional T-stenting) vs. complex (culotte, crush, and T-stenting) techniques, using drug-eluting stents. We analysed all-cause death at 5 years. Data were collected from phone follow-up, hospital records, and national mortality tracking. Follow-up was complete for 890 out of 913 patients (97%). Both Simple and Complex groups were similar in terms of patient and lesion characteristics. Five-year mortality was lower among patients who underwent a simple strategy rather than a complex strategy [17 patients (3.8%) vs. 31 patients (7.0%); P = 0.04]. CONCLUSION: For coronary bifurcation lesions, a provisional single-stent approach appears to be associated with lower long-term mortality than a systematic dual stenting technique.

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.

Incidence and impact on prognosis of peri-procedural myocardial infarction in 2760 elective patients with stable angina pectoris in a historical prospective follow-up study.

BACKGROUND: The clinical significance of myocardial infarction related to treatment with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has been subject of great discussion. This subject has been studied for many years using different definitions of peri-procedural myocardial infarction and different biomarkers, the results have varied greatly depending on methods and time of the study. This study was to determine the incidence and prognostic significance of elevated cardiac biomarkers after elective PCI in patients with stable angina pectoris using the current cut-off set by the Third Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction and current biomarkers. METHODS: We performed a historical prospective follow-up study of all patients with stable angina pectoris who underwent elective PCI at Aalborg University Hospital, Denmark from January 1(st) 2000 to December 31(st) 2012. We stratified patients according to peak post-PCI troponin T (cTnT) and Creatine Kinase MB mass (CK-MBmass). RESULTS: Follow-up for time to all-cause mortality was mean 5.8 years and total 15,891 years and mean 3.7 years and total 10,160 years for the combined endpoint of all-cause mortality and new onset heart failure. During the follow up period 399 of 2760 patients died (14.5 %) and 1095 (39.7 %) suffered the combined endpoint. Post-PCI concentration of cTnT and CK-MBmass was elevated above the defined cut-off in 419 patients (15.2 %) and 113 patients (4.1 %) respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in stratified analysis of the hazard rates by time regarding all-cause mortality for cTnT nor CK-MBmass. Regarding the combined endpoint the results were ambiguous. The results were unchanged in multivariable analyses that included age and gender. CONCLUSION: The incidence of elevated biomarkers after elective PCI in patients with stable angina pectoris using the defined cut-off (>5 x URL) was 15.2 % using cTnT and 4.1 % using CK-MBmass. The independent prognostic value for both cardiac biomarkers of any cut-off showed no statistical significance for all-cause mortality, whereas the combined endpoint (all-cause mortality or new-onset heart failure) were ambiguous in both short- and long-term follow-up.

Effect of remote ischaemic conditioning on clinical outcomes in patients presenting with an ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

The rationale and study design for the multicentre, randomized, controlled CONDI2/ERIC-PPCI study are discussed.

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.

Randomized comparison of a sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent with a biolimus-eluting Nobori stent in patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention: Rationale and study design of the Scandinavian Organization for Randomized Trials with Clinical Outcome VII trial.

BACKGROUND: Third-generation coronary drug-eluting stents (DES) with biodegradable polymers have been designed to improve safety and efficacy. We designed a large scale registry-based randomized clinical trial to compare 2 third-generation DES: a thin strut, cobalt-chromium DES with silicon carbide-coating releasing sirolimus from a biodegradable polymer (O-SES, Orsiro; Biotronik, Bülach, Switzerland) with the stainless steel biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting Nobori stents (N-BES, Nobori; Terumo, Tokyo, Japan) in an all-comer patient population. DESIGN: The multicenter SORT OUT VII trial (NCT01879358) randomly assigned 2,530 patients to treatment with biodegradable polymer O-SES or biodegradable polymer N-BES at 3 sites in Western Denmark. Patients were eligible, if they were ≥18 years old; had chronic stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes; and ≥1 coronary lesion with >50% diameter stenosis, requiring treatment with a DES. The primary end point target lesion failure is a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (not related to other than index lesion), or target lesion revascularization within 12 months. Clinically, driven event detection based on Danish registries will be used. An event rate of 6.5% is assumed in each stent group. With a sample size of 1,157 patients in each treatment arm, a 2-group large-sample normal approximation test of proportions with a 1-sided 5% significance level will have 90% power to detect noninferiority of the O-SES compared with the N-BES with a predetermined noninferiority margin of 3.0%. CONCLUSION: The SORT OUT VII trial will determine whether the biodegradable polymers O-SES is noninferior to the N-BES with respect to driven event.

A 10-month angiographic and 4-year clinical outcome of everolimus-eluting versus sirolimus-eluting coronary stents in patients with diabetes mellitus (the DiabeDES IV randomized angiography trial).

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare angiographic and clinical outcomes after the implantation of everolimus-eluting (EES) and sirolimus-eluting (SES) stents in patients with diabetes. BACKGROUND: There are limited data on long-term outcome after EES vs SES implantation in diabetic patients. METHODS: We randomized 213 patients with diabetes and coronary artery disease to EES (n = 108) or SES (n = 105) implantation. Angiographic follow-up was performed 10 months after the index procedure and all patients were followed clinically for 4 years. The primary endpoint was angiographic in-stent late luminal loss at 10-month follow-up. Secondary endpoints included angiographic restenosis rate, the need for target lesion revascularization (TLR) and major adverse cardiac events (MACE; defined as cardiac death, myocardial infarction, definite stent thrombosis, or TLR) at 4-year follow-up. RESULTS: At 10-month angiographic follow-up, in-stent late lumen loss was 0.20 ± 0.53 mm and 0.11 ± 0.49 mm (P = 0.28), and angiographic restenosis rate was 3.8% and 5.2% (P = 0.72) in the EES and SES groups, respectively. At 4-year clinical follow-up, MACE had occurred in 22 (20.4%) patients in the EES group and 25 (23.8%) patients in SES group (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.47-1.49; P = 0.55), with TLR performed in 6 (5.6%) and 10 (9.5%) patients in the two groups (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.21-1-58; P = 0.28). CONCLUSION: EES and SES had comparable 10-month angiographic and 4-year clinical outcomes in patients with diabetes mellitus and coronary artery disease.

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).

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.

Do laboratories follow heart failure recommendations and guidelines and did we improve? The CARdiac MArker Guideline Uptake in Europe (CARMAGUE).

BACKGROUND: Natriuretic peptides (NP) are well-established markers of heart failure (HF). During the past 5 years, analytical and clinical recommendations for measurement of these biomarkers have been published in guidelines. The aim of this follow-up survey was to investigate how well these guidelines for measurement of NP have been implemented in laboratory practice in Europe. METHODS: Member societies of the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine were invited in 2009 to participate in a web-based audit questionnaire. The questionnaire requested information on type of tests performed, decision limits for HF, turn-around time and frequency of testing. RESULTS: There was a moderate increase (12%) of laboratories measuring NP compared to the initial survey in 2006. The most frequently used HF decision limits for B-type NP (BNP) and N-terminal BNP (NT-proBNP) were, respectively, 100 ng/L and 125 ng/L, derived from the package inserts in 55%. Fifty laboratories used a second decision limit. Age or gender dependent decision limits were applied in 10% (8.5% in 2006). The vast majority of laboratories (80%) did not have any criteria regarding frequency of testing, compared to 33% in 2006. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of NP measurement for HF management was a slow process between 2006 and 2009 at a time when guidelines had just been established. The decision limits were derived from package insert information and literature. There was great uncertainty concerning frequency of testing which may reflect the debate about the biological variability which was not published for most of the assays in 2009.

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.

Zotarolimus-eluting vs. sirolimus-eluting coronary stents in patients with and without acute coronary syndromes: a SORT OUT III substudy.

OBJECTIVES: To compare clinical outcomes among patients with acute coronary syndrome treated with zotarolimus-eluting and sirolimus-eluting stents in the SORT OUT III trial. BACKGROUND: Currently, only limited data allow direct comparison of clinical outcomes among patients with acute coronary syndrome treated with a second-generation drug-eluting stent (DES) eluting zotarolimus vs. a first-generation DES eluting sirolimus. METHODS: Patients with acute coronary syndrome (n=1052) were randomized to treatment with zotarolimus-eluting (n=506) or sirolimus-eluting (n=546) stents and followed for 18 months. The primary composite endpoint, major adverse cardiac events (MACE), was defined as a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction or target vessel revascularization. RESULTS: Zotarolimus-eluting stent treatment compared to sirolimus-eluting stent treatment was associated with increased rates of MACE (8·7% vs. 5·0%; hazard ratio (HR), 1·78; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1·10-2·88; P=0·02) and TVR (6·8% vs. 3·9%; HR, 1·77; 95% CI, 1·03-3·04; P=0·04), while all-cause death, cardiac death, myocardial infarction and definite stent thrombosis did not differ significantly. In the same trial, stable angina pectoris patients (n=1206) were randomized to zotarolimus-eluting (n=614) and sirolimus-eluting (n=592) stents with similar results. CONCLUSIONS: With and without acute coronary syndromes, patients treated with the sirolimus-eluting stent had better clinical outcomes than those treated with the zotarolimus-eluting stent.

Clinical outcomes after treatment of multiple lesions with zotarolimus-eluting versus sirolimus-eluting coronary stents (a SORT OUT III substudy).

BACKGROUND: Data on clinical outcomes among patients treated with the zotarolimus-eluting Endeavor™ stent versus the sirolimus-eluting Cypher™ stent favor the sirolimus-eluting stent. However, a separate comparison of clinical outcome among patients treated for multiple lesions with these stents is lacking. We performed this comparison within the SORT OUT III trial data set. METHODS: Among 2332 patients randomized in SORT OUT III, 695 were treated for multiple lesions with zotarolimus-eluting (n = 350) or sirolimus-eluting (n = 345) stents and followed for 18 months. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE); composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization (TVR); was the primary endpoint. RESULTS: Zotarolimus-eluting compared to sirolimus-eluting stent treatment was associated with increased MACE rate (13.2% vs. 2.6%; hazard ratio 5.29 with 95% confidence interval: 2.59-10.8). All secondary endpoints; all cause death, cardiac death, myocardial infarction, TVR, target lesion revascularization, in-stent restenosis, and definite stent thrombosis; were observed more frequently among zotarolimus-eluting stent treated patients. For all endpoints, hazard ratios were 1.6 to 4.6 times higher than in the overall results of the SORT OUT III trial. CONCLUSIONS: We observed better clinical outcomes among patients treated for multiple lesions with the sirolimus-eluting stent compared to those treated with the zotarolimus-eluting stent.

Efficacy and safety of zotarolimus-eluting and sirolimus-eluting coronary stents in routine clinical care (SORT OUT III): a randomised controlled superiority trial.

BACKGROUND: In low-risk patients, the zotarolimus-eluting stent has been shown to reduce rates of restenosis without increasing the risk of stent thrombosis. We compared the efficacy and safety of the zotarolimus-eluting stent versus the sirolimus-eluting stent in patients with coronary artery disease who were receiving routine clinical care with no direct follow-up. METHODS: We did a single-blind, all-comer superiority trial in adult patients with chronic stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes, and at least one target lesion. Patients were treated at one of five percutaneous coronary intervention centres between January, 2006, and August, 2007. Computer-generated block randomisation and a telephone allocation service were used to randomly assign patients to receive the zotarolimus-eluting or the sirolimus-eluting stent. Data for follow-up were obtained from national Danish administrative and health-care registries. The primary endpoint was a composite of major adverse cardiac events within 9 months: cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularisation. Intention-to-treat analyses were done at 9-month and 18-month follow-up. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00660478. FINDINGS: 1162 patients (1619 lesions) were assigned to receive the zotarolimus-eluting stent, and 1170 patients (1611 lesions) to receive the sirolimus-eluting stent. 67 patients (72 lesions) had stent failure, and six patients were lost to follow-up. All randomly assigned patients were included in analyses at 9-month follow-up; 2200 patients (94%) had completed 18-month follow-up by the time of our assessment. At 9 months, the primary endpoint had occurred in a higher proportion of patients treated with the zotarolimus-eluting stent than in those treated with the sirolimus-eluting stent (72 [6%] vs 34 [3%]; HR 2.15, 95% CI 1.43-3.23; p=0.0002). At 18-month follow-up, this difference was sustained (113 [10%] vs 53 [5%]; 2.19, 1.58-3.04; p<0.0001). For patients receiving the zotarolimus-eluting stent and those receiving the sirolimus-eluting stent, all cause-mortality was similar at 9-month follow-up (25 [2%] vs 18 [2%]; 1.40, 0.76-2.56; p=0.28), but was significantly different at 18-month follow-up (51 [4%] vs 32 [3%]; 1.61, 1.03-2.50; p=0.035). INTERPRETATION: The sirolimus-eluting stent is superior to the zotarolimus-eluting stent for patients receiving routine clinical care. FUNDING: Cordis and Medtronic.