First generation versus second generation drug-eluting stents for the treatment of bifurcations: 5-year follow-up of the LEADERS all-comers randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Historically, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of bifurcation lesions was associated with worse procedural and clinical outcomes when compared with PCI of non-bifurcation lesions. Newer generation drug-eluting stents (DES) might improve long-term clinical outcomes after bifurcation PCI. METHODS AND RESULTS: The LEADERS trial was a 10-center, assessor-blind, non-inferiority, all-comers trial, randomizing 1,707 patients to treatment with a biolimus A9(TM) -eluting stent (BES) with an abluminal biodegradable polymer or a sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) with a durable polymer (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00389220). Five-year clinical outcomes were compared between patients with and without bifurcation lesions and between BES and SES in the bifurcation lesion subgroup. There were 497 (29%) patients with at least 1 bifurcation lesion (BES = 258; SES = 239). At 5-year follow-up, the composite endpoint of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI) and clinically-indicated (CI) target vessel revascularization (TVR) was observed more frequently in the bifurcation group (26.6% vs. 22.4%, P = 0.049). Within the bifurcation lesion subgroup, no differences were observed in (cardiac) death or MI rates between BES and SES. However, CI target lesion revascularization (TLR) (10.1% vs. 15.9%, P = 0.0495), and CI TVR (12.0% vs. 19.2%, P = 0.023) rates were significantly lower in the BES group. Definite/probable stent thrombosis (ST) rate was numerically lower in the BES group (3.1% vs. 5.9%, P = 0.15). Very late (>1 year) definite/probable ST rates trended to be lower with BES (0.4% vs. 3.1%, P = 0.057). CONCLUSIONS: In the treatment of bifurcation lesions, use of BES led to superior long-term efficacy compared with SES. Safety outcomes were comparable between BES and SES, with an observed trend toward a lower rate of very late definite/probable ST between 1 and 5 years with the BES. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Comparison of zotarolimus-eluting and everolimus-eluting coronary stents.

BACKGROUND: New-generation coronary stents that release zotarolimus or everolimus have been shown to reduce the risk of restenosis. However, it is unclear whether there are differences in efficacy and safety between the two types of stents on the basis of prospectively adjudicated end points endorsed by the Food and Drug Administration. METHODS: In this multicenter, noninferiority trial with minimal exclusion criteria, we randomly assigned 2292 patients to undergo treatment with coronary stents releasing either zotarolimus or everolimus. Twenty percent of patients were randomly selected for repeat angiography at 13 months. The primary end point was target-lesion failure, defined as a composite of death from cardiac causes, any myocardial infarction (not clearly attributable to a nontarget vessel), or clinically indicated target-lesion revascularization within 12 months. The secondary angiographic end point was the extent of in-stent stenosis at 13 months. RESULTS: At least one off-label criterion for stent placement was present in 66% of patients. The zotarolimus-eluting stent was noninferior to the everolimus-eluting stent with respect to the primary end point, which occurred in 8.2% and 8.3% of patients, respectively (P<0.001 for noninferiority). There were no significant between-group differences in the rate of death from cardiac causes, any myocardial infarction, or revascularization. The rate of stent thrombosis was 2.3% in the zotarolimus-stent group and 1.5% in the everolimus-stent group (P=0.17). The zotarolimus-eluting stent was also noninferior regarding the degree (+/-SD) of in-stent stenosis (21.65+/-14.42% for zotarolimus vs. 19.76+/-14.64% for everolimus, P=0.04 for noninferiority). In-stent late lumen loss was 0.27+/-0.43 mm in the zotarolimus-stent group versus 0.19+/-0.40 mm in the everolimus-stent group (P=0.08). There were no significant between-group differences in the rate of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: At 13 months, the new-generation zotarolimus-eluting stent was found to be noninferior to the everolimus-eluting stent in a population of patients who had minimal exclusion criteria. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00617084.)

Long-term clinical outcomes of biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stents versus durable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents in patients with coronary artery disease (LEADERS): 4 year follow-up of a randomised non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of durable polymer drug-eluting stents comes at the expense of delayed arterial healing and subsequent late adverse events such as stent thrombosis (ST). We report the 4 year follow-up of an assessment of biodegradable polymer-based drug-eluting stents, which aim to improve safety by avoiding the persistent inflammatory stimulus of durable polymers. METHODS: We did a multicentre, assessor-masked, non-inferiority trial. Between Nov 27, 2006, and May 18, 2007, patients aged 18 years or older with coronary artery disease were randomly allocated with a computer-generated sequence to receive either biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stents (BES) or durable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (SES; 1:1 ratio). The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or clinically-indicated target vessel revascularisation (TVR); patients were followed-up for 4 years. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00389220. FINDINGS: 1707 patients with 2472 lesions were randomly allocated to receive either biodegradable polymer BES (857 patients, 1257 lesions) or durable polymer SES (850 patients, 1215 lesions). At 4 years, biodegradable polymer BES were non-inferior to durable polymer SES for the primary endpoint: 160 (18·7%) patients versus 192 (22·6%) patients (rate ratios [RR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·66-1·00, p for non-inferiority <0·0001, p for superiority=0·050). The RR of definite ST was 0·62 (0·35-1·08, p=0·09), which was largely attributable to a lower risk of very late definite ST between years 1 and 4 in the BES group than in the SES group (RR 0·20, 95% CI 0·06-0·67, p=0·004). Conversely, the RR of definite ST during the first year was 0·99 (0·51-1·95; p=0·98) and the test for interaction between RR of definite ST and time was positive (p(interaction)=0·017). We recorded an interaction with time for events associated with ST but not for other events. For primary endpoint events associated with ST, the RR was 0·86 (0·41-1·80) during the first year and 0·17 (0·04-0·78) during subsequent years (p(interaction)=0·049). INTERPRETATION: Biodegradable polymer BES are non-inferior to durable polymer SES and, by reducing the risk of cardiac events associated with very late ST, might improve long-term clinical outcomes for up to 4 years compared with durable polymer SES. FUNDING: Biosensors Europe SA, Switzerland.

Biolimus-eluting stent with biodegradable polymer versus sirolimus-eluting stent with durable polymer for coronary revascularisation (LEADERS): a randomised non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: A novel stent platform eluting biolimus, a sirolimus analogue, from a biodegradable polymer showed promising results in preliminary studies. We compared the safety and efficacy of a biolimus-eluting stent (with biodegradable polymer) with a sirolimus-eluting stent (with durable polymer). METHODS: We undertook a multicentre, assessor-blind, non-inferiority study in ten European centres. 1707 patients aged 18 years or older with chronic stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes were centrally randomised by a computer-generated allocation sequence to treatment with either biolimus-eluting (n=857) or sirolimus-eluting (n=850) stents. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or clinically-indicated target vessel revascularisation within 9 months. Analysis was by intention to treat. 427 patients were randomly allocated to angiographic follow-up, with in-stent percentage diameter stenosis as principal outcome measure at 9 months. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00389220. FINDINGS: We analysed all randomised patients. Biolimus-eluting stents were non-inferior to sirolimus-eluting stents for the primary endpoint at 9 months (79 [9%] patients vs 89 [11%], rate ratio 0.88 [95% CI 0.64-1.19], p for non-inferiority=0.003, p for superiority=0.39). Frequency of cardiac death (14 [1.6%] vs 21 [2.5%], p for superiority=0.22), myocardial infarction (49 [5.7%] vs 39 [4.6%], p=0.30), and clinically-indicated target vessel revascularisation (38 [4.4%] vs 47 [5.5%], p=0.29) were similar for both stent types. 168 (79%) patients in the biolimus-eluting group and 167 (78%) in the sirolimus-eluting group had data for angiographic follow-up available. Biolimus-eluting stents were non-inferior to sirolimus-eluting stents in in-stent percentage diameter stenosis (20.9%vs 23.3%, difference -2.2% [95% CI -6.0 to 1.6], p for non-inferiority=0.001, p for superiority=0.26). INTERPRETATION: Our results suggest that a stent eluting biolimus from a biodegradable polymer represents a safe and effective alternative to a stent eluting sirolimus from a durable polymer in patients with chronic stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes. FUNDING: Biosensors Europe SA, Switzerland.

Carotid artery stenting: do procedural complications relate to the side intervened upon?: results from the Carotid Artery Stent (CAS)-Registry of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Leitende Kardiologische Krankenhausärzte (ALKK).

OBJECTIVES: To determine the influence of the side intervened upon on outcomes during carotid artery stenting (CAS). BACKGROUND: Anatomic and technical aspects may influence the results of CAS. The value of the side intervened upon has not been analyzed yet. METHODS: We analyzed data from the Carotid Artery Stent (CAS)-Registry. RESULTS: A total of 3,165 CAS procedures, 1,613 (51%) at the left and 1,552 (49%) at the right carotid artery were included. There was a higher proportion of patients treated for symptomatic stenoses when CAS was performed at the left carotid artery (50.1% versus 45.8%, P = 0.016) and more patients already had prior carotid endarterectomy (8.5% versus 5.8%, P = 0.003). Interventions at the left side took 3 min longer than interventions at the right side (46.6 +/- 24.3 versus 43.8 +/- 23.6, P = 0.003). In patients treated at the left carotid artery amaurosis fugax (0.7% versus 0.1%, P = 0.005), ipsilateral stroke (3.1% versus 1.8%, P = 0.017), and the primary endpoint of in-hospital death or stroke (4.1% versus 2.3%, P = 0.005) occurred significantly more often. Even after adjusting for confounding parameters, CAS procedures performed at the left carotid arteries remained an independent predictor of death or stroke (OR = 1.77, 95% CI: 1.15-2.72, P = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: In current clinical practice, CAS is performed frequently at the right carotid artery as at the left carotid artery. CAS interventions have a higher in-hospital complication rate if performed at the left carotid artery. Technical improvements might help to overcome this situation.

Comparison of in-hospital outcomes of patients with versus without previous carotid endarterectomy undergoing carotid stenting (from the German ALKK CAS Registry).

Repeat carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for recurrent stenosis remains a challenging treatment option associated with high morbidity and mortality. Carotid artery stenting (CAS) is an attractive alternative management option for these patients. However, data about the effectiveness and safety of CAS in a large number of unselected patients are less known. We evaluated 3,070 patients who underwent CAS enrolled in a German registry from 1996 to 2006 at 31 sites. We compared clinical and angiographic features and in-hospital outcomes of patients with and without previous CEA who underwent CAS. Of 3,070 patients in the registry, 223 (7.3%) underwent CAS for restenosis after previous CEA. Median age was similar in patients with and without previous CEA (70 years, interquartile range 64 to 76 vs 71 years, interquartile range 65 to 76). Ipsilateral neurologic symptoms occurred in approximately 1/2 the patients in both groups. Other co-morbid conditions and angiographic or procedural factors did not differ between the 2 groups. In-hospital events including death (0% vs 0.4%), ipsilateral major stroke (1.4% vs 1.5%), death or major ipsilateral stroke (1.4% vs 1.7%), ipsilateral transient ischemic attack (1.9% vs 2.8%), myocardial infarction (0.4% vs 0.1%), and reintervention (0.7% vs 0.4%) were all low and not significantly different between those with and without previous CEA (p >0.05 for all comparisons). In conclusion, our data for a large number of patients who underwent CAS in a recent contemporary community-based practice attests to the low risk of periprocedural events in patients with recurrent stenosis after previous CEA. This low risk along with the less invasive nature of the procedure should make CAS an attractive and perhaps preferred option for the treatment of these patients.

Embolic protection devices for carotid artery stenting: is there a difference between filter and distal occlusive devices?

OBJECTIVES: We sought to compare the efficacy of a filter embolic protection device (F-EPD) and a distal occlusive embolic protection device (DO-EPD) in patients undergoing carotid artery stenting (CAS). BACKGROUND: The embolic protection device (EPD) may lower the periprocedural rate of cerebral ischemic events during CAS. However, it is unclear whether there is a difference in effectiveness between the different types of EPD. METHODS: We analyzed data from the Carotid Artery Stent (CAS) Registry. RESULTS: From July 1996 to July 2003, 1,734 patients were included in the prospective CAS Registry. Of these patients, 729 patients were treated with an EPD, 553 (75.9%) with F-EPD, and 176 (24.1%) with DO-EPD. Patients treated with DO-EPD were more likely to be treated for symptomatic stenosis (64.5% vs. 53.4%, p = 0.011). The carotid lesions in patients treated under DO-EPD seemed to be more complicated, as expressed by a higher proportion of ulcers (p = 0.035), severe calcification (p = 0.039), a longer lesion length (p = 0.025), and a higher pre-interventional grade of stenosis (p < 0.001). The median duration of the CAS intervention was 30 min in the DO-EPD group, compared with 48 min in the filter group (p < 0.001). No differences in clinical events rate between the two groups of protection devices were observed. Multivariate analysis on the occurrence of the combined end point of in-hospital death or stroke found no difference between filter- and DO-EPD (4 of 176 [2.3%] for DO-EPD vs. 10 of 551 [1.8%] for F-EPD; adjusted odds ratio = 1.04, 95% confidence interval 0.24 to 4.44; p = 0.958). CONCLUSIONS: Filter EPD is the currently preferred method of EPD in clinical practice. Both F-EPD and DO-EPD seem to be equally effective during CAS.

A prospective, non-randomized comparison of SAPIEN XT and CoreValve implantation in two sequential cohorts of patients with severe aortic stenosis.

OBJECTIVES: Few data is available comparing Edwards SAPIEN XT - SXT (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, California) with Medtronic CoreValve - CoV (Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota) in patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). METHODS: We selected consecutive patients undergoing transfemoral TAVR with SXT or CoV at our Institution. Main outcomes were Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-combined safety endpoints. RESULTS: A total of 100 patients (SXT, n=50 versus CoV, n=50) were analyzed. Both SXT and CoV showed good device success rates (98% versus 90%, p=0.20). SXT versus CoV reduced the occurrence of paravalvular regurgitation after TAVR (26% versus 90%, p<0.0001) though not affecting the rate of moderate/severe regurgitation (p=0.20). SXT versus CoV required less frequently a permanent pacemaker after TAVR (8% versus 38%, p<0.0001). In-hospital major vascular complications (8% versus 4%, p>0.99), life-threatening bleedings (2% versus 4%, p>0.99), stroke (4% versus 6%, p>0.99) and death (6% versus 2%, p>0.99) did not differ between SXT and CoV. However, safety endpoints favored SXT (17% versus 34.6%, p=0.01), due to a numerically higher incidence of ischemic stroke and Acute Kidney Injury Stage 3 after CoV. At multivariate analysis, TAVR with SXT (odds ratio=0.21, 95% confidence intervals [0.05-0.84], p=0.03) was predictive of fewer adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Transcatheter valve implantation with Edwards SAPIEN XT was associated with lower VARC-combined safety endpoints as compared with Medtronic CoreValve. More extensive cohorts are needed to confirm these results.

Aortic valve calcium score as a predictor for outcome after TAVI using the CoreValve revalving system.

BACKGROUND: TAVI is a novel treatment option for patients at too high risk for surgery. Risk scores for surgical valve replacement failed to accurately predict outcomes after TAVI and alternative risk parameters are lacking so far. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the CT-derived aortic valve calcification score as a predictor for outcome during and after TAVI. METHODS: Transfemoral TAVI using the CoreValve device was performed in 68 patients, in whom the aortic valve calcium score was determined from preprocedural 64-sclice ECG gated CT-scans. RESULTS: 30-day MACE rate (death, stroke, MI) was 10.3%, 1-year mortality was 11.8%. Using linear regression analysis the aortic valve calcium score was the only significant predictor for 30-day MACE and for 1-year mortality and was also associated with the incidence and severity of post procedural aortic regurgitation (r=0.33, p<0.05). Patients withvalve calcium scores >750 had a significant lower 1-year survival rate compared to patients with scores <750 (58% vs. 98%, p<0.05). The aortic valve calcium score is also inversely associated with the absolute improvement of NYHA-class after TAVI (regression coefficient=-0.43, p<0.02). CONCLUSION: The degree of aortic valve calcification is associated with post procedural aortic regurgitation, procedural complications, 1-year mortality and with the degree of functional improvement of patients who underwent TAVI using the CoreValve device. Due to the fact that the aortic valve calcium score can be determined from CT-datasets that are used for preprocedural planning, this parameter may be incorporated in the general work up and may be used for risk stratification and patient selection.

Improved safety and reduction in stent thrombosis associated with biodegradable polymer-based biolimus-eluting stents versus durable polymer-based sirolimus-eluting stents in patients with coronary artery disease: final 5-year report of the LEADERS (Limus Eluted From A Durable Versus ERodable Stent Coating) randomized, noninferiority trial.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to report the final 5 years follow-up of the landmark LEADERS (Limus Eluted From A Durable Versus ERodable Stent Coating) trial. BACKGROUND: The LEADERS trial is the first randomized study to evaluate biodegradable polymer-based drug-eluting stents (DES) against durable polymer DES. METHODS: The LEADERS trial was a 10-center, assessor-blind, noninferiority, "all-comers" trial (N = 1,707). All patients were centrally randomized to treatment with either biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stents (BES) (n = 857) or durable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) (n = 850). The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), or clinically indicated target vessel revascularization within 9 months. Secondary endpoints included extending the primary endpoint to 5 years and stent thrombosis (ST) (Academic Research Consortium definition). Analysis was by intention to treat. RESULTS: At 5 years, the BES was noninferior to SES for the primary endpoint (186 [22.3%] vs. 216 [26.1%], rate ratio [RR]: 0.83 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.68 to 1.02], p for noninferiority <0.0001, p for superiority = 0.069). The BES was associated with a significant reduction in the more comprehensive patient-orientated composite endpoint of all-cause death, any MI, and all-cause revascularization (297 [35.1%] vs. 339 [40.4%], RR: 0.84 [95% CI: 0.71 to 0.98], p for superiority = 0.023). A significant reduction in very late definite ST from 1 to 5 years was evident with the BES (n = 5 [0.7%] vs. n = 19 [2.5%], RR: 0.26 [95% CI: 0.10 to 0.68], p = 0.003), corresponding to a significant reduction in ST-associated clinical events (primary endpoint) over the same time period (n = 3 of 749 vs. n = 14 of 738, RR: 0.20 [95% CI: 0.06 to 0.71], p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: The safety benefit of the biodegradable polymer BES, compared with the durable polymer SES, was related to a significant reduction in very late ST (>1 year) and associated composite clinical outcomes. (Limus Eluted From A Durable Versus ERodable Stent Coating [LEADERS] trial; NCT00389220).

The three year follow-up of the randomised "all-comers" trial of a biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stent versus permanent polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (LEADERS).

AIMS: The current study reports clinical outcomes at three year follow-up of the LEADERS clinical trial which was the first all-comers trial comparing a new generation biodegradable polymer biolimus drug-eluting stent (BES) with the first generation permanent polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (SES). METHODS AND RESULTS: One thousand seven hundred and seven patients were randomised to unrestricted use of BES (n=857) or SES (n=850) in an all-comers population. Three year follow-up was available in 95% of the patients, 812 treated with BES and 809 treated with SES. At three years, BES remains non-inferior to SES for the primary endpoint of major adverse cardiac events (composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), or clinically-indicated target vessel revascularisation (CI-TVR) (BES 15.7% versus SES 19%; HR 0.82 CI 0.65-1.03; p=0.09). The MACE Kaplan Meier event curves increasingly diverge with the difference in events increasing from 1.4% to 2.4% and 3.3% at 1, 2 and 3 years, respectively in favour of BES. The rate of cardiac death was non-significantly lower 4.2% versus 5.2% (HR=0.81 CI 0.52-1.26; p=0.34) and the rate of myocardial infarction was equivalent 7.2% versus 7.1% (HR 1.01 CI 0.70-1.44; p=0.97) for BES versus SES, respectively. Thus BES was non-inferior to SES in all the safety endpoints. Clinically-indicated TVR occurred in 9.4% of BES treated patients versus 11.1% of SES treated patients (HR 0.84 CI 0.62-1.13; p=0.25). Rates of definite stent thrombosis were 2.2% for BES and 2.9% for SES (HR 0.78 CI 0.43-1.43; p=0.43), with the event rate increase of 0.2% from one to three years for BES and 0.9% for SES. For patients presenting with ST-elevation myocardial infarction BES was superior to SES in reducing MACE. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of the three year follow-up support the claim that the biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stent has equivalent safety and efficacy to permanent polymer sirolimus-eluting stent in an all-comers patient population. Its performance is superior in some subpopulations such as in ST-elevation MI patients and event rates for BES are overall lower than for SES with a trend toward increasing divergence of outcomes over three years.

The outcome of bifurcation lesion stenting using a biolimus-eluting stent with a bio-degradable polymer compared to a sirolimus-eluting stent with a durable polymer.

AIMS: This study investigated the differences in clinical outcomes between patients with bifurcation lesions (BL) treated with a biolimus-eluting stent (BES) with a biodegradable polymer, and a sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) with a durable polymer. METHODS AND RESULTS: The clinical outcomes were assessed in the 497 patients (BES 258, SES 239) enrolled in the multicentre, randomised LEADERS trial who underwent treatment of ≥1 BL (total=534 BL). At 12-months follow-up there was no significant difference in the primary endpoint of MACE, a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction and clinically indicated target vessel revascularisation (BES 12.8% vs. SES 16.3%, p=0.31). Patients treated with BES had comparable rates of cardiac death (BES 2.7% vs. SES 2.9%, p=1.00), numerically higher rates of myocardial infarction (BES 8.9% vs. SES 5.4%, p=0.17), and significantly lower rates of clinically indicated target vessel revascularisation (4.3% vs. 11.3%, p=0.004) when compared to those treated with SES. The rate of stent thrombosis at 12-months was 4.3% and 3.8% for BES and SES, respectively (p=0.82). CONCLUSIONS: In the treatment of BL the use of BES lead to superior efficacy and comparable safety compared to SES.

Implantation of the biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stent in patients with high SYNTAX score is associated with decreased cardiac mortality compared to a permanent polymer sirolimus-eluting stent: two year follow-up results from the "all-comers" LEADERS trial.

BACKGROUND: The SYNTAX score (SXscore) has been shown to be an effective predictor of clinical outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS AND RESULTS: The SXscore was prospectively collected in 1,397 of the 1,707 patients enrolled in the "all-comers" LEADERS trial (patients post-surgical revascularisation were excluded). Post hoc analysis was performed by stratifying clinical outcomes at two-year follow-up, according to one of three SXscore tertiles: SXlow ≤8 (n=464), 816 (n=461). At two-year follow-up the rate of major adverse cardiovascular events was 18.4%, 12.0% and 9.4% in the SXhigh, SXmid, and SXlow tertile, respectively (HR 1.45; CI 1.21-1.74; p<0.01). There was a significantly higher rate of cardiac death in patients in the highest SXscore tertile (7% SXhigh versus 2.4% SXmid versus 1.8% SXlow; HR 2.22; CI 1.5-3.27; p<0.001). Within the SXhigh tertile the rate of cardiac death was significantly lower in patients treated with the biolimus-eluting stent compared with the sirolimus-eluting stent (4.7% versus 9.6%, HR 0.48; CI 0.23-0.99; p=0.046). CONCLUSIONS: The SXscore when applied to an "all-comers" patient population allows for prospective risk stratification of patients undergoing PCI up to two years follow-up. In addition, the SXscore appears to separate the performance of devices in high risk patient groups.

2-year clinical follow-up from the randomized comparison of biolimus-eluting stents with biodegradable polymer and sirolimus-eluting stents with durable polymer in routine clinical practice.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to investigate safety and efficacy of biolimus-eluting stents (BES) with biodegradable polymer as compared with sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) with durable polymer through 2 years of follow-up. BACKGROUND: BES with a biodegradable polymer provide similar efficacy and safety as SES with a durable polymer at 9 months. Clinical outcomes beyond the period of biodegradation of the polymer used for drug release and after discontinuation of dual antiplatelet therapy are of particular interest. METHODS: A total of 1,707 patients were randomized to unrestricted use of BES (n = 857) or SES (n = 850) in an all-comers patient population. RESULTS: At 2 years, BES remained noninferior compared with SES for the primary endpoint, which was a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or clinically indicated target vessel revascularization (BES 12.8% vs. SES 15.2%, hazard ratio [HR]: 0.84, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.65 to 1.08, p(noninferiority) < 0.0001, p(superiority) = 0.18). Rates of cardiac death (3.2% vs. 3.9%, HR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.49 to 1.35, p = 0.42), myocardial infarction (6.3% vs. 5.6%, HR: 1.12, 95% CI: 0.76 to 1.65, p = 0.56), and clinically indicated target vessel revascularization (7.5% vs. 8.6%, HR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.62 to 1.20, p = 0.38) were similar for BES and SES. The rate of definite stent thrombosis through 2 years was 2.2% for BES and 2.5% for SES (p = 0.73). For the period between 1 and 2 years, event rates for definite stent thrombosis were 0.2% for BES and 0.5% for SES (p = 0.42). After discontinuation of dual antiplatelet therapy, no very late definite stent thrombosis occurred in the BES group. CONCLUSIONS: At 2 years of follow-up, the unrestricted use of BES with a biodegradable polymer maintained a similar safety and efficacy profile as SES with a durable polymer. (Limus Eluted From a Durable Versus Erodable Stent Coating [LEADERS]; NCT00389220).

Value of age, creatinine, and ejection fraction (ACEF score) in assessing risk in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions in the 'All-Comers' LEADERS trial.

BACKGROUND: The age, creatinine, and ejection fraction (ACEF) score (age/left ventricular ejection fraction+1 if creatinine >2.0 mg/dL) has been established as an effective predictor of clinical outcomes in patients undergoing elective coronary artery bypass surgery; however, its utility in "all-comer" patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention is yet unexplored. METHODS AND RESULTS: The ACEF score was calculated for 1208 of the 1707 patients enrolled in the LEADERS trial. Post hoc analysis was performed by stratifying clinical outcomes at the 1-year follow-up according to ACEF score tertiles: ACEF(low) ≤1.0225, 1.0225< ACEF(mid) ≤1.277, and ACEF(high) >1.277. At 1-year follow-up, there was a significantly lower number of patients with major adverse cardiac event-free survival in the highest tertile of the ACEF score (ACEF(low)=92.1%, ACEF(mid)=89.5%, and ACEF(high)=86.1%; P=0.0218). Cardiac death was less frequent in ACEF(low) than in ACEF(mid) and ACEF(high) (0.7% vs 2.2% vs 4.5%; hazard ratio=2.22, P=0.002) patients. Rates of myocardial infarction were significantly higher in patients with a high ACEF score (6.7% for ACEF(high) vs 5.2% for ACEF(mid) and 2.5% for ACEF(low); hazard ratio=1.6, P=0.006). Clinically driven target-vessel revascularization also tended to be higher in the ACEF(high) group, but the difference among the 3 groups did not reach statistical significance. The rate of composite definite, possible, and probable stent thrombosis was also higher in the ACEF(high) group (ACEF(low)=1.2%, ACEF(mid)=3.5%, and ACEF(high)=6.2%; hazard ratio=2.04, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: ACEF score may be a simple way to stratify risk of events in patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention with respect to mortality and risk of myocardial infarction.

The prognostic utility of the SYNTAX score on 1-year outcomes after revascularization with zotarolimus- and everolimus-eluting stents: a substudy of the RESOLUTE All Comers Trial.

OBJECTIVES: This study assessed the ability of the SYNTAX score (SXscore) to stratify risk in patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using zotarolimus-eluting or everolimus-eluting stents. BACKGROUND: The SXscore can identify patients treated with PCI who are at highest risk of adverse events. METHODS: The SXscore was calculated prospectively in 2,033 of the 2,292 patients enrolled in the RESOLUTE All Comers study (RESOLUTE III All Comers Trial: A Randomized Comparison of a Zotarolimus-Eluting Stent With an Everolimus-Eluting Stent for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention). Clinical outcomes in terms of a patient-oriented composite endpoint (POCE) of all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), and repeat revascularization; the individual components of POCE; target lesion failure (TLF) (a composite of cardiac death, target-vessel MI, and clinically driven target lesion revascularization); and stent thrombosis were subsequently stratified according to SXscore tertiles: SXscore(LOW) ≤ 9 (n = 698), 9 17 (n = 659). RESULTS: At 12-month follow-up, rates of POCE, MI, repeat revascularization, TLF, and the composite of death/MI were all significantly higher in patients in the highest SXscore tercile. Rates of stent thrombosis were all highest in the SXscore(HIGH) tertile (p > 0.05). After multivariate adjustment, the SXscore was identified as an independent predictor of POCE, MI, repeat revascularization, and TLF (p < 0.05 for all). At 12-month follow-up, the SXscore, ACEF score, and Clinical SXscore had C-statistics of 0.57, 0.78, and 0.67, respectively, for mortality and of 0.62, 0.56, 0.63, respectively, for POCE. No significant between-stent differences were observed for TLF or POCE in any of the SXscore tertiles. CONCLUSIONS: The SYNTAX score is able to stratify risk amongst an all-comers population treated with PCI with second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES); however, improvements can be made with the inclusion of clinical variables. (RESOLUTE III All Comers Trial: A Randomized Comparison of a Zotarolimus-Eluting Stent With an Everolimus-Eluting Stent for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention; NCT00617084).

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).

Carotid artery interventions for restenosis after prior stenting: is it different from interventions of de novo lesions? Results from the carotid artery stent (CAS)--registry of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Leitende Kardiologische Krankenhausärzte (ALKK).

OBJECTIVE: To compare characteristics and outcome of patients with re-stenoses after prior carotid artery stenting (CAS) treated with repeat carotid interventions (Re-CI) with CAS for de novo lesions. BACKGROUND: The treatment of re-stenosis is a major problem in vascular interventions. Patients with re-stenoses after prior CAS treated with Re-CI are not well defined. METHODS: We analyzed data from the prospective ALKK CAS Registry. RESULTS: Out of 3,817 CAS procedures 95 were intended in 93 patients (2.5%) for a restenosis after prior CAS and 3,722 CAS in 3,655 patients (97.5%) for a de novo stenosis. There was no difference in age (p = 0.302) or distribution of gender (p = 0.545) between the two groups. Patients treated for a restenosis after CAS were less likely to be treated for a symptomatic lesion (22.7 vs. 40.1%, p = 0.001). Coronary heart disease (p = 0.017), peripheral arterial disease (p < 0.001) as well as diabetes mellitus (p = 0.004) were more prevalent in the restenosis group. Lesions were less complicated in restenosis patients, with less ulcers (7.4 vs. 19.9%, p = 0.003) and less severe calcifications (7.4 vs. 23.6%, p < 0.001). The intended interventions were more often not performed in the Re-CI group (9.5 vs. 3.3%; p = 0.001). In-hospital, the stroke or death rate was 0% in the Re-CI group as compared to 3.1% in the de novo group (p = 0.115). CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated with Re-CI for repeat stenoses after prior CAS represent 2.5% of current CAS patients. Although representing a subgroup with more concomitant diseases, Re-CI seems to be associated with lower event rates as compared to CAS for de novo lesions.

Value of the SYNTAX score for risk assessment in the all-comers population of the randomized multicenter LEADERS (Limus Eluted from A Durable versus ERodable Stent coating) trial.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess the predictive value of the SYNTAX score (SXscore) for major adverse cardiac events in the all-comers population of the LEADERS (Limus Eluted from A Durable versus ERodable Stent coating) trial. BACKGROUND: The SXscore has been shown to be an effective predictor of clinical outcomes in patients with multivessel disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS: The SXscore was prospectively collected in 1,397 of the 1,707 patients enrolled in the LEADERS trial (patients after surgical revascularization were excluded). Post hoc analysis was performed by stratifying clinical outcomes at 1-year follow-up, according to 1 of 3 SXscore tertiles. RESULTS: The 1,397 patients were divided into tertiles based on the SXscore in the following fashion: SXscore8 and 16 (SXhigh) (n=461). At 1-year follow-up, there was a significantly lower number of patients with major cardiac event-free survival in the highest tertile of SXscore (SXlow=92.2%, SXmid=91.1%, and SXhigh=84.6%; p<0.001). Death occurred in 1.5% of SXlow patients, 2.1% of SXmid patients, and 5.6% of SXhigh patients (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.97, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.29 to 3.01; p=0.002). The myocardial infarction rate tended to be higher in the SXhigh group. Target vessel revascularization was 11.3% in the SXhigh group compared with 6.3% and 7.8% in the SXlow and SXmid groups, respectively (HR: 1.38, 95% CI: 1.1 to 1.75; p=0.006). Composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and clinically indicated target vessel revascularization was 7.8%, 8.9%, and 15.4% in the SXlow, SXmid, and SXhigh groups, respectively (HR: 1.47, 95% CI: 1.19 to 1.81; p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The SXscore, when applied to an all-comers patient population treated with drug-eluting stents, may allow prospective risk stratification of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. (LEADERS Trial Limus Eluted From A Durable Versus ERodable Stent Coating; NCT00389220).