TIOMAX: A Spanish Multicenter Registry of the real-world use of the TItanium OptiMAX® biostent: TIOMAX: Registro Español Multicéntrico Del Biostent De Titanio OptiMAX® En La Vida Real.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the safety and efficacy of the new cobalt-chromium bioactive stent Titan Optimax® (Hexacath, France) with its predecessor, Titan-2® . BACKGROUND: The TIOMAX registry includes 784 patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention with these stents in 21 Spanish hospitals. METHODS: Analysis of all patients in the registry without exclusion criteria, candidates for revascularization (March-2013/July-2014). Initially 273 patients received Titan-2® , and the next 511 received the Optimax® after its launch. RESULTS: Mean age was 65.8 ± 13.0 (78.1% men); 49.2% were STEACS patients (n = 322), 29.8% NSTEACS, and 27.3% had stable angina or silent ischemia. Most STEACS patients (76.4% of n = 322) were treated <24 hr after developing symptoms. All-cause death (D), cardiac death (CD), acute myocardial infarction (AMI), and stent thrombosis (ST) at 1 month were 1.1, 0.8, 0.1, and 0.5%, respectively, with no significant differences between groups. At 1 year, the death rate was 5.5% for Titan-2 vs. 4.1% for Optimax® , CD was 1.8% for both groups, ST 1.1 vs. 0.6%, new AMI 3.3 vs. 2.5% and target lesion revascularization (TLR) 3.7 vs. 2.9%. The primary endpoint of the composite event (CE) of D/AMI/TLR/ST occurred in 10.3% vs. 7.6% (p = 0.211). Patients with STEACS (N = 322: Titan-2/Optimax: 103/209) had better outcomes for secondary events, device-oriented failure CD/AMI/TLR (7.8% vs. 5.0%; p = 0.330), and non-fatal CE of AMI/ST/TLR (7.8% vs. 2.7%, p = 0.039). CONCLUSIONS: The Titan Optimax retains the efficacy and safety of Titan 2. It appears to perform better in the subgroup of STEACS patients, by reducing the non-fatal CE of AMI/ST/TLR.

Impact of Calcified Target Lesions on the Outcome of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Acute Coronary Syndrome: Insights From the BASE ACS Trial.

OBJECTIVES: We performed a post hoc analysis of outcome in patients with, versus those without, calcified target lesions from the BASE ACS trial. BACKGROUND: The outcome of contemporary stent implantation in patients with calcified lesions presenting with acute coronary syndrome is unknown. METHODS: The BASE ACS trial randomized 827 patients (1:1) presenting with acute coronary syndrome to receive either titanium-nitride-oxide-coated stents or everolimus-eluting stents. Calcified lesions were defined as moderate or severe calcification in the vessel wall by coronary angiography. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE): a composite of cardiac death, non-fatal myocardial infarction or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization. Follow-up was planned at 12 months, and yearly thereafter for up to 7 years. RESULTS: Of 827 patients enrolled in the trial, 352 (42.6%) had calcified target lesions. Median follow-up was 5.0 years. The incidence of MACE was higher in patients with, versus those without, calcified target lesions (19.6% vs. 12.2%, respectively, P = 0.004). This was driven by more frequent cardiac death and non-fatal myocardial infarction events (P < 0.05, both). The rates of ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization were comparable (P > 0.05). MACE and the other endpoints were comparable between the 2 propensity-score matched subgroups (P > 0.05 for all). Hypertension and smaller vessel size independently predicted MACE in patients treated for calcified lesions. CONCLUSIONS: Patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome who were treated for calcified lesions had worse long-term clinical outcome, compared with those treated for non-calcified lesions, mainly due to more frequent safety events. In the propensity score-matched analysis, the outcome was comparable.

4-Year outcome of bioactive stents versus everolimus-eluting stents in acute coronary syndrome.

OBJECTIVES: The BASE-ACS trial demonstrated non-inferiority of titanium-nitride-oxide-coated bioactive stents (BAS), versus everolimus-eluting stents (EES), for major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 1- and 2-year follow-up, in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). We presented the 4-year outcome of the BASE-ACS trial. DESIGN: We randomized 827 patients with ACS to receive either BAS (417) or EES (410). MACE was a composite of cardiac death, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (TLR) at 12-month follow-up. Analyses were performed by intention to treat. Follow-up was planned at 12 months, and yearly thereafter for 5 years. RESULTS: Four-year clinical follow-up was completed in 753 (91.1%) patients. At 4 years, BAS were non-inferior to EES for MACE (14.7% versus 17.8%, respectively; p = 0.24 for superiority; p = 0.001 for non-inferiority). Non-fatal MI was less frequent with BAS (5.0% versus 9.2%, respectively; p = 0.025). Cardiac death and ischemia-driven TLR were comparable (2.9% versus 3.5%, and 8.6% versus 9.2%; p = 0.62 and p = 0.80, respectively). Independent predictors of MACE were calcified lesions (HR 1.54, p = 0.021), the number of vessels treated (HR 1.53, p = 0.025), and reference vessel diameter (HR 0.54, p = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: In patients presenting with ACS, BAS was associated with a clinical outcome non-inferior to EES at 4-year follow-up.

Validation of Quantitative Flow Ratio-Derived Virtual Angioplasty with Post-Angioplasty Fractional Flow Reserve-The QIMERA-I Study.

Background: Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) virtual angioplasty with pre-PCI residual QFR showed better results compared with an angiographic approach to assess post-PCI functional results. However, correlation with pre-PCI residual QFR and post-PCI fractional flow reserve (FFR) is lacking. Methods: A multicenter prospective study including consecutive patients with angiographically 50-90% coronary lesions and positive QFR results. All patients were evaluated with QFR, hyperemic and non-hyperemic pressure ratios (NHPR) before and after the index PCI. Pre-PCI residual QFR (virtual angioplasty) was calculated and compared with post-PCI fractional flow reserve (FFR), QFR and NHPR. Results: A total of 84 patients with 92 treated coronary lesions were included, with a mean age of 65.5 ± 10.9 years and 59% of single vessel lesions being the left anterior descending artery in 69%. The mean vessel diameter was 2.82 ± 0.41 mm. Procedural success was achieved in all cases, with a mean number of implanted stents of 1.17 ± 0.46. The baseline QFR value was 0.69 ± 0.12 and baseline FFR and NHPR were 0.73 ± 0.08 and 0.82 ± 0.11, respectively. Mean post-PCI FFR increased to 0.87 ± 0.05 whereas residual QFR had been estimated as 0.95 ± 0.05, showing poor correlation with post-PCI FFR (0.163; 95% CI:0.078-0.386) and low diagnostic accuracy (30.9%, 95% CI:20-43%). Conclusions: In this analysis, the results of QFR-based virtual angioplasty did not seem to accurately correlate with post-PCI FFR.

Continuous Thermodilution Method to Assess Coronary Flow Reserve.

Coronary flow reserve (CFR) is a well-validated flow-based physiological parameter that has shown value in clinical risk stratification. CFR can be invasively assessed, classically by Doppler and, more recently, by thermodilution with saline boluses (CFRthermo-bolus). Alternatively, continuous thermodilution is a novel operator-independent, highly-reproducible technique to invasively quantify maximum absolute coronary flow (AF). This study aimed to assess the feasibility of this method to quantify resting AF and to determine CFR (CFRThermo-infusion) as compared with CFRthermo-bolus. Sixty-two consecutive patients with suspicion of coronary disease and absence of significant epicardial lesions were prospectively investigated. AF at maximal hyperemia (20 mL/min) and at lower infusion rates (6-8-10-12 mL/min) were systematically measured using a dedicated catheter and a temperature/pressure guidewire. The absence of baseline Pd/Pa decrease at 6 (0.15 ± 0.2%), 8 (0.17 ± 0.18%) and 10 mL/min (0.2 ± 0.12%) demonstrated absence of hyperemia at ≤10 mL/min (all p = NS). However, at 12 mL/min hyperemia was confirmed by a significant decrease in Pd/Pa (1.3 ± 1.5%, p <0.01) and increase in AF from 10 mL/min to 12 mL/min (31.4 ± 28.1 mL, p <0.05). All curve tracings at 10 mL/min (129/129, 100%) were adequate versus only (7/15, 53%) and (15/18, 17%) at 6 mL/min, and 8 mL/min, respectively, and this infusion-rate was considered to determine resting-AF. CFRThermo-infusion was determined as the ratio of hyperemic-AF (20 mL/min) by resting-AF (10 mL/min). Mean CFRThermo-infusion was 2.56 ± 0.9 and CFRthermo-bolus 2.49 ± 1. Both parameters showed a good correlation (r = 0.76; p <0.001) and intraclass agreement (ICC = 0.76; p <0.001).The continuous thermodilution method enables to quantify resting-AF providing a novel clinical tool to determine CRF. CFRThermo-infusion shows a good correlation with CFRthermo-bolus..

Long-term clinical outcome of titanium-nitride-oxide-coated stents versus everolimus-eluting stents in acute coronary syndrome: Final report of the BASE ACS trial.

BACKGROUND: The BASE ACS randomized trial demonstrated non-inferiority of titanium-nitride-oxide-coated bioactive stents (BAS), compared with everolimus-eluting stents (EES), for the primary endpoint of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) at 12-month follow-up. We report the final long-term clinical outcome of the trial. METHODS: We randomly assigned 827 patients with ACS to receive either BAS (417) or EES (410). The primary endpoint was MACE: a composite of cardiac death, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (TLR) at 12-month follow-up. Analysis was performed by intention to treat. Follow-up was planned at 12months, and yearly thereafter through 7years. RESULTS: Mean follow-up duration was 4.2±1.9years (median 5.0years). At 5-year follow-up, BAS was non-inferior to EES for the primary endpoint of MACE (14.4% versus 17.8%, respectively; hazard ratio for BAS versus EES, 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-1.16; p=0.26 for superiority; p<0.001 for non-inferiority). The rate of non-fatal MI was lower in the BAS group (5.9% versus 9.7%, respectively, p=0.028). The rates of cardiac death and ischemia-driven TLR were comparable (2.8% versus 3.8%, and 8.3% versus 9.9%; p=0.76 and p=0.58, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In the current final report of the randomized BASE ACS trial in patients with ACS, BAS implantation was associated with a rate of cumulative MACE at long-term follow-up that was statistically non-inferior to EES.

Dual Antiplatelet Therapy for 6 Months vs 12 Months After New-generation Drug-eluting Stent Implantation: Matched Analysis of ESTROFA-DAPT and ESTROFA-2.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: The recommendation for dual antiplatelet therapy following drug-eluting stent implantation ranges from 6 months to 12 months or beyond. Recent trials have suggested the safety of a 6-month dual antiplatelet therapy regimen, yet certain caveats to these studies limit the applicability of this shorter duration dual antiplatelet therapy strategy in real world settings. METHODS: A registry was constructed with consecutive recruitment of patients undergoing new-generation drug-eluting stent implantation and prescribed 6 months of dual antiplatelet therapy. Propensity score matching was undertaken with a historical cohort of patients treated with second-generation drug-eluting stents who received 12 months of dual antiplatelet therapy from the ESTROFA-2 registry. The sample size was calculated using a noninferiority basis and the primary endpoint was the combination of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, revascularization, or major bleeding at 12 months. RESULTS: The analysis included 1286 patients in each group, with no significant differences in baseline characteristics. The primary endpoint occurred in 5.0% and 6.6% in the 6-month and 12-month groups, respectively (P = .001 for noninferiority). The incidence of definite or probable stent thrombosis was 0.5% and 0.7% in the 6-month and 12-month groups, respectively (P = .4). Major bleeding events were lower in the 6-month group than in the 12-month group (0.8% vs 1.4%; P = .2) CONCLUSIONS: In selected patients in this large multicenter study, the safety and efficacy of a 6-month dual antiplatelet therapy regimen after implantation of new-generation drug-eluting stents appeared to be noninferior to those of a 12-month dual antiplatelet therapy regimen.

Stent-oriented versus patient-oriented outcome in patients undergoing early percutaneous coronary intervention for acute coronary syndrome: 2-year report from the BASE-ACS trial.

BACKGROUND: The BASE-ACS trial demonstrated an outcome of the titanium-nitride-oxide-coated bioactive stents (BAS) statistically non-inferior to that of the everolimus-eluting stents (EES) at 12-month follow-up in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). We performed a post hoc analysis of the BASE-ACS trial with particular focus on stent-oriented versus patient-oriented outcome at 24-month follow-up. METHODS: A total of 827 patients with ACS were randomly assigned to receive either BAS (417) or EES (410). Stent-oriented outcome was defined as a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related non-fatal myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization. Patient-oriented outcome was defined as a composite of all-cause death, any non-fatal myocardial infarction, or any revascularization. RESULTS: Clinical follow-up for 24 months was completed in 406 (97.4%) patients in the BAS group and in 398 (97.1%) in the EES group. Stent-oriented outcome at 24-month follow-up occurred at similar frequencies in the two stent groups (10.1% for BAS versus 11.2% for EES, P=0.53). Likewise, patient-oriented outcome at 24-month follow-up was similar in the two groups (16.3% versus 19.8%, respectively, P=0.2). CONCLUSIONS: In patients presenting with ACS, the rates of both stent-oriented and patient-oriented outcomes at 24-month follow-up in the BAS group were similar to those in the EES group.

A prospective randomised comparison of titanium-nitride-oxide-coated bioactive stents with everolimus-eluting stents in acute coronary syndrome: the BASE-ACS trial.

AIMS: Titanium-nitride-oxide-coated bioactive stents (BAS) have demonstrated a favourable outcome when compared with paclitaxel-eluting stents in patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI). In a prospective randomised non-inferiority study design, we compared the safety and efficacy of BAS versus everolimus-eluting stents (EES) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). METHODS AND RESULTS: We randomised 827 patients with ACS (1:1) to either BAS (417) or EES (410). The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiac death, non-fatal MI or ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularisation (TLR) at 12-month follow-up. Analyses were performed by intention to treat. At 12-month follow-up, the primary composite endpoint occurred in 9.6% of patients in the BAS group and 9.0% of those in the EES group (HR [hazard ratio] 1.04, 95% CI [confidence interval] 0.81-1.32, p=0.81, p for non-inferiority =0.001). Non-fatal MI was significantly less frequent in the BAS as compared with the EES group (2.2% vs. 5.9%, p=0.007). However, the individual rates of cardiac death and ischaemia-driven TLR were similar between the two groups (1.9% vs. 1.0%, p=0.39, and 6.5% vs. 4.9%, p=0.37, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In patients presenting with ACS, BAS achieved a clinical outcome that was non-inferior to EES at 12-month follow-up.

Terapia antiplaquetaria doble de 6 o de 12 meses tras implante de stents farmacoactivos de nueva generación: análisis emparejado de los registros ESTROFA-DAPT y ESTROFA-2 / Dual antiplatelet therapy for 6 months vs 12 months after new-generation drug-eluting stent implantation: matched analysis of ESTROFA-DAPT and ESTROFA-2

Introducción y objetivos: El periodo de uso recomendado del tratamiento antiagregante plaquetario combinado doble tras implante de stents farmacoactivos va de los 6 a los 12 meses o más. Ensayos recientes indican que es seguro utilizar un tratamiento antiagregante plaquetario combinado doble durante 6 meses, si bien ciertas limitaciones de estos estudios hacen que sea escasa la aplicabilidad de esta estrategia de tratamiento antiagregante plaquetario combinado doble de menor duración en la práctica clínica real. Métodos: Se puso en marcha un registro con la inscripción de pacientes consecutivos a los que se había implantado stent farmacoactivo de nueva generación seguido de una prescripción de 6 meses de tratamiento antiagregante plaquetario combinado doble. Se realizó una igualación por puntuación de propensión con una cohorte histórica de pacientes tratados con stentsfarmacoactivos de segunda generación que recibieron luego 12 meses de tratamiento antiagregante plaquetario combinado doble del registro ESTROFA-2. El tamaño muestral se calculó para el criterio de no inferioridad y el objetivo principal fue la combinación de muerte cardiaca, infarto de miocardio, revascularización o hemorragia mayor a los 12 meses. Resultados: Se incluyó en el análisis a 1.286 pacientes de cada grupo, que no presentaban diferencias significativas en sus características basales. Se produjeron episodios del objetivo principal en el 5,0 y el 6,6% de los pacientes en los grupos de 6 y de 12 meses respectivamente (p = 0,001 para no inferioridad). La incidencia de trombosis del stent definitiva o probable fue del 0,5 y el 0,7% en los grupos de tratamiento de 6 y 12 meses respectivamente (p = 0,4). Los episodios de hemorragia mayor fueron menos en el grupo de 6 meses que en el de 12 (el 0,8 y el 1,4%; p = 0,2). Conclusiones: En pacientes seleccionados de este amplio estudio multicéntrico, la seguridad y la eficacia de 6 meses de tratamiento antiagregante plaquetario combinado doble después del implante de stents farmacoactivos de nueva generación fueron no inferiores a las observadas con 12 meses de tratamiento antiagregante plaquetario combinado doble (AU)

Introduction and objectives: The recommendation for dual antiplatelet therapy following drug-eluting stent implantation ranges from 6 months to 12 months or beyond. Recent trials have suggested the safety of a 6-month dual antiplatelet therapy regimen, yet certain caveats to these studies limit the applicability of this shorter duration dual antiplatelet therapy strategy in real world settings. Methods: A registry was constructed with consecutive recruitment of patients undergoing new-generation drug-eluting stent implantation and prescribed 6 months of dual antiplatelet therapy. Propensity score matching was undertaken with a historical cohort of patients treated with second-generation drug-eluting stents who received 12 months of dual antiplatelet therapy from the ESTROFA-2 registry. The sample size was calculated using a noninferiority basis and the primary endpoint was the combination of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, revascularization, or major bleeding at 12 months. Results: The analysis included 1286 patients in each group, with no significant differences in baseline characteristics. The primary endpoint occurred in 5.0% and 6.6% in the 6-month and 12-month groups, respectively (P = .001 for noninferiority). The incidence of definite or probable stent thrombosis was 0.5% and 0.7% in the 6-month and 12-month groups, respectively (P = .4). Major bleeding events were lower in the 6-month group than in the 12-month group (0.8% vs 1.4%; P = .2) Conclusions: In selected patients in this large multicenter study, the safety and efficacy of a 6-month dual antiplatelet therapy regimen after implantation of new-generation drug-eluting stents appeared to be noninferior to those of a 12-month dual antiplatelet therapy regimen (AU)