Everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds versus everolimus-eluting metallic stents: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Bioresorbable coronary stents might improve outcomes of patients treated with percutaneous coronary interventions. The everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold is the most studied of these stent platforms; however, its performance versus everolimus-eluting metallic stents remains poorly defined. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds versus everolimus-eluting metallic stents in patients with ischaemic heart disease treated with percutaneous revascularisation. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), scientific sessions abstracts, and relevant websites for randomised trials investigating everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds versus everolimus-eluting metallic stents published or posted between Nov 30, 2006, and Oct 12, 2015. The primary efficacy outcome was target lesion revascularisation and the primary safety outcome was definite or probable stent (scaffold) thrombosis. Secondary outcomes were target lesion failure (the composite of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularisation), myocardial infarction, death, and in-device late lumen loss. We derived odds ratios (ORs) and weighted mean differences with 95% CIs, and calculated the risk estimates for the main outcomes according to a random-effects model. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42015026374. FINDINGS: We included six trials, comprising data for 3738 patients randomised to receive percutaneous coronary intervention with either an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold (n=2337) or an everolimus-eluting metallic stent (n=1401). Median follow-up was 12 months (IQR 9-12). Patients treated with bioresorbable vascular scaffolds had a similar risk of target lesion revascularisation (OR 0.97 [95% CI 0.66-1.43]; p=0.87), target lesion failure (1.20 [0.90-1.60]; p=0.21), myocardial infarction (1.36 [0.98-1.89]; p=0.06), and death (0.95 [0.45-2.00]; p=0.89) as those treated with metallic stents. Patients treated with a bioresorbable vascular scaffold had a higher risk of definite or probable stent thrombosis than those treated with a metallic stent (OR 1.99 [95% CI 1.00-3.98]; p=0.05), with the highest risk between 1 and 30 days after implantation (3.11 [1.24-7.82]; p=0.02). Lesions treated with a bioresorbable vascular scaffold had greater in-device late lumen loss than those treated with a metallic stent (weighted mean difference 0.08 [95% CI 0.05-0.12]; p<0.0001). INTERPRETATION: Compared with everolimus-eluting metallic stents, everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds had similar rates of repeat revascularisation at 1 year of follow-up, despite inferior mid-term angiographic performance. However, patients treated with a bioresorbable vascular scaffold had an increased risk of subacute stent thrombosis. Studies with extended follow-up in a larger number of patients are needed to fully assess the long-term advantages of everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds. FUNDING: None.

Five-year follow-up of polymer-free sirolimus- and probucol-eluting stents versus new generation zotarolimus-eluting stents in patients presenting with st-elevation myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: Patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation are at increased risk of late adverse events, partly explained by an exaggerated inflammatory reaction to durable-polymer stent coatings. OBJECTIVES: We sought to investigate whether implantation of polymer-free DES would reduce this risk. METHODS: In the ISAR-TEST 5 (the Intracoronary Stenting and Angiographic Results: Test Efficacy of Sirolimus- and Probucol- and Zotarolimus-Eluting Stents) trial, patients were randomly allocated to receive a polymer-free sirolimus- and probucol-eluting stent or a new generation durable-polymer zotarolimus-eluting stent. We analyzed late clinical outcomes in the subgroup of patients presenting with STEMI. The primary endpoint was the combined incidence of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction or target lesion revascularization at 5 years. RESULTS: 311 patients with STEMI were randomized to receive sirolimus- and probucol-eluting stents (n = 215) or zotarolimus-eluting stents (n = 96). At 5 years, there was no difference in the incidence of the primary endpoint in patients treated with sirolimus- and probucol-eluting stents versus zotarolimus-eluting stents (18.3% versus 20.1% respectively, hazard ratio = 0.87, 95% CI, 0.50-1.51; P = 0.62). Rates of the individual components of the primary endpoint were also comparable in both groups. The incidence of definite/probable stent thrombosis was 1.4% versus 1.0% respectively (hazard ratio = 1.35, 95% CI, 0.14-12.94, P = 0.80). CONCLUSIONS: Long-term outcomes of patients with STEMI treated with polymer-free sirolimus- and probucol-eluting stents versus durable-polymer zotarolimus-eluting stents were similar. Stent thrombosis rates were low and comparable in both treatment groups, with no events beyond 12 months. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier NCT 00598533) © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Neointimal Modification With Scoring Balloon and Efficacy of Drug-Coated Balloon Therapy in Patients With Restenosis in Drug-Eluting Coronary Stents: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare neointimal modification with scoring balloon pre-dilation before drug-coated balloon (DCB) versus DCB standard therapy in patients presenting with drug-eluting stent (DES) restenosis. BACKGROUND: DCB angioplasty for the treatment of coronary drug-eluting stent restenosis has demonstrated encouraging results. The efficacy of DCB treatment relies on rapid initial drug transfer and tissue retention of the antiproliferative drug. Neointimal modification with scoring balloon pre-dilation may enhance the efficacy of DCB therapy. METHODS: In this randomized, open-label, active-controlled trial, 252 patients with clinically significant DES restenosis were enrolled at 4 centers in Germany. Patients undergoing DCB angioplasty were randomly assigned to treatment with scoring balloon pre-dilation or standard therapy. The primary endpoint of the study was in-segment percentage diameter stenosis on 6- to 8-month follow-up angiography. The secondary endpoints included binary angiographic restenosis and late lumen loss on follow-up angiography, the combined incidence of death or myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization, and target lesion thrombosis at 1 year. RESULTS: Follow-up angiographic data at 6 to 8 months were available for 203 patients (80.6%). Scoring balloon pre-dilation compared with standard therapy showed significantly lower rates with respect to the primary endpoint (35.0 ± 16.8% vs. 40.4 ± 21.4%; p = 0.047) and binary angiographic restenosis (18.5% vs. 32.0%; p = 0.026). Late lumen loss was numerically lower after scoring balloon pre-dilation compared with standard therapy (0.31 ± 59 mm vs. 0.41 ± 0.74 mm; p = 0.27). There was no difference between the groups in the incidence of death or myocardial infarction (4.0% vs. 3.4%; p = 0.73). Scoring balloon versus standard therapy showed comparable rates of target lesion revascularization (16.2% vs. 21.8%; p = 0.26). No target lesion thrombosis occurred out to 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: In patients presenting with drug-eluting stent restenosis, neointimal modification with scoring balloon improves the antirestenotic efficacy of DCB therapy. (Intracoronary Stenting and Angiographic Results: Optimizing Treatment of Drug Eluting Stent In-Stent Restenosis 4 [ISAR-DESIRE 4]; NCT01632371).

Randomized Trial of Polymer-Free Sirolimus- and Probucol-Eluting Stents Versus Durable Polymer Zotarolimus-Eluting Stents: 5-Year Results of the ISAR-TEST-5 Trial.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the late clinical performance of a polymer-free sirolimus- and probucol-eluting stent compared with a new-generation durable polymer-based zotarolimus-eluting stent. BACKGROUND: It was previously shown that polymer-free sirolimus- and probucol-eluting stents were noninferior to zotarolimus-eluting stents at 12 months. However, long-term follow-up of these devices is critical to evaluate late comparative efficacy. METHODS: In a clinical trial with minimal exclusion criteria, 3,002 patients were randomly assigned to treatment with polymer-free sirolimus- and probucol-eluting stents versus zotarolimus-eluting stents. The primary endpoint was the combined incidence of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization. RESULTS: At 5 years, there was no difference in the incidence of the primary endpoint between sirolimus- and probucol-eluting stents and zotarolimus-eluting stents (23.8% vs. 24.2%, respectively; hazard ratio: 0.98; 95% confidence interval: 0.84 to 1.15; p = 0.80). The rates of the individual components of the primary endpoint were also comparable in both groups. The incidence of definite or probable stent thrombosis was low in both groups (1.3% vs. 1.6%, respectively; hazard ratio: 0.86; 95% confidence interval: 0.46 to 1.62; p = 0.64). The rates of any death, myocardial infarction, and revascularization were similar in both groups. Results were consistent across pre-specified subgroups of age, sex, diabetes, and vessel size. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term outcomes of patients treated with polymer-free sirolimus- and probucol-eluting stents compared with a new-generation durable polymer-based zotarolimus-eluting stent were similar. Rates of stent thrombosis were low and comparable in both treatment groups, with few events beyond 12 months. (Efficacy Study of Rapamycin- vs. Zotarolimus-Eluting Stents to Reduce Coronary Restenosis [ISAR-TEST-5]; NCT00598533).

Effects of oral valganciclovir prophylaxis for cytomegalovirus infection in heart transplant patients.

BACKGROUND: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is a serious complication following heart transplantation. This study (June 2003-January 2010) retrospectively assessed the effects of oral valganciclovir prophylaxis in adult heart transplant recipients during the first year after transplantation. METHODS: In patients with normal renal function, 900 mg of oral valganciclovir was administered twice daily for 14 days after heart transplant followed by 900 mg per day for following 6 months. In the event of renal insufficiency, valganciclovir was adjusted according to the manufacturer's recommendations. Antigenemia testing for pp65 antigen and simultaneous polymerase chain reaction (PCR) were used to document exposure to CMV. From 2003 to 2010, 146 patients (74.0% men) of mean age 50.7 ± 10.3 years at the time of heart transplant were included. RESULTS: A total of 16 patients (11.0% of total, 75.0% male) had a positive pp65 and PCR result (ie, CMV infection) during the year following heart transplant; three of these patients had discontinued valganciclovir prophylaxis within the first 6 months following transplant because of leukopenia, including one patient developed CMV colitis. Two further patients developed CMV pneumonia during prophylactic valganciclovir therapy. Eight patients had positive pp65 and PCR tests in the 6-12 months after heart transplant following cessation of routine prophylaxis. One of these patients developed CMV pneumonia and another developed CMV colitis and CMV pneumonia. Thirty-seven of the 146 (25.3%) patients were CMV donor-seropositive/recipient-seronegative, and seven (18.9% of this subgroup) had a positive CMV test. In patients who were CMV donor-seropositive/recipient-seronegative, the risk of a positive CMV test (ie, CMV infection) was significantly elevated (P = 0.023). CONCLUSION: CMV prophylaxis with oral valganciclovir for 6 months following heart transplant is clinically feasible. In line with previous studies, CMV donor-seropositive/recipient-seronegative patients have a significantly elevated risk of CMV infection. In patients who prematurely discontinue valganciclovir, close monitoring of CMV antigenemia appears warranted. No significantly elevated rate of CMV infection was observed after 6 months of valganciclovir prophylaxis.