Three-year clinical outcome after treatment of chronic total occlusions with second-generation drug-eluting stents in the TWENTE trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare long-term outcome of patients treated for chronic total occlusion (CTO) lesions versus patients treated for non-CTO lesions only. BACKGROUND: Percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) for CTO lesions generally have a higher adverse event risk than PCI for non-CTO lesions. However, long-term outcome data from prospective studies with second-generation drug-eluting stent (DES) use in CTO lesions is scarce. METHODS: We analyzed in this substudy of the TWENTE trial the data of 674 patients, who had stable angina and were electively treated with second-generation DES (Resolute zotarolimus-eluting or Xience V everolimus-eluting stents). Main outcome parameter was target lesion failure (TLF), a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction (MI), or target lesion revascularization (TLR). RESULTS: Patients with CTO lesions (n = 59, 8.8%) were more often treated for lesions in small vessels (94.9% vs. 63.1%, P < 0.001), long lesions (52.5% vs. 17.7%, P < 0.001) and multiple vessels (42.4% vs. 22.4%, P < 0.001), and were less often males (62.7% vs. 74.6%, P < 0.05) than patients with non-CTO lesions (n = 615, 91.2%). J-CTO scores ≥2 were present in 56% of CTO lesions. Despite significant differences in characteristics of patients, lesions, and interventional procedures, the TLF rate at 3-year follow-up was similar for both groups (13.6% vs. 12.9%, P = 0.89). In addition, a patient-oriented composite endpoint (any death, MI or revascularization) did not differ between groups (18.6% vs. 18.8%, P = 0.97). CONCLUSION: Patients treated with second-generation DES for CTO lesions showed at 3-year follow-up an incidence of adverse clinical events that was low and similar to patients with non-CTO lesions only.

1- or 3-Month DAPT in Patients With HBR With or Without Oral Anticoagulant Therapy After PCI.

BACKGROUND: The optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients on long-term oral anticoagulation (OAC) therapy is still uncertain. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this analysis was to assess the effects of 1- vs 3-month DAPT in patients with and those without concomitant OAC included in the XIENCE Short DAPT program. METHODS: The XIENCE Short DAPT program enrolled patients with high bleeding risk who underwent successful PCI with a cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stent. DAPT was discontinued at 1 or 3 months in patients free from ischemic events and adherent to treatment. The effect of 1- vs 3-month DAPT was compared in patients with and those without OAC using propensity score stratification. The primary endpoint was all-cause death or any myocardial infarction (MI). The key secondary endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) types 2 to 5 bleeding. Outcomes were assessed from 1 to 12 months after index PCI. RESULTS: Among 3,364 event-free patients, 1,462 (43%) were on OAC. Among OAC patients, the risk for death or MI was similar between 1- and 3-month DAPT (7.4% vs 8.8%; adjusted HR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.49-1.11; P = 0.139), whereas BARC types 2 to 5 bleeding was lower with 1-month DAPT (adjusted HR: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.51-0.99; P = 0.046). These effects were consistent in patients with and those without OAC (P for interaction = NS). CONCLUSIONS: Between 1 and 12 months after PCI, 1-month compared with 3-month DAPT was associated with similar rates of all-cause death or MI and a reduced rate of BARC types 2 to 5 bleeding, irrespective of OAC treatment.

Long-Term Outcome of Drug-Coated Balloon vs Drug-Eluting Stent for Small Coronary Vessels: PICCOLETO-II 3-Year Follow-Up.

BACKGROUND: Native vessel coronary artery disease represents 1 of the most attractive fields of application for drug-coated balloons (DCBs). To date, several devices have been compared with drug-eluting stents (DESs) in this setting with different outcomes. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to compare the short- and long-term performance of the paclitaxel DCB with the everolimus-eluting stent in patients with de novo lesions in small coronary vessel disease. METHODS: PICCOLETO II (Drug Eluting Balloon Efficacy for Small Coronary Vessel Disease Treatment) was an academic, international, investigator-driven, multicenter, open-label randomized clinical trial in which patients were allocated to a DCB (n = 118) or DES (n = 114). We previously reported the superiority of DCBs regarding in-lesion late lumen loss at 6 months. Herein we report the final 3-year clinical follow-up with the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), a composite of cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization, and its individual components. RESULTS: The 3-year clinical follow-up (median 1,101 days; IQR: 1,055-1,146 days) was available for 102 patients allocated to DCB and 101 to DES treatment. The cumulative rate of all-cause death (4% vs 3.9%; P = 0.98), cardiac death (1% vs 1.9%; P = 0.56), myocardial infarction (6.9% vs 2%; P = 0.14), and target lesion revascularization (14.8% vs 8.8%; P = 0.18) did not significantly differ between DCBs and DESs. MACEs and acute vessel occlusion occurred more frequently in the DES group (20.8% vs 10.8% [P = 0.046] and 4% vs 0% [P = 0.042], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The long-term clinical follow-up of the PICCOLETO II randomized clinical trial shows a higher risk of MACEs in patients with de novo lesions in small vessel disease when they are treated with the current-generation DES compared with the new-generation paclitaxel DCB. (Drug Eluting Balloon Efficacy for Small Coronary Vessel Disease Treatment [PICCOLETO II]; NCT03899818).

Comparison of Different Types of Drug-Eluting Stents for De Novo Long Coronary Artery Lesions.

Background: Outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention for diffuse long lesions remain relatively unfavorable. Prior clinical trials investigated the relative efficacy and safety of different types of drug-eluting stents (DES) in long lesions. Objectives: This study sought to compare the relative performance of different types of DES for de novo long (≥25 mm) coronary artery lesions. Methods: Using a pooled analysis of individual data of 1,450 patients from 3 randomized clinical trials, we compared angiographic and clinical outcomes of 5 different types of DES: 224 patients with cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents (EES), 255 with platinum-chromium EES, 250 with Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stents, 245 with biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stents, and 476 with first-generation sirolimus-eluting stents (SES). The primary endpoint was in-segment late lumen loss at 9 months. Results: The primary endpoint was not significantly different between 4 second-generation DES and 1 first-generation SES (0.17 ± 0.41 mm in cobalt-chromium EES; 0.11 ± 0.37 in platinum-chromium EES: 0.14 ± 0.38 in Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stents; 0.14 ± 0.38 in biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stents; or 0.10 ± 0.37 in SES, respectively, overall P = 0.38). Also, there were no significant between-group differences with respect to death, myocardial infarction, target-vessel revascularization, or stent thrombosis at 12 months. In the multiple treatment propensity-score analysis, the risk of angiographic and clinical outcomes was also similar among several types of DES. Conclusions: In this patient-level pooled analysis, several second-generation DES showed similar angiographic and clinical outcomes in patients with de novo long coronary lesions. (Percutaneous Treatment of LONG Native Coronary Lesions With Drug-Eluting Stent-III [LONG-DES-III]; NCT01078038; Percutaneous Treatment of LONG Native Coronary Lesions With Drug-Eluting Stent-IV [LONG-DES-IV]; NCT01186094; and Everolimus-eluting [PROMUS-ELEMENT] vs. Biolimus A9-Eluting [NOBORI] Stents for Long-Coronary Lesions [LONG-DES-V]; NCT01186120).

Stent-Related Adverse Events as Related to Dual Antiplatelet Therapy in First- vs Second-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents.

Background: There are limited data on the long-term stent-related adverse events as related to the duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in second-generation (G2) drug-eluting stents (DES) compared with first-generation (G1) DES. Objectives: This study sought to compare the long-term stent-related outcomes of G2-DES with those of G1-DES. Methods: The study group consisted of 15,009 patients who underwent their first coronary revascularization with DES from the CREDO-Kyoto PCI/CABG (Coronary Revascularization Demonstrating Outcome Study in Kyoto Percutaneous Coronary Intervention/Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting) Registry Cohort-2 (first-generation drug-eluting stent [G1-DES] period; n = 5,382) and Cohort-3 (second-generation drug eluting stent [G2-DES] period; n = 9,627). The primary outcome measures were definite stent thrombosis (ST) and target vessel revascularization (TVR). Results: The cumulative 5-year incidences of definite ST and TVR were significantly lower in the G2-DES group than in the G1-DES group (0.7% vs 1.4%; P < 0.001; and 16.2% vs 22.1%; P < 0.001, respectively). The lower adjusted risk of G2-DES relative to G1-DES for definite ST and TVR remained significant (HR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.37-0.76; P < 0.001; and HR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.68-0.81; P < 0.001, respectively). In the landmark analysis that was based on the DAPT status at 1 year, the lower adjusted risk of on-DAPT status relative to off-DAPT was significant for definite ST beyond 1 year in the G1-DES stratum (HR: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.24-0.76; P = 0.004) but not in the G2-DES stratum (HR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.26-1.68; P = 0.38) (P interaction = 0.14). Conclusions: G2-DES compared with G1-DES were associated with a significantly lower risk for stent-related adverse events, including definite ST and TVR. DAPT beyond 1 year was associated with a significantly lower risk for very late ST of G1-DES but not for that of G2-DES.

Drug-Coated Balloon Versus Drug-Eluting Stent for Small Coronary Vessel Disease: PICCOLETO II Randomized Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare the performance of a novel drug-coated balloon (DCB) (Elutax SV, Aachen Resonance, Germany), with an everolimus-eluting stent (EES) (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, California) in patients with de novo lesions. BACKGROUND: Small vessel coronary artery disease (SVD) represents one of the most attractive fields of application for DCB. To date, several devices have been compared with drug-eluting stents in this setting, with different outcomes. METHODS: The PICCOLETO II (Drug Eluting Balloon Efficacy for Small Coronary Vessel Disease Treatment) trial was an international, investigator-driven, multicenter, open-label, prospective randomized controlled trial where patients with de novo SVD lesions were randomized to DCB or EES. Primary study endpoint was in-lesion late lumen loss (LLL) at 6 months (independent core laboratory), with the noninferiority between the 2 arms hypothesized. Secondary endpoints were minimal lumen diameter, percent diameter stenosis at angiographic follow-up, and the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events at 12 months. RESULTS: Between May 2015 and May 2018, a total of 232 patients were enrolled at 5 centers. After a median of 189 (interquartile range: 160 to 202) days, in-lesion LLL was significantly lower in the DCB group (0.04 vs. 0.17 mm; p = 0.001 for noninferiority; p = 0.03 for superiority). Percent diameter stenosis and minimal lumen diameter were not significantly different. At 12-month clinical follow-up, major adverse cardiac events occurred in 7.5% of the DES group and in 5.6% of the DCB group (p = 0.55). There was a numerically higher incidence of spontaneous myocardial infarction (4.7% vs. 1.9%; p = 0.23) and vessel thrombosis (1.8% vs. 0%; p = 0.15) in the DES arm. CONCLUSIONS: In this multicenter randomized clinical trial in patients with de novo SVD lesions, a new-generation DCB was found superior to EES in terms of LLL as the angiographic pattern and comparable in terms of clinical outcome. (Drug Eluting Balloon Efficacy for Small Coronary Vessel Disease Treatment [PICCOLETO II]; NCT03899818).

7-Year Outcomes of a Randomized Trial Comparing the First-Generation Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Versus the New-Generation Everolimus-Eluting Stent: The RESET Trial.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare 7-year outcomes between the first-generation sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) and the new-generation everolimus-eluting stent (EES) in a randomized clinical trial. BACKGROUND: There is a scarcity of very long-term (beyond 5 years) data from clinical trials investigating whether new-generation drug-eluting stents have clear clinical advantages over first-generation drug-eluting stents. METHODS: RESET (Randomized Evaluation of Sirolimus-Eluting Versus Everolimus-Eluting Stent Trial) is the largest randomized trial comparing EES with SES (NCT01035450). Among a total of 3,197 patients in the original RESET population from 100 centers, the present extended 7-year follow-up study was conducted in 2,667 patients from 75 centers after excluding those patients enrolled from centers that denied participation. Complete 7-year follow-up was achieved in 91.5% of patients. RESULTS: The cumulative 7-year incidence of the primary efficacy endpoint of target lesion revascularization was not significantly different between EES and SES (10.2% vs. 11.7%; hazard ratio: 0.87; 95% confidence interval: 0.68 to 1.10; p = 0.24). The risk for the primary safety endpoint of death or myocardial infarction trended lower with EES than with SES (20.6% vs. 23.6%; hazard ratio: 0.85; 95% confidence interval: 0.72 to 1.005; p = 0.06). The cumulative 7-year incidence of definite stent thrombosis was very low and similar between EES and SES (0.9% vs. 1.0%; p = 0.82). The lower risk of EES relative to SES was significant for the composite secondary endpoint of target lesion failure (13.3% vs. 18.1%; hazard ratio: 0.72; 95% confidence interval: 0.59 to 0.88; p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: During 7 years of follow-up, the risk for target lesion revascularization was not significantly different between the new-generation EES and the first-generation SES.

3-Year Clinical Follow-Up of the RIBS IV Clinical Trial: A Prospective Randomized Study of Drug-Eluting Balloons Versus Everolimus-Eluting Stents in Patients With In-Stent Restenosis in Coronary Arteries Previously Treated With Drug-Eluting Stents.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare the long-term safety and efficacy of drug-eluting balloons (DEB) and everolimus-eluting stents (EES) in patients with in-stent restenosis (ISR) of drug-eluting stents (DES). BACKGROUND: Treatment of patients with DES-ISR remains a challenge. METHODS: The RIBS IV (Restenosis Intra-Stent of Drug-Eluting Stents: Drug-Eluting Balloons vs Everolimus-Eluting Stents) trial is a prospective multicenter randomized clinical trial comparing DEB and EES in patients with DES-ISR. The pre-specified comparison of the 3-year clinical outcomes obtained with these interventions is the main objective of the present study. RESULTS: A total of 309 patients with DES-ISR were randomized to DEB (n = 154) or EES (n = 155). At angiographic follow-up, the in-segment minimal lumen diameter was larger in the EES arm (2.03 ± 0.7 mm vs. 1.80 ± 0.6 mm; p < 0.01). Three-year clinical follow-up was obtained in all enrolled patients (100%). The combined clinical outcome measure of cardiac death, myocardial infarction and target lesion revascularization was significantly reduced in the EES arm (19 [12.3%] vs. 31 [20.1%]; p = 0.04; hazard ratio: 0.57 [95% confidence interval: 0.34 to 0.96]), driven by a lower need for target lesion revascularization (11 [7.1%] vs. 24 [15.6%]; p = 0.015; hazard ratio: 0.43 [95% confidence interval: 0.21 to 0.87]). The need for "late" (>1 year) target lesion revascularization (2.6% vs. 4%) and target vessel revascularization (4% vs. 6.6%) was similar in the 2 arms. Rates of cardiac death (3.9% vs. 3.2%), myocardial infarction (2.6% vs. 4.5%), and stent thrombosis (1.3% vs. 2.6%) at 3 years were also similar in both arms. CONCLUSIONS: The 3-year clinical follow-up of this randomized clinical trial demonstrates that in patients with DES-ISR, EES reduce the need for repeat interventions compared with DEB. (Restenosis Intra-Stent of Drug-Eluting Stents: Drug-Eluting Balloons vs Everolimus-Eluting Stents [RIBS IV]; NCT01239940).

5-Year Outcome Following Randomized Treatment of All-Comers With Zotarolimus-Eluting Resolute Integrity and Everolimus-Eluting PROMUS Element Coronary Stents: Final Report of the DUTCH PEERS (TWENTE II) Trial.

OBJECTIVES: The study sought to evaluate for the first time the 5-year outcomes after treating an all-comers population with newer-generation cobalt chromium-based Resolute Integrity zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZES) (Medtronic, Santa Rosa, California) versus platinum chromium-based PROMUS Element everolimus eluting stents (EES) (Boston Scientific, Natick, Massachusetts). BACKGROUND: The DUTCH PEERS (TWENTE II) (DUrable polymer-based sTent CHallenge of Promus ElemEnt versus ReSolute integrity: TWENTE II) trial is a randomized, multicenter, single-blinded, investigator-initiated all-comers trial that found at its main analysis similar 1-year safety and efficacy for both drug-eluting stents. It is the first randomized trial ever to investigate the Resolute Integrity ZES and the first trial to compare both devices. METHODS: In total, 1,811 patients were 1:1 randomized to ZES versus EES. We performed a pre-specified assessment of the 5-year clinical outcomes in terms of safety and efficacy. The main endpoint target vessel failure (TVF) is a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization. Secondary endpoints included the individual components of TVF, and stent thrombosis. The study was independently monitored, and adverse clinical events were independently adjudicated. RESULTS: Five-year clinical follow-up data was available in 1,798 (99.3%) patients. The ZES and EES groups showed favorable outcomes, with similar 5-year incidence of TVF (13.2% vs. 14.2%; plog-rank = 0.62) and its individual components: cardiac death (4.5% vs. 4.9%; plog-rank = 0.69), target vessel-related myocardial infarction (3.1% vs. 2.6%; plog-rank = 0.47), and target vessel revascularization (7.6% vs. 8.6%; plog-rank = 0.46). The 5-year incidence of definite or probable stent thrombosis was similar (1.5% vs. 1.3%; plog-rank = 0.83). CONCLUSIONS: At 5-year follow-up, the Resolute Integrity ZES and PROMUS Element EES showed similar and sustained results in terms of safety and efficacy for treating a broad population of all-comers.

Biodegradable Polymer Biolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stents in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: Final 5-Year Report From the COMPARE II Trial (Abluminal Biodegradable Polymer Biolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stent).

OBJECTIVES: This analysis investigates the 5-year outcomes of the biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stent (BP-BES) and durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent (DP-EES) in an all-comers population undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. BACKGROUND: Recent 1- and 3-year results from randomized trials have indicated similar safety and efficacy outcomes of BP-BES and DP-EES. Whether benefits of the biodegradable polymer device arise over longer follow-up is unknown. Moreover, in-depth, prospective, long-term follow-up data on metallic drug-eluting stents with durable or biodegradable polymers are scarce. METHODS: The COMPARE II trial (Abluminal Biodegradable Polymer Biolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stent) was a prospective, randomized, multicenter, all-comers trial in which 2,707 patients were randomly allocated (2:1) to BP-BES or DP-EES. The pre-specified endpoint at 5 years was major adverse cardiac events, a composite of cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization. RESULTS: Five-year follow-up was available in 2,657 patients (98%). At 5 years, major adverse cardiac events occurred in 310 patients (17.3%) in the BP-BES group and 142 patients (15.6%) in the DP-EES group (p = 0.26). The rate of the combined safety endpoint all-cause death or myocardial infarction was 15.0% in the BP-BES group versus 14.8% in the DP-EES group (p = 0.90), whereas the efficacy measure target vessel revascularization was 10.6% versus 9.0% (p = 0.18), respectively. Interestingly, definite stent thrombosis rates did not differ between groups (1.5% for BP-BES vs. 0.9% for DP-EES; p = 0.17). CONCLUSIONS: The 5-year analysis comparing biodegradable polymer-coated BES and the durable polymer-coated EES confirms the initial early- and mid-term results regarding similar safety and efficacy outcomes in this all-comers percutaneous coronary intervention population.

Angiographic and Clinical Outcomes After Everolimus-Eluting Stenting for Unprotected Left Main Disease and High Anatomic Coronary Complexity.

OBJECTIVES: This study determined angiographic and clinical outcomes after everolimus-eluting stent (EES)-supported percutaneous coronary intervention for unprotected left main disease (ULMD) and high SYNTAX (SYNergy between PCI with TAXus and Cardiac Surgery) trial score (≥33). BACKGROUND: The SYNTAX trial has shown the superiority of coronary surgery over percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with ULMD and complex coronary anatomy. It has been hypothesized that, if newer generation drug-eluting stents had been used in the SYNTAX trial, there would have been a significant reduction in clinical events. METHODS: Patients had angiograms scored according to the SYNTAX score algorithm and were divided into 2 groups: those with SYNTAX score of ≥33 and those with <33. The main endpoints were ULMD restenosis and 3-year cardiac mortality. RESULTS: From May 2008 to July 2014, 393 patients underwent EES implantation for ULMD (181 patients had a SYNTAX score ≥33, whereas 212 patients had a SYNTAX score <33). Overall, the restenosis rate was 4.9% (6% in SYNTAX patients scoring ≥33 and 4.1% in SYNTAX patients scoring <33; p = 0.399). On multivariate analysis, the only variable related to restenosis was stent length (odds ratio [OR]: 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.02 to 1.09; p = 0.002). Three-year cardiac survival rates were 99 ± 1% and 98 ± 2% in patients with European system for cardiac operative risk evaluation (EuroSCORE) <6 and SYNTAX <33 and ≥33, respectively, and 90 ± 3% and 87 ± 3% in patients with a EuroSCORE >6 and SYNTAX score <33 and ≥33, respectively. EuroSCORE was strongly related to cardiac mortality, while the SYNTAX score ≥33 was not both in patients with a EuroSCORE <6 or ≥6, and there were no interactions between EuroSCORE and SYNTAX score ≥33. CONCLUSIONS: For ULMD patients, high anatomical complexity as defined by a SYNTAX score ≥33 is not predictive of clinical outcome after PCI. (TAXUS Drug-Eluting Stent Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for the Treatment of Narrowed Arteries [SYNTAX]; NCT00114972).

Long-Term Results of Everolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Drug-Eluting Balloons in Patients With Bare-Metal In-Stent Restenosis: 3-Year Follow-Up of the RIBS V Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the long-term efficacy of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) and drug-eluting balloons (DEB) in patients with bare-metal stent in-stent restenosis (ISR). BACKGROUND: The relative long-term clinical efficacy of current therapeutic modalities in patients with ISR remains unknown. METHODS: The 3-year clinical follow-up (pre-specified endpoint) of patients included in the RIBS V (Restenosis Intra-Stent of Bare-Metal Stents: Drug-Eluting Balloon vs Everolimus-Eluting Stent Implantation) randomized clinical trial was analyzed. All patients were followed yearly using a pre-defined structured questionnaire. RESULTS: A total of 189 patients with bare-metal stent ISR were allocated to either EES (n = 94) or DEB (n = 95). Clinical follow-up at 1, 2, and 3 years was obtained in all patients (100%). Compared with patients treated with DEB, those treated with EES obtained better angiographic results, including larger minimal luminal diameter at follow-up (primary study endpoint; 2.36 ± 0.6 mm vs. 2.01 ± 0.6 mm; p < 0.001). At 3 years, the rates of cardiac death (2% vs. 1%), myocardial infarction (4% vs. 5%) and target vessel revascularization (9% vs. 5%) were similar in the DEB and EES arms. Importantly, however, at 3 years, the rate of target lesion revascularization was significantly lower in the EES arm (2% vs. 8%; p = 0.04; hazard ratio: 0.23; 95% confidence interval: 0.06 to 0.93). The need for "late" (>1 year) target vessel (3 [3.2%] vs. 3 [3.2%]; p = 0.95) and target lesion (1 [1%] vs. 2 [2.1%]; p = 0.54) revascularization was low and similar in the 2 arms. Rates of definite or probable stent thrombosis (1% vs. 0%) were also similar in the 2 arms. CONCLUSIONS: The 3-year clinical follow-up of the RIBS V clinical trial confirms the sustained safety and efficacy of EES and DEB in patients treated for bare-metal stent ISR. In this setting, EES reduce the need for target lesion revascularization at very long-term follow-up. (RIBS V [Restenosis Intra-Stent of Bare Metal Stents: Paclitaxel-Eluting Balloon vs Everolimus-Eluting Stent] [RIBS V]; NCT01239953).

Randomized comparison of everolimus-eluting stents and sirolimus-eluting stents in patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction: RACES-MI trial.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the current study was to compare everolimus-eluting stents (EES) with sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) in patients undergoing primary angioplasty. BACKGROUND: Drug-eluting stents may offer benefits in terms of repeat revascularization. However, as shown for first-generation drug-eluting stents, they may be counterbalanced by a potential higher risk of stent thrombosis, especially among patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). No data have been reported so far on the long-term benefits and safety of the new generation of drug-eluting stents in STEMI. METHODS: Consecutive STEMI patients admitted within 12 h of symptom onset and undergoing primary angioplasty and stent implantation at a tertiary center with 24-h primary percutaneous coronary intervention capability were randomly assigned to SES or EES. The primary endpoint was a major adverse cardiac event at 3-year follow-up. The secondary endpoints were death, reinfarction, definite or probable stent thrombosis, and target vessel revascularization at 3-year follow-up. No patient was lost to follow-up. RESULTS: From April 2007 to May 2009, 500 patients with STEMI were randomized to EES (n = 250) or SES (n = 250). No difference was observed in terms of baseline demographic and clinical characteristics between the groups. No difference was observed between the groups in terms of number of implanted stents per patient or total stent length. However, a larger reference diameter was observed with SES (3.35 ± 0.51 mm vs. 3.25 ± 0.51 mm, p = 0.001), whereas patients randomized to EES more often received glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (54.4% vs. 42.4%, p = 0.006). Follow-up data were available in all patients (1,095 ± 159 days). No significant difference was observed between EES and SES in major adverse cardiac events (16% vs. 20.8%, adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 0.75 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.5 to 1.13], p = 0.17), cardiac death (4.4% vs. 5.6%, adjusted HR: 0.77 [95% CI: 0.35 to 1.71], p = 0.53), recurrent MI (6.4% vs. 10%, adjusted HR: 0.62 [95% CI: 0.33 to 1.16], p = 0.13), and target vessel revascularization (4.8% vs. 4.8%, adjusted HR: 1.00 [95% CI: 0.45 to 2.32], p = 0.99). However, EES was associated with a significant reduction in stent thrombosis (1.6% vs. 5.2%, adjusted HR: 0.3 [95% CI: 0.1 to 0.92], p = 0.035). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that among STEMI patients undergoing primary angioplasty, EES has similar efficacy as SES, but is associated with a significant reduction in stent thrombosis. (Randomized Comparison of Everolimus Eluting Stents and Sirolimus Eluting Stent in Patients With ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction [RACES-MI]; NCT01684982).

4-year clinical outcomes and predictors of repeat revascularization in patients treated with new-generation drug-eluting stents: a report from 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 the study was to investigate 4-year outcomes and predictors of repeat revascularization in patients treated with the Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stent (R-ZES) (Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minnesota) and XIENCE V everolimus-eluting stent (EES) (Abbott Vascular, Abbott Park, Illinois) in the RESOLUTE (A Randomized Comparison of a Zotarolimus-Eluting Stent With an Everolimus-Eluting Stent for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) All-Comers trial. BACKGROUND: Data on long-term outcomes of new-generation drug-eluting stents are limited, and predictors of repeat revascularization due to restenosis and/or progression of disease are largely unknown. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to treatment with the R-ZES (n = 1,140) or the EES (n = 1,152). We assessed pre-specified safety and efficacy outcomes at 4 years including target lesion failure and stent thrombosis. Predictors of revascularization at 4 years were identified by Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: At 4 years, the rates of target lesion failure (15.2% vs. 14.6%, p = 0.68), cardiac death (5.4% vs. 4.7%, p = 0.44), and target vessel myocardial infarction (5.3% vs. 5.4%, p = 1.00), clinically-indicated target lesion revascularization (TLR) (7.0% vs. 6.5%, p = 0.62), and definite/probable stent thrombosis (2.3% vs. 1.6%, p = 0.23) were similar with the R-ZES and EES. Independent predictors of TLR were age, insulin-treated diabetes, SYNTAX (Synergy between PCI with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery) score, treatment of saphenous vein grafts, ostial lesions, and in-stent restenosis. Independent predictors of any revascularization were age, diabetes, previous percutaneous coronary intervention, absence of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, smaller reference vessel diameter, SYNTAX score, and treatment of left anterior descending, right coronary artery, saphenous vein grafts, ostial lesions, or in-stent restenosis. CONCLUSIONS: R-ZES and EES demonstrated similar safety and efficacy throughout 4 years. TLR represented less than one-half of all repeat revascularization procedures. Patient- and lesion-related factors predicting the risk of TLR and any revascularization showed considerable overlap. (A Randomized Comparison of a Zotarolimus-Eluting Stent With an Everolimus-Eluting Stent for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention [RESOLUTE-AC]; NCT00617084).

The EXAMINATION trial (Everolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Bare-Metal Stents in ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction): 2-year results from a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to assess the 2-year outcomes of the population included in the EXAMINATION (Everolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Bare-Metal Stents in ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction) trial beyond the 1-year prescription period of dual antiplatelet therapy. BACKGROUND: The EXAMINATION trial compared the performance of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) versus bare-metal stents (BMS) in an all-comer ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) population. METHODS: This was a multicenter, multinational, prospective, randomized, single-blind, controlled trial in patients with STEMI. The primary endpoint, which was the combined endpoint of all-cause death, any recurrent myocardial infarction, and any revascularization, and the endpoints target lesion revascularization and stent thrombosis were assessed at 2 years. RESULTS: Between December 31, 2008, and May 15, 2010, 1,498 patients were randomized to receive EES (n = 751) or BMS (n = 747). Compliance with dual antiplatelet regimen was reduced at 2 years to a similar degree (17.3% vs. 17.2%, p = 0.91). At 2 years, the primary endpoint occurred in 108 (14.4%) patients of the EES group and in 129 (17.3%) patients of the BMS group (p = 0.11). Rate of target lesion revascularization was significantly lower in the EES group than in the BMS group (2.9% vs. 5.6%; p = 0.009). Rates of definite and definite or probable stent thrombosis were also significantly reduced in the EES group (0.8% vs. 2.1%; p = 0.03, and 1.3% vs. 2.8%; p = 0.04, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The 2-year follow-up of the EXAMINATION trial confirms the safety and efficacy of the EES compared with BMS in the setting of STEMI. Specifically, both rates of target lesion revascularization and stent thrombosis were reduced in recipients of EES without any signs of late attrition for either of these endpoints. (A Clinical Evaluation of Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stents in the Treatment of Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: EXAMINATION Study; NCT00828087).

Clinical outcomes with bioabsorbable polymer- versus durable polymer-based drug-eluting and bare-metal stents: evidence from a comprehensive network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to investigate the relative safety and efficacy of bioabsorbable polymer (BP)-based biolimus-eluting stents (BES) versus durable-polymer (DP)-drug-eluting stents (DES) and bare-metal stents (BMS) by means of a network meta-analysis. BACKGROUND: Studies have suggested that BP-BES might reduce the risk of stent thrombosis (ST) and late adverse outcomes compared with first-generation DES. However, the relative safety and efficacy of BP-BES versus newer-generation DES coated with more biocompatible DP have not been investigated in depth. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials comparing BP-BES versus currently U.S.-approved DES or BMS were searched through MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. Information on study design, inclusion and exclusion criteria, sample characteristics, and clinical outcomes was extracted. RESULTS: Data from 89 trials including 85,490 patients were analyzed. At 1-year follow-up, BP-BES were associated with lower rates of cardiac death/myocardial infarction (MI), MI, and target vessel revascularization (TVR) than BMS and lower rates of TVR than fast-release zotarolimus-eluting stents. The BP-BES had similar rates of cardiac death/MI, MI, and TVR compared with other second-generation DP-DES but higher rates of 1-year ST than cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents (CoCr-EES). The BP-BES were associated with improved late outcomes compared with BMS and paclitaxel-eluting stents, considering the latest follow-up data available, with nonsignificantly different outcomes compared with other DP-DES although higher rates of definite ST compared with CoCr-EES. CONCLUSIONS: In this large-scale network meta-analysis, BP-BES were associated with superior clinical outcomes compared with BMS and first-generation DES and similar rates of cardiac death/MI, MI, and TVR compared with second-generation DP-DES but higher rates of definite ST than CoCr-EES.

Comparison of newer-generation drug-eluting with bare-metal stents in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a pooled analysis of the EXAMINATION (clinical Evaluation of the Xience-V stent in Acute Myocardial INfArcTION) and COMFORTABLE-AMI (Comparison of Biolimus Eluted From an Erodible Stent Coating With Bare Metal Stents in Acute ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction) trials.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to study the efficacy and safety of newer-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) compared with bare-metal stents (BMS) in an appropriately powered population of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). BACKGROUND: Among patients with STEMI, early generation DES improved efficacy but not safety compared with BMS. Newer-generation DES, everolimus-eluting stents, and biolimus A9-eluting stents, have been shown to improve clinical outcomes compared with early generation DES. METHODS: Individual patient data for 2,665 STEMI patients enrolled in 2 large-scale randomized clinical trials comparing newer-generation DES with BMS were pooled: 1,326 patients received a newer-generation DES (everolimus-eluting stent or biolimus A9-eluting stent), whereas the remaining 1,329 patients received a BMS. Random-effects models were used to assess differences between the 2 groups for the device-oriented composite endpoint of cardiac death, target-vessel reinfarction, and target-lesion revascularization and the patient-oriented composite endpoint of all-cause death, any infarction, and any revascularization at 1 year. RESULTS: Newer-generation DES substantially reduce the risk of the device-oriented composite endpoint compared with BMS at 1 year (relative risk [RR]: 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.43 to 0.79; p = 0.0004). Similarly, the risk of the patient-oriented composite endpoint was lower with newer-generation DES than BMS (RR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.63 to 0.96; p = 0.02). Differences in favor of newer-generation DES were driven by both a lower risk of repeat revascularization of the target lesion (RR: 0.33; 95% CI: 0.20 to 0.52; p < 0.0001) and a lower risk of target-vessel infarction (RR: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.14 to 0.92; p = 0.03). Newer-generation DES also reduced the risk of definite stent thrombosis (RR: 0.35; 95% CI: 0.16 to 0.75; p = 0.006) compared with BMS. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with STEMI, newer-generation DES improve safety and efficacy compared with BMS throughout 1 year. It remains to be determined whether the differences in favor of newer-generation DES are sustained during long-term follow-up.

Two-year outcomes after first- or second-generation drug-eluting or bare-metal stent implantation in all-comer patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a pre-specified analysis from the PRODIGY study (PROlonging Dual Antiplatelet Treatment After Grading stent-induced Intimal hyperplasia studY).

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to assess device-specific outcomes after implantation of bare-metal stents (BMS), zotarolimus-eluting Endeavor Sprint stents (ZES-S), paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES), or everolimus-eluting stents (EES) (Medtronic Cardiovascular, Santa Rosa, California) in all-comer patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. BACKGROUND: Few studies have directly compared second-generation drug-eluting stents with each other or with BMS. METHODS: We randomized 2,013 patients to BMS, ZES-S, PES, or EES implantation. At 30 days, each stent group received up to 6 or 24 months of clopidogrel therapy. The key efficacy endpoint was the 2-year major adverse cardiac event (MACE) including any death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization, whereas the cumulative rate of definite or probable stent thrombosis (ST) was the key safety endpoint. RESULTS: Clinical follow-up at 2 years was complete for 99.7% of patients. The MACE rate was lowest in EES (19.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 16.0 to 22.8), highest in BMS (32.1%; 95% CI: 28.1 to 36.3), and intermediate in PES (26.2%; 95% CI: 22.5 to 30.2) and ZES-S (27.8%; 95% CI: 24.1 to 31.9) groups (chi-square test = 18.9, p = 0.00029). The 2-year incidence of ST in the EES group (1%; 95% CI: 0.4 to 2.2) was similar to that in the ZES-S group (1.4%; 95% CI: 0.7 to 2.8), whereas it was lower compared with the PES (4.6%, 95% CI: 3.1 to 6.8) and BMS (3.6%; 95% CI: 2.4 to 5.6) groups (chi-square = 16.9; p = 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that cumulative MACE rate, encompassing both safety and efficacy endpoints, was lowest for EES, highest for BMS, and intermediate for PES and ZES-S groups. EES outperformed BMS also with respect to the safety endpoints with regard to definite or probable and definite, probable, or possible ST. (PROlonging Dual antiplatelet treatment after Grading stent-induced Intimal hyperplasia studY [PRODIGY]; NCT00611286).