Risk and timing of clinical events according to diabetic status of patients treated with everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds versus everolimus-eluting stent: 2-year results from a propensity score matched comparison of ABSORB EXTEND and SPIRIT trials

OBJECTIVES: to compare the occurrence of clinical events in diabetics treated with the Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (Absorb BVS; Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA) versus everolimus-eluting metal stents (EES; XIENCE V; Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA) BACKGROUND: There are limited data dedicated to clinical outcomes of diabetic patients treated with bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) at 2-year horizon. METHODS:The present study included 812 patients in the ABSORB EXTEND study in which a total of 215 diabetic patients were treated with Absorb BVS. In addition, 882 diabetic patients treated with EES in pooled data from the SPIRIT clinical program (SPIRIT II, SPIRIT III and SPIRIT IV trials) were used for comparison by applying propensity score matching using 29 different variables. The primary endpoint was ischemia driven major adverse cardiac events (ID-MACE), including cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), and ischemia driven target lesion revascularization (ID-TLR). RESULTS: After 2 years, the ID-MACE rate was 6.5% in the Absorb BVS vs. 8.9% in the Xience group (P = 0.40). There was no difference for MACE components or definite/probable device thrombosis (HR: 1.43 [0.24,8.58]; P = 0.69). The occurrence of MACE was not different for both diabetic status (insulin- and non-insulin-requiring diabetes) in all time points up to the 2-year follow-up for the Absorb and Xience groups...

Serial Angiography and Intravascular Ultrasound: Results of the SISC Registry(Stents In Small Coronaries)

Objectives The aim of this study was to evaluate the novel CardioMind Sparrow (CMS) stent (CardioMind, Inc., Sunnyvale, California) against the Multi-Link Pixel (MLP) stent (Guidant Corp., Santa Clara, California) for small vessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Background The CMS consists of a guidewire-based, self-expandable, ultra-thin nitinol stent with smaller profile and improved flexibility and deliverability. The performance of this novel device against a standard balloon-expandable stent for small vessel PCI has not been determined. Methods Twenty-one patients were treated with the CMS and compared with 30 patients treated with MLP. Only single de novo lesions 14 mm in length, in native vessels of 2.0 to 2.5 mm wereincluded. The primary goal was the comparison of quantitative coronary angiography lumen loss and intravascular ultrasound intimal hyperplasia (IH) formation between groups at 6 months. Results Clinical characteristics were similar between groups. The CMS cohort had smaller vessels (2.20 0.20 mm vs. 2.43 0.16 mm, p 0.0001) and shorter lesions (10.86 3.19 mm vs. 13.12 2.79 mm, p 0.0091). Six-month late loss was significantly lower among CMS cohort (0.73 0.57 mm vs. 1.11 0.72 mm, p 0.038). By intravascular ultrasound, 6-month IH volume was similar between groups (1.45 0.46 mm3/mm vs. 1.65 1.02 mm3/mm, p 0.50). However, CMS presenteda mean 13.39% expansion of its volumes, resulting in a significantly lower percentage of IH volumetric obstruction (31.94 8.19% vs. 39.90 4.72%, p 0.0005). Conclusions Despite producing similar amounts of IH volume, the self-expanding CMS stent presented chronic expansion of its volumes, better accommodating the neoformed tissue and resultingin significantly lower late loss and percent of IH volumetric obstruction in comparison with the MLPstent.

Adequacy of intracoronary versus intravenous adenosine-induced maximal coronary hyperemiafor fractional flow reserve measurements

Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is a measure of coronary stenosis severity that is based on pressure measurements obtained at maximal hyperemia. The most widely used pharmacologic stimulus for maximal coronary hyperemia is adenosine, administered either as a continuous intravenous (IV) infusion or intracoronary (IC) bolus. IV adenosine has more side effects and is more costly than IC adenosine but has a more stable and prolonged hyperemic effect.Methods We compared the efficacy of IC and IV adenosine administration for the measurement of FFR in a multicentertrial. Fifty-two patients with 60 lesions underwent determination of FFR with both IV and IC adenosine. IV adenosine was administered as a continuous infusion at a rate of 140 μg/kg per minute until a steady state hyperemia was achieved. IC adenosine boluses were administered at a dose of 15 to 20 μg in the right and 18 to 24 μg in the left coronary artery. FFR was calculated as the ratio of the distal coronary pressure (from pressure guide wire) to the aortic pressure (guide catheter)at maximal hyperemia.Results A total of 26 left anterior descending, 23 right, 9 left circumflex, and 3 left main coronary arteries were evaluated. Mean percent stenosis for both groups was 55.8% ± 23.6% (range 0% to 95%), and mean FFR was 0.78 ± 0.15 (range 0.41 to 0.98). There was a strong and linear correlation between FFR measurements with IV and IC adenosine (R =0.978, y = 0.032 + 0.964x, P < .001). The agreement between the 2 sets of measurements was also high, with a mean differencein FFR of –0.004 ± 0.03. However, a small random scatter in both directions of FFR measurements was noted with5 lesions (8.3%) where FFR with IC adenosine was higher by 0.05 or more compared with IV infusions, suggesting a suboptimal hyperemic response in these patients...