Prospective, randomized trial of bioresorbable scaffolds vs. everolimus-eluting stents in patients undergoing coronary stenting for myocardial infarction: the Intracoronary Scaffold Assessment a Randomized evaluation of Absorb in Myocardial Infarction (ISAR-Absorb MI) trial.

Aims: Bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) provide short-term coronary artery scaffolding and drug delivery. Although prior trials showed a higher rate of device failure compared with conventional drug-eluting stents (DES), only a single trial investigated patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute myocardial infarction (MI). We aimed to compare outcomes with BRS vs. DES in patients undergoing PCI for MI. Methods and results: We did a prospective, randomized, multicentre, non-inferiority, clinical trial of everolimus-eluting BRS vs. durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (EES) in patients with acute MI. Patients were eligible for enrolment if they presented with ST-elevation MI, or non-ST-elevation MI with thrombosis visual at angiography and were randomly allocated to treatment with BRS or EES in 2:1 proportion. Angiographic follow-up was scheduled at 6-8 months and clinical follow-up was done at 12 months. The primary endpoint was percentage diameter stenosis in-segment at follow-up. A total of 262 patients were enrolled and were allocated to BRS (n = 173) or EES (n = 89). Angiographic follow-up was available for 213 (81.3%) patients. Mean diameter stenosis was 24.6 ± 12.2% with BRS vs. 27.3 ± 11.7% with EES (mean difference -2.7%, upper limit of one-sided 97.5% confidence limit 0.7%, pre-specified margin of non-inferiority 5%, Pnon-inferiority <0.001). The rate of the device-oriented composite of cardiac death/target vessel MI/target lesion revascularization [BRS: 12 (7.0%) vs. EES: 6 (6.7%), hazard ratio (HR) 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39-2.78] and definite/probable stent thrombosis [3 (1.7%) vs. 2 (2.3%), HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.13-4.56] were comparable in both groups. Conclusion: In patients undergoing PCI for acute MI BRS were non-inferior to EES for percentage diameter stenosis at angiographic follow-up. Rates of clinical events were comparable between the treatment groups, although the study was not powered to detect differences in clinical outcomes. Clinical trial registration: The trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01942070).

Preventive Strategies for Contrast-Induced Acute Kidney Injury in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Procedures: Evidence From a Hierarchical Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis of 124 Trials and 28 240 Patients.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of currently available effective preventive strategies for contrast-induced acute kidney injury (CIAKI) is a matter of debate. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a Bayesian random-effects network meta-analysis of 124 trials (28 240 patients) comparing a total of 10 strategies: saline, statin, N-acetylcysteine (NAC), sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO3), NAC+NaHCO3, ascorbic acid, xanthine, dopaminergic agent, peripheral ischemic preconditioning, and natriuretic peptide. Compared with saline, the risk of CIAKI was reduced by using statin (odds ratio [OR], 0.42; 95% credible interval [CrI], 0.26-0.67), xanthine (OR, 0.32; 95% CrI, 0.17-0.57), ischemic preconditioning (OR, 0.48; 95% CrI, 0.26-0.87), NAC+NaHCO3 (OR, 0.50; 95% CrI, 0.33-0.76), NAC (OR, 0.68; 95% CrI, 0.55-0.84), and NaHCO3 (OR, 0.66; 95% CrI, 0.47-0.90). The benefit of statin therapy was consistent across multiple sensitivity analyses, whereas the efficacy of all the other strategies was questioned by restricting the analysis to high-quality trials. Overall, high heterogeneity was observed for comparisons involving xanthine and ischemic preconditioning, although the impact of NAC and xanthine was probably influenced by publication bias/small-study effect. Hydration alone was the least effective preventive strategy for CIAKI. Meta-regressions did not reveal significant associations with baseline creatinine and contrast volume. In patients with diabetes mellitus, no strategy was found to reduce the incidence of CIAKI. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing percutaneous coronary procedures, statin administration is associated with a marked and consistent reduction in the risk of CIAKI compared with saline. Although xanthine, NAC, NaHCO3, NAC+NaHCO3, ischemic preconditioning, and natriuretic peptide may have nephroprotective effects, these results were not consistent across multiple sensitivity analyses.

Quality-of-Life and Economic Outcomes of Assessing Fractional Flow Reserve With Computed Tomography Angiography: PLATFORM.

BACKGROUND: Fractional flow reserve estimated using computed tomography (FFRCT) might improve evaluation of patients with chest pain. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to determine the effect on cost and quality of life (QOL) of using FFRCT instead of usual care to evaluate stable patients with symptoms suspicious for coronary disease. METHODS: Symptomatic patients without known coronary disease were enrolled into 2 strata based on whether invasive or noninvasive diagnostic testing was planned. In each stratum, consecutive observational cohorts were evaluated with either usual care or FFRCT. The number of diagnostic tests, invasive procedures, hospitalizations, and medications during 90-day follow-up were multiplied by U.S. cost weights and summed to derive total medical costs. Changes in QOL from baseline to 90 days were assessed using the Seattle Angina Questionnaire, the EuroQOL, and a visual analog scale. RESULTS: In the 584 patients, 74% had atypical angina, and the pre-test probability of coronary disease was 49%. In the planned invasive stratum, mean costs were 32% lower among the FFRCT patients than among the usual care patients ($7,343 vs. $10,734 p < 0.0001). In the noninvasive stratum, mean costs were not significantly different between the FFRCT patients and the usual care patients ($2,679 vs. $2,137; p = 0.26). In a sensitivity analysis, when the cost weight of FFRCT was set to 7 times that of computed tomography angiography, the FFRCT group still had lower costs than the usual care group in the invasive testing stratum ($8,619 vs. $ 10,734; p < 0.0001), whereas in the noninvasive testing stratum, when the cost weight of FFRCT was set to one-half that of computed tomography angiography, the FFRCT group had higher costs than the usual care group ($2,766 vs. $2,137; p = 0.02). Each QOL score improved in the overall study population (p < 0.0001). In the noninvasive stratum, QOL scores improved more in FFRCT patients than in usual care patients: Seattle Angina Questionnaire 19.5 versus 11.4, p = 0.003; EuroQOL 0.08 versus 0.03, p = 0.002; and visual analog scale 4.1 versus 2.3, p = 0.82. In the invasive cohort, the improvements in QOL were similar in the FFRCT and usual care patients. CONCLUSIONS: An evaluation strategy based on FFRCT was associated with less resource use and lower costs within 90 days than evaluation with invasive coronary angiography. Evaluation with FFRCT was associated with greater improvement in quality of life than evaluation with usual noninvasive testing. (Prospective Longitudinal Trial of FFRCT: Outcomes and Resource Impacts [PLATFORM]; NCT01943903).

Rationale and design of the Prospective LongitudinAl Trial of FFRCT: Outcome and Resource IMpacts study.

BACKGROUND: Fractional flow reserve (FFR) measured by coronary computed tomography angiography (FFRCT) has been validated against invasive FFR. However, there are no data on how the use of FFRCT affects patient care and outcomes. The aim of this study is to compare standard practice guided by usual care testing to FFRCT-guided management in symptomatic subjects with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD). METHODS: In this prospective nonrandomized trial, symptomatic patients with suspected CAD will be enrolled in 2 consecutive cohorts: a usual care-guided pathway (cohort 1) and an FFRCT-guided pathway (cohort 2). Each cohort is divided into 2 groups according to whether noninvasive or invasive diagnostic testing was planned before enrollment. In all subjects, the patient's clinical team will review all diagnostic test results and determine a treatment strategy. A total sample size of 580 subjects will be enrolled and followed up for 12 months. RESULTS: The primary end point is the comparison of the percentage of patients with planned invasive testing who have a catheterization (invasive coronary angiography) within 90 days from initial assessment, which does not show a significant stenosis (defined as coronary artery stenosis >50% or invasive FFR ≤0.80). Secondary end points include the rate of invasive coronary angiography without obstructive CAD in those with planned noninvasive testing and, in all groups, noninferiority of resource use, quality of life, medical radiation exposure, and major adverse cardiac events up to 365 days of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The study compares clinical and economic outcomes based on diagnostic evaluation using FFRCT with that based on standard diagnostic strategies.

Neoatherosclerosis: overview of histopathologic findings and implications for intravascular imaging assessment.

Despite the reduction in late thrombotic events with newer-generation drug-eluting stents (DES), late stent failure remains a concern following stent placement. In-stent neoatherosclerosis has emerged as an important contributing factor to late vascular complications including very late stent thrombosis and late in-stent restenosis. Histologically, neoatherosclerosis is characterized by accumulation of lipid-laden foamy macrophages within the neointima with or without necrotic core formation and/or calcification. The development of neoatherosclerosis may occur in months to years following stent placement, whereas atherosclerosis in native coronary arteries develops over decades. Pathologic and clinical imaging studies have demonstrated that neoatherosclerosis occurs more frequently and at an earlier time point in DES when compared with bare metal stents, and increases with time in both types of implant. Early development of neoatherosclerosis has been identified not only in first-generation DES but also in second-generation DES. The mechanisms underlying the rapid development of neoatherosclerosis remain unknown; however, either absence or abnormal endothelial functional integrity following stent implantation may contribute to this process. In-stent plaque rupture likely accounts for most thrombotic events associated with neoatherosclerosis, while it may also be a substrate of in-stent restenosis as thrombosis may occur either symptomatically or asymptomatically. Intravascular optical coherence tomography is capable of detecting neoatherosclerosis; however, the shortcomings of this modality must be recognized. Future studies should assess the impact of iterations in stent technology and risk factor modification on disease progression. Similarly, refinements in imaging techniques are also warranted that will permit more reliable detection of neoatherosclerosis.

Drug-eluting stents in percutaneous coronary intervention: a benefit-risk assessment.

Drug-eluting stent (DES) therapy has represented a very significant milestone in the evolution of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) therapy. This review attempts to provide a balanced overview of the unprecedented wealth of data generated on this new technology, by examining the evidence bases for anti-restenotic efficacy, safety and cost effectiveness. The performance of a DES may be related to each of its three components: stent backbone; carrier polymer (to control drug-release kinetics); and active drug. In terms of anti-restenotic efficacy, the most appropriate parameters to examine are target lesion revascularization, angiographic restenosis and late luminal loss. The principal safety parameters are overall mortality, myocardial infarction (MI) and stent thrombosis. Anti-restenotic superiority of DES over bare metal stents (BMS) has been demonstrated across a spectrum of disease from straightforward 'vanilla lesions' through higher disease complexity in pivotal clinical trials to phase IV studies of efficacy in 'off-label' populations. The treatment effect of DES versus BMS is consistent in terms of a reduction in the need for repeat intervention of the order of 35-70%. Regarding differential efficacy of first-generation DES, a benefit may exist in favour of the Cypher (sirolimus-eluting) stent over Taxus (paclitaxel-eluting), particularly in high-risk lesion subsets. The second-generation approved devices are the Endeavor (zotarolimus-eluting) and Xience (everolimus-eluting) DES. While all four of these stents are permanent polymer-based, the current focus of development is towards DES platforms that are devoid of durable polymer, the presence of which has been implicated in late adverse events. In terms of safety concerns raised in relation to DES therapy, it is reasonable to conclude the following at 4- to 5-year post-stent implantation: (i) that there is no increased risk of death or MI with DES (neither is there a general signal of mortality reduction with DES) compared with BMS; and (ii) there is very little, if any, overall increased risk of stent thrombosis with DES compared with BMS, although a difference in the time distribution of thrombotic events after PCI may exist, i.e. a slight excess of events with BMS in the first 6 months and with DES beyond 12 months. Duration of dual anti-platelet therapy after stenting is a central issue and is also, at present, a matter of clinical equipoise. A threshold for cost effectiveness likely exists where the price premium associated with DES is approximately euro 450. On the balance of benefit and risk data available, DES implantation should be the preferred approach across the spectrum of patients with obstructive coronary disease who require PCI therapy.