Randomized Comparison of the Polymer-Free Biolimus-Coated BioFreedom Stent With the Ultrathin Strut Biodegradable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Orsiro Stent in an All-Comers Population Treated With Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: The SORT OUT IX Trial.

BACKGROUND: In patients with increased bleeding risk, the biolimus A9-coated BioFreedom stent, a stainless steel drug-coated stent free from polymer, has shown superiority compared with a bare-metal stent. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the BioFreedom stent is noninferior to a modern ultrathin strut biodegradable polymer cobalt-chromium sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent in an all-comers patient population treated with percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS: The SORT OUT IX trial (Scandinavian Organization for Randomized Trials With Clinical Outcome IX), was a large-scale, registry-based, randomized, multicenter, single-blind, 2-arm, noninferiority trial. The primary end point, major adverse cardiovascular events, was defined as the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction not related to any segment other than the target lesion, or target lesion revascularization within 1 year, analyzed by intention-to-treat. The trial was powered to assess noninferiority for major adverse cardiovascular events of the BioFreedom stent compared with the Orsiro stent with a predetermined noninferiority margin of 0.021. RESULTS: Between December 14, 2015 and April 21, 2017, 3151 patients were assigned to treatment with the BioFreedom stent (1572 patients, 1966 lesions) or to the Orsiro stent (1579 patients, 1985 lesions). Five patients were lost to follow-up because of emigration (99.9% follow-up rate). Mean age was 66.3±10.9, diabetes mellitus was seen in 19.3% of patients, and 53% of the patients had acute coronary syndromes. At 1 year, intention-to-treat analysis showed that 79 (5.0%) patients, who were assigned the BioFreedom stent, and 59 (3.7%), who were assigned the Orsiro stent, met the primary end point (absolute risk difference 1.29% [upper limit of one-sided 95% CI 2.50%]; Pnoninferiority=0.14). Significantly more patients in the BioFreedom stent group had target lesion revascularization than those in the Orsiro stent group (55 [3.5%] vs 20 [1.3%], rate ratio 2.77 [95% CI, 1.66-4.62]; P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The biolimus A9-coated BioFreedom polymer-free stent did not meet criteria for noninferiority for major adverse cardiovascular events at 12 months when compared with the ultrathin strut biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent in an all-comers population Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02623140.

Frequency and etiology of pulmonary hypertension in patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms.

OBJECTIVE: Pulmonary hypertension (PH) has been reported to be associated with myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN), affecting 5%-48% of MPN patients. With the aims to describe the prevalence of PH in Ph-MPN patients and explore the cause in identified subjects, we performed a prospective cohort study of Ph-MPN patients. METHOD: Transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) was performed on all patients. When the TTE was abnormal, further investigations were performed according to current guidelines from the European Society of Cardiology. The primary endpoint was the frequency of PH. The secondary endpoint was causes of PH. RESULTS: We included 158 patients, median age was 65 years. Fifty percent had polycythemia vera, 34% essential thrombocytosis, and 11% primary myelofibrosis, 3% post-ET-myelofibrosis, and 2% post-PV-myelofibrosis. Only six patients (3.8%) were found to have a high probability of PH. They were all examined with right heart catheterization and all met the invasive criteria for PH. In all six patients other causes than MPN for PH were identified, although some contribution from the MPN could not be ruled out in three patients. CONCLUSION: In the largest study ever reported, we found a lower prevalence of PH (3.8%) than previously reported. Screening for PH in unselected MPN patients is not justified.

Zotarolimus-eluting durable-polymer-coated stent versus a biolimus-eluting biodegradable-polymer-coated stent in unselected patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (SORT OUT VI): a randomised non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: New-generation drug-eluting coronary stents have reduced the risk of coronary events, especially in patients with complex disease or lesions. To what extent different stent platforms, polymers, and antiproliferative drugs affect outcomes, however, is unclear. We investigated the safety and efficacy of a third-generation stent by comparing a highly biocompatible durable-polymer-coated zotarolimus-eluting stent with a biodegradable-polymer-coated biolimus-eluting stent. METHODS: This open-label, randomised, multicentre, non-inferiority trial was done at three sites across western Denmark. All patients who presented with stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes and at least one coronary artery lesion (more than 50% stenosis) from March, 2011, to August, 2012, were assessed for eligibility. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either the durable-polymer zotarolimus-eluting stent or the biodegradable-polymer biolimus-eluting stent. The primary endpoint was a composite of safety (cardiac death and myocardial infarction not clearly attributable to a non-target lesion) and efficacy (target-lesion revascularisation) at 12 months, analysed by intention to treat. The trial was powered to assess non-inferiority of durable-polymer zotarolimus-eluting stent compared with the biodegradable-polymer biolimus-eluting stent with a predetermined non-inferiority margin of 0·025. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01956448. FINDINGS: Of 7103 screened, 1502 patients with 1883 lesions were assigned to receive the durable-polymer zotarolimus-eluting stent and 1497 patients with 1791 lesions to receive the biodegradable-polymer biolimus-eluting stent. 79 (5·3%) and 75 (5·0%) patients, respectively, met the primary endpoint (absolute risk difference 0·0025, upper limit of one-sided 95% CI 0·016%; p=0·004). The individual components of the primary endpoint did not differ significantly between stent types at 12 months. INTERPRETATION: The durable-polymer-coated zotarolimus-eluting stent was non-inferior to the biodegradable-polymer-coated biolimus-eluting stent in unselected patients. FUNDING: Medtronic Cardiovascular and Biosensors Interventional Technologies.

Differential clinical outcomes after 1 year versus 5 years in a randomised comparison of zotarolimus-eluting and sirolimus-eluting coronary stents (the SORT OUT III study): a multicentre, open-label, randomised superiority trial.

BACKGROUND: In head-to-head comparisons of coronary drug-eluting stents, the primary endpoint is traditionally assessed after 9-12 months. However, the optimum timepoint for this assessment remains unclear. In this study, we assessed clinical outcomes at up to 5 years' follow-up in patients who received two different types of drug-eluting stents. METHODS: We undertook this multicentre, open-label, randomised superiority trial at five percutaneous coronary intervention centres in Denmark. We randomly allocated 2332 eligible adult patients (≥18 years of age) with an indication for drug-eluting stent implantation to the zotarolimus-eluting Endeavor Sprint stent (Medtronic, Santa Rosa, CA, USA) or the sirolimus-eluting Cypher Select Plus stent (Cordis, Johnson & Johnson, Warren, NJ, USA). Randomisation of participants was achieved by computer-generated block randomisation and a telephone allocation service. The primary endpoint of the SORT OUT III study was a composite of major adverse cardiac events-cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularisation-at 9 months' follow-up. In this study, endpoints included the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events and definite stent thrombosis at follow-up times of up to 5 years. Analysis was by intention to treat. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00660478. FINDINGS: We randomly allocated 1162 patients to receive the zotarolimus-eluting stent and 1170 to the sirolimus-eluting stent. At 5-year follow-up, rates of major adverse cardiac events were similar in patients treated with both types of stents (zotarolimus-eluting stents 197/1162 [17.0%] vs sirolimus-eluting stents 182/1170 [15.6%]; odds ratio [OR] 1.10, 95% CI 0.88-1.37; p=0.40). This finding was indicative of the directly contrasting results for rates of major adverse cardiac events at 1-year follow up (zotarolimus 93/1162 [8.0%] vs sirolimus 46/1170 [3.9%]; OR 2.13, 95% CI 1.48-3.07; p<0.0001) compared with those at follow-up between 1 and 5 years (104 [9.0%] vs 136 [11.6%]; OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.59-1.02; p=0.071). At 1-year follow-up, definite stent thrombosis was more frequent after implantation of the zotarolimus-eluting stent (13/1162 [1.1%]) than the sirolimus-eluting stent (4/1170 [0.3%]; OR 3.34, 95% CI 1.08-10.3; p=0.036), whereas the opposite finding was recorded for between 1 and 5 years' follow-up (zotarolimus-eluting stent 1/1162 [0.1%] vs sirolimus-eluting stent 21/1170 [1.8%], OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.01-0.36; p=0.003). 26 of 88 (30%) target lesion revascularisations in the zotarolimus-eluting stent group occurred between 1 and 5 years' follow-up, whereas 54 of 70 (77%) of those in the sirolimus-eluting stent group occurred during this follow-up period. INTERPRETATION: The superiority of sirolimus-eluting stents compared with zotarolimus-eluting stents at 1-year follow-up was lost after 5 years. The traditional 1-year primary endpoint assessment therefore might be insufficient to predict 5-year clinical outcomes in patients treated with coronary drug-eluting stent implantation. FUNDING: Cordis and Medtronic.

Biolimus-eluting biodegradable polymer-coated stent versus durable polymer-coated sirolimus-eluting stent in unselected patients receiving percutaneous coronary intervention (SORT OUT V): a randomised non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Third-generation biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents might reduce the risk of stent thrombosis compared with first-generation permanent polymer drug-eluting stents. We aimed to further investigate the effects of a biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stent compared with a durable polymer-coated sirolimus-eluting stent in a population-based setting. METHODS: This randomised, multicentre, all-comer, non-inferiority trial was undertaken at three sites across western Denmark. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with chronic stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes, and at least one coronary artery lesion (>50% diameter stenosis). We randomly assigned patients (1:1) using an independently managed computer-generated allocation sequence to receive either a biolimus-eluting biodegradable polymer stent (Nobori, Terumo, Tokyo, Japan) or a sirolimus-eluting permanent polymer stent (Cypher Select Plus, Cordis, Johnson & Johnson, Warren, NJ, USA). The primary endpoint was a composite of safety (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, definite stent thrombosis) and efficacy (target vessel revascularisation) at 9 months, analysed by intention to treat (non-inferiority margin of 0·02). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01254981. FINDINGS: From July, 2009, to January, 2011, we assigned 1229 patients (1532 lesions) to receive the biolimus-eluting stent and 1239 (1555 lesions) to receive the sirolimus-eluting stent. One patient was lost to follow-up because of emigration. Intention-to-treat analysis showed that 50 (4·1%) patients who were assigned the biolimus-eluting stent and 39 (3·1%) who were assigned the sirolimus-eluting stent met the primary endpoint (risk difference 0·9% [upper limit of one-sided 95% CI 2·1%]; p(non-inferiority)=0·06). Significantly more patients in the biolimus-eluting stent group had definite stent thrombosis at 12 months than did those in the sirolimus-eluting stent group (9 [0·7%] vs 2 [0·2%], risk difference 0·6% [95% CI 0·0-1·1]; p=0·034). Per-protocol analysis showed that 45 (3·8%) of 1193 patients who received a biolimus-eluting stent and 39 (3·2%) of 1208 who received a sirolimus-eluting stent met the primary endpoint (risk difference 0·5% [upper limit of one-sided 95% CI 1·8%]; p(non-inferiority)=0·03). INTERPRETATION: At 1 year follow-up, the biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting Nobori stent did not improve clinical results compared with a first-generation sirolimus-eluting stent. We will need to obtain long-term data before we can make recommendations for the role of this biolimus-eluting stent in routine clinical practice. FUNDING: Terumo and Cordis (Johnson & Johnson).

Intimal hyperplasia and vascular remodeling after everolimus-eluting and sirolimus-eluting stent implantation in diabetic patients: the randomized Diabetes and Drug-Eluting Stent (DiabeDES) IV Intravascular Ultrasound trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of the everolimus-eluting Xience™/Promus™ stent (EES) and the sirolimus-eluting Cypher™ stent (SES) on intimal hyperplasia (IH) in diabetic patients. BACKGROUND: Patients with diabetes mellitus have increased risk of in-stent restenosis after coronary stent implantation due to intimal hyperplasia (IH). METHODS: In a sub study of the Randomized Comparison of Everolimus-Eluting and Sirolimus-Eluting Stents in Patients Treated with Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (SORT OUT IV trial), serial intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) 10-month follow-up data were available in 88 patients, including 48 EES and 40 SES treated patients. IVUS endpoints included IH volume, in-stent % volume obstruction and changes in external elastic membrane (EEM) volume. RESULTS: Compared with the SES group, IH volume was increased in the EES group [median (interquartile range): 2.8 mm(3) (0.0-12.6) vs. 0.0 mm(3) (0.0-1.1), P = 0.001]. In-stent % volume obstruction was increased in EES compared to SES [median (interquartile range): 1.6% (0.0-8.2) vs. 0.0% (0.0-1.0), P = 0.001]. Peri-stent external elastic membrane (EEM) volume: (post procedure vs. follow-up EES [300 mm(3) (219-491) vs. 307 mm(3) (223-482), P = 0.73] and SES [316 mm(3) (235-399) vs. 323 mm(3) (246-404), P = 0.05]) and peri-stent plaque volume: EES [163 mm(3) (103-273) vs. 184 mm(3) (115-291), P = 0.18] and SES [186 mm(3) (139-248) vs. 175 mm(3) (153-243), P = 0.26]) were unchanged in both groups. In the proximal reference segment a significant increase in plaque area was seen in the EES group only, without vascular remodeling. CONCLUSION: In diabetic patients, EES stent implantation was associated with increased IH volume obstruction without involvement of vascular remodeling.

Impact of renal insufficiency on mortality in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

BACKGROUND: Chronic kidney disease is associated with increased risk of mortality. We examined the impact of moderate and severe renal insufficiency (RI) on short- and long-term mortality among unselected patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS: From January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2010 all patients with STEMI treated with primary PCI were identified. The hazard ratio (HR) for death was estimated using a Cox regression model, controlling for potential confounders. RI was defined as creatinine clearance (CrCl) < 60 mL/min (moderate RI: CrCl ≤30 < 60 mL/min and severe RI: CrCl < 30 mL/min). RESULTS: The study cohort consisted of 4,116 patients of whom 898 (21.8%) had RI and 3,218 (78.2%) had a CrCl ≥ 60 mL/min. Compared to patients without RI, patients with RI were older, more often female and more likely to have diabetes mellitus, hypertension and to present with a higher Killip class.Among patients with a preserved kidney function and patients with RI, 30-day all-cause mortality was 3.5% vs. 20.9% (log-rank p < 0.001); 1-year all-cause mortality was 5.7% vs. 29.4% (log-rank p < 0.001); 5-year all-cause mortality was 13.4% vs. 47.4% (log-rank p < 0.001). Moderate and severe RI were associated with higher 1-year mortality compared to patients with a preserved renal function (CrCl ≤30 < 60 mL/min: adjusted HR 2.71 [95% CI 2.09-3.51], p < 0.001), and (CrCl < 30 mL/min: adjusted HR 7.09 [4.82-10.44], p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In unselected STEMI patients treated with primary PCI, moderate and severe RI were associated with increased risk of mortality.

Randomized comparison of everolimus-eluting and sirolimus-eluting stents in patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention: the Scandinavian Organization for Randomized Trials with Clinical Outcome IV (SORT OUT IV).

BACKGROUND: Among drug-eluting stents released to date, the sirolimus-eluting stent has demonstrated the least amount of late lumen loss, but its efficacy and safety have not been compared head-to-head with the next-generation everolimus-eluting stent. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Scandinavian Organization for Randomized Trials with Clinical Outcome IV (SORT OUT IV) trial was a randomized multicenter, single-blind, all-comer, 2-arm, noninferiority trial comparing the everolimus-eluting stent with the sirolimus-eluting stent in patients with coronary artery disease. The primary end point was a composite of safety (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, definite stent thrombosis) and efficacy (target vessel revascularization) parameters. The noninferiority criterion was a risk difference of 0.015. Intention-to-treat analyses were done at 9- and 18-month follow-ups. A total of 1390 patients were assigned to receive the everolimus-eluting stent and 1384 patients to the sirolimus-eluting stent. At the 9-month follow-up, 68 patients (4.9%) treated with the everolimus-eluting stent compared with 72 patients (5.2%) treated with the sirolimus-eluting stent experienced the primary end point (hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.67-1.31; P for noninferiority=0.01). At the 18-month follow-up, this differential remained: 99 patients (7.2%) treated with the everolimus-eluting stent versus 105 (7.6%) treated with the sirolimus-eluting stent (hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.71-1.23). At the 9-month follow-up, the rate of definite stent thrombosis was higher in the sirolimus-eluting group (2 patients [0.1%] versus 9 patients [0.7%]; hazard ratio, 0.22; 95% confidence interval, 0.05-1.02). At the 18-month follow-up, this difference was sustained (3 patients [0.2%] versus 12 patients [0.9%]; hazard ratio, 0.25; 95% confidence interval, 0.07-0.88). CONCLUSION: The everolimus-eluting stent was found to be noninferior to the sirolimus-eluting stent. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00552877.

Efficacy and safety of zotarolimus-eluting and sirolimus-eluting coronary stents in routine clinical care (SORT OUT III): a randomised controlled superiority trial.

BACKGROUND: In low-risk patients, the zotarolimus-eluting stent has been shown to reduce rates of restenosis without increasing the risk of stent thrombosis. We compared the efficacy and safety of the zotarolimus-eluting stent versus the sirolimus-eluting stent in patients with coronary artery disease who were receiving routine clinical care with no direct follow-up. METHODS: We did a single-blind, all-comer superiority trial in adult patients with chronic stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes, and at least one target lesion. Patients were treated at one of five percutaneous coronary intervention centres between January, 2006, and August, 2007. Computer-generated block randomisation and a telephone allocation service were used to randomly assign patients to receive the zotarolimus-eluting or the sirolimus-eluting stent. Data for follow-up were obtained from national Danish administrative and health-care registries. The primary endpoint was a composite of major adverse cardiac events within 9 months: cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularisation. Intention-to-treat analyses were done at 9-month and 18-month follow-up. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00660478. FINDINGS: 1162 patients (1619 lesions) were assigned to receive the zotarolimus-eluting stent, and 1170 patients (1611 lesions) to receive the sirolimus-eluting stent. 67 patients (72 lesions) had stent failure, and six patients were lost to follow-up. All randomly assigned patients were included in analyses at 9-month follow-up; 2200 patients (94%) had completed 18-month follow-up by the time of our assessment. At 9 months, the primary endpoint had occurred in a higher proportion of patients treated with the zotarolimus-eluting stent than in those treated with the sirolimus-eluting stent (72 [6%] vs 34 [3%]; HR 2.15, 95% CI 1.43-3.23; p=0.0002). At 18-month follow-up, this difference was sustained (113 [10%] vs 53 [5%]; 2.19, 1.58-3.04; p<0.0001). For patients receiving the zotarolimus-eluting stent and those receiving the sirolimus-eluting stent, all cause-mortality was similar at 9-month follow-up (25 [2%] vs 18 [2%]; 1.40, 0.76-2.56; p=0.28), but was significantly different at 18-month follow-up (51 [4%] vs 32 [3%]; 1.61, 1.03-2.50; p=0.035). INTERPRETATION: The sirolimus-eluting stent is superior to the zotarolimus-eluting stent for patients receiving routine clinical care. FUNDING: Cordis and Medtronic.

Influence of Plaque Characteristics on Early Vascular Healing in Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the early vascular healing of ruptured plaques (RP) and non-ruptured plaques (NRP) one month after primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), using optical coherence tomography (OCT). BACKGROUND: Vascular healing and strut coverage are important factors in reducing the risk of stent thrombosis after PCI. Influence of underlying lesion characteristics and differences in healing response between RP and NRP are unknown. METHODS: Twenty-six STEMI-patients underwent PCI and implantation of a polymer-free drug-coated Biofreedom stent (BF-BES). OCT was performed pre-PCI, post-PCI and at 1-month follow-up. The patients were divided into two groups: RP = 15 and NRP = 11. OCT analyses of culprit lesion, post stent implantation at baseline and follow-up were performed to determine the difference in vascular healing based on presence of uncovered and/or malapposed stent struts and intraluminal filling defects. RESULTS: The stent coverage did not differ significantly between the two groups at 1-month follow-up with percentage of uncovered struts: RP 26.5% [IQR 15.0-49.0] and NRP 28.1% [IQR 15.5-38.8] for NRP (p = 0.78). At 1-month, RP showed an increased percentage of late acquired malapposed struts (1.4% [IQR 0.8-2.4] vs. 0.0% [IQR 0.0-1.4], p = 0.03) and a larger total malapposition area (1.3 mm2 [IQR 0.4-2.5] vs. 0.0 mm2 [IQR 0.0-0.9], p = 0.01), compared to NRP. CONCLUSION: Three out of four struts were covered within one month after stenting. The vascular healing was comparable in RP and NRP on stent coverage. However, RP had more and larger late acquired malapposition areas.

Rationale and design of a randomized clinical comparison of everolimus-eluting (Xience v/Promus) and sirolimus-eluting (cypher select+) coronary stents in unselected patients with coronary heart disease.

BACKGROUND: The sirolimus-eluting stent has demonstrated the least amount of late lumen loss among previously released drug-eluting stents, but its safety and efficacy has not been compared head-to-head with the everolimus-eluting stent. METHOD: The Scandinavian Organization for Randomized Trials with Clinical Outcome (SORT OUT) IV trial was designed as a prospective, multi-center, open-label, all-comer, two-arm, randomized, non-inferiority study comparing the everolimus-eluting stent with the sirolimus-eluting stent in the treatment of atherosclerotic coronary artery lesions. Based on a non-inferiority design, power calculations estimated a needed enrolment of 2,678 patients. The primary endpoint is a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and stent thrombosis or target vessel revascularization after 9 months. Data on clinical events and mortality for all randomized patients will be obtained from national databases at 9 months. No clinical follow-up examination is scheduled. CONCLUSION: The SORT OUT IV trial will directly compare clinically relevant differences in efficacy and safety in two drug-eluting stents: a first-generation sirolimus-eluting stent versus a second-generation everolimus-eluting stent. The study makes use of clinical endpoints routinely collected in computerized healthcare registries, allowing complete follow-up of a large, well-defined population without scheduled angiographic examinations.

Clinical outcomes three-year after revascularization with biodegradable polymer stents: ultrathin-strut sirolimus-eluting stent versus biolimus-eluting stent: from the Scandinavian organization for randomized trials with clinical outcome VII trial.

BACKGROUND: Drug-eluting stents with biodegradable polymers have been designed to improve safety and efficacy. However, drug-eluting stents with biodegradable polymers may not be a class effect, as stent strut thickness, polymer coating, and drug resorption differ between these groups of stents. Twelve months results of Scandinavian Organization for Randomized Trials With Clinical Outcome VII showed that ultrathin-strut sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent was noninferior to the biolimus-eluting Nobori stent. The sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent was associated with a reduced risk of definite stent thrombosis. METHODS: The Scandinavian Organization for Randomized Trials With Clinical Outcome VII trial is a prospective multicenter randomized clinical trial comparing sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent and biolimus-eluting Nobori stent in all-comers patients. The endpoint target lesion failure was a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (not related to other than index lesion) and target lesion revascularization. RESULTS: A total of 1261 patients were randomized to treatment with sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent and 1264 patients to biolimus-eluting Nobori stent and followed for 3 years. At 3-year the target lesion failure was comparable for sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent (9.0%) and the biolimus-eluting Nobori stent (9.1%), (rate ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.77-1.29). Cardiac death (sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent 3.0% vs. biolimus-eluting Nobori stent 2.6% [rate ratio, 1.16; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-1.86]), target lesion revascularization (sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent 5.2% vs. biolimus-eluting Nobori stent 5.9% [rate ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval, 0.64-1.25]), myocardial infarction (sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent 4.7% vs. biolimus-eluting Nobori stent 4.5% [rate ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-1.50]), and definite stent thrombosis (sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent 1.0% vs. biolimus-eluting Nobori stent 1.7% [rate ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.30-1.18]) did not differ significantly between the two groups. CONCLUSION: At 3-year follow-up, target lesion failure did not differ among ultrathin-strut sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent and biolimus-eluting Nobori stent with biodegradable polymers.

Prevalence and inter-relationship of different Doppler measures of dyssynchrony in patients with heart failure and prolonged QRS: a report from CARE-HF.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) improves mortality and morbidity in heart failure patients with wide QRS. Observational studies suggest that patients having more left ventricular dyssynchrony pre-implantation obtain greater benefit on ventricular function and symptoms with CRT. AIM: To provide an analysis of the prevalence and type of dyssynchrony in patients included in the CARE-HF trial. METHODS: 100 patients 67 (58 to 71) years were examined with echocardiography including tissue doppler imaging before receiving a CRT-pacemaker. Atrio-ventricular dyssynchrony (LVFT/RR) was defined as left ventricular filling time <40% of the RR-interval. Inter-ventricular mechanical delay (IVMD) was measured as the difference in onset of Doppler-flow in the pulmonary and aortic outflow tracts >40 ms. Intra-ventricular (regional) dyssynchrony in a 16-segment model was expressed either as a delayed longitudinal contraction (DLC) during the postsystolic phase or by tissue synchronisation imaging (TSI) with a predefined time-difference in systolic maximal velocities >85 ms. RESULTS: LVFT/RR was present in 34% and IVMD in 60% of patients while intra-ventricular dyssynchrony was present in 85% (DLC) and 86% (TSI) with a high agreement between the measures (Kappascore 0.86-1.00), indicating the methods being interchangeable. Patients with cardiomyopathy (53%) were more likely to have LVFT/RR <40% (45% vs. 21% (p= 0.02)) and more segments affected by intra-ventricular dyssynchrony 4(3, 5) vs. 3(1, 4), p = 0.002, compared to patients with ischemic heart disease. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of intra-ventricular dyssynchrony is high in patients with heart failure, wide QRS and depressed systolic function. Most important, TSI appears to be a fast and reliable method to identify patients with intra-ventricular dyssynchrony likely to benefit from CRT.

Everolimus-Eluting Versus Biolimus-Eluting Stents With Biodegradable Polymers in Unselected Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Randomized Noninferiority Trial With 1-Year Follow-Up (SORT OUT VIII Trial).

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the thin-strut biodegradable-polymer everolimus-eluting platinum-chromium stent (EES) with the biodegradable-polymer biolimus-eluting stainless-steel stent (BES). BACKGROUND: Currently available drug-eluting coronary stents have been refined to reduce the risk for coronary events following implantation. METHODS: This randomized, multicenter, all-comers, noninferiority trial was undertaken at 3 sites in western Denmark. Patients with clinical indications for percutaneous coronary intervention were eligible for inclusion. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either EES or BES. The primary endpoint, target lesion failure, was a composite of safety (cardiac death and myocardial infarction not clearly attributable to a nontarget lesion) and efficacy (target lesion revascularization) at 12 months, analyzed using intention-to-treat principles. The trial was powered to assess target lesion failure noninferiority of the EES compared with the BES with a predetermined noninferiority margin of 3%. RESULTS: A total of 1,385 patients were assigned to treatment with EES and 1,369 patients to treatment with BES. The analysis showed that 55 patients (4.0%) assigned to the EES and 60 (4.4%) assigned to the BES met the primary endpoint (absolute risk difference 0.4%; upper limit of 1-sided 95% confidence interval: 1.7%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: At 1-year follow-up, the EES was found to be noninferior to the BES with respect to target lesion failure. (Everolimus-eluting SYNERGY Stent Versus Biolimus-Eluting Biomatrix NeoFlex Stent-SORT-OUT VIII; NCT02093845).

Lipid-core burden response to stent implantation assessed with near-infrared spectroscopy and intravascular ultrasound evaluation in patients with myocardial infarction.

INTRODUCTION: Near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) is a new method to identify lipid core plaque (LCP). The LCP and vascular response were assessed with NIRS to examine whether LCP was compressed or redistributed during percutaneous coronary intervention with stent implantation. METHODS: In 25 patients with non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) NIRS acquisition was performed after predilation, stent implantation with nominal pressure and high-pressure post-dilation with a non-compliant balloon. The intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) measures included volumes of external elastic membrane (EEM), lumen and plaque+media. The NIRS measures included lipid core burden index (LCBI) and maximum value of LCBI for any of the 4-mm segment (maxLCBI4mm). RESULTS: From predilation to stent implantation and post-dilation EEM volume increased from 337±124mm3 to 369±136mm3 and to 397±144mm3 (p<0.001), while plaque volume decreased from 225±84mm3 to 202±85mm3 and to 192±81mm3 (p<0.001). Plaque shift to the proximal reference segment was found in 40% of the lesions. The maxLCBI4mm decreased significantly from predilation to stent implantation (492±235 to 208±193 (p<0.001), whereas post dilation did not cause any further significant reduction. Also LCBI decreased significantly from predilation to stent implantation (173±103 to 68±67, p<0.001), without any further significant reduction during post-dilation. The LCBI did neither in the proximal nor in the distal reference segments change significantly during stent implantation or post-dilation. CONCLUSION: Lumen enlargement was caused by vessel expansion, plaque compression and longitudinally plaque redistribution. Lipid-core burden at the stented segment was decreased.

Optical coherence tomography assessment of incidence, morphological characteristics, and spontaneous healing course of edge dissections following percutaneous coronary intervention with stent implantation in patients with non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: Stenting-induced edge dissections (ED) can be assessed in detail by optical coherence tomography (OCT). This study sought to investigate the incidence, morphological characteristics, and spontaneous healing course of OCT-identified EDs following drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation in a non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) patient-population. METHODS: Acute vessel wall injury at the 5-mm stent adjacent distal and proximal reference segments was assessed by post-procedure OCT and intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) in n=97 NSTEMI-patients (n=97 lesions). Six months OCT follow-up was available in 82 patients (including 35 untreated post-procedure EDs). RESULTS: The overall incidence of post-procedure OCT-detected ED was 38 per 97 patients (39.2%), and 47 per 182 stent edges (25.8%). None of the EDs were angiographically visualizable, while 10 (21.3%) were visible on concomitant IVUS-analysis. Morphologically, there was a significant difference in plaque type present at ED-edges vs. non-ED-edges when assessed with OCT; (1) lipid-rich and calcified plaques: 80.9% vs. 57.0%, (2) fibrous plaques: 17.0% vs. 26.7%, and (3) normal coronary vessels: 2.1% vs. 16.3%, p<0.01. Plaqueburden, assessed by IVUS, was substantially larger at ED-containing borders: 54.5±10.0% vs. 43.7±11.6%, p=0.01. Three dissections (8.6%) were incompletely healed at 6-month OCT follow-up. None of the EDs caused cardiac events during the 6-month follow-up, however, 1 ED-patient had target lesion revascularization with PCI and DES-implantation in extension of the scheduled OCT-control. CONCLUSIONS: OCT-detected EDs were frequent after stent implantation due to NSTEMI, and the majority of these EDs healed without leading to an adverse prognosis at 6months.

Safety and Efficacy of Everolimus- Versus Sirolimus-Eluting Stents: 5-Year Results From SORT OUT IV.

BACKGROUND: Long-term safety and efficacy for everolimus-eluting stents (EES) versus those of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) are unknown. OBJECTIVES: This study compared 5-year outcomes for EES with those for SES from the SORT OUT IV (Scandinavian Organization for Randomized Trials with Clinical Outcome) trial. METHODS: Five-year follow-up was completed for 2,771 patients (99.9%). Primary endpoint was a composite of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), including cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularization (TVR), and definite stent thrombosis. RESULTS: At 5-years, MACE occurred in 14.0% and 17.4% in the EES and SES groups, respectively (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.66 to 0.97; p = 0.02). The MACE rate did not differ significantly within the first year (HR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.71 to 1.19; p = 0.79), but from years 1 through 5, the MACE rate was lower with EES (HR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.55 to 0.90; p = 0.006; p interaction = 0.12). Definite stent thrombosis was lower with EES (0.4%) than with SES (2.0%; HR: 0.18, 95% CI: 0.07 to 0.46), with a lower risk of very late definite stent thrombosis in the EES group (0.2% vs. 1.4%, respectively; HR: 0.16, 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.53). When censoring the patients at the time of stent thrombosis, we found no significant differences between the 2 stent groups for MACE rates (HR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.73 to 1.08; p = 0.23), target lesion revascularization (HR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.64 to 1.27; p = 0.55), and MI (HR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.64 to 1.36; p = 0.72). CONCLUSIONS: At 5-year follow-up, MACE rate was significantly lower with EES- than with SES-treated patients, due largely due to a lower risk of very late definite stent thrombosis. (Randomized Clinical Comparison of the Xience V and the Cypher Coronary Stents in Non-selected Patients With Coronary Heart Disease [SORT OUT IV]; NCT00552877).

Randomized Comparison of a Biodegradable Polymer Ultrathin Strut Sirolimus-Eluting Stent With a Biodegradable Polymer Biolimus-Eluting Stent in Patients Treated With Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: The SORT OUT VII Trial.

BACKGROUND: Coronary drug-eluting stents with biodegradable polymers have been designed to improve safety and efficacy. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Scandinavian Organization for Randomized Trials With Clinical Outcome (SORT OUT) VII trial-a large-scale registry-based randomized, multicenter, single-blind, 2-arm, noninferiority trial-compared 2 biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents: the thin-strut cobalt-chromium sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent and the stainless steel biolimus-eluting Nobori stent in an all-comer patient population. The primary end point target lesion failure was a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (not related to other than index lesion), or target lesion revascularization within 1 year, analyzed by intention to treat (noninferiority margin of 3.0%). Clinically driven event detection based on Danish registries was used. A total of 1261 patients were assigned to receive the sirolimus-eluting stent (1590 lesions) and 1264 patients to the biolimus-eluting stent (1588 lesions). At 1 year, the composite end point target lesion failure occurred in 48 patients (3.8%) in the sirolimus-eluting group and in 58 patients (4.6%) in the biolimus-eluting group (absolute risk difference, -0.78% [upper limit of 1-sided 95% confidence interval, 0.61%]; P<0.0001). Rates of definite stent thrombosis occurred in 5 (0.4%) of the sirolimus-eluting group compared with 15 (1.2%) biolimus-eluting stent-treated patients (rate ratio, 0.33; 95% confidence interval, 0.12-0.92; P=0.034), which largely was attributable to a lower risk of subacute definite stent thrombosis: 0.1% versus 0.6% (rate ratio, 0.12; 95% confidence interval, 0.02-1.00; P=0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The thin-strut sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent was noninferior to the biolimus-eluting Nobori stent in unselected patients for target lesion failure at 1 year. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01879358.

Intra- and interobserver reliability and intra-catheter reproducibility using frequency domain optical coherence tomography for the evaluation of morphometric stent parameters and qualitative assessment of stent strut coverage.

PURPOSE: Frequency-domain optical coherence tomography (FD-OCT) is a high-resolution imaging tool (~10-15 µm), which enables near-histological in-vivo images of the coronary vessel wall. The use of the technique is increasing, both for research- and clinical purposes. This study sought to investigate the intra- and interobserver reliability, as well as the intra-catheter reproducibility of quantitative FD-OCT-assessment of morphometric stent parameters and qualitative FD-OCT-evaluation of strut coverage in 10 randomly selected 6-month follow-up Nobori® biolimus-eluting stents (N-BESs). METHODS: Ten N-BESs (213 cross sectional areas (CSAs) and 1897 struts) imaged with OCT 6 months post-implantation were randomly selected and analyzed by 2 experienced analysts, and the same 10 N-BESs were analyzed by one of the analysts 3 months later. Further, 2 consecutive pullbacks randomly performed in another 10 N-BESs (219 CSAs and 1860 struts) were independently assessed by one of the analysts. RESULTS: The intraobserver variability with regard to relative difference of mean luminal area and mean stent area at the CSA-level was very low: 0.1%±1.4% and 0.5%±3.2%. Interobserver variability also proved to be low: -2.1%±3.3% and 2.1%±4.6%, and moreover, very restricted intra-catheter variation was observed: 0.02%±6.8% and -0.18%±5.2%. The intraobserver-, interobserver- and intra-catheter reliability for the qualitative evaluation of strut coverage was found to be: kappa (κ)=0.91 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.88-0.93, p<0.01), κ=0.88 (95% CI: 0.85-0.91, p<0.01), and κ=0.73 (95% CI: 0.68-0.78, p<0.01), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: FD-OCT is a reproducible and reliable imaging tool for quantitative evaluation of stented coronary segments, and for qualitative assessment of strut coverage.

Optical Coherence Tomography Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Nobori Stent Implantation in Patients With Non-ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (OCTACS) Trial: Difference in Strut Coverage and Dynamic Malapposition Patterns at 6 Months.

BACKGROUND: Incomplete strut coverage has been documented an important histopathologic morphometric predictor for later thrombotic events. This study sought to investigate whether optical coherence tomography (OCT)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention with Nobori biolimus-eluting stent implantation in patients with non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction would provide improved strut coverage at 6 months in comparison with angiographic guidance only. METHODS AND RESULTS: One hundred patients were randomized 1:1 to either OCT-guided or angio-guided Nobori biolimus-eluting stent implantation. Postprocedure OCT was performed in all patients. In the OCT-guided group, prespecified criteria indicating additional intervention were related to (1) stent underexpansion, (2) strut malapposition, (3) edge dissection(s), and (4) residual stenosis at the distal or proximal reference segment(s). A final OCT was performed in case of reintervention. Six-month OCT follow-up was available in 85 patients. Twenty-three (46%) OCT-guided patients had additional postdilation or stenting. The percentage of acutely malapposed struts was substantially lower in the OCT-guided group (3.4% [interquartile range, 0.3-7.6] versus 7.8% [interquartile range, 2.3-19.4]; P<0.01). At 6-month follow-up, the OCT-guided group had a significantly lower proportion of uncovered struts; 4.3% [interquartile range, 1.2-9.8] versus 9.0% [interquartile range, 5.5-14.5], P<0.01. Furthermore, OCT-guided patients had significantly more completely covered stents: 17.5% versus 2.2%, P=0.02. The percentages of malapposed struts and struts being both uncovered and malapposed at follow-up were comparable between groups. CONCLUSIONS: OCT-guided optimization of Nobori biolimus-eluting stent implantation improves strut coverage at 6-month follow-up in comparison with angiographic guidance alone. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02272283.