The need for future coronary access following surgical or transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

The aim of the study was to estimate the percentage of Medicare patients needing coronary access for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary angiography following aortic valve replacement (AVR). Indications for TAVR have expanded to include younger and low-risk patients, raising the question of coronary access for future procedures. Medicare patients <80 years old with an AVR between 2011 and 2018 were included. Time-to-event analyses were conducted using Cox hazard models to estimate risk of coronary access up to 7 years after AVR. Model adjustments included age, sex, race, region, comorbidity, concomitant CABG, and smoking. A total of 13,469 Medicare patients (mean age 70.6) met inclusion criteria. Models estimated that 2.5% of patients at 1-year post-index and 17% at over 7 years would need coronary access. For patients who had SAVR (with or without CABG), estimates for coronary access were similar and over 15% after 6.5 years. For TAVR patients, with a previous PCI, 28% at 4.5 years required coronary access, which was higher than TAVR patients without a previous PCI. SAVR patients with and without CAD at baseline were similar; however, TAVR patients with CAD had a 22% rate of coronary access versus 7% for those without at 3 years. Approximately half of patients who needed coronary access returned to the same hospital as their initial AVR. Coronary access is required in a substantial portion of AVR patients especially those with PCI or a history of CAD undergoing TAVR. The need for coronary access may increase as transcatheter AVR becomes accessible to younger patients with a longer life expectancy.

Hot topics in interventional cardiology: Proceedings from the society for cardiovascular angiography and interventions (SCAI) 2021 think tank.

The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) Think Tank is a collaborative venture that brings together interventional cardiologists, administrative partners, and select members of the cardiovascular industry community annually for high-level field-wide discussions. The 2021 Think Tank was organized into four parallel sessions reflective of the field of interventional cardiology: (a) coronary intervention, (b) endovascular medicine, (c) structural heart disease, and (d) congenital heart disease. Each session was moderated by a senior content expert and co-moderated by a member of SCAI's Emerging Leader Mentorship program. This document presents the proceedings to the wider cardiovascular community in order to enhance participation in this discussion, create additional dialog from a broader base, and thereby aid SCAI, the industry community and external stakeholders in developing specific action items to move these areas forward.

Hot topics in interventional cardiology: Proceedings from the society for cardiovascular angiography and interventions 2020 think tank.

The society for cardiovascular angiography and interventions (SCAI) think tank is a collaborative venture that brings together interventional cardiologists, administrative partners, and select members of the cardiovascular industry community for high-level field-wide discussions. The 2020 think tank was organized into four parallel sessions reflective of the field of interventional cardiology: (a) coronary intervention, (b) endovascular medicine, (c) structural heart disease, and (d) congenital heart disease (CHD). Each session was moderated by a senior content expert and co-moderated by a member of SCAI's emerging leader mentorship program. This document presents the proceedings to the wider cardiovascular community in order to enhance participation in this discussion, create additional dialogue from a broader base, and thereby aid SCAI and the industry community in developing specific action items to move these areas forward.

Rationale and design for AMPLATZER Amulet Left Atrial Appendage Occluder IDE randomized controlled trial (Amulet IDE Trial).

The Amulet IDE Trial is an ongoing, prospective, randomized, multi-national trial, designed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the AMPLATZER Amulet Left Atrial Appendage Occluder for stroke prevention in comparison to the WATCHMAN Left Atrial Appendage Closure Device in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. METHODS: Non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients at high risk of stroke (CHADS2 score ≥2 or a CHA2DS2-VASc score of ≥3) who are suitable candidates for left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) will be fully informed and requested to participate in the trial. A total of 1878 patients at up to 150 sites worldwide will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio between the AMPLATZER Amulet device (investigational) and the Boston Scientific WATCHMAN device (control). Each patient will be followed for 5 years, with follow-up assessments at discharge, 45 days, 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, and 24 months and then annually. The trial has three primary endpoints: A composite of procedure-related complications, or all-cause death, or major bleeding through 12 months (safety); a composite of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism through 18 months (effectiveness); and effective device LAAO, defined as residual jet around the device ≤5 mm at the 45-day visit (mechanism of action). SUMMARY: The Amulet IDE Trial is the first randomized head-to-head LAAO device trial and will provide data for the AMPLATZER Amulet occluder in a population with a high risk of stroke and bleeding.

Treatment of Bifurcation Lesions: Has DK Crush"ed" the Competition?

PURPOSE: This paper reviews the double-kiss crush (DK crush) technique in coronary artery bifurcation lesions. The technical aspects of the procedure and the clinical data supporting its use are summarized. RECENT FINDINGS: Randomized studies support the adoption of DK technique in complex bifurcation lesions for both left main and non-left-main lesions. For true bifurcation lesions, DK crush may become the default technique for lesions in which the side-branch disease is complex and long. Optimal technique is essential for obtaining the clinical outcomes noted in the DKCRUSH randomized studies.

Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds for the treatment of coronary artery disease: Clinical outcomes from randomized controlled trials.

The permanent metal prosthesis common to bare metal stents (BMS) as well as both first- and second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) following treatment of coronary artery disease represents a long-lasting substrate for late adverse coronary events including restenosis, thrombosis, and neoatherosclerosis. Following resorbtion, bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) may eliminate this nidus and improve late outcomes through restoration of the vessel to more normal vascular structure and function. BRS represents a single platform which incorporates the mechanical features of metallic stents to provide safe and effective revascularization, suppression of restenosis and prevention of constrictive remodeling with long-term restoration of the treated vessel to a more natural state. The landscape of BRS is rapidly evolving with new materials which target various performance goals for the duration of vascular support and polymer resorption time. The Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (Absorb BVS), recently approved by United States Food and Drug Administration, has extensive clinical evidence to date in support of its clinical efficacy and safety. Recently published data from well-executed randomized clinical trials (RCTs) as part of the ABSORB Clinical development program along with other investigator-initiated trials provide insights into the safety and performance of this device in patients with de novo coronary lesions as well in the setting of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). This review provides a comprehensive, outcomes based understanding of the available evidence from RCTs that offer head-to-head comparisons of Absorb BVS with metallic everolimus-eluting stents (EES). © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Clinical outcomes in real-world patients with bifurcation lesions receiving Xience V everolimus-eluting stents: Four-year results from the Xience V USA study.

BACKGROUND: The Xience V USA Study demonstrated safety and efficacy of the XIENCE V(®) everolimus-eluting stent (EES) in a large, prospective study of a real-world, unselected patient population. There is limited long-term data regarding EES performance in high risk patients with bifurcation lesions (BIF). The objective of this analysis was to evaluate the long-term safety and effectiveness of EES in patients with BIF from the XIENCE V USA study. METHODS: The Xience V USA Study was a single arm, prospective, multicenter, real-world study (n = 5,054) undergoing PCI with EES. Baseline data and clinical outcomes at 4 years were evaluated in the subgroup of patients with ≥ 1 BIF who did not undergo a staged procedure. Co-primary endpoints were ARC definite/probable stent thrombosis and a composite of cardiac death and ARC-defined myocardial infarction (MI). Endpoints were adjudicated by an independent CEC. RESULTS: Of 4,768 patients who did not undergo a staged procedure, there were 511 (10.7%) patients with BIF and 4,257 (89.3%) patients without BIF. Follow-up data was available in 4,459 patients (466 BIF, 3,993 non-BIF). Through binary outcome analysis, at 1 year the overall definite/probable stent thrombosis rates were higher in the BIF group (1.84% vs. 0.76%, P = 0.03). However, at 4 years, the difference in cumulative rates of ARC definite/probable stent thrombosis (BIF 2.3% vs. non-BIF 1.4%, P = 0.13) remained the same as that at 1 year, with no incremental definite/probable stent thrombosis in BIF patients from 2-4 years. The 4-year rates of composite cardiac death and MI were 13.5% for BIF vs. 14.1% for non-BIF (P = 0.78). At 4 years, target lesion failure (19.1% vs. 18.3%, P = 0.66) and ischemia driven-target lesion revascularization (10.2% vs. 10.1%, P = 0.89) were comparable between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: This subgroup analysis of BIF lesions in a real world population receiving EES demonstrates continued low rates of clinical outcomes in the BIF subgroup at 4 years with no incremental stent thrombosis increase in BIF patients from 2 to 4 years. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

The ABSORB bioresorbable vascular scaffold: A novel, fully resorbable drug-eluting stent: Current concepts and overview of clinical evidence.

The advent of fully bioresorbable stent technology and specifically the ABSORB™, a bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) stent, is heralded as breakthrough technology in the current era of percutaneous coronary interventions. This article reviews the current understanding of this technology along with the clinical evidence from trials and registries of ABSORB BVS that included patients with both simple as well as more complex "real-world" coronary lesions. In addition, considering the current limitations of this device-mostly associated with the mechanical properties of the polymeric scaffold structure-a review of guidelines on successful implantation of the ABSORB BVS is presented. Although expert feedback suggests extensive use of this device in routine clinical practice outside the United States despite a paucity of data on long-term safety in this setting, attention to procedural details and implantation technique is obligatory to achieve optimal clinical outcomes.

Cessation of dual antiplatelet treatment and cardiac events after percutaneous coronary intervention (PARIS): 2 year results from a prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) cessation increases the risk of adverse events after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Whether risk changes over time, depends on the underlying reason for DAPT cessation, or both is unknown. We assessed associations between different modes of DAPT cessation and cardiovascular risk after PCI. METHODS: The PARIS (patterns of non-adherence to anti-platelet regimens in stented patients) registry is a prospective observational study of patients undergoing PCI with stent implantation in 15 clinical sites in the USA and Europe between July 1, 2009, and Dec 2, 2010. Adult patients (aged 18 years or older) undergoing successful stent implantation in one or more native coronary artery and discharged on DAPT were eligible for enrolment. Patients were followed up at months 1, 6, 12, and 24 after implantation. Prespecified categories for DAPT cessation included physician-recommended discontinuation, brief interruption (for surgery), or disruption (non-compliance or because of bleeding). All adverse events and episodes of DAPT cessation were independently adjudicated. Using Cox models with time-varying covariates, we examined the effect of DAPT cessation on major adverse events (MACE [composite of cardiac death, definite or probable stent thrombosis, myocardial infarction, or target-lesion revascularisation]). Incidence rates for DAPT cessation and adverse events were calculated as Kaplan-Meier estimates of time to the first event. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00998127. FINDINGS: We enrolled 5031 patients undergoing PCI, including 5018 in the final study population. Over 2 years, the overall incidence of any DAPT cessation was 57·3%. Rate of any discontinuation was 40·8%, of interruption was 10·5%, and of disruption was 14·4%. The corresponding overall 2 year MACE rate was 11·5%, most of which (74%) occurred while patients were taking DAPT. Compared with those on DAPT, the adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for MACE due to interruption was 1·41 (95% CI 0·94-2·12; p=0·10) and to disruption was 1·50 (1·14-1.97; p=0·004). Within 7 days, 8-30 days, and more than 30 days after disruption, adjusted HRs were 7·04 (3·31-14·95), 2·17 (0·97-4·88), and 1·3 (0·97-1·76), respectively. By contrast with patients who remained on DAPT, those who discontinued had lower MACE risk (0·63 [0·46-0·86]). Results were similar after excluding patients receiving bare metal stents and using an alternative MACE definition that did not include target lesion revascularisation. INTERPRETATION: In a real-world setting, for patients undergoing PCI and discharged on DAPT, cardiac events after DAPT cessation depend on the clinical circumstance and reason for cessation and attenuates over time. While most events after PCI occur in patients on DAPT, early risk for events due to disruption is substantial irrespective of stent type. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb and Sanofi-Aventis.

Clinical outcomes in real-world patients with small vessel disease treated with XIENCE V® everolimus-eluting stents: one year results from the XIENCE V® USA condition of approval post-market study.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the 1-year clinical outcomes of more complex XIENCE V USA real-world patients with small versus nonsmall vessel lesions. BACKGROUND: Patients with small vessel lesions undergoing coronary stent placement are at higher risk of major adverse cardiac events. Improved safety and efficacy of XIENCE V everolimus eluting stents (EES) have been previously demonstrated in selected low-risk small vessel populations in randomized clinical trials. METHODS: The XIENCE V USA study was a condition of approval, single-arm study in unselected real-world patients. Baseline and 1-year clinical outcomes were compared between XIENCE V USA patients who received a single 2.5 mm stent (small vessel group, N = 838) and patients implanted with a single >2.5 mm stent (non-small vessel group, N = 2,015). Mean reference vessel diameter was 2.55 ± 0.36 and 3.25 ± 0.46 mm in the small and non-small vessel groups, respectively (P < 0.001). RESULTS: Small vessel group had more females, presented with a higher rate of diabetes, and had more complex lesion characteristics. The definite or probable ST rates analyzed using Kaplan-Meier method were low and not significantly different between the groups at 0.37 and 0.40% for the small and nonsmall vessel group (P = 0.88), respectively. The composite rate of cardiac death or MI was comparable at 4.5% for the small and 5.1% for the non-small vessel 1 groups (P = 0.57). The 1-year target lesion revascularization rate was also comparable in the small vessel group (3.8% vs. 3.0%, P = 0.35). CONCLUSIONS: Despite gender difference, higher prevalence of diabetes and more complex lesions in the small vessel groups, the 1-year clinical outcomes were similar in both small and nonsmall vessel groups. These results demonstrate the therapeutic benefit of XIENCE V EES in a real-world all inclusive patient population with small vessel disease.

Clinical outcomes in real-world patients with acute myocardial infarction receiving XIENCE V® everolimus-eluting stents: one-year results from the XIENCE V USA study.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this analysis was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of XIENCE V in acute myocardial infarction (AMI). BACKGROUND: The XIENCE V(®) Everolimus-eluting coronary stent was superior to the TAXUS(®) paclitaxel-eluting stent in angiographic and clinical outcomes in the SPIRIT II, III, and IV randomized controlled trials, but patients with AMI were excluded. METHODS: XIENCE V USA is a large, prospective, multicenter, real-world single-arm postmarket surveillance trial. Consecutive patients undergoing PCI with XIENCE V were enrolled. For this analysis, clinical outcomes in 673 patients presenting with AMI (STEMI, n = 125) were as compared to patients without AMI (n = 3528) at 1 year. RESULTS: At 1 year, ARC-defined stent thrombosis (ST) rates were 1.08% in AMI vs. 0.85% in the non-AMI group (P = 0.4987). The late ST (30 days-1 year) rates were 0.31% vs. 0.47% (AMI vs. non-AMI, P = 0.7551). Rates of target lesion revascularization (TLR) were 4.1% vs. 4.6% (P = 0.6104), and rates of target lesion failure (TLF) were 9.1% vs. 8.5%, (P = 0.5964). With the historical WHO definition of MI, 1 year TLF rates were 7.0% vs. 6.7% (P = 0.8001). Improvements in quality of life, angina frequency, angina stability, and physical limitations occurred at 6 months (each P < 0.0001) and were sustained at 1 year in both groups. There were no significant differences in clinical outcomes between STEMI and non-STEMI patients. CONCLUSIONS: At 1 year, AMI patients treated with XIENCE V had low rates of ST, TLR, and TLF, similar to non-AMI patients. Marked improvements in patients' health status in this subgroup were also demonstrated.

Xience side branch access stent for treatment of bifurcation coronary disease: a review of preclinical data.

The Xience Side Branch Access (SBA) stent is an everolimus-eluting stent designed specifically for branching coronary geometry, providing wire access into the side branch (SB) regardless of the planned treatment strategy. The stent is delivered via a low-profile, dual-lumen, and single-tip catheter. A single inflation deploys the stent in the main branch (MB) and opens a portal into the SB. It is through this portal opening, allowing wire access into the SB, that this device differentiates itself from certain other dedicated bifurcation devices currently in various stages of development and testing. The Xience SBA stent was compared with a standard Multi-Link Vision® stent using a provisional T-stenting strategy in an ovine beating heart model. The Xience SBA stent tended to be deployed with less mean contrast usage (21.05 vs. 43.23 mL; P = 0.09), shorter fluoroscopy time (2.55 vs. 4.52 minute; P = 0.12), and lower rates of guidewire entanglement (16% vs. 100%) compared with the workhorse stent. As a result, the total procedure time with the Xience SBA stent was significantly shorter than that with the standard stent (5.46 vs. 8.65 minute; P = 0.01). The Xience SBA stent was also evaluated by four recently trained interventionalists who had no previous experience with the device. Using a perfused synthetic heart model, SB access time was reduced by 54%, average fluoroscopy time was reduced by 46%, and average contrast usage was lowered by 39% with the Xience SBA compared with the standard stent. Initial experience in the ovine model suggests that the Xience SBA stent is also amenable for use in distal left main coronary artery disease, regardless of whether it is deployed in the left ascending coronary artery or left circumflex artery and the portal opened in the opposing vessel. On the basis of these experimental results, the Xience SBA stent is an easy to use and versatile device for the purpose of SB access and potentially for the treatment of bifurcation coronary artery lesions.

Sustained low clinical event rates in real-world patients receiving everolimus-eluting coronary stent system from a large, prospective, condition of approval study: 2-year clinical outcomes from the XIENCE V USA Study.

OBJECTIVES: This 2-year follow-up of the XIENCE V USA study examines both the long-term safety and effectiveness of the everolimus-eluting coronary stent system (EECSS) in real-world patients. BACKGROUND: The safety and effectiveness of EECSS at 1 year in real-world clinical settings have been demonstrated in XIENCE V USA trial with low rates of target lesion revascularization (TLR), cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), and stent thrombosis (ST). Data on whether efficacy is maintained after 1 year and the event rate of very late stent thrombosis (VLST) between 1 and 2 years have not yet been reported. METHODS: XIENCE V USA is a prospective, multicenter, single-arm, FDA required condition of approval study designed to examine the safety and effectiveness of EECSS in an all-inclusive, consecutively enrolled population from real-world clinical settings. Clinical end-point events, including ST, cardiac death, MI, and revascularization were adjudicated by an independent Clinical Events Committee. RESULTS: Four thousand eight hundred and seventy-three (96.4%) out of 5,054 participants (1,875 standard-risk; 3,059 extended-risk) reached 2-year follow-up. The 2-year rate of Academic Research Consortium (ARC)-defined definite and probable ST was 0.96% (95% CI 0.70-1.28) in the overall population and 0.34% (95% CI 0.12-0.74) and 1.33% (95% CI 0.95-1.81) in the standard-risk and extended-risk cohorts, respectively. The rate of VLST was 0.06% in the overall population, 0.0% in the standard-risk, and 0.10% in the extended-risk cohorts. The 2-year composite rate of cardiac death and ARC-defined MI was 8.9% (95% CI 8.08-9.70) in the overall population and 5.6% (95% CI 4.61-6.78) and 10.8% (95% CI 9.71-11.94) in the standard-risk and extended-risk cohorts, respectively. CONCLUSION: Low event rates observed at 1 year were maintained through 2 years. Despite the increased number of patients who discontinued dual antiplatelet therapy by 2 years, the ST rate remained consistently low, and <1% at 2 years due to low VLST occurrence. These results demonstrate continued safety and effectiveness of the XIENCE V everolimus-eluting stent in a highly complex, real-world patient population through 2 years.

Performance of everolimus-eluting versus paclitaxel-eluting coronary stents in small vessels: results from the SPIRIT III and SPIRIT IV clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Higher rates of adverse cardiac events have been observed in patients with small vessel disease. Therefore, we compared an everolimus-eluting stent (EES) to a paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) for treatment of small (reference vessel diameter: RVD <2.5 mm) and larger vessels (≥2.5 mm) in a pooled analysis from the SPIRIT III (n = 1,002) and SPIRIT IV (n = 3,687) trials (randomized 2:1, EES vs. PES). METHODS: Data of 4,689 total patients were pooled for a patient level analysis. Lesion length, RVD, and percent diabetics were matched between stent types. EES versus PES performance was evaluated at 1 year in patients with small (n = 1,019) and larger vessels (n = 2,586) who had a single lesion treated. RESULTS: Mean RVD assessed by quantitative coronary angiography in patients with small vessels was 2.24 ± 0.19 and 2.25 ± 0.20 mm in the EES and PES groups, respectively. At 1 year, EES compared to PES in small vessel patients significantly reduced major adverse cardiac events (4.5% vs. 7.9%, P = 0.04), target lesion failure (4.4% vs. 7.9%, P = 0.03), target lesion revascularization (2.4% vs. 5.5%, P = 0.02), and stent thrombosis (0.2% vs. 1.2%, P = 0.04). Relative benefits of EES versus PES were comparable in small and larger vessels (P interaction > 0.05), although the absolute benefits were greater in patients with small vessel disease. CONCLUSION: In high-risk patients requiring percutaneous coronary intervention in small coronary arteries, EES results in significantly improved 1-year rates of event-free survival compared to PES, with evidence present for both enhanced safety and efficacy.

Impact of Coronary Artery Tortuosity on Outcomes Following Stenting: A Pooled Analysis From 6 Trials.

OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to determine whether coronary artery tortuosity negatively affects clinical outcomes after stent implantation. BACKGROUND: Coronary artery tortuosity is a common angiographic finding and has been associated with increased rates of early and late major adverse events after balloon angioplasty. METHODS: Individual patient data from 6 prospective, randomized stent trials were pooled. Outcomes at 30 days and 5 years following percutaneous coronary intervention of a single coronary lesion were analyzed according to the presence or absence of moderate/severe vessel tortuosity, as determined by an angiographic core laboratory. The primary endpoint was target vessel failure (TVF) (composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction [TV-MI], or ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization [ID-TVR]). RESULTS: A total of 6,951 patients were included, 729 of whom (10.5%) underwent percutaneous coronary intervention in vessels with moderate/severe tortuosity. At 30 days, TVF was more frequent in patients with versus without moderate/severe tortuosity (3.8% vs. 2.4%; hazard ratio [HR]: 1.64; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.09 to 2.46; p = 0.02), a difference driven by a higher rate of TV-MI. At 5 years, TVF remained increased in patients with moderate/severe tortuosity (p = 0.003), driven by higher rates of TV-MI (p = 0.003) and ID-TVR (p = 0.01). Definite stent thrombosis was also greater in patients with versus without moderate/severe tortuosity (1.9% vs. 1.0%; HR: 1.86; 95% CI: 1.02 to 3.39; p = 0.04). After adjustment for baseline covariates, moderate/severe vessel tortuosity was independently associated with TV-MI and ID-TVR at 5 years (p = 0.04 for both). CONCLUSIONS: Stent implantation in vessels with moderate/severe coronary artery tortuosity is associated with increased rates of TVF due to greater rates of TV-MI and ID-TVR.

Randomized comparison of everolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents: two-year clinical follow-up from the Clinical Evaluation of the Xience V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Patients with de novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions (SPIRIT) III trial.

BACKGROUND: In the prospective randomized Clinical Evaluation of the Xience V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Patients with de novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions (SPIRIT) III trial, an everolimus-eluting stent (EES) compared with a widely used paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) resulted in a statistically significant reduction in angiographic in-segment late loss at 8 months and noninferior rates of target vessel failure (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization) at 1 year. The safety and efficacy of EES after 1 year have not been reported. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 1002 patients with up to 2 de novo native coronary artery lesions (reference vessel diameter, 2.5 to 3.75 mm; lesion length < or =28 mm) were randomized 2:1 to EES versus PES. Antiplatelet therapy consisted of aspirin indefinitely and a thienopyridine for > or =6 months. Between 1 and 2 years, patients treated with EES compared with PES tended to have fewer episodes of protocol-defined stent thrombosis (0.2% versus 1.0%; P=0.10) and myocardial infarctions (0.5% versus 1.7%; P=0.12), with similar rates of cardiac death (0.3% versus 0.3%; P=1.0) and target vessel revascularization (2.9% versus 3.0%; P=1.0). As a result, at the completion of the 2-year follow-up, treatment with EES compared with PES resulted in a significant 32% reduction in target vessel failure (10.7% versus 15.4%; hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.48 to 0.98; P=0.04) and a 45% reduction in major adverse cardiac events (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization; 7.3% versus 12.8%; hazard ratio, 0.55; 95% confidence interval, 0.36 to 0.83; P=0.004). Among the 360 patients who discontinued clopidogrel or ticlopidine after 6 months, stent thrombosis subsequently developed in 0.4% of EES patients versus 2.6% of PES patients (P=0.10). CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated with EES rather than PES experienced significantly improved event-free survival at a 2-year follow-up in the SPIRIT III trial, with continued divergence of the hazard curves for target vessel failure and major adverse cardiac events between 1 and 2 years evident. The encouraging trends toward fewer stent thrombosis episodes after 6 months in EES-treated patients who discontinued a thienopyridine and after 1 year in all patients treated with EES rather than PES deserve further study.

Contemporary bifurcation treatment strategies: the role of currently available slotted tube stents.

Treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions remains complicated and fraught with procedural challenges. Although numerous techniques have been proposed for treating bifurcations, no approach completely circumvents the limitations of the current stent platforms. This article discusses management strategies currently available for treating bifurcation lesions, including techniques to optimize deployment and outcomes.

Clinical and angiographic outcomes with an everolimus-eluting stent in large coronary arteries: the SPIRIT III 4.0 mm registry.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates the safety and efficacy of the XIENCE V 4.0 mm stent for the treatment of de novo native coronary artery lesions. BACKGROUND: In the SPIRIT III trial, the XIENCE V everolimus-eluting stent (EES), compared with the TAXUS EXPRESS(2) paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) in 2.5-3.75 mm diameter coronary arteries, resulted in reduced angiographic late loss (LL), noninferior rates of target vessel failure (TVF), and fewer major adverse cardiac events (MACE). METHODS: The SPIRIT III 4.0 mm registry was a concurrent arm of the SPIRIT III trial consisting of 69 nonrandomized patients with lesions