Immediate versus staged complete revascularisation in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome and multivessel coronary disease (BIOVASC): a prospective, open-label, non-inferiority, randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: In patients with acute coronary syndrome and multivessel coronary disease, complete revascularisation by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is associated with improved clinical outcomes. We aimed to investigate whether PCI for non-culprit lesions should be attempted during the index procedure or staged. METHODS: This prospective, open-label, non-inferiority, randomised trial was done at 29 hospitals across Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands, and Spain. We included patients aged 18-85 years presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction or non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome and multivessel (ie, two or more coronary arteries with a diameter of 2·5 mm or more and ≥70% stenosis based on visual estimation or positive coronary physiology testing) coronary artery disease with a clearly identifiable culprit lesion. A web-based randomisation module was used to randomly assign patients (1:1), with a random block size of four to eight, stratified by study centre, to undergo immediate complete revascularisation (PCI of the culprit lesion first, followed by other non-culprit lesions deemed to be clinically significant by the operator during the index procedure) or staged complete revascularisation (PCI of only the culprit lesion during the index procedure and PCI of all non-culprit lesions deemed to be clinically significant by the operator within 6 weeks after the index procedure). The primary outcome was the composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, any unplanned ischaemia-driven revascularisation, or cerebrovascular events at 1 year after the index procedure. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and unplanned ischaemia-driven revascularisation at 1 year after the index procedure. Primary and secondary outcomes were assessed in all randomly assigned patients by intention to treat. Non-inferiority of immediate to staged complete revascularisation was considered to be met if the upper boundary of the 95% CI of the hazard ratio (HR) for the primary outcome did not exceed 1·39. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03621501. FINDINGS: Between June 26, 2018, and Oct 21, 2021, 764 patients (median age 65·7 years [IQR 57·2-72·9] and 598 [78·3%] males) were randomly assigned to the immediate complete revascularisation group and 761 patients (median age 65·3 years [58·6-72·9] and 589 [77·4%] males) were randomly assigned to the staged complete revascularisation group, and were included in the intention-to-treat population. The primary outcome at 1 year occurred in 57 (7·6%) of 764 patients in the immediate complete revascularisation group and in 71 (9·4%) of 761 patients in the staged complete revascularisation group (HR 0·78, 95% CI 0·55-1·11, pnon-inferiority=0·0011). There was no difference in all-cause death between the immediate and staged complete revascularisation groups (14 [1·9%] vs nine [1·2%]; HR 1·56, 95% CI 0·68-3·61, p=0·30). Myocardial infarction occurred in 14 (1·9%) patients in the immediate complete revascularisation group and in 34 (4·5%) patients in the staged complete revascularisation group (HR 0·41, 95% CI 0·22-0·76, p=0·0045). More unplanned ischaemia-driven revascularisations were performed in the staged complete revascularisation group than in the immediate complete revascularisation group (50 [6·7%] patients vs 31 [4·2%] patients; HR 0·61, 95% CI 0·39-0·95, p=0·030). INTERPRETATION: In patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome and multivessel disease, immediate complete revascularisation was non-inferior to staged complete revascularisation for the primary composite outcome and was associated with a reduction in myocardial infarction and unplanned ischaemia-driven revascularisation. FUNDING: Erasmus University Medical Center and Biotronik.

Final 5-year report of BIONYX comparing the thin-composite wire-strut zotarolimus-eluting stent versus ultrathin-strut sirolimus-eluting stent.

BACKGROUND: The BIONYX randomized trial is the first study to evaluate the Resolute Onyx durable polymer-coated zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) in all-comers. Furthermore, it is the first trial to assess safety and efficacy of this stent versus the Orsiro biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) in all-comers, paying particular attention to patients with diabetes. It has previously shown promising results until 3 years of follow-up. AIMS: We aimed to assess long-term clinical outcome after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with Onyx ZES versus Orsiro SES at 5-year follow-up. METHODS: The main composite endpoint was target vessel failure (TVF): cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization. Time to primary and secondary endpoints was assessed using Kaplan-Meier methods, applying the log-rank test for between-group comparison. RESULTS: Follow-up was available in 2414/2488 (97.0%) patients. After 5 years, TVF showed no significant difference between Onyx ZES and Orsiro SES (12.7% vs. 13.7%, hazard ratio [HR] 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.75-1.17], plog-rank = 0.55). Landmark analysis between 3- and 5-year follow-up found a lower target lesion revascularization rate for Onyx ZES (1.1% vs. 2.4%, HR 0.47, 95% CI [0.24-0.93], plog-rank = 0.026). A prespecified subgroup analysis showed no significant between-stent difference in clinical outcome among patients with diabetes. After treatment with Onyx ZES, patients aged ≥75 years had significantly lower rates of TVF (13.8% vs. 21.9%, HR 0.60, 95% CI [0.39-0.93], plog-rank = 0.023). CONCLUSIONS: The final 5-year analysis of the randomized BIONYX trial showed favorable and similar long-term outcomes of safety and efficacy for Onyx ZES and Orsiro SES in both all-comers and patients with diabetes.

Ethnic minorities treated with new-generation drug-eluting coronary stents in two European randomised clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Several ethnic minorities have an increased risk of cardiovascular events, but previous European trials that investigated clinical outcome after coronary stenting did not assess the patients' ethnic background. AIMS: To compare ethnic minority and Western European trial participants in terms of both cardiovascular risk profile and 1­year clinical outcome after percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS: In the BIO-RESORT and BIONYX randomised trials, which assessed new-generation drug-eluting stents, information on patients' self-reported ethnic background was prospectively collected. Pooled patient-level data of 5803 patients, enrolled in the Netherlands and Belgium, were analysed in this prespecified analysis. The main endpoint was target vessel failure after 1 year. RESULTS: Patients were classified as belonging to an ethnic minority (n = 293, 5%) or of Western European origin (n = 5510, 95%). Follow-up data were available in 5772 of 5803 (99.5%) patients. Ethnic minority patients were younger, less often female, more often current smokers, more often medically treated for diabetes, and more often had a positive family history of coronary artery disease. The main endpoint target vessel failure did not differ between ethnic minority and Western European patients (3.5% vs 4.9%, hazard ratio 0.71, 95% confidence interval 0.38-1.33; p = 0.28). There was also no difference in mortality, myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularisation rates. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the unfavourable cardiovascular risk profile of ethnic minority patients, short-term clinical outcome after treatment with contemporary drug-eluting stents was highly similar to that in Western European patients. Further efforts should be made to ensure the enrolment of more ethnic minority patients in future coronary stent trials.

Aspirin with or without Clopidogrel after Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Implantation.

BACKGROUND: The effect of single as compared with dual antiplatelet treatment on bleeding and thromboembolic events after transcatheter aortic-valve implantation (TAVI) in patients who do not have an indication for long-term anticoagulation has not been well studied. METHODS: In a randomized, controlled trial, we assigned a subgroup of patients who were undergoing TAVI and did not have an indication for long-term anticoagulation, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive aspirin alone or aspirin plus clopidogrel for 3 months. The two primary outcomes were all bleeding (including minor, major, and life-threatening or disabling bleeding) and non-procedure-related bleeding over a period of 12 months. Most bleeding at the TAVI puncture site was counted as non-procedure-related. The two secondary outcomes were a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, non-procedure-related bleeding, stroke, or myocardial infarction (secondary composite 1) and a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, ischemic stroke, or myocardial infarction (secondary composite 2) at 1 year, with both outcomes tested sequentially for noninferiority (noninferiority margin, 7.5 percentage points) and superiority. RESULTS: A total of 331 patients were assigned to receive aspirin alone and 334 were assigned to receive aspirin plus clopidogrel. A bleeding event occurred in 50 patients (15.1%) receiving aspirin alone and in 89 (26.6%) receiving aspirin plus clopidogrel (risk ratio, 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.42 to 0.77; P = 0.001). Non-procedure-related bleeding occurred in 50 patients (15.1%) and 83 patients (24.9%), respectively (risk ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.83; P = 0.005). A secondary composite 1 event occurred in 76 patients (23.0%) receiving aspirin alone and in 104 (31.1%) receiving aspirin plus clopidogrel (difference, -8.2 percentage points; 95% CI for noninferiority, -14.9 to -1.5; P<0.001; risk ratio, 0.74; 95% CI for superiority, 0.57 to 0.95; P = 0.04). A secondary composite 2 event occurred in 32 patients (9.7%) and 33 patients (9.9%), respectively (difference, -0.2 percentage points; 95% CI for noninferiority, -4.7 to 4.3; P = 0.004; risk ratio, 0.98; 95% CI for superiority, 0.62 to 1.55; P = 0.93). A total of 44 patients (13.3%) and 32 (9.6%), respectively, received oral anticoagulation during the trial. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing TAVI who did not have an indication for oral anticoagulation, the incidence of bleeding and the composite of bleeding or thromboembolic events at 1 year were significantly less frequent with aspirin than with aspirin plus clopidogrel administered for 3 months. (Funded by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development; POPular TAVI EU Clinical Trials Register number, 2013-003125-28; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02247128.).

Anticoagulation with or without Clopidogrel after Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Implantation.

BACKGROUND: The roles of anticoagulation alone or with an antiplatelet agent after transcatheter aortic-valve implantation (TAVI) have not been well studied. METHODS: We performed a randomized trial of clopidogrel in patients undergoing TAVI who were receiving oral anticoagulation for appropriate indications. Patients were assigned before TAVI in a 1:1 ratio not to receive clopidogrel or to receive clopidogrel for 3 months. The two primary outcomes were all bleeding and non-procedure-related bleeding over a period of 12 months. Procedure-related bleeding was defined as Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 4 severe bleeding, and therefore most bleeding at the puncture site was counted as non-procedure-related. The two secondary outcomes were a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, non-procedure-related bleeding, stroke, or myocardial infarction at 12 months (secondary composite 1) and a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, ischemic stroke, or myocardial infarction (secondary composite 2), both tested for noninferiority (noninferiority margin, 7.5 percentage points) and superiority. RESULTS: Bleeding occurred in 34 of the 157 patients (21.7%) receiving oral anticoagulation alone and in 54 of the 156 (34.6%) receiving oral anticoagulation plus clopidogrel (risk ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43 to 0.90; P = 0.01); most bleeding events were at the TAVI access site. Non-procedure-related bleeding occurred in 34 patients (21.7%) and in 53 (34.0%), respectively (risk ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.92; P = 0.02). Most bleeding occurred in the first month and was minor. A secondary composite 1 event occurred in 49 patients (31.2%) receiving oral anticoagulation alone and in 71 (45.5%) receiving oral anticoagulation plus clopidogrel (difference, -14.3 percentage points; 95% CI for noninferiority, -25.0 to -3.6; risk ratio, 0.69; 95% CI for superiority, 0.51 to 0.92). A secondary composite 2 event occurred in 21 patients (13.4%) and in 27 (17.3%), respectively (difference, -3.9 percentage points; 95% CI for noninferiority, -11.9 to 4.0; risk ratio, 0.77; 95% CI for superiority, 0.46 to 1.31). CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing TAVI who were receiving oral anticoagulation, the incidence of serious bleeding over a period of 1 month or 1 year was lower with oral anticoagulation alone than with oral anticoagulation plus clopidogrel. (Funded by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development; POPular TAVI EU Clinical Trials Register number, 2013-003125-28; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02247128.).

Percutaneous coronary intervention in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The importance of revascularisation of significant coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is unclear. Despite the lack of randomised controlled trials comparing different revascularisation strategies, guidelines currently recommend percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with significant proximal CAD undergoing TAVI. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, a systematic search was conducted to identify studies comparing TAVI with and without PCI in patients with significant CAD on pre-TAVI coronary angiography. Endpoints were all-cause mortality, cardiac death, stroke, myocardial infarction and major bleeding. RESULTS: In total, 14 studies were included, involving 3838 patients, of whom 1806 (47%) underwent PCI before TAVI. All-cause mortality did not differ significantly between TAVI with and without preceding PCI at 30 days, 1 year and > 1 year. There were no significant differences in risk of cardiac death, stroke or myocardial infarction between the groups. However, TAVI performed with PCI resulted in a higher risk of major bleeding within 30 days after TAVI (odds ratio: 0.66; 95% confidence interval: 0.46-0.94). CONCLUSION: This systematic review and meta-analysis showed no significant differences in clinical outcomes between patients with concomitant significant CAD who were treated with TAVI with and without preceding PCI at both short- and long-term follow-up. However, there was a higher risk of major bleeding at 30 days in patients undergoing TAVI with preceding PCI. In the context of serious risk of bias in the included studies, results of randomised controlled trials are warranted.

Impact of prediabetes and diabetes on 3-year outcome of patients treated with new-generation drug-eluting stents in two large-scale randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes is associated with adverse outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents (DES), but for prediabetes this association has not been definitely established. Furthermore, in patients with prediabetes treated with contemporary stents, bleeding data are lacking. We assessed 3-year ischemic and bleeding outcomes following treatment with new-generation DES in patients with prediabetes and diabetes as compared to normoglycemia. METHODS: For this post-hoc analysis, we pooled patient-level data of the BIO-RESORT and BIONYX stent trials which both stratified for diabetes at randomization. Both trials were multicenter studies performed in tertiary cardiac centers. Study participants were patients of whom glycemic state was known based on hemoglobin A1c, fasting plasma glucose, or medically treated diabetes. Three-year follow-up was available in 4212/4330 (97.3 %) patients. The main endpoint was target vessel failure, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization. RESULTS: Baseline cardiovascular risk profiles were progressively abnormal in patients with normoglycemia, prediabetes, and diabetes. The main endpoint occurred in 54/489 patients with prediabetes (11.2 %) and 197/1488 with diabetes (13.7 %), as compared to 142/2,353 with normoglycemia (6.1 %) (HR: 1.89, 95 %-CI 1.38-2.58, p < 0.001, and HR: 2.30, 95 %-CI 1.85-2.86, p < 0.001, respectively). In patients with prediabetes, cardiac death and target vessel revascularization rates were significantly higher (HR: 2.81, 95 %-CI 1.49-5.30, p = 0.001, and HR: 1.92, 95 %-CI 1.29-2.87, p = 0.001), and in patients with diabetes all individual components of the main endpoint were significantly higher than in patients with normoglycemia (all p ≤ 0.001). Results were consistent after adjustment for confounders. Major bleeding rates were significantly higher in patients with prediabetes and diabetes, as compared to normoglycemia (3.9 % and 4.1 % vs. 2.3 %; HR:1.73, 95 %-CI 1.03-2.92, p = 0.040, and HR:1.78, 95 %-CI 1.23-2.57, p = 0.002). However, after adjustment for confounders, differences were no longer significant. CONCLUSIONS: Not only patients with diabetes but also patients with prediabetes represent a high-risk population. After treatment with new-generation DES, both patient groups had higher risks of ischemic and bleeding events. Differences in major bleeding were mainly attributable to dissimilarities in baseline characteristics. Routine assessment of glycemic state may help to identify patients with prediabetes for intensified management of cardiovascular risk factors. TRIAL REGISTRATION: BIO-RESORT ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01674803, registered 29-08-2012; BIONYX ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02508714, registered 27-7-2015.

Acute myocardial infarction treated with novel Resolute Onyx and Orsiro stents in the randomized BIONYX trial.

OBJECTIVES: To compare 2-year outcome following treatment with drug-eluting stents (DES) for acute myocardial infarction (MI) versus non-MI clinical syndromes. In acute MI patients, a stent-level comparison was performed, comparing Resolute Onyx versus Orsiro stents. BACKGROUND: In patients presenting with acute MI, higher adverse event rates have been reported. So far, no clinical results >1 year have been published of acute MI patients treated with Resolute Onyx. METHODS: This post-hoc analysis of the randomized BIONYX trial(NCT02508714) assessed the main outcome target vessel failure (TVF: cardiac death, target vessel MI, or target vessel revascularization) with Kaplan-Meier methods. RESULTS: Of all 2,488 trial participants, acute MI patients (n = 1,275[51.2%]) were significantly younger and had less comorbidities than non-MI patients (n = 1,213[48.8%]). TVF rates were lower in acute MI patients (77/1,275[6.1%] vs. 103/1,213[8.6%], HR:0.70, 95%-CI 0.52-0.94; plog-rank  = 0.02), mainly driven by target vessel revascularization (4.1 vs. 6.1%, plog-rank  = 0.03). Multivariate analysis showed no independent association of clinical syndrome with TVF (adjusted-HR: 0.81, 95%-CI 0.60-1.10; p = .17). In MI patients treated with Resolute Onyx (n = 626) versus Orsiro (n = 649), there was no difference in TVF (6.2 vs. 6.1%; plog-rank  = 0.97) and its components. There was only 1(0.2%) definite-or-probable stent thrombosis in RO-ZES and 8(1.2%) in O-SES (p = .053). CONCLUSIONS: Two years after treatment with thin-strut DES in this randomized trial, patients treated for acute MI had lower adverse event rates than non-MI patients. Yet, these findings were mainly attributable to between-group differences in patient and lesion characteristics. In patients who underwent PCI for acute MI, both Resolute Onyx and Orsiro showed favorable and similar 2-year outcomes.

First Report of 3-Year Clinical Outcome After Treatment With Novel Resolute Onyx Stents in the Randomized BIONYX Trial.

BACKGROUND: At 1 year, the international randomized BIONYX trial (ClinicalTrials.gov:NCT02508714) established non-inferiority regarding safety and efficacy of the novel Resolute Onyx zotarolimus-eluting stent (RO-ZES) vs. the Orsiro sirolimus-eluting stent (O-SES). Although the RO-ZES is used in daily practice, no clinical results have been published beyond 2 years.Methods and Results:We assessed 3-year clinical outcomes of 2,488 all-comers after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with RO-ZES vs. O-SES. The main endpoint was target vessel failure (TVF), a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction (MI), or target vessel revascularization. Time-to-endpoints was assessed by Kaplan-Meier methods and between-group comparisons by log-rank tests. Follow-up was available in 2,433/2,488 (97.8%) patients. There was no significant between-stent difference in TVF (RO-ZES 112/1,243 [9.2%] vs. O-SES 109/1,245 [8.9%], hazard ratio [HR]: 1.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79-1.34; Plog-rank=0.85) and its individual components. The all-cause mortality was significantly lower after PCI with RO-ZES (3.7% vs.5.4%, HR: 0.67, 95% CI 0.46-0.97; Plog-rank=0.034), but cardiac mortality did not differ significantly (1.1% vs.1.9%, HR: 0.56, 95% CI 0.28-1.11; Plog-rank=0.09). Definite-or-probable stent thrombosis rates were low for both groups (0.6% vs.1.2%, HR: 0.46, 95% CI 0.19-1.14; Plog-rank=0.09). CONCLUSIONS: This first 3-year randomized assessment of the RO-ZES showed a favorable rate of TVF that matched the outcomes of patients treated with O-SES. We observed a lower rate of all-cause death in the RO-ZES group, but long-term clinical follow-up is of interest.

Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided Multivessel Angioplasty in Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: In patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), the use of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to restore blood flow in an infarct-related coronary artery improves outcomes. The use of PCI in non-infarct-related coronary arteries remains controversial. METHODS: We randomly assigned 885 patients with STEMI and multivessel disease who had undergone primary PCI of an infarct-related coronary artery in a 1:2 ratio to undergo complete revascularization of non-infarct-related coronary arteries guided by fractional flow reserve (FFR) (295 patients) or to undergo no revascularization of non-infarct-related coronary arteries (590 patients). The FFR procedure was performed in both groups, but in the latter group, both the patients and their cardiologist were unaware of the findings on FFR. The primary end point was a composite of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, revascularization, and cerebrovascular events at 12 months. Clinically indicated elective revascularizations performed within 45 days after primary PCI were not counted as events in the group receiving PCI for an infarct-related coronary artery only. RESULTS: The primary outcome occurred in 23 patients in the complete-revascularization group and in 121 patients in the infarct-artery-only group that did not receive complete revascularization, a finding that translates to 8 and 21 events per 100 patients, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.22 to 0.55; P<0.001). Death occurred in 4 patients in the complete-revascularization group and in 10 patients in the infarct-artery-only group (1.4% vs. 1.7%) (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.25 to 2.56), myocardial infarction in 7 and 28 patients, respectively (2.4% vs. 4.7%) (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.22 to 1.13), revascularization in 18 and 103 patients (6.1% vs. 17.5%) (hazard ratio, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.54), and cerebrovascular events in 0 and 4 patients (0 vs. 0.7%). An FFR-related serious adverse event occurred in 2 patients (both in the group receiving infarct-related treatment only). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with STEMI and multivessel disease who underwent primary PCI of an infarct-related artery, the addition of FFR-guided complete revascularization of non-infarct-related arteries in the acute setting resulted in a risk of a composite cardiovascular outcome that was lower than the risk among those who were treated for the infarct-related artery only. This finding was mainly supported by a reduction in subsequent revascularizations. (Funded by Maasstad Cardiovascular Research and others; Compare-Acute ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01399736 .).

New-generation drug-eluting coronary stents in octogenarians: Patient-level pooled analysis from the TWENTE I-IV trials.

BACKGROUND: Patients aged ≥80 years are often treated with new-generation drug-eluting stents (DES), but data from randomized studies are scarce owing to underrepresentation in most trials. We assessed 1-year clinical outcome of octogenarians treated with new-generation DES versus younger patients. METHODS: We pooled patient-level data of 9,204 participants in the TWENTE, DUTCH PEERS, BIO-RESORT, and BIONYX (TWENTE I-IV) randomized trials. The main clinical end point was target vessel failure (TVF), a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction (MI), or clinically indicated target vessel revascularization. RESULTS: The 671 octogenarian trial participants had significantly more comorbidities. TVF was higher in octogenarians than in 8,533 patients <80 years (7.3% vs 5.3%, hazard ratio [HR]: 1.36, 95% CI: 1.0-1.83, P = .04). The cardiac death rate was higher in octogenarians (3.9% vs 0.8%, P < .001). There was no significant between-group difference in target vessel MI (2.3% vs 2.3%, P = .88) and repeat target vessel revascularization (1.9% vs 2.8%, P = .16). In multivariate analyses, age ≥ 80 years showed no independent association with TVF (adjusted HR: 1.04, 95% CI: 0.76-1.42), whereas the risk of cardiac death remained higher in octogenarians (adjusted HR: 3.38, 95% CI: 2.07-5.52, P < .001). In 6,002 trial participants, in whom data on major bleeding were recorded, octogenarians (n = 459) showed a higher major bleeding risk (5.9% vs 1.9%; HR: 3.08, 95% CI: 2.01-4.74, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Octogenarian participants in 4 large-scale randomized DES trials had more comorbidities and a higher incidence of the main end point TVF. Cardiac mortality was higher in octogenarians, whereas there was no increase in MI or target vessel revascularization rates. Treatment of octogenarian patients with new-generation DES appears to be safe and effective.

Three contemporary thin-strut drug-eluting stents implanted in severely calcified coronary lesions of participants in a randomized all-comers trial.

OBJECTIVE: The objective was to assess the 2-year clinical performance of three drug-eluting stents in all-comer patients with severely calcified coronary lesions. BACKGROUND: Severe lesion calcification increases cardiovascular event risk after coronary stenting, but there is a lack of data on the clinical outcome of all-comers with severely calcified lesions who were treated with more recently introduced drug-eluting stents. METHODS: The BIO-RESORT trial (clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01674803) randomly assigned 3,514 all-comer patients to biodegradable polymer Synergy everolimus-eluting stents (EES) or Orsiro sirolimus-eluting stents (SES), versus durable polymer Resolute Integrity zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZES). In a post hoc analysis, we assessed 783 patients (22.3%) with at least one severely calcified target lesion. RESULTS: At 2-year follow-up (available in 99% of patients), the main composite endpoint target vessel failure occurred in 19/252 (7.6%) of the EES and in 33/265 (12.6%) of the ZES-treated patients (p = .07). Target vessel failure occurred in 24/266 (9.1%) of the SES-treated patients (vs. ZES: p = .21). There was a difference in target vessel revascularization, which was required in EES in 6/252 (2.4%) patients and in ZES in 20/265 (7.7%) patients (p = .01); the target vessel revascularization rate in SES was 9/266 (3.4%, vs. ZES: p = .04). Multivariate analysis showed that implantation of EES, but not SES, was independently associated with lower target vessel revascularization rates than in ZES. CONCLUSIONS: In BIO-RESORT participants with severely calcified target lesions, treatment with EES was associated with a lower 2-year target vessel revascularization rate than treatment with ZES.

Thin composite wire strut, durable polymer-coated (Resolute Onyx) versus ultrathin cobalt-chromium strut, bioresorbable polymer-coated (Orsiro) drug-eluting stents in allcomers with coronary artery disease (BIONYX): an international, single-blind, randomised non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: During the past decade, many patients had zotarolimus-eluting stents implanted, which had circular shape cobalt-chromium struts with limited radiographic visibility. The Resolute Onyx stent was developed to improve visibility while reducing strut thickness, which was achieved by using a novel composite wire with a dense platinum-iridium core and an outer cobalt-chromium layer. We did the first randomised clinical trial to assess the safety and efficacy of this often-used stent compared with the Orsiro stent, which consists of ultrathin cobalt-chromium struts. METHODS: We did an investigator-initiated, assessor-blinded and patient-blinded, randomised non-inferiority trial in an allcomers population at seven independently monitored centres in Belgium, Israel, and the Netherlands. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older and required percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents. After guide wire passage with or without predilation, members of the catheterisation laboratory team used web-based computer-generated allocation sequences to randomly assign patients (1:1) to either the Resolute Onyx or the Orsiro stent. Randomisation was stratified by sex and diabetes status. Patients and assessors were masked to allocated stents, but treating clinicians were not. The primary endpoint was target vessel failure at 1 year, a composite of cardiac death, target-vessel-related myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularisation, and was assessed by intention to treat (non-inferiority margin 2·5%) on the basis of outcomes adjudicated by an independent event committee. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02508714. FINDINGS: Between Oct 7, 2015, and Dec 23, 2016, 2516 patients were enrolled, 2488 of whom were included in the intention-to-treat analysis (28 withdrawals or screening failures). 1243 participants were assigned to the Resolute Onyx group, and 1245 to the Orsiro group. Overall, 1765 (70·9%) participants presented with acute coronary syndromes and 1275 (51·2%) had myocardial infarctions. 1-year follow-up was available for 2478 (99·6%) patients. The primary endpoint was met by 55 (4·5%) patients in the Resolute Onyx group and 58 (4·7%) in the Orsiro group. Non-inferiority of Resolute Onyx to Orsiro was thus established (absolute risk difference -0·2% [95% CI -1·9 to 1·4]; upper limit of the one-sided 95% CI 1·1%; pnon-inferiority=0·0005). Definite or probable stent thrombosis occurred in one (0·1%) participant in the Resolute Onyx group and nine (0·7%) in the Orsiro group (hazard ratio 0·11 [95% CI 0·01-0·87]; p=0·0112). INTERPRETATION: The Resolute Onyx stent was non-inferior to Orsiro for a combined safety and efficacy endpoint at 1-year follow-up in allcomers. The low event rate in both groups suggests that both stents are safe, and the very low rate of stent thrombosis in the Resolute Onyx group warrants further clinical investigation. FUNDING: Biotronik and Medtronic.

Bioresorbable Polymer-Coated Orsiro Versus Durable Polymer-Coated Resolute Onyx Stents (BIONYX): Rationale and design of the randomized TWENTE IV multicenter trial.

AIM: The aim was to compare in a noninferiority trial the efficacy and safety of 2 contemporary drug-eluting stents (DESs): a novel, durable polymer-coated stent versus an established bioabsorbable polymer-coated stent. METHODS AND RESULTS: The BIONYX trial (ClinicalTrials.gov-no.NCT02508714) is an investigator-initiated, prospective, randomized, patient- and assessor-blinded, international, multicenter study in all-comer patients with all types of clinical syndromes and lesions who require percutaneous coronary interventions with DES. Patients at 7 study sites in the Netherlands, Belgium, and Israel were randomly assigned (1:1, stratified for gender and diabetes mellitus) to treatment with the novel, zotarolimus-eluting, durable polymer-coated Resolute Onyx stent that has a radiopaque, thin-strut, CoreWire stent platform versus the sirolimus-eluting, bioresorbable polymer-coated Orsiro stent (reference device) that has a very thin-strut, cobalt-chromium stent backbone. The primary end point is the 1-year incidence of the composite clinical end point target vessel failure consisting of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or clinically indicated target vessel revascularization. A power calculation, assuming a target vessel failure rate of 6.0% (noninferiority margin 2.5%), revealed that 2,470 study patients would give the study 80% power (α level 5%), allowing for up to 3% loss to follow-up. The first patient was enrolled on October 7, 2015; on December 23, 2016, the last patient entered the study. CONCLUSIONS: BIONYX is a large-scale, prospective, randomized, international, multicenter trial comparing a novel DES with durable coating versus a reference DES with biodegradable coating in all-comers. The study is the first randomized assessment of the Resolute Onyx stent, which is an often-used DES outside the United States.

High Bleeding Risk Patients Treated with Very Thin-Strut Biodegradable Polymer or Thin-Strut Durable Polymer Drug-Eluting Stents in the BIO-RESORT Trial.

PURPOSE: Patients with high bleeding risk (HBR) who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention also have an increased risk of ischemic events and represent an overall high-risk population. The coating of durable polymer drug-eluting stents (DP-DES) may induce inflammation and delay arterial healing, which might be reduced by novel biodegradable polymer DES (BP-DES). We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of treating HBR patients with very thin-strut BP-DES versus thin-strut DP-DES. METHODS: Participants in BIO-RESORT (NCT01674803), an investigator-initiated multicenter, randomized all-comers trial, were treated with very thin-strut BP-DES (Synergy or Orsiro) or thin-strut DP-DES (Resolute Integrity). For the present analysis, patients were classified following HBR criteria based on previous trials. The primary endpoint was target vessel failure: a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization at 1 year. RESULTS: Of all 3514 patients, 1009 (28.7%) had HBR. HBR patients were older (p < 0.001) and had more co-morbidities than non-HBR patients (p < 0.001). At 1-year follow-up, HBR patients had significantly higher rates of target vessel failure (6.7 vs. 4.2%, p = 0.003), cardiac death (1.9 vs. 0.4%, p < 0.001), and major bleeding (3.3 vs. 1.5%, p = 0.001). Of all 1009 HBR patients, 673 (66.7%) received BP-DES and 336 (33.3%) had DP-DES. The primary endpoint was met by 43/673 (6.5%) patients treated with BP-DES and 24/336 (7.3%) treated with DP-DES (HR 0.88 [95%CI 0.54-1.46], p = 0.63). There were no significant between-group differences in the most global patient-oriented clinical endpoint (9.7 vs. 10.5%, HR 0.92 [95%CI 0.61-1.39], p = 0.69) and other secondary endpoints. CONCLUSIONS: At 1-year follow-up, very thin-strut BP-DES showed similar safety and efficacy for treating HBR patients as thin-strut DP-DES.

Very thin strut biodegradable polymer everolimus-eluting and sirolimus-eluting stents versus durable polymer zotarolimus-eluting stents in allcomers with coronary artery disease (BIO-RESORT): a three-arm, randomised, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: In patients with coronary artery disease, treated with durable polymer-coated drug-eluting stents, the life-long presence of the polymer might delay arterial healing. Novel very thin strut biodegradable polymer stents, which leave only a bare metal stent after polymer resorption, might improve long-term outcome. We investigated in allcomers the safety and efficacy of three stents eluting either everolimus, sirolimus, or zotarolimus, often clinically used but never compared, of which the biodegradable polymer everolimus-eluting stent was never before assessed in allcomers. METHODS: The large-scale, investigator-initiated, multicentre, assessor and patient blinded, three-arm, randomised, BIO-RESORT non-inferiority trial was done at four clinical sites in the Netherlands. All-comer patients were aged 18 years or older, capable of providing informed consent, and required a percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stent implantation according to clinical guidelines or the operators' judgment. Exclusion criteria were: participation in another randomised drug or device study before reaching the primary endpoint of that study; planned surgery necessitating interruption of dual antiplatelet therapy within the first 6 months; known intolerance to components of the investigational product or medication required; uncertainty about the adherence to follow-up procedures or an assumed life expectancy of less than 1 year; or known pregnancy. Web-based computer-generated allocation sequences randomly assigned patients (1:1:1) to treatment with very thin strut biodegradable polymer everolimus-eluting or sirolimus-eluting stents (which differ substantially in type, amount, distribution, and resorption speed of their respective coating), or thin strut durable polymer zotarolimus-eluting stents. The primary endpoint was a composite of safety (cardiac death or target vessel-related myocardial infarction) and efficacy (target vessel revascularisation) at 12 months of follow up with a very thin strut biodegradable polymer of either everolimus-eluting or sirolimus-eluting stents, compared with durable polymer zotarolimus-eluting stents, analysed by intention to treat (non-inferiority margin 3·5%). This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01674803. FINDINGS: From Dec 21, 2012, to Aug 24, 2015, 3514 patients were enrolled and analysed, of whom 2449 (70%) had acute coronary syndromes, which included 1073 (31%) ST-elevation myocardial infarctions. 12 month follow-up of 3490 (99%) patients (three lost to follow-up; 21 withdrawals) was available. The primary endpoint was met by 55 (5%) of 1172 patients assigned to everolimus-eluting stents, 55 (5%) of 1169 assigned to sirolimus-eluting stents and 63 (5%) of 1173 assigned to zotarolimus-eluting stents. Non-inferiority of the everolimus-eluting stents and sirolimus-eluting stents compared with zotarolimus-eluting stents was confirmed (both -0·7% absolute risk difference, 95% CI -2·4 to 1·1; upper limit of one sided 95% CI 0·8%, pnon-inferiority<0·0001). Definite stent thrombosis (defined by the Academic Research Consortium) occurred in four (0·3%) of 1172 patients who were allocated to everolimus-eluting stents, four (0·3%) of 1169 patients who were allocated to sirolimus-eluting stents, and three (0·3%) of 1173 patients who were allocated to zotarolimus-eluting stents (log-rank p=0·70 for both comparisons with zotarolimus-eluting stents). INTERPRETATION: At 12 month follow-up, both very thin strut drug-eluting stents with dissimilar biodegradable polymer coatings (eluting either everolimus or sirolimus) were non-inferior to the durable polymer stent (eluting zotarolimus) in treating allcomers with a high proportion of patients with acute coronary syndromes. The absence of a loss of 1 year safety and efficacy with the use of these two biodegradable polymer-coated stents is a prerequisite before assessing their potential longer-term benefits. FUNDING: Biotronik, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic.

Comparison of 3 biodegradable polymer and durable polymer-based drug-eluting stents in all-comers (BIO-RESORT): rationale and study design of the randomized TWENTE III multicenter trial.

AIM: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of 2 novel drug-eluting stents (DES) with biodegradable polymer-based coatings versus a durable coating DES. METHODS AND RESULTS: BIO-RESORT is an investigator-initiated, prospective, patient-blinded, randomized multicenter trial in 3540 Dutch all-comers with various clinical syndromes, requiring percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) with DES implantation. Randomization (stratified for diabetes mellitus) is being performed in a 1:1:1 ratio between ORSIRO sirolimus-eluting stent with circumferential biodegradable coating, SYNERGY everolimus-eluting stent with abluminal biodegradable coating, and RESOLUTE INTEGRITY zotarolimus-eluting stent with durable coating. The primary endpoint is the incidence of the composite endpoint target vessel failure at 1 year, consisting of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target vessel revascularization. Power calculation assumes a target vessel failure rate of 8.5% with a 3.5% non-inferiority margin, giving the study a power of 85% (α level .025 adjusted for multiple testing). The impact of diabetes mellitus on post-PCI outcome will be evaluated. The first patient was enrolled on December 21, 2012. CONCLUSIONS: BIO-RESORT is a large, prospective, randomized, multicenter trial with three arms, comparing two DES with biodegradable coatings versus a reference DES with a durable coating in 3540 all-comers. The trial will provide novel insights into the clinical outcome of modern DES and will address the impact of known and so far undetected diabetes mellitus on post-PCI outcome.

Timing of Complete Multivessel Revascularization in Patients Presenting With Non-ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Complete revascularization of the culprit and all significant nonculprit lesions in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) and multivessel disease (MVD) reduces major adverse cardiac events, but optimal timing of revascularization remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to compare immediate complete revascularization (ICR) and staged complete revascularization (SCR) in patients presenting with NSTE-ACS and MVD. METHODS: This prespecified substudy of the BIOVASC (Percutaneous Complete Revascularization Strategies Using Sirolimus Eluting Biodegradable Polymer Coated Stents in Patients Presenting With Acute Coronary Syndrome and Multivessel Disease) trial included patients with NSTE-ACS and MVD. Risk differences of the primary composite outcome of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization (UIDR), or cerebrovascular events and its individual components were compared between ICR and SCR at 1 year. RESULTS: The BIOVASC trial enrolled 1,525 patients; 917 patients presented with NSTE-ACS, of whom 459 were allocated to ICR and 458 to SCR. Incidences of the primary composite outcome were similar in the 2 groups (7.9% vs 10.1%; risk difference 2.2%; 95% CI: -1.5 to 6.0; P = 0.15). ICR was associated with a significant reduction of MIs (2.0% vs 5.3%; risk difference 3.3%; 95% CI: 0.9 to 5.7; P = 0.006), which was maintained after exclusion of procedure-related MIs occurring during the index or staged procedure (2.0% vs 4.4%; risk difference 2.4%; 95% CI: 0.1 to 4.7; P = 0.032). UIDRs were also reduced in the ICR group (4.2% vs 7.8%; risk difference 3.5%; 95% CI: 0.4 to 6.6; P = 0.018). CONCLUSIONS: ICR is safe in patients with NSTE-ACS and MVD and was associated with a reduction in MIs and UIDRs at 1 year.

First myocardial infarction in patients with premature coronary artery disease: insights into patient characteristics and outcome after treatment with contemporary stents.

AIMS: Patients with premature coronary artery disease (CAD) have a higher incidence of myocardial infarction (MI) than patients with non-premature CAD. The aim of the present study is to asess differences in clinical outcome after a first acute MI, percutaneously treated with new-generation drug-eluting stents between patients with premature and non-premature CAD. METHODS AND RESULTS: We pooled and analysed the characteristics and clinical outcome of all patients with a first MI (and no previous coronary revascularization) at time of enrolment, in four large-scale drug-eluting stent trials. Coronary artery disease was classified premature in men aged <50 and women <55 years. Myocardial infarction patients with premature and non-premature CAD were compared. The main endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE): all-cause mortality, any MI, emergent coronary artery bypass surgery, or clinically indicated target lesion revascularization. Of 3323 patients with a first MI, 582 (17.5%) had premature CAD. These patients had lower risk profiles and underwent less complex interventional procedures than patients with non-premature CAD. At 30-day follow-up, the rates of MACE [hazard ratio (HR): 0.22, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.07-0.71; P = 0.005), MI (HR: 0.22, 95% CI: 0.05-0.89; P = 0.020), and target vessel failure (HR: 0.30, 95% CI: 0.11-0.82; P = 0.012) were lower in patients with premature CAD. At 1 year, premature CAD was independently associated with lower rates of MACE (adjusted HR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.26-0.96; P = 0.037) and all-cause mortality (adjusted HR: 0.24, 95% CI: 0.06-0.98; P = 0.046). At 2 years, premature CAD was independently associated with lower mortality (adjusted HR: 0.16, 95% CI: 0.05-0.50; P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: First MI patients with premature CAD, treated with contemporary stents, showed lower rates of MACE and all-cause mortality than patients with non-premature CAD, which is most likely related to differences in cardiovascular risk profile. TWENTE trials: TWENTE I, clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01066650), DUTCH PEERS (TWENTE II, NCT01331707), BIO-RESORT (TWENTE III, NCT01674803), and BIONYX (TWENTE IV, NCT02508714).

Impact of premature coronary artery disease on adverse event risk following first percutaneous coronary intervention.

Objectives: We assessed differences in risk profile and 3-year outcome between patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for premature and non-premature coronary artery disease (CAD). Background: The prevalence of CAD increases with age, yet some individuals develop obstructive CAD at younger age. Methods: Among participants in four randomized all-comers PCI trials, without previous coronary revascularization or myocardial infarction (MI), we compared patients with premature (men <50 years; women <55 years) and non-premature CAD. Various clinical endpoints were assessed, including multivariate analyses. Results: Of 6,171 patients, 887 (14.4%) suffered from premature CAD. These patients had fewer risk factors than patients with non-premature CAD, but were more often smokers (60.7% vs. 26.4%) and overweight (76.2% vs. 69.8%). In addition, premature CAD patients presented more often with ST-segment elevation MI and underwent less often treatment of multiple vessels, and calcified or bifurcated lesions. Furthermore, premature CAD patients had a lower all-cause mortality risk (adj.HR: 0.23, 95%-CI: 0.10-0.52; p < 0.001), but target vessel revascularization (adj.HR: 1.63, 95%-CI: 1.18-2.26; p = 0.003) and definite stent thrombosis risks (adj.HR: 2.24, 95%-CI: 1.06-4.72; p = 0.034) were higher. MACE rates showed no statistically significant difference (6.6% vs. 9.4%; adj.HR: 0.86, 95%-CI: 0.65-1.16; p = 0.33). Conclusions: About one out of seven PCI patients was treated for premature CAD. These patients had less complex risk profiles than patients with non-premature CAD; yet, their risk of repeated revascularization and stent thrombosis was higher. As lifetime event risk of patients with premature CAD is known to be particularly high, further efforts should be made to improve modifiable risk factors such as smoking and overweight. TWENTE trials: (TWENTE I, clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01066650), DUTCH PEERS (TWENTE II, NCT01331707), BIO-RESORT (TWENTE III, NCT01674803), and BIONYX (TWENTE IV, NCT02508714).