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.

Patient preference for radial versus femoral vascular access for elective coronary procedures: The PREVAS study.

OBJECTIVES: To explore patient preference for vascular access site in percutaneous coronary procedures, the perceived importance of benefits and risks of transradial access (TRA) and transfemoral access (TFA) were assessed. In addition, direct preference for vascular access and preference for shared decision making (SDM) were evaluated. BACKGROUND: TRA has gained significant ground on TFA during the last decades. Surveys on patient preference have mostly been performed in dedicated TRA trials. METHODS: In the PREVAS study (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02625493) a stated preference elicitation method best-worst scaling (BWS) was used to determine patient preference for six treatment attributes: bleeding, switch of access-site, postprocedural vessel quality, mobilization and comfort, and over-night stay. Based on software-generated treatment scenarios, 142 patients indicated which characteristics they perceived most and least important in treatment choice. Best-minus-Worst scores and attribute importance were calculated. RESULTS: Bleeding risk was considered most important (attribute importance 31.3%), followed by length of hospitalization (22.6%), and mobilization(20.2%). Most patients preferred the approach of their current procedure (85.9%); however, 71.1% of patients with experience with both access routes favored TRA (P < 0.001). Most patients (38.0%) appreciated SDM, balanced between patient and cardiologist. CONCLUSIONS: Patients appreciate lower bleeding risk and early ambulation, factors favoring TRA. Previous experience with a single access route has a major impact on preference, while experience with both routes generally resulted in preference for TRA. Most patients prefer balanced SDM. © 2017 The Authors Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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.

Serial assessment of endothelial function 1, 6, and 12 months after ST-elevation myocardial infarction.

Knowledge about the changes in endothelial function after ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is of substantial interest, but serial data are scarce. The aim of the present study was to noninvasively evaluate whether endothelial function, as assessed shortly after primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) for STEMI, may improve until 12-month follow-up. This prospective observational cohort study was performed in patients in the RESPONSE randomized trial who participated in a substudy and underwent noninvasive assessment of endothelial function at 1 (baseline), 6, and 12-month follow-up after treatment of a STEMI by PPCI. The reactive hyperemia peripheral artery tonometry (RH-PAT) method was used to assess endothelial function (higher RH-PAT index signifies better function). Of the 70 study participants, who were 57.4 ± 9.7 years of age, 55 (78.6%) were male and 9 (13%) had diabetes. The endothelial function deteriorated significantly during follow-up: the RH-PAT index at baseline, 6, and 12-month follow-up was 1.90 ± 0.58, 1.81 ± 0.57, and 1.69 ± 0.49, respectively (p = 0.04). Although patients were carefully treated in outpatient clinics and adequate pharmacological therapy was prescribed, we noted an increase in total cholesterol (p = 0.001), LDL cholesterol (p = 0.002), HbA1C (p = 0.054), and diastolic blood pressure (p = 0.047) However, multivariate analysis revealed that this increase in cardiovascular risk factors could not explain the observed deterioration in endothelial function. In patients with STEMI, we observed a significant deterioration in endothelial function during 12 months after PPCI that could not be explained by changes in the traditional cardiovascular risk profile.

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.

Three-Year Clinical Outcome of Patients with Coronary Disease and Increased Event Risk Treated with Newer-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents: From the Randomized DUTCH PEERS Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Limited data is available on the long-term outcome of patients with increased cardiovascular event risk, treated with newer-generation durable polymer drug-eluting stents (DES). METHODS: We therefore assessed 3-year follow-up data of high-risk versus low- to intermediate-risk patients of the randomized DUTCH PEERS trial (NCT01331707). In both risk groups we also compared patients treated with Resolute Integrity versus Promus Element DES. Patients were categorized as "high-risk" if they met ≥1 of the following criteria: (1) diabetes (17.9%); (2) previous myocardial infarction (21.9%); (3) previous coronary revascularization (25.8%); (4) chronic renal failure (3.5%); (5) left ventricular ejection fraction ≤30% (1.5%); and (6) age ≥75 years (17.3%). RESULTS: At the 3-year follow-up, the incidence of the composite endpoint target vessel failure (TVF) (13.2 vs. 7.5%; logrank p < 0.001) and 2 of its components - cardiac death (4.7 vs. 1.5%; logrank p < 0.001) and target vessel revascularization (7.3 vs. 4.7%; logrank p = 0.03) - was higher in high-risk (n = 957) versus low- to intermediate-risk patients (n = 854). Among high-risk patients, treatment with Resolute Integrity (n = 481) and Promus Element stents (n = 476) was similarly safe and efficacious (TVF: 13.3 vs. 13.1%; logrank p = 0.95; definite-or-probable stent thrombosis: 1.7 vs. 1.7%; logrank p = 1.00). CONCLUSIONS: The newer-generation Resolute Integrity and Promus Element stents showed similar results in terms of safety and efficacy for treating high-risk patients, who had significantly higher event rates than patients with low-to-intermediate risk.

Small-vessel treatment with contemporary newer-generation drug-eluting coronary stents in all-comers: Insights from 2-year DUTCH PEERS (TWENTE II) randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of lesions in small vessels was associated with worse clinical outcome, and various definitions of "small vessels" have been used. Data with novel drug-eluting stents are scarce. METHODS: To compare the outcome of patients with vs without small-vessel treatment, we assessed 2-year follow-up data of the DUTCH PEERS randomized trial (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01331707), in which 1,811 all-comers were treated with contemporary zotarolimus-eluting (Resolute Integrity) or everolimus-eluting (Promus Element) stents. Primary end point was target lesion failure (TLF), a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization. RESULTS: The rates of TLF (9.5% vs 5.4%; P log rank = .001) and 2 individual components thereof-target vessel myocardial infarction (3.1% vs 1.3%; P log rank = .006) and target lesion revascularization (4.8% vs 2.8%; P log rank = .02)-were higher among 798 (44.1%) patients treated in at least one small vessel (<2.50 mm by quantitative coronary angiography). Multivariate analysis with propensity score adjustment demonstrated that treatment of small-vessel lesions independently predicted TLF at 2-year follow-up (hazard ratio 1.60, 95% CI 1.09-2.34). Patients with the smallest target vessel being <2.25 mm had TLF rates similar to patients with smallest target vessels of 2.25 to <2.50 mm; however, patients treated in vessels no smaller than 2.50 to <3.00 mm and patients treated in vessels ≥3.00 mm had lower TLF rates (9.3%, 9.8%, 5.0%, and 5.8%, respectively; P log rank = .009). CONCLUSION: Patients treated with novel drug-eluting stents in small-vessel lesions had higher adverse event rates than did patients who had no small-vessel treatment. Our data suggest that with current stents, a vessel diameter <2.50 mm is a suitable threshold to identify small target vessels.

Impact of severe lesion calcification on clinical outcome of patients with stable angina, treated with newer generation permanent polymer-coated drug-eluting stents: A patient-level pooled analysis from TWENTE and DUTCH PEERS (TWENTE II).

BACKGROUND: The outcome of percutaneous coronary intervention with newer generation permanent polymer-coated drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients with severely calcified lesions is greatly unknown. We assessed the impact of severe lesion calcification on clinical outcome in patients with stable angina who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention with newer generation DES. METHODS: TWENTE and DUTCH PEERS randomized trials enrolled 1423 patients with stable angina, who were categorized into patients with versus without severe target lesion calcification. A patient-level pooled analysis assessed clinical outcome, including target vessel failure (TVF), a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization (TVR). RESULTS: Patients with severe calcification (n = 342) were older (66.6 ± 9.1 vs 64.2 ± 9.8 years, P < .001) and had more diabetes (25.7% vs 20.4%, P = .04) than other patients (n = 1081). Patients with calcified lesions had higher rates of TVF (16.4% vs 9.8%, pLogrank = .001), cardiac death (4.4% vs 1.5%, P = .03), target vessel myocardial infarction (7.6% vs 3.4%, P = .001), and definite stent thrombosis (1.8% vs 0.4%, P = .02). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that severe calcification was an independent risk factor of 2-year TVF (HR 1.42, 95% CI: 1.02-1.99, pLogrank = .04); landmark analysis showed that this was based on a difference during the first year (periprocedural: 5.8% vs. 3.1%, pLogrank = .02; first year: 7.5% vs. 3.8%, pLogrank = .007; second year: 4.1% vs. 3.3%, pLogrank = .54). CONCLUSION: In patients with stable angina, severe target lesion calcification is associated with an increased risk of adverse cardiovascular events following treatment with newer generation permanent polymer-coated DES. This increase in risk is restricted to the first year of follow-up, which is an encouraging finding.

Long-term outcome and chest pain in patients with true versus non-true bifurcation lesions treated with second-generation drug-eluting stents in the TWENTE trial.

The objective of this study is to assess 3-year clinical outcome of patients with true bifurcation lesions (TBLs) versus non-true bifurcation lesions (non-TBLs) following treatment with second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES). TBLs are characterized by the obstruction of both main vessel and side-branch. Limited data are available on long-term clinical outcome following TBL treatment with newer-generation DES. We performed an explorative sub-study of the randomized TWENTE trial among 287 patients who had bifurcated target lesions with side-branches ≥2.0 mm. Patients were categorized into TBL (Medina classes: 1.1.1; 1.0.1; 0.1.1) versus non-TBL to compare long-term clinical outcome. A total of 116 (40.4 %) patients had TBL, while 171 (59.6 %) had non-TBL only. Target-lesion revascularization rates were similar (3.5 vs. 3.5 %; p = 1.0), and definite-or-probable stent thrombosis rates were low (both <1.0 %). The target-vessel myocardial infarction (MI) rate was 11.3 versus 5.3 % (p = 0.06), mostly driven by (periprocedural) MI ≤48 h from PCI. All-cause mortality and cardiac death rates were 8.7 versus 3.5 % (p = 0.06) and 3.5 versus 1.2 % (p = 0.22), respectively. The 3-year major adverse cardiac event rate for patients with TBL versus non-TBL was 20.0 versus 11.7 % (p = 0.05). At 1-, 2-, and 3-year follow-up, 6.5, 13.0, and 11.0 % of patients reported chest pain at less than or equal moderate physical effort, respectively, without any between-group difference. Patients treated with second-generation DES for TBL had somewhat higher adverse event rates than patients with non-TBL, but dissimilarities did not reach statistical significance. Up to 3-year follow-up, the vast majority of patients of both groups remained free from chest pain.

Three-year clinical outcome of patients with bifurcation treatment with second-generation Resolute and Xience V stents in the randomized TWENTE trial.

BACKGROUND: Only limited data from large randomized clinical trials have been published on the long-term performance of second-generation drug-eluting stents in bifurcation lesions. METHODS: We investigated in patients in the randomized TWENTE trial the long-term safety and efficacy of treating bifurcation lesions with 2 widely applied second-generation drug-eluting stents, the zotarolimus-eluting Resolute stent (Medtronic Inc, Santa Rosa, CA) and the everolimus-eluting Xience V stent (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA). Three-year follow-up was available in 99.3%. Patients were categorized into treatment for ≥1 bifurcation lesion versus treatment for nonbifurcation lesions only. RESULTS: Among the 1,391 patients of the TWENTE trial, 362 (26%) were treated for bifurcation lesions. At 3-year follow-up, target-vessel failure did not differ between patients treated for bifurcation versus nonbifurcation lesions (13.1% vs 12.6%; P = .84), whereas the periprocedural myocardial infarction rate was higher in patients with bifurcation lesions (6.9% vs 3.1%; P < .01). Of the 362 patients with bifurcation lesion treatment, 179 (49.4%) were treated with Resolute and 183 (50.6%) with Xience V. There was no significant difference in target-vessel failure between the Resolute and Xience V groups with bifurcation treatment (13.6% vs 12.6%; P = .78), and their incidence of definite-or-probable stent thrombosis was low and similar (1.1% vs 0.5%, respectively; P = .62). CONCLUSION: Despite a significant difference in periprocedural myocardial infarction, 3-year clinical outcome after implantation of second-generation stents was favorable and similar for patients with and without bifurcation lesions. In addition, we observed no difference in long-term clinical outcome after bifurcation lesion treatment with Resolute and Xience V stents.

Final 5-Year Report of the Randomized BIO-RESORT Trial Comparing 3 Contemporary Drug-Eluting Stents in All-Comers.

Background In a previous trial, higher 5-year mortality was observed following treatment with biodegradable polymer Orsiro sirolimus-eluting stents (SES). We assessed 5-year safety and efficacy of all-comers as well as patients with diabetes treated with SES or Synergy everolimus-eluting stents (EES) versus durable polymer Resolute Integrity zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZES). Methods and Results The randomized BIO-RESORT (Comparison of Biodegradable Polymer and Durable Polymer Drug-Eluting Stents in an All Comers Population) trial enrolled 3514 all-comer patients at 4 Dutch cardiac centers. Patients aged ≥18 years who required percutaneous coronary intervention were eligible. Participants were stratified for diabetes and randomized to treatment with SES, EES, or ZES (1:1:1). The main end point was target vessel failure (cardiac mortality, target vessel myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization). Five-year follow-up was available in 3183 of 3514 (90.6%) patients. The main end point target vessel failure occurred in 142 of 1169 (12.7%) patients treated with SES, 130 of 1172 (11.6%) treated with EES, versus 157 of 1173 (14.1%) treated with ZES (hazard ratio [HR], 0.89 [95% CI, 0.71-1.12], Plog-rank=0.31; and HR, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.65-1.04], Plog-rank=0.10, respectively). Individual components of target vessel failure showed no significant between-stent difference. Very late definite stent thrombosis rates were low and similar (SES, 1.1%; EES, 0.6%; ZES, 0.9%). In patients with diabetes, target vessel failure did not differ significantly between stent-groups (SES, 19.8%; EES, 19.2%; versus ZES, 21.1% [Plog-rank=0.69 and Plog-rank=0.63]). Conclusions Orsiro SES, Synergy EES, and Resolute Integrity ZES showed similar 5-year outcomes of safety and efficacy, including mortality. A prespecified stent comparison in patients with diabetes also revealed no significant differences in 5-year clinical outcomes. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01674803.

Coronary bifurcations treated with thin-strut drug-eluting stents: a prespecified analysis of the randomized BIO-RESORT trial.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of a coronary bifurcation lesion is often required in routine clinical practice, but data on the performance of very thin-strut biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents are scarce. METHODS: Comparison of biodegradable polymer and durable polymer drug-eluting stents in an all comers population (BIO-RESORT) is a prospective, multicenter randomized clinical trial that included 3514 all-comer patients, who were randomized to very thin-strut biodegradable polymer-coated sirolimus- or everolimus-eluting stents, versus thin-strut durable polymer-coated zotarolimus-eluting stents. The approach of bifurcation stenting was left at the operator's discretion, and provisional stenting was generally preferred. This prespecified analysis assessed 3-year clinical outcome of all patients in whom treatment involved at least one bifurcation with a side-branch diameter ≥1.5 mm. RESULTS: Of all BIO-RESORT trial participants, 1236 patients were treated in bifurcation lesions and analyzed. Single- and two-stent techniques were used in 85.8% and 14.2%, respectively. 'True' bifurcation lesions (main vessel and side-branch obstructed) were treated in 31.1%. Three-year follow-up was available in 1200/1236 (97.1%) patients. The main endpoint target vessel failure (composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization) occurred in sirolimus-eluting stents in 42/412 (10.3%) and in zotarolimus-eluting stents in 49/409 (12.1%) patients (P-logrank = 0.40). In everolimus-eluting stents, target vessel failure occurred in 40/415 (9.8%) patients (vs. zotarolimus-eluting stents: P-logrank = 0.26). There was no between-stent difference in individual components of target vessel failure. Findings were consistent in patients with single-vessel treatment and patients treated with a single-stent technique. CONCLUSIONS: Three years after stenting all-comers with bifurcation lesions, clinical outcome was similar with the sirolimus-eluting and everolimus-eluting stents versus the zotarolimus-eluting stent.

Outcomes in Patients Treated With Thin-Strut, Very Thin-Strut, or Ultrathin-Strut Drug-Eluting Stents in Small Coronary Vessels: A Prespecified Analysis of the Randomized BIO-RESORT Trial.

Importance: Stenting small-vessel lesions has an increased adverse cardiovascular event risk. Very thin-strut or ultrathin-strut drug-eluting stents might reduce this risk, but data are scarce. Objective: To assess the outcome of all-comer patients with small coronary vessel lesions treated with 3 dissimilar types of drug-eluting stents. Design: This is a prespecified substudy of the Comparison of Biodegradable Polymer and Durable Polymer Drug-eluting Stents in an All Comers Population (BIO-RESORT) trial, an investigator-initiated, randomized, patient-blinded comparative clinical drug-eluting stent trial. Patients treated with ultrathin-strut sirolimus-eluting stents, very thin-strut everolimus-eluting stents, or previous-generation thin-strut zotarolimus-eluting stents were enrolled from December 2012 to August 2015. This multicenter trial was conducted in 4 Dutch centers for cardiac intervention. Of all 3514 all-comer BIO-RESORT participants, 1506 patients with treatment in at least 1 small-vessel lesion (reference vessel <2.5 mm) were included. Data were analyzed between September 2018 and February 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: Target lesion failure at 3-year follow-up, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization, analyzed by Kaplan-Meier methods. Results: In 1452 of 1506 participants (96.4%) (1057 men [70.2%]; 449 women [29.8%]; mean [SD] age, 64.3 [10.4] years), follow-up was available. Target lesion failure occurred in 36 of 525 patients (7.0%) treated with sirolimus-eluting stents, 46 of 496 (9.5%) with everolimus-eluting stents, and 48 of 485 (10.0%) with zotarolimus-eluting stents (sirolimus-eluting vs zotarolimus-eluting hazard ratio [HR], 0.68; 95% CI, 0.44-1.05; P = .08; everolimus-eluting vs zotarolimus-eluting HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.62-1.39; P = .72). There was a difference in target lesion revascularizations between sirolimus-eluting and zotarolimus-eluting stents (2.1% vs 5.3%; HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.20-0.81; P = .009) that emerged after the first year of follow-up (1.0% vs 3.7%; P = .006); multivariate analysis showed that sirolimus-eluting stent implantation was independently associated with a lower target lesion revascularization rate at 3-year follow-up (adjusted HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.20-0.85; P = .02). In the everolimus-eluting stents, the revascularization rate was 4.0% (vs zotarolimus-eluting, HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.41-1.34; P = .31). There was no significant between-stent difference in cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis. Conclusions and Relevance: Patients stented in small coronary vessels experienced fewer repeated revascularizations if treated with ultrathin-strut sirolimus-eluting stents vs previous generation thin strut zotarolimus-eluting stents. Further research is required to evaluate the potential effect of particularly thin stent struts. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01674803.

Long-Term Outcome of Consecutive Patients With Previous Coronary Bypass Surgery, Treated With Newer-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with previous coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is associated with adverse clinical events. Although newer generation drug-eluting stents showed favorable short-term safety profiles, there is a lack of long-term outcome data. We evaluated the impact of previous CABG on 5-year clinical outcomes of patients treated with PCI using newer-generation drug-eluting stents. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this patient-level pooled analysis of the prospective TWENTE (The Real-World Endeavor Resolute versus Xience V Drug-Eluting Stent Study in Twente) trial and nonenrolled TWENTE registry, we assessed a consecutive series of patients who underwent PCI with newer-generation drug-eluting stents for non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndromes or stable angina. Of all 1709 patients, 202 (11.8%) had a history of CABG. Patients with previous CABG had significantly higher 5-year rates of cardiac death (10.4% versus 4.3%; P<0.001) and target vessel revascularization (25.0% versus 8.1%; P<0.001). These differences remained statistically significant after adjustment for differences in baseline characteristics. Landmark analysis revealed that from 1- to 5-year follow-up, the rates of cardiac death (8.1% versus 3.2%; P<0.001) and target vessel revascularization (17.1% versus 5.9%; P<0.001) were significantly higher in patients with previous CABG. Among patients with a history of CABG, PCI of an obstructed vein graft was associated with a higher rate of 5-year target vessel revascularization (P=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: At 5-year follow-up after PCI with newer-generation drug-eluting stents, the risk of cardiac death and target vessel revascularization was significantly higher in patients with previous CABG. The target vessel revascularization rate was highest in patients who underwent PCI of obstructed vein grafts.

High bleeding risk patients with acute coronary syndromes treated with contemporary drug-eluting stents and Clopidogrel or Ticagrelor: Insights from CHANGE DAPT.

BACKGROUND: The prospective observational CHANGE DAPT study compared clopidogrel versus ticagrelor-based dual antiplatelet (DAPT) regimens in consecutive patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with contemporary drug-eluting stents (DES). During the ticagrelor period (TP, May 2014-August 2015) there were more major bleedings than during the clopidogrel period (CP, December 2012-April 2014). METHODS AND RESULTS: To evaluate whether the excess of major bleedings during TP may be limited to high bleeding risk (HBR) patients, we performed an explorative analysis of all 2062 CHANGE DAPT participants, of whom 547(26.5%) were classified as HBR (CP, n = 245; TP, n = 302). In HBR and non-HBR patients, we assessed the impact of CP versus TP on propensity score-adjusted rates of major bleeding and a pre-defined ischemic endpoint (composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) at 1-year follow-up. Among HBR patients, the rate of major bleeding was significantly higher during TP (1.7% vs. 5.0%; HRadjusted 3.70 [95% CI 1.18-11.67], p = 0.03), while there was no significant difference in the ischemic endpoint (6.6% vs. 8.0%, HRadjusted 1.23 [95% CI 0.63-2.42], p = 0.54). In non-HBR patients, the rates of major bleeding (1.1% vs. 1.7%; HRadjusted 2.13 [95% CI 0.84-5.43], p = 0.11) and the ischemic endpoint (2.8% vs. 3.4%, HRadjusted 1.38 [95% CI 0.74-2.57], p = 0.32) were similar between both periods. CONCLUSIONS: Among consecutive ACS patients, the increased risk of major bleeding during ticagrelor-based DAPT was limited to HBR patients. In both HBR and non-HBR patients, ticagrelor-based DAPT did not reduce ischemic outcomes following treatment with contemporary DES implantation.

"Silent" Diabetes and Clinical Outcome After Treatment With Contemporary Drug-Eluting Stents: The BIO-RESORT Silent Diabetes Study.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to assess the prevalence and clinical impact of silent diabetes and pre-diabetes in "nondiabetic" percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) all-comers. BACKGROUND: Patients with undetected and thus untreated (silent) diabetes may have higher event risks after PCI with contemporary drug-eluting stents (DES). METHODS: The BIO-RESORT Silent Diabetes study, performed at Thoraxcentrum Twente, is a substudy of the randomized multicenter BIO-RESORT (BIOdegradable Polymer and DuRable Polymer Drug-eluting Stents in an All COmeRs PopulaTion) trial (NCT01674803). Patients underwent oral glucose tolerance testing (OGTT), and assessment of glycosylated hemoglobin with fasting plasma glucose. Primary endpoint was a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization at 1 year. RESULTS: Of the 988 participants, OGTT detected silent diabetes in 68 (6.9%), pre-diabetes in 133 (13.3%), and normal glucose metabolism in 788 (79.8%). Patients with silent diabetes had higher primary endpoint rates (13.2% vs. 7.6% vs. 4.8%; p < 0.001; silent diabetes vs. normal: hazard ratio: 4.2; 95% confidence interval: 1.9 to 9.2). Differences were driven by myocardial infarction (p < 0.001) which occurred mostly <48 h. Based on glycosylated hemoglobin and fasting plasma glucose, silent diabetes was found in 33 (3.3%) patients, pre-diabetes in 217 (22.0%) patients, and normal glucose metabolism in 738 (74.7%) patients; primary endpoint rates were similar to OGTT-based analyses (12.1% vs. 5.5% vs. 3.1%; p = 0.01). Multivariate analyses demonstrated that abnormal glucose metabolism by either diagnostic approach, present in 330 (33.4%) patients, independently predicted adverse event risk (hazard ratio: 2.2; 95% confidence interval: 1.2 to 4.2). CONCLUSIONS: Abnormal glucose metabolism was detected in 1 of 3 "nondiabetic" PCI patients and was independently associated with up to 4-fold higher event risks. Future intervention trials should determine whether meaningful benefits accrue from routine glycemia testing in such patients.

Prediabetes and its impact on clinical outcome after coronary intervention in a broad patient population.

AIMS: It is unclear whether detection of prediabetes (pre-DM) by routine assessment of glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with contemporary drug-eluting stents (DES) may help identify subjects with increased event risk. We assessed the relation between glycaemia status and one-year outcome after PCI. METHODS AND RESULTS: Glycaemia status was determined in 2,362 non-diabetic BIO-RESORT participants, treated at all four study sites, to identify pre-DM (HbA1c 42-47 mmol/mol; FPG 6.1-6.9 mmol/L) and unknown diabetes mellitus (DM) (HbA1c ≥48 mmol/mol; FPG ≥7.0 mmol/L). Another 624 patients had medically treated DM. The main composite endpoint consisted of death, myocardial infarction, or revascularisation. Glycaemic state was known in 2,986 participants: 324 (11%) patients had pre-DM, 793 (27%) had DM (known or new), and 1,869 (63%) patients had normoglycaemia. Pre-DM and DM patients differed from normoglycaemic patients in cardiovascular risk factors. The composite endpoint occurred in 11.1% in pre-DM, 10.5% in DM, and 5.7% in normoglycaemia (p<0.001). Pre-DM was associated with a twofold higher event risk compared to normoglycaemia (adj. HR 2.0, 95% CI: 1.4-3.0). CONCLUSIONS: Following PCI with contemporary DES, all-comers with pre-DM had significantly higher event risks than normoglycaemic patients. In non-DM patients requiring PCI, routine assessment of HbA1c and FPG appears to be of value to identify subjects with increased event risk.

Clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention with the COMBO stent versus Resolute Integrity and PROMUS Element stents: a propensity-matched analysis.

AIMS: The COMBO stent combines sirolimus elution with an endothelial progenitor cell-capturing layer to promote early endothelialisation. There has not been a head-to-head comparison of this novel device with any other currently used drug-eluting stent (DES). We sought to compare clinical outcome at two years after COMBO stent placement with the Resolute Integrity or PROMUS Element stent in an all-comers cohort. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients from the REMEDEE registry (COMBO, n=1,000) were matched with patients from the DUTCH PEERS trial (PROMUS Element/Resolute Integrity, n=1,811). Propensity score matching on 13 baseline characteristics was applied to create two balanced cohorts of patients treated with COMBO versus PROMUS Element/Resolute Integrity. Propensity score matching yielded 771 patient pairs, representing all-comers patients, with a median age of 65 years, 27% female and more than 50% of patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome. Target lesion failure (TLF), a composite of cardiac death, target vessel MI and any target lesion revascularisation, at two-year follow-up was 7.9% in COMBO and 6.4% in PROMUS Element/Resolute Integrity, HR 1.24 (95% CI: 0.85-1.81), p=0.26. Definite stent thrombosis (ST) was not significantly different between groups (0.8% vs. 0.9%, p=0.79). CONCLUSIONS: In a propensity-matched analysis, the COMBO stent showed similar rates of TLF and ST at two-year follow-up compared to Resolute Integrity and PROMUS Element.

Clopidogrel or ticagrelor in acute coronary syndrome patients treated with newer-generation drug-eluting stents: CHANGE DAPT.

AIMS: Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) guidelines have been changed, favouring more potent antiplatelet drugs. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a ticagrelor- instead of a clopidogrel-based primary dual antiplatelet (DAPT) regimen in ACS patients treated with newer-generation drug-eluting stents (DES). METHODS AND RESULTS: CHANGE DAPT (clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03197298) assessed 2,062 consecutive real-world ACS patients, treated by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), the primary composite endpoint being net adverse clinical and cerebral events (NACCE: all-cause death, any myocardial infarction, stroke or major bleeding). In the clopidogrel (CP; December 2012-April 2014) and ticagrelor periods (TP; May 2014-August 2015), 1,009 and 1,053 patients were treated, respectively. TP patients were somewhat older, underwent fewer transfemoral procedures, and received fewer glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors. In the TP, the one-year NACCE rate was higher (5.1% vs. 7.8%; HR 1.53 [95% CI: 1.08-2.17]; p=0.02). Assessment of non-inferiority (pre-specified margin: 2.7%) was inconclusive (risk difference: 2.64 [95% CI: 0.52-4.77]; pnon-inferiority=0.48). TP patients had more major bleeding (1.2% vs. 2.7%; p=0.02) while there was no benefit in ischaemic endpoints. Propensity score-adjusted multivariate analysis confirmed higher NACCE (adj. HR 1.75 [95% CI: 1.20-2.55]; p=0.003) and major bleeding risks during TP (adj. HR 2.75 [95% CI: 1.34-5.61]; p=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In this observational study, the guideline-recommended ticagrelor-based primary DAPT regimen was associated with an increased event risk in consecutive ACS patients treated with newer-generation DES.

Five-Year Outcome After Implantation of Zotarolimus- and Everolimus-Eluting Stents in Randomized Trial Participants and Nonenrolled Eligible Patients: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Long-term follow-up after a clinical trial of 2 often-used, newer-generation drug-eluting stents (DESs) in a broad patient population is of interest. Comprehensive long-term outcome of eligible nonenrolled patients has never been reported. Objective: To assess 5-year safety and efficacy of 2 newer-generation DESs in randomized participants with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes or stable angina and to evaluate long-term outcomes of nonenrolled eligible patients treated with the same DESs. Design, Setting, and Participants: The TWENTE (Real-World Endeavor Resolute vs Xience V Drug-Eluting Stent Study in Twente) trial is an investigator-initiated, patient-blinded, randomized, comparative DES trial that enrolled patients from June 18, 2008, to August 26, 2010. Most patients had non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes and complex lesions. Of all 1709 eligible patients, 1391 (81.4%) were treated in the TWENTE trial with zotarolimus-eluting (ZES, n = 697) or everolimus-eluting (EES, n = 694) cobalt-chromium stents. The remaining 318 eligible patients (18.6%) were not enrolled but underwent nonrandomized treatment with the same DESs. Data were analyzed from August 26, 2015, to October 11, 2016. Event rates (percentages) were derived from log-rank analysis and may differ from straightforward calculation (nominator/denominator). The 5-year follow-up of the TWENTE participants was prespecified in the trial protocol; that of the nonenrolled participants was ad hoc. Main Outcomes and Measures: Target vessel failure (TVF), a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization. Results: Of 1709 eligible participants, 1233 (72.1%) were men, 476 (27.9%) were women, and mean (SD) age was 64.6 (10.6) years. Among the 1370 of 1391 TWENTE trial participants (98.5% follow-up), TVF was similar between those in the ZES (16.1%) and EES (18.1%) groups (P = .36). Stent thrombosis rates were low: definite (7 of 697 [1.0%] vs 4 of 694 [0.6%]; P = .37) and occurred after more than 1 year in 3 (0.4%) with ZES vs 4 (0.6%) with EES (P = .69). The 318 nonenrolled eligible patients (308 patients [96.9%] of whom were followed up) were older and had more advanced disease than trial participants. Their TVF rate was higher than that of trial participants (71 of 318 [23.3%] vs 233 of 1391 [17.1%]; P = .02), which partly reflects a difference in cardiac mortality (23 of 318 [7.7%] vs 60 of 1391 [4.5%]; P = .03). Similar 5-year rates were found for myocardial infarction (91 of 1391 [6.7%] vs 22 of 318 [7.2%]; P = .80) and target vessel revascularization (129 of 1391 [9.7%] vs 34 of 318 [11.4%]; P = .36) between trial participants and nonenrolled eligible patients. In all eligible patients (ie, trial participants plus nonenrolled eligible patients), the TVF rate was only slightly higher than in trial participants only (18.3% vs 17.1%). Conclusions and Relevance: Long-term outcome data from nonenrolled eligible patients support the validity of the TWENTE trial findings and present, with the trial, a strong case for the long-term safety and efficacy of the newer-generation DESs used. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01066650.