Bifurcation PCI with a hybrid strategy with drug- eluting balloons versus a stepwise provisional two- stent strategy: Rationale and design of the hybrid DEB study.

The optimal treatment strategy for coronary bifurcation lesions by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is complex and remains a subject of debate. Current guidelines advise a stepwise provisional approach with optional two-stent strategy. However, a two-stent strategy, both upfront and stepwise provisional, is technically demanding. Therefore, there is increasing interest in the use of drug-eluting balloons (DEB) in bifurcation lesions, mainly after a provisional approach with unsatisfactory result of the side branch. Some small pilot studies already showed that the use of DEB in bifurcation lesions is safe and feasible. However, a randomized comparison of this hybrid DEB strategy with a two-stent strategy is currently lacking. TRIAL DESIGN: The Hybrid DEB study is a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial investigating noninferiority of a hybrid DEB approach, using a combination of a drug-eluting stent (DES) in the main vessel and DEB in the side branch, compared to stepwise provisional two-stent strategy in patients with true bifurcation lesions. A total of 500 patients with de novo true coronary bifurcation lesions, treated with a stepwise provisional approach and an unsatisfactory result of the side branch after main vessel stenting (≥ 70% stenosis and/or < thrombolysis in myocardial infarction III flow), will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either treatment with a DEB or with a DES in the side branch. The primary endpoint is a composite endpoint of the occurrence of all-cause death, periprocedural or spontaneous myocardial infarction and/or target vessel revascularization at the anticipated median 2-year follow-up. CONCLUSION: The Hybrid DEB study will compare in a multicenter, randomized fashion a hybrid DEB approach with a stepwise provisional two-stent strategy in patients with true bifurcation lesions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov no. NCT05731687.

Novel Supreme Drug-Eluting Stents With Early Synchronized Antiproliferative Drug Delivery to Inhibit Smooth Muscle Cell Proliferation After Drug-Eluting Stents Implantation in Coronary Artery Disease: Results of the PIONEER III Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Accelerated endothelial healing after targeted antiproliferative drug delivery may limit the long-term inflammatory response of drug-eluting stents (DESs). The novel Supreme DES is designed to synchronize early drug delivery within 4 to 6 weeks of implantation, leaving behind a prohealing permanent base layer. Whether the Supreme DES is safe and effective in the short term and can improve long-term clinical outcomes is not known. METHODS: In an international, 2:1 randomized, single-blind trial, we compared treatment with Supreme DES to durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP-EES) in patients with acute and chronic coronary syndromes. The primary end point was target lesion failure-a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target lesion revascularization. The trial was designed to demonstrate noninferiority (margin of 3.58%) of the Supreme DES at 12 months compared with DP-EES (URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03168776). RESULTS: From October 2017 to July 2019, a total of 1629 patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to the Supreme DES (N=1086) or DP-EES (N=543). At 12 months, target lesion failure occurred in 57 of 1057 patients (5.4%) in the Supreme DES group and in 27 of 532 patients (5.1%) in the DP-EES group (absolute risk difference, 0.32% [95% CI, -1.87 to 2.5]; Pnoninferiority=0.002]. There were no significant differences in rates of device success, clinically driven target lesion revascularization, or stent thrombosis at 12 months, and the safety composite of cardiovascular death and target vessel myocardial infarction was 3.5% versus 4.6% (hazard ratio, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.46-1.25]) with Supreme DES compared with DP-EES, although rates of combined clinically and non-clinically driven target lesion revascularization at 12 months were higher with Supreme DES. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with acute and chronic coronary syndromes undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, the Supreme DES proved to be noninferior to the standard DP-EES. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03168776.

Angiography-derived physiology guidance vs usual care in an All-comers PCI population treated with the healing-targeted supreme stent and Ticagrelor monotherapy: PIONEER IV trial design.

BACKGROUND: Current ESC guidelines recommend the use of intra-coronary pressure guidewires for functional assessment of intermediate-grade coronary stenoses. Angiography-derived quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is a novel method of assessing these stenoses, and guiding percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS/DESIGN: The PIONEER IV trial is a prospective, all-comers, multi-center trial, which will randomize 2,540 patients in a 1:1 ratio to PCI guided by angiography-derived physiology or usual care, with unrestricted use in both arms of the Healing-Targeted Supreme sirolimus-eluting stent (HT Supreme). The stent's fast, biologically healthy, and robust endothelial coverage allows for short dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT); hence the antiplatelet regimen of choice is 1-month DAPT, followed by ticagrelor monotherapy. In the angiography-derived physiology guided arm, lesions will be functionally assessed using on-line QFR, with stenting indicated in lesions with a QFR ≤0.80. Post-stenting, QFR will be repeated in the stented vessel(s), with post-dilatation or additional stenting recommended if the QFR<0.91 distal to the stent, or if the delta QFR (across the stent) is >0.05. Usual care PCI is performed according to standard clinical practice. The primary endpoint is a non-inferiority comparison of the patient-oriented composite endpoint (POCE) of all-cause death, any stroke, any myocardial infarction, or any clinically, and physiologically driven revascularization with a non-inferiority risk-difference margin of 3.2%, at 1-year post-procedure. Clinical follow-up will be up to 3 years. SUMMARY: The PIONEER IV trial aims to demonstrate non-inferiority of QFR-guided PCI to usual care PCI with respect to POCE at 1-year in patients treated with HT Supreme stents and ticagrelor monotherapy. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov UNIQUE IDENTIFIER: NCT04923191 CLASSIFICATIONS: Interventional Cardiology.

Clopidogrel versus ticagrelor or prasugrel in patients aged 70 years or older with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (POPular AGE): the randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend potent platelet inhibition with ticagrelor or prasugrel in patients after an acute coronary syndrome. However, data about optimal platelet inhibition in older patients are scarce. We aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of clopidogrel compared with ticagrelor or prasugrel in older patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS). METHODS: We did the open-label, randomised controlled POPular AGE trial in 12 sites (ten hospitals and two university hospitals) in the Netherlands. Patients aged 70 years or older with NSTE-ACS were enrolled and randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio using an internet-based randomisation procedure with block sizes of six to receive a loading dose of clopidogrel 300 mg or 600 mg, or ticagrelor 180 mg or prasugrel 60 mg, and then a maintenance dose for the duration of 12 months (clopidogrel 75 mg once daily, ticagrelor 90 mg twice daily, or prasugrel 10 mg once daily) on top of standard care. Patient and treating physicians were aware of the allocated treatment strategy, but the outcome assessors were masked to treatment allocation. Primary bleeding outcome consisted of PLATelet inhibition and patient Outcomes (PLATO; major or minor bleeding [superiority hypothesis]). Co-primary net clinical benefit outcome consisted of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, PLATO major and minor bleeding (non-inferiority hypothesis, margin of 2%). Follow-up duration was 12 months. Analyses were done on intention-to-treat basis. This trial is registered with the Netherlands Trial Register (NL3804), ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02317198), and EudraCT (2013-001403-37). FINDINGS: Between June 10, 2013, and Oct 17, 2018, 1002 patients were randomly assigned to clopidogrel (n=500) or ticagrelor or prasugrel (n=502). Because 475 (95%) patients received ticagrelor in the ticagrelor or prasugrel group, we will refer to this group as the ticagrelor group. Premature discontinuation of the study drug occurred in 238 (47%) of 502 ticagrelor group patients randomly assigned to ticagrelor, and in 112 (22%) of 500 patients randomly assigned to clopidogrel. Primary bleeding outcome was significantly lower in the clopidogrel group (88 [18%] of 500 patients) than in the ticagrelor group (118 [24%] of 502; hazard ratio 0·71, 95% CI 0·54 to 0·94; p=0·02 for superiority). Co-primary net clinical benefit outcome was non-inferior for the use of clopidogrel (139 [28%]) versus ticagrelor (161 [32%]; absolute risk difference -4%, 95% CI -10·0 to 1·4; p=0·03 for non-inferiority). The most important reasons for discontinuation were occurrence of bleeding (n=38), dyspnoea (n=40), and the need for treatment with oral anticoagulation (n=35). INTERPRETATION: In patients aged 70 years or older presenting with NSTE-ACS, clopidogrel is a favourable alternative to ticagrelor, because it leads to fewer bleeding events without an increase in the combined endpoint of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and bleeding. Clopidogrel could be an alternative P2Y12 inhibitor especially for elderly patients with a higher bleeding risk. FUNDING: ZonMw.

Three-year clinical outcomes of the absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold compared to Xience everolimus-eluting stent in routine PCI in patients with diabetes mellitus-AIDA sub-study.

BACKGROUND: In this prespecified AIDA-trial sub-study we investigate the clinical performance of absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) compared to Xience everolimus-eluting stent (EES) in routine percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) at complete 3-year follow-up. METHODS AND RESULTS: All 1,845 randomized patients were subdivided by medical history with DM or without DM. Of the 924 Absorb BVS patients, 171 (18.5%) patients had DM, of which 65 (38.0%) were treated with insulin (iTDM). Of the 921 Xience EES patients, 153 (16.6%) patients had DM, of which 45 (29.4%) were insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (iTDM). Target vessel failure (TVF), composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization, occurred in 18.7% of diabetic patients treated with Absorb patients versus in 18.0% patients treated with Xience EES (p = .840). In nondiabetics the rates of TVF were 12.3% in Absorb BVS versus 11.0% in Xience EES (p = .391). Definite/probable device thrombosis occurred more frequently in Absorb BVS compared to Xience EES in both diabetic and nondiabetic patients (4.8% versus 0.7%; p = .028 and 3.2% vs. 0.5%; p < .001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In routine PCI practice, both Absorb BVS and Xience EES have worse clinical outcomes in diabetic patients as compared to nondiabetic patients. Throughout all clinical presentations, Absorb BVS was associated with higher rates of device thrombosis at 3-year follow-up.

Prehospital risk stratification in patients with chest pain.

OBJECTIVES: The History, ECG, Age, Risk Factors and Troponin (HEART) Score is a decision support tool applied by physicians in the emergency department developed to risk stratify low-risk patients presenting with chest pain. We assessed the potential value of this tool in prehospital setting, when applied by emergency medical services (EMS), and derived and validated a tool adapted to the prehospital setting in order to determine if it could assist with decisions regarding conveyance to a hospital. METHODS: In 2017, EMS personnel prospectively determined the HEART Score, including point-of-care (POC) troponin measurements, in patients presenting with chest pain, in the north of the Netherlands. The primary endpoint was a major adverse cardiac event (MACE), consisting of acute myocardial infarction or death, within 3 days. The components of the HEART Score were evaluated for their discriminatory value, cut-offs were calibrated for the prehospital setting and sex was substituted for cardiac risk factors to develop a prehospital HEART (preHEART) Score. This score was validated in an independent prospective cohort of 435 patients in 2018. RESULTS: Among 1208 patients prospectively recruited in the first cohort, 123 patients (10.2%) developed a MACE. The HEART Score had a negative predictive value (NPV) of 98.4% (96.4-99.3), a positive predictive value (PPV) of 35.5% (31.8-39.3) and an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.81 (0.78-0.85). The preHEART Score had an NPV of 99.3% (98.1-99.8), a PPV of 49.4% (42.0-56.9) and an AUC of 0.85 (0.82-0.88), outperforming the HEART Score or POC troponin measurements on their own. Similar results were found in a validation cohort. CONCLUSIONS: The HEART Score can be used in the prehospital setting to assist with conveyance decisions and choice of hospitals; however, the preHEART Score outperforms both the HEART Score and single POC troponin measurements when applied by EMS personnel in the prehospital setting.

Safety and efficacy of a sirolimus-eluting coronary stent with ultra-thin strut for treatment of atherosclerotic lesions (TALENT): a prospective multicentre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Supraflex is a sirolimus-eluting stent with a biodegradable polymer coating and ultra-thin struts. We aimed to compare Supraflex with the standard of care, Xience, an everolimus-eluting stent with a durable polymer coating, regarding clinical outcomes with a randomised trial in an all-comer population. METHODS: We did a prospective, randomised, single-blind, multicentre study (TALENT) across 23 centres in Europe (the Netherlands, Poland, the UK, Spain, Bulgaria, Hungary, and Italy). Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older, had one or more coronary artery stenosis of 50% or greater in a native coronary artery, saphenous venous graft, or arterial bypass conduit, and had a reference vessel diameter of 2·25-4·50 mm. Patients underwent percutaneous coronary intervention in an all-comer manner. We randomly assigned patients (1:1) to implantation of either a sirolimus-eluting stent with a biodegradable polymer coating and ultra-thin struts (Supraflex) or an everolimus-eluting stent with a durable polymer coating (Xience). Randomisation was done by local investigators by use of a web-based software with random blocks according to centre. The primary endpoint was a non-inferiority comparison of a device-oriented composite endpoint-cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically indicated target lesion revascularisation-between groups at 12 months after the procedure, assessed in an intention-to-treat population. On assumption of 1-year composite endpoint prevalence of 8·3%, a margin of 4·0% was defined for non-inferiority of the Supraflex group compared with the Xience group. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02870140. FINDINGS: Between Oct 21, 2016, and July 3, 2017, 1435 patients with 1046 lesions were randomly assigned to Supraflex, of whom 720 received the index procedure, and 715 patients with 1030 lesions were assigned to Xience, all receiving the index procedure. At 12 months, the primary endpoint had occurred in 35 patients (4·9 %) in the Supraflex group and in 37 patients (5·3%) in the Xience group (absolute difference -0·3% [one-sided 95% upper confidence bound 1·6%], pnon-inferiority<0·0001). Definite or probable stent thrombosis prevalence, a safety indicator, was low in both groups and did not differ between them. INTERPRETATION: The Supraflex stent was non-inferior to the Xience stent for a device-oriented composite clinical endpoint at 12 months in an all-comer population. Supraflex seems a safe and effective alternative drug-eluting stent to other stents in clinical practice. FUNDING: European Cardiovascular Research Institute.

Bioresorbable Scaffolds versus Metallic Stents in Routine PCI.

BACKGROUND: Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds were developed to overcome the shortcomings of drug-eluting stents in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We performed an investigator-initiated, randomized trial to compare an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold with an everolimus-eluting metallic stent in the context of routine clinical practice. METHODS: We randomly assigned 1845 patients undergoing PCI to receive either a bioresorbable vascular scaffold (924 patients) or a metallic stent (921 patients). The primary end point was target-vessel failure (a composite of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or target-vessel revascularization). The data and safety monitoring board recommended early reporting of the study results because of safety concerns. This report provides descriptive information on end-point events. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 707 days. Target-vessel failure occurred in 105 patients in the scaffold group and in 94 patients in the stent group (2-year cumulative event rates, 11.7% and 10.7%, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85 to 1.48; P=0.43); event rates were based on Kaplan-Meier estimates in time-to-event analyses. Cardiac death occurred in 18 patients in the scaffold group and in 23 patients in the stent group (2-year cumulative event rates, 2.0% and 2.7%, respectively), target-vessel myocardial infarction occurred in 48 patients in the scaffold group and in 30 patients in the stent group (2-year cumulative event rates, 5.5% and 3.2%), and target-vessel revascularization occurred in 76 patients in the scaffold group and in 65 patients in the stent group (2-year cumulative event rates, 8.7% and 7.5%). Definite or probable device thrombosis occurred in 31 patients in the scaffold group as compared with 8 patients in the stent group (2-year cumulative event rates, 3.5% vs. 0.9%; hazard ratio, 3.87; 95% CI, 1.78 to 8.42; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this preliminary report of a trial involving patients undergoing PCI, there was no significant difference in the rate of target-vessel failure between the patients who received a bioresorbable scaffold and the patients who received a metallic stent. The bioresorbable scaffold was associated with a higher incidence of device thrombosis than the metallic stent through 2 years of follow-up. (Funded by Abbott Vascular; AIDA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01858077 .).

Clinical outcomes at 2 years of the Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold versus the Xience drug-eluting metallic stent in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome versus stable coronary disease-AIDA trial substudy.

BACKGROUND: Patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) might represent a specific subgroup, in which bioresorbable scaffold implantation in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), might lead to better outcomes when compared to conventional treatment with metallic drug eluting stents. In this prespecified subgroup analysis of the Amsterdam Investigator-Initiated Absorb Strategy All-Comers (AIDA) trial, we evaluated the clinical outcomes of Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) versus Xience everolimus eluting stent (EES) treated patients presenting either with or without ACS. METHODS AND RESULTS: We classified AIDA patients on the basis of clinical presentation of ACS or of no-ACS. The rate of the 2-year primary endpoint of target vessel failure (TVF) was similar after treatment with Absorb BVS or Xience EES in ACS patients (10.2% versus 9.0% respectively; P = 0.49) and in no-ACS patients (11.7% versus 10.7%, respectively; P = 0.67) Definite or probable device thrombosis occurred more frequently with Absorb BVS compared to Xience EES in ACS patients (4.3% versus 1.7%, respectively, P = 0.03) as well as in no-ACS patients (2.4% versus 0.2%, respectively; P = 0.002). There were no statistically significant interactions between clinical presentation and randomized device modality for TVF (P = 0.80) and for the endpoint of definite or probable device thrombosis (P = 0.17). CONCLUSION: In the AIDA trial, the 2-year outcomes of PCI with Absorb BVS versus Xience EES were consistent in ACS and no-ACS patients: similar rates for TVF and consistently higher rates of definite or probable stent thrombosis under Absorb BVS versus Xience EES. There were no statistically significant interactions between clinical presentation and randomized device modality.

A sirolimus-eluting bioabsorbable polymer-coated stent (MiStent) versus an everolimus-eluting durable polymer stent (Xience) after percutaneous coronary intervention (DESSOLVE III): a randomised, single-blind, multicentre, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: MiStent is a drug-eluting stent with a fully absorbable polymer coating containing and embedding a microcrystalline form of sirolimus into the vessel wall. It was developed to overcome the limitation of current durable polymer drug-eluting stents eluting amorphous sirolimus. The clinical effect of MiStent sirolimus-eluting stent compared with a durable polymer drug-eluting stents has not been investigated in a large randomised trial in an all-comer population. METHODS: We did a randomised, single-blind, multicentre, phase 3 study (DESSOLVE III) at 20 hospitals in Germany, France, Netherlands, and Poland. Eligible participants were any patients aged at least 18 years who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention in a lesion and had a reference vessel diameter of 2·50-3·75 mm. We randomly assigned patients (1:1) to implantation of either a sirolimus-eluting bioresorbable polymer stent (MiStent) or an everolimus-eluting durable polymer stent (Xience). Randomisation was done by local investigators via web-based software with random blocks according to centre. The primary endpoint was a non-inferiority comparison of a device-oriented composite endpoint (DOCE)-cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically indicated target lesion revascularisation-between the groups at 12 months after the procedure assessed by intention-to-treat. A margin of 4·0% was defined for non-inferiority of the MiStent group compared with the Xience group. All participants were included in the safety analyses. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02385279. FINDINGS: Between March 20, and Dec 3, 2015, we randomly assigned 1398 patients with 2030 lesions; 703 patients with 1037 lesions were assigned to MiStent, of whom 697 received the index procedure, and 695 patients with 993 lesions were asssigned to Xience, of whom 690 received the index procedure. At 12 months, the primary endpoint had occurred in 40 patients (5·8%) in the sirolimus-eluting stent group and in 45 patients (6·5%) in the everolimus-eluting stent group (absolute difference -0·8% [95% CI -3·3 to 1·8], pnon-inferiority=0·0001). Procedural complications occurred in 12 patients (1·7%) in the sirolimus-eluting stent group and ten patients (1·4%) in the everolimus-eluting stent group; no clinical adverse events could be attributed to these dislodgements through a minimum of 12 months of follow-up. The rate of stent thrombosis, a safety indicator, did not differ between groups and was low in both treatment groups. INTERPRETATION: The sirolimus-eluting bioabsorbable polymer stent was non-inferior to the everolimus-eluting durable polymer stent for a device-oriented composite clinical endpoint at 12 months in an all-comer population. MiStent seems a reasonable alternative to other stents in clinical practice. FUNDING: The European Cardiovascular Research Institute, Micell Technologies (Durham, NC, USA), and Stentys (Paris, France).

Everolimus-eluting bioresorbable stent vs. durable polymer everolimus-eluting metallic stent in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: results of the randomized ABSORB ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction-TROFI II trial.

AIMS: Patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) feature thrombus-rich lesions with large necrotic core, which are usually associated with delayed arterial healing and impaired stent-related outcomes. The use of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (Absorb) has the potential to overcome these limitations owing to restoration of native vessel lumen and physiology at long term. The purpose of this randomized trial was to compare the arterial healing response at short term, as a surrogate for safety and efficacy, between the Absorb and the metallic everolimus-eluting stent (EES) in patients with STEMI. METHODS AND RESULTS: ABSORB-STEMI TROFI II was a multicentre, single-blind, non-inferiority, randomized controlled trial. Patients with STEMI who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention were randomly allocated 1:1 to treatment with the Absorb or EES. The primary endpoint was the 6-month optical frequency domain imaging healing score (HS) based on the presence of uncovered and/or malapposed stent struts and intraluminal filling defects. Main secondary endpoint included the device-oriented composite endpoint (DOCE) according to the Academic Research Consortium definition. Between 06 January 2014 and 21 September 2014, 191 patients (Absorb [n = 95] or EES [n = 96]; mean age 58.6 years old; 17.8% females) were enrolled at eight centres. At 6 months, HS was lower in the Absorb arm when compared with EES arm [1.74 (2.39) vs. 2.80 (4.44); difference (90% CI) -1.06 (-1.96, -0.16); Pnon-inferiority < 0.001]. Device-oriented composite endpoint was also comparably low between groups (1.1% Absorb vs. 0% EES). One case of definite subacute stent thrombosis occurred in the Absorb arm (1.1% vs. 0% EES; P = ns). CONCLUSION: Stenting of culprit lesions with Absorb in the setting of STEMI resulted in a nearly complete arterial healing which was comparable with that of metallic EES at 6 months. These findings provide the basis for further exploration in clinically oriented outcome trials.

Appropriate use of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds in percutaneous coronary interventions: a recommendation from experienced users : A position statement on the use of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds in the Netherlands.

Percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) have become a reliable revascularisation option to treat ischaemic coronary artery disease. Drug-eluting stents (DES) are widely used as first choice devices in many procedures due to their established good medium to long term outcomes. These permanent implants, however, do not have any residual function after vascular healing following the PCI. Beyond this initial healing period, metallic stents may induce new problems, resulting in an average rate of 2 % reinterventions per year. To eliminate this potential late limitation of permanent metallic DES, bioresorbable coronary stents or 'vascular scaffolds' (BVS) have been developed. In a parallel publication in this journal, an overview of the current clinical performance of these scaffolds is presented. As these scaffolds are currently CE marked and commercially available in many countries and as clinical evidence is still limited, recommendations for their general usage are needed to allow successful clinical introduction.

Abluminal biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stent versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent (COMPARE II): a randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Drug-eluting stents with durable biocompatible or biodegradable polymers have been developed to address the risk of thrombosis associated with first-generation drug-eluting stents. We aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of a biodegradable polymer-coated biolimus-eluting stent with a thin-strut everolimus-eluting stent coated with a durable biocompatible polymer. METHODS: This open-label, prospective, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial was undertaken at 12 sites across Europe. We used limited exclusion criteria (age >18 years, life expectancy >5 years, reference vessel diameter 2·0-4·0 mm) to enrol patients eligible for percutaneous coronary intervention. Patients were randomly allocated (2:1) by computer-generated random numbers to receive either a biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stent (Nobori, Terumo, Tokyo, Japan) or a durable fluoropolymer-based everolimus-eluting stent (Xience V or Prime, Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA, USA, or Promus, Boston Scientific, Natick, MA, USA). The primary endpoint was a composite of safety (cardiac death and non-fatal myocardial infarction) and efficacy (clinically indicated target vessel revascularisation) at 12 months, analysed by intention to treat. Patients received dual antiplatelet therapy for 12 months after discharge. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01233453. FINDINGS: From Jan 12, 2009, to Feb 7, 2011, we enrolled 2707 patients (4025 lesions), 1795 of whom were assigned to receive the biolimus-eluting stent (2638 lesions) and 912 to an everolimus-eluting stent (1387 lesions). 2688 (99·3%) patients completed 12 months' follow-up. Significantly more patients in the biolimus-eluting stent group received a non-assigned stent than did those in the everolimus-eluting stent group (105 [5·9%] vs 19 [2·1%]; p<0·0001). The primary endpoint occurred in 93 (5·2%) patients in the biolimus-eluting stent group and 44 (4·8%) patients in the everolimus-eluting stent group at 12 months (relative risk 1·07 [95% CI 0·75-1·52]; p(non-inferiority)<0·0001). Analysis per protocol did not change the outcome of this trial (p(non-inferiority)<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: Biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stents are as safe and efficacious as the current standard of a thin-strut everolimus-eluting stent with a durable biocompatible polymer. We need to follow-up patients for longer to show whether the biolimus-eluting stent reduces the risk of stent thrombosis after 1 year when compared with the everolimus-eluting stent. FUNDING: Terumo Europe (Leuven, Belgium) and the Research Foundation of the Cardiology Department, Maasstad Hospital (Rotterdam, Netherlands).

Comparison of zotarolimus-eluting and everolimus-eluting coronary stents.

BACKGROUND: New-generation coronary stents that release zotarolimus or everolimus have been shown to reduce the risk of restenosis. However, it is unclear whether there are differences in efficacy and safety between the two types of stents on the basis of prospectively adjudicated end points endorsed by the Food and Drug Administration. METHODS: In this multicenter, noninferiority trial with minimal exclusion criteria, we randomly assigned 2292 patients to undergo treatment with coronary stents releasing either zotarolimus or everolimus. Twenty percent of patients were randomly selected for repeat angiography at 13 months. The primary end point was target-lesion failure, defined as a composite of death from cardiac causes, any myocardial infarction (not clearly attributable to a nontarget vessel), or clinically indicated target-lesion revascularization within 12 months. The secondary angiographic end point was the extent of in-stent stenosis at 13 months. RESULTS: At least one off-label criterion for stent placement was present in 66% of patients. The zotarolimus-eluting stent was noninferior to the everolimus-eluting stent with respect to the primary end point, which occurred in 8.2% and 8.3% of patients, respectively (P<0.001 for noninferiority). There were no significant between-group differences in the rate of death from cardiac causes, any myocardial infarction, or revascularization. The rate of stent thrombosis was 2.3% in the zotarolimus-stent group and 1.5% in the everolimus-stent group (P=0.17). The zotarolimus-eluting stent was also noninferior regarding the degree (+/-SD) of in-stent stenosis (21.65+/-14.42% for zotarolimus vs. 19.76+/-14.64% for everolimus, P=0.04 for noninferiority). In-stent late lumen loss was 0.27+/-0.43 mm in the zotarolimus-stent group versus 0.19+/-0.40 mm in the everolimus-stent group (P=0.08). There were no significant between-group differences in the rate of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: At 13 months, the new-generation zotarolimus-eluting stent was found to be noninferior to the everolimus-eluting stent in a population of patients who had minimal exclusion criteria. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00617084.)

Safety and efficacy of everolimus- versus sirolimus-eluting stents: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 11 randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: While EES have proven superior to paclitaxel-eluting stents, it remains uncertain whether EES improve clinical outcomes compared to SES, which are the most efficacious among the first-generation drug-eluting stents. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing the efficacy and safety of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) versus sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS: From online and offline search until December 2011, we identified 11 randomized trials (total 12,869 patients). The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events. RESULTS: The risk of major adverse cardiac events did not differ significantly between the patients treated with EES versus SES [OR, 0.90 (95% CI, 0.77-1.04); P = .162]. However, we found a significant reduction in the risk of repeat revascularization in the EES arm [OR, 0.85 (95% CI, 0.71-1.00); P = .047]. There were no significant differences regarding the risk of cardiac death [OR, 0.97 (95% CI, 0.74-1.27); P = .834], or myocardial infarction [OR, 0.95 (95% CI, 0.75-1.20), P = .656]. The risk of definite or probable stent thrombosis tended to be lower [OR, 0.68 (95% CI, 0.45-1.02); P = .065], while definite ST was significantly lower [OR, 0.44 (95% CI, 0.25-0.80); P = .007] with EES. CONCLUSIONS: In a large systematic overview of comparative trials involving percutaneous revascularization with drug-eluting stents, treatment with EES significantly reduced the risk of repeat revascularization and definite ST compared to SES. We found no significant differences in the risk of cardiac death or myocardial infarction.

Comparison of Supraflex Cruz 60 µm Versus Ultimaster Tansei 80 µm Stent Struts in High Bleeding Risk PCI Patients: Study design and Rational of Compare 60/80 HBR trial.

Up to 45% of patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) may have a high bleeding risk (HBR), depending on the bleeding risk definition.1 This condition is often associated with an enhanced risk of thrombotic events with a negative impact on short- and long-term outcomes,2-8 making the choice of an appropriate antithrombotic regimen after PCI particularly challenging. Advances in stent technologies, in which the introduction of newer generations of thinner strut drug-eluting stents (DES), have significantly reduced the rate of thrombotic complications and may justify a shorter dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) duration. Both in vitro and in vivo studies have shown that local hemodynamic factors may critically affect the natural history of atherosclerosis. Strut thickness correlates with flow disturbances and endothelial shear stress. Flow separation within struts determines areas of recirculation with low endothelial shear stress which promotes local concentration of activated platelets.9 By mitigating inflammation, vessel injury, and neointimal proliferation, thin and streamlined struts have been associated with faster vascular healing and re-endothelization and have resulted in lower rates of thrombotic events after PCI.10,11 The use of thin strut and ultra-thin strut stents may lead to a favorable trade-off in bleeding and ischemic events in patients with HBR. However, dedicated studies evaluating the performance of thin strut versus ultrathin strut stents in patients with HBR are lacking.

Sirolimus-eluting stents with ultrathin struts versus everolimus-eluting stents for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: final three-year results of the TALENT trial.

BACKGROUND: In the TALENT study, the sirolimus-eluting ultrathin strut Supraflex stent was non-inferior to the XIENCE stent for a device-oriented composite endpoint (DoCE: defined as cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction [TV-MI], or clinically indicated target lesion revascularisation [CI-TLR]) at 12 months. AIMS: This study investigated the 3-year outcomes of the TALENT trial and long-term impact of ultrathin drug-eluting stents (DES), compared to the XIENCE everolimus-eluting thin stent. METHODS: The TALENT trial is a prospective, multicentre, randomised all-comers trial comparing the Supraflex sirolimus-eluting stent with the XIENCE everolimus-eluting stent, with planned follow-up for 3 years. RESULTS: The TALENT trial enrolled 1,435 patients (Supraflex n=720, XIENCE n=715) with 3-year follow-up data available in 97.8% in the Supraflex group, and in 98.9% in the XIENCE group. At 3 years, DoCE occurred in 57 patients (8.1%) in the Supraflex group, and in 66 patients (9.4%) in the XIENCE group (p=0.406). There were no significant between-group differences in rates of cardiac death, TV-MI or CI-TLR. The rates of definite or probable stent thrombosis were low and similar between groups (1.1% vs 1.4%; p=0.640). In a meta-analysis of long-term follow-up (3-5 years), ultrathin strut DES tended to reduce DoCE (relative risk 0.89 [0.79-1.01]; p=0.068), compared to thicker strut DES. The risks for cardiac death and definite or probable stent thrombosis were similar between ultrathin strut DES and thicker strut DES. CONCLUSIONS: At 3-year follow-up, the use of the Supraflex stent was at least as safe and efficacious as the XIENCE stent in an all-comers population. CLINICALTRIALS: gov: NCT02870140.

Long-term clinical outcomes of everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffolds versus everolimus-eluting stents: final five-year results of the AIDA randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS)-related events have been reported between 1 and 3 years - the period of active scaffold bioresorption. Data on the performance of the Absorb BVS in daily clinical practice beyond this time point are scarce. AIMS: This report aimed to provide the final five-year clinical follow-up of the Absorb BVS in comparison with the XIENCE everolimus-eluting stent (EES). In addition, we evaluated the effect of prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) administration on events in the scaffold group. METHODS: AIDA was a multicentre, investigator-initiated, non-inferiority trial, in which 1,845 unselected patients with coronary artery disease were randomly assigned to either the Absorb BVS (n=924) or the XIENCE EES (n=921). Target vessel failure (TVF), a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction or target vessel revascularisation, was the primary endpoint. Scaffold thrombosis cases were matched with controls and tested for the effect of prolonged DAPT. RESULTS: Up to five-year follow-up, there was no difference in TVF between the Absorb BVS (17.7%) and the XIENCE EES (16.1%) (hazard ratio [HR] 1.31, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.90-1.41; p=0.302). Definite or probable device thrombosis (DT) occurred in 43 patients (4.8%) in the scaffold group compared to 13 patients (1.5%) in the stent group (HR 3.32, 95% CI: 1.78-6.17; p<0.001). DT between 3 and 4 years occurred six times in the Absorb arm versus three times in the XIENCE arm. Between 4 and 5 years, the incidence was three versus two, respectively. Of those three DT in the scaffold group, two occurred in XIENCE EES-treated lesions. The odds ratio of scaffold thrombosis in patients on DAPT compared to off DAPT throughout five-year follow-up was 0.36 (95% CI: 0.15-0.86). CONCLUSIONS: The excess risk of the Absorb BVS on late adverse events, in particular device thrombosis, in routine PCI continues up to 4 years and seems to plateau afterwards. Clinical Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01858077.

Clopidogrel in noncarriers of CYP2C19 loss-of-function alleles versus ticagrelor in elderly patients with acute coronary syndrome: A pre-specified sub analysis from the POPular Genetics and POPular Age trials CYP2C19 alleles in elderly patients.

BACKGROUND: Patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) who are carrying CYP2C19 loss-of-function alleles derive less benefit from clopidogrel treatment. Despite this, in elderly patients, clopidogrel might be preferred over more potent P2Y12 inhibitors due to a lower bleeding risk. Whether CYP2C19 genotype-guided antiplatelet treatment in the elderly could be of benefit has not been studied specifically. METHODS: Patients aged 70 years and older with known CYP2C19*2 and *3 genotype were identified from the POPular Genetics and POPular Age trials. Noncarriers of loss-of-function alleles treated with clopidogrel were compared to patients, irrespective of CYP2C19 genotype, treated with ticagrelor and to clopidogrel treated carriers of loss-of-function alleles. We assessed net clinical benefit (all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke and Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes (PLATO) major bleeding), atherothrombotic outcomes (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke) and bleeding outcomes (PLATO major and minor bleeding). RESULTS: A total of 991 patients were assessed. There was no significant difference in net clinical benefit (17.2% vs. 15.1%, adjusted hazard ratio (adjHR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77-1.44), atherothrombotic outcomes (9.7% vs. 9.2%, adjHR 1.00, 95%CI 0.66-1.50), and bleeding outcomes (17.7% vs. 19.8%, adjHR 0.80, 95%CI 0.62-1.12) between clopidogrel in noncarriers of loss-of-function alleles and ticagrelor respectively. CONCLUSION: In ACS patients aged 70 years and older, there was no significant difference in net clinical benefit and atherothrombotic outcomes between noncarriers of a loss-of-function allele treated with clopidogrel and patients treated with ticagrelor. The bleeding rate was numerically; though not statistically significant, lower in patients using clopidogrel.

Ticagrelor Versus Clopidogrel in Older Patients with NSTE-ACS Using Oral Anticoagulation: A Sub-Analysis of the POPular Age Trial.

There are no randomised data on which antiplatelet agent to use in elderly patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) and an indication for oral anticoagulation (OAC). The randomised POPular Age trial, in patients of 70 years or older with NSTE-ACS, showed a reduction in bleeding without increasing thrombotic events in patients using clopidogrel as compared to ticagrelor. In this sub-analysis of the POPular AGE trial, we compare clopidogrel with ticagrelor in patients with a need for oral anticoagulation. The follow-up duration was one year. The primary bleeding outcome was Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes (PLATO) major and minor bleeding. The primary thrombotic outcome consisted of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction and stroke. The primary net clinical benefit outcome was a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and PLATO major and minor bleeding. A total of 184/1011 (18.2%) patients on OAC were included in this subanalysis; 83 were randomized to clopidogrel and 101 to ticagrelor. The primary bleeding outcome was lower in the clopidogrel group (17/83, 20.9%) compared to the ticagrelor group (33/101, 33.5%; p = 0.051), as was the thrombotic outcome (7/83, 8.4% vs. 19/101, 19.2%; p = 0.035) and the primary net clinical benefit outcome (23/83, 27.7% vs. 49/101, 48.5%; p = 0.003). In this subgroup of patients using OAC, clopidogrel reduced PLATO major and minor bleeding compared to ticagrelor without increasing thrombotic risk. This analysis therefore suggests that, in line with the POPular Age trial, clopidogrel is a better option than ticagrelor in NSTE-ACS patients ≥70 years using OAC.