Two-year outcomes after first- or second-generation drug-eluting or bare-metal stent implantation in all-comer patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a pre-specified analysis from the PRODIGY study (PROlonging Dual Antiplatelet Treatment After Grading stent-induced Intimal hyperplasia studY).

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to assess device-specific outcomes after implantation of bare-metal stents (BMS), zotarolimus-eluting Endeavor Sprint stents (ZES-S), paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES), or everolimus-eluting stents (EES) (Medtronic Cardiovascular, Santa Rosa, California) in all-comer patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. BACKGROUND: Few studies have directly compared second-generation drug-eluting stents with each other or with BMS. METHODS: We randomized 2,013 patients to BMS, ZES-S, PES, or EES implantation. At 30 days, each stent group received up to 6 or 24 months of clopidogrel therapy. The key efficacy endpoint was the 2-year major adverse cardiac event (MACE) including any death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization, whereas the cumulative rate of definite or probable stent thrombosis (ST) was the key safety endpoint. RESULTS: Clinical follow-up at 2 years was complete for 99.7% of patients. The MACE rate was lowest in EES (19.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 16.0 to 22.8), highest in BMS (32.1%; 95% CI: 28.1 to 36.3), and intermediate in PES (26.2%; 95% CI: 22.5 to 30.2) and ZES-S (27.8%; 95% CI: 24.1 to 31.9) groups (chi-square test = 18.9, p = 0.00029). The 2-year incidence of ST in the EES group (1%; 95% CI: 0.4 to 2.2) was similar to that in the ZES-S group (1.4%; 95% CI: 0.7 to 2.8), whereas it was lower compared with the PES (4.6%, 95% CI: 3.1 to 6.8) and BMS (3.6%; 95% CI: 2.4 to 5.6) groups (chi-square = 16.9; p = 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that cumulative MACE rate, encompassing both safety and efficacy endpoints, was lowest for EES, highest for BMS, and intermediate for PES and ZES-S groups. EES outperformed BMS also with respect to the safety endpoints with regard to definite or probable and definite, probable, or possible ST. (PROlonging Dual antiplatelet treatment after Grading stent-induced Intimal hyperplasia studY [PRODIGY]; NCT00611286).

Three-year follow-up of the MULTIcentre evaluation of Single high-dose Bolus TiRofiban versus Abciximab with Sirolimus-eluting STEnt or Bare-Metal Stent in Acute Myocardial Infarction StudY (MULTISTRATEGY).

BACKGROUND: The Multicentre Evaluation of Single high-dose Bolus TiRofiban versus Abciximab with Sirolimus-eluting Stent or Bare Metal Stent in Acute Myocardial Infarction Study [MULTISTRATEGY]) randomised 745 patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction to receive high-dose bolus (HDB) tirofiban or abciximab infusion and sirolimus-eluting (SES) or uncoated-stent (BMS) implantation. Tirofiban was non-inferior to abciximab in terms of ST-segment resolution after intervention, whereas 8 month-major adverse cardiac events occurred in 14.5% in the BMS and 7.8% in the SES groups (P = 0.0039), reflecting a reduction of reintervention rates (10.2% vs. 3.2%). A three-year follow-up was performed to extend previous short- to mid-term findings. METHODS AND RESULTS: Complete data at 3 years was available for 736 patients (99%). All-cause mortality was 6.7% in the tirofiban and 7.8% in the abciximab (P = 0.56) and 7.5% in the BMS vs 7.0 in the SES groups, P = 0.79. The composite of all-cause death or MI was identical at 12.9% in tirofiban and abciximab groups, P = 0.99 and it occurred in 13.2% in the BMS vs. 12.6% in the SES groups (P = 0.83). The need for reintervention remained more than twice as common with BMS (13.7%; versus 6.2%, P = 0.0006). The cumulative rate of stent thrombosis (ST) did not differ. This is inspite of a higher very late definite, probable or possible ST thrombosis rate in the SES group. CONCLUSIONS: The 3-year follow-up of MULTISTRATEGY demonstrated comparable outcomes with HDB Tirofiban or abciximab and a sustained efficacy of SES to reduce reintervention with no difference in death, repeat MI or ST.

Persistent coronary no flow after wire insertion is an early and readily available mortality risk factor despite successful mechanical intervention in acute myocardial infarction: a pooled analysis from the STRATEGY (Single High-Dose Bolus Tirofiban and Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Abciximab and Bare-Metal Stent in Acute Myocardial Infarction) and MULTISTRATEGY (Multicenter Evaluation of Single High-Dose Bolus Tirofiban Versus Abciximab With Sirolimus-Eluting Stent or Bare-Metal Stent in Acute Myocardial Infarction Study) trials.

OBJECTIVES: These studies sought to investigate the impact on mortality of coronary flow after passage of the wire through the culprit vessel in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing mechanical reperfusion. BACKGROUND: Reduced spontaneous coronary flow before percutaneous coronary intervention influences mortality in patients with STEMI. Response to vessel wiring in patients with an occluded coronary artery before intervention might further discriminate outcomes irrespective of pre- and post-intervention coronary flow. METHODS: Data from the STRATEGY (Single High-Dose Bolus Tirofiban and Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Abciximab and Bare-Metal Stent in Acute Myocardial Infarction) and MULTISTRATEGY (Multicenter Evaluation of Single High-Dose Bolus Tirofiban Versus Abciximab With Sirolimus-Eluting Stent or Bare-Metal Stent in Acute Myocardial Infarction Study) trials were pooled: of 919 index procedures, 902 films (98%) were technically adequate for core laboratory TIMI (Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction) flow determination. RESULTS: TIMI flow grade 0 was present before percutaneous coronary intervention in 59% of infarct vessels, TIMI flow grade 1 to 2 was found in 21%, whereas the remainder of infarct arteries presented with TIMI flow grade 3. In 49% of patients who showed persistent TIMI flow grade 0 after wire insertion (AWI), mortality was higher at 30 days (5.3%) and 1 year (9.4%) compared with patients in whom TIMI flow grade before percutaneous coronary intervention was either >0 (0.8%; p < 0.003 and 3.6%, p < 0.008) or improved from 0 AWI (1.5%, p < 0.04 and 3.6%, p < 0.02). After correcting for multiple imbalances, including baseline and final flow, persistent TIMI flow grade 0 AWI remained associated at 30 days to 2-fold (risk ratio [RR]: 2.1, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.08 to 5.00; p = 0.038) and at 1 year to almost 3-fold increases of mortality (RR: 2.7, 95% CI: 1.3 to 5.6; p = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: STEMI patients displaying persistent no-flow AWI have a lower survival rate despite an apparently successful mechanical intervention. As an early marker for high residual mortality risk, persistent no-flow AWI may qualify STEMI patients for dedicated pharmacomechanical treatment strategies.

Prediction of 1-year clinical outcomes using the SYNTAX score in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention: a substudy of the STRATEGY (Single High-Dose Bolus Tirofiban and Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Abciximab and Bare-Metal Stent in Acute Myocardial Infarction) and MULTISTRATEGY (Multicenter Evaluation of Single High-Dose Bolus Tirofiban Versus Abciximab With Sirolimus-Eluting Stent or Bare-Metal Stent in Acute Myocardial Infarction Study) trials.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate the impact of SYNTAX score (SXscore), and compare its performance in isolation and combination with the PAMI (The Primary Angioplasty in Myocardial Infarction Study) score, for the prediction of 1-year clinical outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. BACKGROUND: Patients with STEMI were excluded from the original SYNTAX score (SXscore) algorithm. Therefore, the utility of using the SXscore in this patient group remains undefined. METHODS: SXscore was calculated retrospectively in 807 patients with STEMI enrolled in the randomized STRATEGY (Single High-Dose Bolus Tirofiban and Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Abciximab and Bare-Metal Stent in Acute Myocardial Infarction) and MULTISTRATEGY (Multicenter Evaluation of Single High-Dose Bolus Tirofiban Versus Abciximab With Sirolimus-Eluting Stent or Bare-Metal Stent in Acute Myocardial Infarction Study) clinical trials. Clinical outcomes of all-cause death, reinfarction, and clinically driven target vessel revascularization were subsequently stratified according to SXscore tertiles: SX(LOW) ≤ 9 (n = 311), 9 < SX(MID) ≤ 16 (n = 234), SX(HIGH) >16 (n = 262). RESULTS: At 1-year follow-up, all clinical outcomes including mortality, mortality/reinfarction, major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (a composite of all-cause death, reinfarction and target vessel revascularization), and definite, definite/probable, and any stent thrombosis were all significantly higher in patients in the highest SXscore tertile. SXscore was identified as an independent predictor of mortality, MACE, and stent thrombosis out to 1-year follow-up. The combination SYNTAX-PAMI score led to a net reclassification improvement of 15.7% and 4.6% for mortality and MACE, respectively. The C-statistics for the SXscore, PAMI score, and the combined SYNTAX-PAMI score were 0.65, 0.81, and 0.73 for 1-year mortality, and 0.68, 0.64, and 0.69 for 1-year MACE, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: SXscore does have a role in the risk stratification of patients with STEMI having primary percutaneous coronary intervention; however, this ability can be improved through a combination with clinical variables. (Multicentre 2×2 Factorial Randomised Study Comparing Tirofiban Versus Abciximab and SES Versus BMS in AMI; NCT00229515).

Randomized comparison of 6- versus 24-month clopidogrel therapy after balancing anti-intimal hyperplasia stent potency in all-comer patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention Design and rationale for the PROlonging Dual-antiplatelet treatment after Grading stent-induced Intimal hyperplasia study (PRODIGY).

BACKGROUND: The optimal duration of clopidogrel therapy after coronary stenting is debated because of the scarcity of randomized controlled trials and inconsistencies arising from registry data. Although prolonged clopidogrel therapy after bare metal stenting is regarded as an effective secondary prevention measure, the safety profile of drug-eluting stents itself has been questioned in patients not receiving ≥ 12 months of dual-antiplatelet therapy. HYPOTHESIS: Twenty-four months of clopidogrel therapy after coronary stenting reduces the composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke compared with 6 months of treatment. STUDY DESIGN: PRODIGY is an unblinded, multicenter, 4-by-2 randomized trial. All-comer patients with indication to coronary stenting are randomly treated-balancing randomization-with bare metal stent (no active late loss inhibition), Endeavor Sprint zotarolimus-eluting stent (Medtronic, Santa Rosa, CA) (mild late loss inhibition), Taxus paclitaxel-eluting stent (Boston Scientific, Natick, MA) (moderate late loss inhibition), or Xience V everolimus-eluting stent (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA) (high late loss inhibition). At 30 days, patients in each stent group are randomly allocated to receive 24 or up to 6 months of clopidogrel therapy-primary end point randomization. With 1,700 individuals, this study will have >80% power to detect a 40% difference in the primary end point after sample size augmentation of 5% and a background event rate of 8%. SUMMARY: The PRODIGY trial aims to assess whether 24 months of clopidogrel therapy improves cardiovascular outcomes after coronary intervention in a broad all-comer patient population receiving a balanced mixture of stents with various anti-intimal hyperplasia potency.

Comparison of angioplasty with infusion of tirofiban or abciximab and with implantation of sirolimus-eluting or uncoated stents for acute myocardial infarction: the MULTISTRATEGY randomized trial.

CONTEXT: Abciximab infusion and uncoated-stent implantation is a complementary treatment strategy to reduce major adverse cardiac events in patients undergoing angioplasty for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). It is uncertain whether there may be similar benefits in replacing abciximab with high-dose bolus tirofiban. Similarly, the use of drug-eluting stents in this patient population is currently discouraged because of conflicting results on efficacy reported in randomized trials and safety concerns reported by registries. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of high-dose bolus tirofiban and of sirolimus-eluting stents as compared with abciximab infusion and uncoated-stent implantation in patients with STEMI undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: An open-label, 2 x 2 factorial trial of 745 patients presenting with STEMI or new left bundle-branch block at 16 referral centers in Italy, Spain, and Argentina between October 2004 and April 2007. INTERVENTIONS: High-dose bolus tirofiban vs abciximab infusion and sirolimus-eluting stent vs uncoated stent implantation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: For drug comparison, at least 50% ST-segment elevation resolution at 90 minutes postintervention with a prespecified noninferiority margin of 9% difference (relative risk, 0.89); for stent comparison, the rate of major adverse cardiac events, defined as the composite of death from any cause, reinfarction, and clinically driven target-vessel revascularization within 8 months. RESULTS: ST-segment resolution occurred in 302 of 361 patients (83.6%) who had received abciximab infusion and 308 of 361 (85.3%) who had received tirofiban infusion (relative risk, 1.020; 97.5% confidence interval, 0.958-1.086; P < .001 for noninferiority). Ischemic and hemorrhagic outcomes were similar in the tirofiban and abciximab groups. At 8 months, major adverse cardiac events occurred in 54 patients (14.5%) with uncoated stents and 29 (7.8%) with sirolimus stents (P = .004), predominantly reflecting a reduction of revascularization rates (10.2% vs 3.2%). The incidence of stent thrombosis was similar in the 2 stent groups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with STEMI undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, compared with abciximab, tirofiban therapy was associated with noninferior resolution of ST-segment elevation at 90 minutes following coronary intervention, whereas sirolimus-eluting stent implantation was associated with a significantly lower risk of major adverse cardiac events than uncoated stents within 8 months after intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00229515.

Efficacy and safety of a very-low-protein diet when postponing dialysis in the elderly: a prospective randomized multicenter controlled study.

BACKGROUND: A supplemented very-low-protein diet (sVLPD) seems to be safe when postponing dialysis therapy. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective multicenter randomized controlled study designed to assess the noninferiority of diet versus dialysis in 1-year mortality assessed by using intention-to-treat and per-protocol analysis. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Italian uremic patients without diabetes older than 70 years with glomerular filtration rate of 5 to 7 mL/min (0.08 to 0.12 mL/s). INTERVENTION: Randomization to an sVLPD (diet group) or dialysis. The sVLPD is a vegan diet (35 kcal; proteins, 0.3 g/kg body weight daily) supplemented with keto-analogues, amino acids, and vitamins. Patients following an sVLPD started dialysis therapy in the case of malnutrition, intractable fluid overload, hyperkalemia, or appearance of uremic symptoms. OUTCOMES & MEASUREMENTS: Mortality, hospitalization, and metabolic markers. RESULTS: 56 patients were randomly assigned to each group, median follow-up was 26.5 months (interquartile range, 40), and patients in the diet group spent a median of 10.7 months (interquartile range, 11) following an sVLPD. Forty patients in the diet group started dialysis treatment because of either fluid overload or hyperkalemia. There were 31 deaths (55%) in the dialysis group and 28 deaths (50%) in the diet group. One-year observed survival rates at intention to treat were 83.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 74.5 to 94.0) in the dialysis group versus 87.3% (95% CI, 78.9 to 96.5) in the diet group (log-rank test for noninferiority, P < 0.001; for superiority, P = 0.6): the difference in survival was -3.6% (95% CI, -17 to +10; P = 0.002). The hazard ratio for hospitalization was 1.50 for the dialysis group (95% CI, 1.11 to 2.01; P < 0.01). LIMITATIONS: The unblinded nature of the study, exclusion of patients with diabetes, and incomplete enrollment. CONCLUSION: An sVLPD was effective and safe when postponing dialysis treatment in elderly patients without diabetes.

Tirofiban and sirolimus-eluting stent vs abciximab and bare-metal stent for acute myocardial infarction: a randomized trial.

CONTEXT: Bare-metal stenting with abciximab pretreatment is currently considered a reasonable reperfusion strategy for acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Sirolimus-eluting stents significantly reduce the need for target-vessel revascularization (TVR) vs bare-metal stents but substantially increase procedural costs. At current European list prices, the use of tirofiban instead of abciximab would absorb the difference in cost between stenting with sirolimus-eluting vs bare-metal stents. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical and angiographic impact of single high-dose bolus tirofiban plus sirolimus-eluting stenting vs abciximab plus bare-metal stenting in patients with STEMI. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Prospective, single-blind, randomized controlled study (Single High Dose Bolus Tirofiban and Sirolimus Eluting Stent vs Abciximab and Bare Metal Stent in Myocardial Infarction [STRATEGY]) of 175 patients (median age, 63 [interquartile range, 55-72] years) presenting to a single referral center in Italy with STEMI or presumed new left bundle-branch block and randomized between March 6, 2003, and April 23, 2004. INTERVENTION: Single high-dose bolus tirofiban regimen plus sirolimus-eluting stenting (n = 87) vs standard-dose abciximab plus bare-metal stenting (n = 88). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary end point was a composite of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, or binary restenosis at 8 months. Secondary outcomes included freedom, at day 30 and month 8, from major cardiac or cerebrovascular adverse events (composite of death, reinfarction, stroke, and repeat TVR). RESULTS: Cumulatively, 14 of 74 patients (19%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 10%-28%) in the tirofiban plus sirolimus-eluting stent group and 37 of 74 patients (50%; 95% CI, 44%-56%) in the abciximab plus bare-metal stent group reached the primary end point (hazard ratio, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.18-0.60; P<.001 [P<.001 by Fischer exact test]). The cumulative incidence of death, reinfarction, stroke, or TVR was significantly lower in the tirofiban plus sirolimus-eluting stent group (18%) vs the abciximab plus bare-metal stent group (32%) (hazard ratio, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.28-0.92; P = .04), predominantly reflecting a reduction in the need for TVR. Binary restenosis was present in 6 of 67 (9%; 95% CI, 2%-16%) and 24 of 66 (36%; 95% CI, 26%-46%) patients in the tirofiban plus sirolimus-eluting stent and abciximab plus bare-metal stent groups, respectively (P = .002). CONCLUSION: Tirofiban-supported sirolimus-eluting stenting of infarcted arteries holds promise for improving outcomes while limiting health care expenditure in patients with myocardial infarction undergoing primary intervention.

High-dose bolus tirofiban and sirolimus eluting stent versus abiciximab and bare metal stent in acute myocardial infarction (STRATEGY) study--protocol design and demography of the first 100 patients.

BACKGROUND: Primary bare metal stenting and abciximab infusion are currently considered the best available reperfusion strategy for acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Sirolimus eluting stents (SES), compared to bare metal stent (BMS), greatly reduce the incidence of binary restenosis and target vessel revascularisation (TVR), but their use on a routine basis results in a significant increase in medical costs. With current European list prices, the use of tirofiban instead of abciximab would save enough money to absorb the difference between SES and BMS. AIM: To assess whether in patients with STEMI the combination of SES with high dose bolus (HDB) tirofiban results in a similar incidence of major cardiovascular events (MACE) but in a lower binary restenosis rate after six months compared to BMS and abciximab. METHODS AND RESULTS: 160 patients are required to satisfy the primary composite end-point, including MACE and binary restenosis. The study is ongoing: the current paper focuses on the methodology and demography of the first 100 patients so far enrolled. Patients randomised to HDB tirofiban (n = 50, mean age: 62 +/- 12, 40 males) and abciximab (n = 50, mean age: 63 +/- 12, 38 males) do not differ for medical history, presentation profile, medications at discharge, angiographic profile and creatine-kinase MB-fraction at peak. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the trial will be available by the end of 2004: they will be crucial for the cardiologists to know whether the gold standard for AMI treatment should be reconsidered after the introduction of SES into the clinical practice.

The additive value of tirofiban administered with the high-dose bolus in the prevention of ischemic complications during high-risk coronary angioplasty: the ADVANCE Trial.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine the safety and efficacy of high-dose bolus (HDB) tirofiban in high-risk patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). BACKGROUND: The use of HDB tirofiban in the catheterization laboratory is controversial. In particular, in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing PCI, there is no evidence that tirofiban administered in the catheterization laboratory is superior to heparin alone. This finding probably reflects the suboptimal platelet inhibition when tirofiban is employed at RESTORE (Randomized Efficacy Study of Tirofiban for Outcomes and Restenosis) regimen. METHODS: A total of 202 patients (mean age 69 +/- 8 years; 137 males [68%]) undergoing high-risk PCI, pretreated with thienopyridines, were consecutively randomized to HDB tirofiban (25 microg/kg/3 min, and infusion of 0.15 microg/kg/min for 24 to 48 h) or placebo immediately before the procedure and then followed for a median time of 185 days (range 45 to 324 days) for the occurrence of the primary composite end point of death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization (TVR), and bailout use of glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa inhibitors. RESULTS: The cumulative incidence of the primary end point was 35% and 20% in placebo and HDB tirofiban groups, respectively (hazard ratio 0.51, 95% confidence interval 0.29 to 0.88; p = 0.01). This difference was mainly due to the reduction of myocardial infarction and bailout use of GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors, with no significant effect on TVR or death. The safety profile did not differ between tirofiban and placebo. CONCLUSIONS: The use of tirofiban, when administered at HDB, is safe and significantly reduces the incidence of ischemic/thrombotic complications during high-risk PCI.