Ultrathin Bioresorbable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stents: BIOFLOW V Final 5-Year Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Randomized trials have demonstrated the superiority of ultrathin strut drug-eluting stents compared with alternative stent designs. Whether these differences persist over late-term follow-up is uncertain. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare late-term (5-year) clinical outcomes among patients treated with ultrathin strut (60 µm) bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (BP SES) and thin strut (81 µm) durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP EES). METHODS: BIOFLOW V (Biotronik Prospective Randomized Multicenter Study to Assess the Safety and Effectiveness of the Orsiro Sirolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Subjects with Up to Three De Novo or Restenotic Coronary Artery Lesions V) was an international, 2:1 randomized trial comparing percutaneous coronary intervention with ultrathin strut BP SES versus thin strut DP EES regarding the primary endpoint of 12-month target lesion failure (TLF). Prespecified outcomes through 5 years were assessed. RESULTS: Among 1,334 patients randomized to treatment with BP SES (n = 884) or DP EES (n = 450), the 5-year rates of TLF were 12.3% for BP SES and 15.3% for DP EES (P = 0.108). Revascularization with BP SES was associated with a significantly lower target vessel-related myocardial infarction (6.6% vs 10.3%, P = 0.015) and late/very late definite/probable stent thrombosis (0.3% vs 1.6%, P = 0.021). Ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization was numerically but not significantly lower with BP SES (5.9% vs 7.7%, P = 0.202). Cardiac death rates were 2.6% versus 1.9% (P = 0.495) for BP SES and DP EES, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In a large, randomized trial, TLF and the individual outcomes of cardiac death and target lesion revascularization at 5 years were similar among patients treated with BP SES versus DP EES. Both target vessel-related myocardial infarction and late/very late definite/probable stent thrombosis were significantly lower with BP SES. These results confirm the durability of safety and the effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention with ultrathin BP SES.

Ultrathin Bioresorbable-Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Thin Durable-Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stents for Coronary Revascularization: 3-Year Outcomes From the Randomized BIOFLOW V Trial.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare late-term clinical outcomes among patients treated with ultrathin-strut (60-µm) bioresorbable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (BP SES) and thin-strut (81µm) durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP EES). BACKGROUND: Emerging evidence from comparative studies of drug-eluting stents demonstrates improved safety and efficacy with ultrathin-strut drug-eluting stents, but limited insight exists regarding late-term outcomes. METHODS: BIOFLOW V (Biotronik Prospective Randomized Multicenter Study to Assess the Safety and Effectiveness of the Orsiro Sirolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Subjects With Up to Three De Novo or Restenotic Coronary Artery Lesions V) is an international randomized trial comparing coronary revascularization with BP SES and DP EES regarding the primary endpoint of 12-month target lesion failure. Analysis of pre-specified 3-year clinical outcomes was performed. RESULTS: Among 1,334 patients randomized to treatment with BP SES (n = 884) or DP EES (n = 450), the 3-year rate of target lesion failure was 8.2% for BP SES and 13.6% for DP EES (p = 0.002), driven by differences in both target vessel myocardial infarction (MI) (5.0% vs. 9.2%; p = 0.003) and clinically driven target lesion revascularization (3.2% vs. 6.7%; p = 0.006). In landmark analysis, significant differences in target vessel MI and target lesion revascularization were observed favoring treatment with BP SES. Definite or probable late or very late stent thrombosis was significantly lower with BP SES (0.1% vs. 1.2%; p = 0.018). Cardiac death or MI rates were 7.7% and 11.7% (p = 0.017) for BP SES and DP EES, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In a large randomized trial, both target lesion failure and the outcomes of target vessel MI, clinically driven target lesion revascularization, and late or very late stent thrombosis at 3 years were significantly lower among patients treated with BP SES versus DP EES. The results endorse the continued superiority of ultrathin-strut BP SES compared with DP EES. (Safety and Effectiveness of the Orsiro Sirolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in Subjects With Coronary Artery Lesions [BIOFLOW-V]; NCT02389946).

Efficacy and Safety of Ultrathin, Bioresorbable-Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Thin, Durable-Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stents for Coronary Revascularization of Patients With Diabetes Mellitus.

Patients with diabetes mellitus are prone to increased adverse outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention, even with contemporary drug-eluting stents. Randomized controlled trials have demonstrated comparable clinical outcomes between an ultrathin bioresorbable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (BP-SES) and a thin-strut durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stent (DP-EES) that has specific labeling for patients with diabetes. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the BP-SES in patients with diabetes mellitus. To determine the performance of the BP-SES in diabetic patients, patient-level data from the BIOFLOW II, IV, and V randomized controlled trials were pooled. The primary end point was target lesion failure (TLF), defined as the composite of cardiovascular death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization, and definite or probable stent thrombosis, at 1 year. Among 1,553 BP-SES and 791 DP-EES patients, 757 diabetic patients were identified. Of the diabetic patients included in this analysis (494 BP-SES vs 263 DP-EES), the proportion of insulin- and noninsulin-treated patients was similar between groups. The 1-year TLF rate in the diabetic population was 6.3% in the BP-SES group and 8.7% in the DP-EES group (hazard ratio 0.82, 95% confidence interval 0.047 to 1.43, p = 0.493). There were no significant differences, based on stent type or diabetes treatment regimen, in TLF hazards. In a patient-level pooled analysis of the diabetic population from randomized trials, 1-year clinical safety and efficacy outcomes were similar in patients treated with ultrathin BP-SES and thin-strut DP-EES.

Subgroup Analysis Comparing Ultrathin, Bioresorbable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Thin, Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stents in Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients.

BACKGROUND: Presentation with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) constitutes a high-risk subset of patients with worse outcome after percutaneous coronary intervention. We report clinical outcomes in subjects with ACS from the BIOFLOW V trial (BIOTRONIK - A Prospective Randomized Multicenter Study to Assess the Safety and Effectiveness of the Orsiro Sirolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Subjects With up to Three De Novo or Restenotic Coronary Artery Lesions) comparing an ultrathin strut (60 µm) bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (BP-SES) with a thin strut (81 µm) durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent (DP-EES). METHODS AND RESULTS: Among 1334 patients randomized to 2:1 treatment with either BP-SES or DP-EES, 677 (50.7%) ACS patients without ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (MI; 454 BP-SES and 223 DP-EES) were identified in the retrospective post hoc analysis. The primary end point of 12-month target lesion failure, individual component end points, and stent thrombosis were evaluated. Recurrent MI was defined as a ≥50% increase of creatine kinase-myocardial band or in the absence of creatine kinase-myocardial band, troponin >50% increase over previous level and >3× the upper limit of normal). All events were adjudicated by a blinded independent clinical events committee. Overall, baseline clinical, angiographic, and procedural characteristics of the ACS population were similar between the 2 treatment groups. At 12 months, target lesion failure occurred in 5.6% (24/426) of BP-SES patients versus 11.0% (23/209) in DP-EES patients ( P=0.02); target lesion failure composite components were cardiac death, 0% versus 1.0% ( P=0.11); target vessel-related MI, 3.5% versus 9.7% ( P=0.003); and clinically driven target lesion revascularization, 2.8% versus 3.4% ( P=0.80). Spontaneous target vessel MI was 0.5% (2/425) for BP-SES versus 2.4% (5/206) for DP-EES ( P=0.041). Stent thrombosis rates at 1 year were similar (0.5% versus 1.0%; P=0.601). CONCLUSIONS: In the ACS subgroup population of the BIOFLOW V study, treatment with BP-SES compared with DP-EES was associated with a significantly lower rate of 12-month target lesion failure, a difference driven by significantly lower periprocedural MI and spontaneous MI. These findings support treatment with an ultrathin strut BP-SES in ACS patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT02389946.

Ultrathin Bioresorbable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Thin Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stents.

BACKGROUND: Coronary drug-eluting stent development has introduced new metal alloys, changes in stent architecture, and bioresorbable polymers. Whether these advancements improve long-term clinical safety and efficacy has been inconsistent in prior studies. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to compare late-term clinical outcomes among patients treated with an ultrathin strut (60 µm) bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (BP SES) and a thin strut (81 µm) durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent (DP EES) in a large randomized trial. METHODS: BIOFLOW V (Biotronik Prospective Randomized Multicenter Study to Assess the Safety and Effectiveness of the Orsiro Sirolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Subjects with Up to Three De Novo or Restenotic Coronary Artery Lesions V) was an international randomized trial comparing coronary revascularization with BP SES and DP EES regarding the primary endpoint of 12-month target lesion failure (TLF). Analysis of pre-specified 2-year clinical outcomes was performed. RESULTS: Among 1,334 patients randomized to treatment with BP SES (n = 884) or DP EES (n = 450), the 2-year TLF rate was 7.5% for BP SES and 11.9% for DP EES (-4.33% treatment difference; 95% confidence interval: -8.16% to -0.91%; p = 0.015), driven by differences in target vessel myocardial infarction (MI) (5.3% vs. 9.5%; p = 0.01) and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (2.6% vs. 4.9%; p = 0.04). Rates of cardiac death or MI were 7.0% versus 10.4% for BP SES and DP EES, respectively (p = 0.047). Late/very late definite stent thrombosis was statistically lower for BP SES compared with DP EES (0.1% vs. 1.0%; p = 0.045). CONCLUSIONS: In a large randomized trial, significant differences in both TLF and target vessel-related MI persisted through 2 years, favoring treatment with BP SES over DP EES. Significantly lower cumulative target lesion revascularization and late/very late stent thrombosis were also observed with BP SES. (Safety and Effectiveness of the Orsiro Sirolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in Subjects With Coronary Artery Lesions [BIOFLOW-V]; NCT02389946).

Pressure gradient vs. flow relationships to characterize the physiology of a severely stenotic aortic valve before and after transcatheter valve implantation.

Aims: Echocardiography and tomographic imaging have documented dynamic changes in aortic stenosis (AS) geometry and severity during both the cardiac cycle and stress-induced increases in cardiac output. However, corresponding pressure gradient vs. flow relationships have not been described. Methods and results: We recruited 16 routine transcatheter aortic valve implantations (TAVI's) for graded dobutamine infusions both before and after implantation; 0.014″ pressure wires in the aorta and left ventricle (LV) continuously measured the transvalvular pressure gradient (ΔP) while a pulmonary artery catheter regularly assessed cardiac output by thermodilution. Before TAVI, ΔP did not display a consistent relationship with transvalvular flow (Q). Neither linear resistor (median R2 0.16) nor quadratic orifice (median R2 < 0.01) models at rest predicted stress observations; the severely stenotic valve behaved like a combination. The unitless ratio of aortic to left ventricular pressures during systolic ejection under stress conditions correlated best with post-TAVI flow improvement. After TAVI, a highly linear relationship (median R2 0.96) indicated a valid valve resistance. Conclusion: Pressure loss vs. flow curves offer a fundamental fluid dynamic synthesis for describing aortic valve pathophysiology. Severe AS does not consistently behave like an orifice (as suggested by Gorlin) or a resistor, whereas TAVI devices behave like a pure resistor. During peak dobutamine, the ratio of aortic to left ventricular pressures during systolic ejection provides a 'fractional flow reserve' of the aortic valve that closely approximates the complex, changing fluid dynamics. Because resting assessment cannot reliably predict stress haemodynamics, 'valvular fractional flow' warrants study to explain exertional symptoms in patients with only moderate AS at rest.

Rationale of a novel study design for the BIOFLOW V study, a prospective, randomized multicenter study to assess the safety and efficacy of the Orsiro sirolimus-eluting coronary stent system using a Bayesian approach.

BACKGROUND: Traditional study design submitted to the Food and Drug Administration to test newer drug-eluting stents (DES) for marketing approval is the prospective randomized controlled trial. However, several DES have extensive clinical data from trials conducted outside the United States that have led to utilization of a novel design using the Bayesian approach. This design was proposed for testing DES with bioresorbable polymer compared with DES most commonly in use today that use durable polymers for drug elution. STUDY DESIGN AND OBJECTIVES: This prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial is designed to assess the safety and efficacy of the Orsiro bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (BP SES). Up to 1,334 subjects with up to 3 de novo or restenotic coronary artery lesions who qualify for percutaneous coronary intervention with stenting will be randomized 2:1 to the BP SES versus the Xience durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent (DP EES). Data from this trial will be combined with data from 2 similarly designed trials that also randomize subjects to BP SES and DP EES (BIOFLOW II, N=452 and BIOFLOW IV, N=579) by using a Bayesian approach. The primary end point is target lesion failure at 12 months post index procedure, defined as cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target lesion revascularization, and the primary analysis is a test of noninferiority of the BP SES versus DP EES on the primary end point according to a noninferiority delta of 3.85%. Secondary end points include stent thrombosis and the individual components of target lesion failure. Subjects will be followed for 5 years after randomization. CONCLUSIONS: The BIOFLOW V trial offers an opportunity to assess clinical outcomes in patients treated with coronary revascularization using the Orsiro BP SES relative to a commonly used DP EES. The use of a Bayesian analysis combines a large randomized cohort of patients 2 two smaller contributing randomized trials to augment the efficiency of the comparison.

Ultrathin, bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents versus thin, durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents in patients undergoing coronary revascularisation (BIOFLOW V): a randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: The development of coronary drug-eluting stents has included use of new metal alloys, changes in stent architecture, and use of bioresorbable polymers. Whether these advancements improve clinical safety and efficacy has not been shown in previous randomised trials. We aimed to examine the clinical outcomes of a bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent compared with a durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent in a broad patient population undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS: BIOFLOW V was an international, randomised trial done in patients undergoing elective and urgent percutaneous coronary intervention in 90 hospitals in 13 countries (Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Hungary, Israel, the Netherlands, New Zealand, South Korea, Spain, Switzerland, and the USA). Eligible patients were those aged 18 years or older with ischaemic heart disease undergoing planned stent implantation in de-novo, native coronary lesions. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to either an ultrathin strut (60 µm) bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent or to a durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent. Randomisation was via a central web-based data capture system (mixed blocks of 3 and 6), and stratified by study site. The primary endpoint was 12-month target lesion failure. The primary non-inferiority comparison combined these data from two additional randomised trials of bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent and durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent with Bayesian methods. Analysis was by intention to treat. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02389946. FINDINGS: Between May 8, 2015, and March 31, 2016, 4772 patients were recruited into the study. 1334 patients met inclusion criteria and were randomly assigned to treatment with bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (n=884) or durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (n=450). 52 (6%) of 883 patients in the bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent group and 41 (10%) of 427 patients in the durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent group met the 12-month primary endpoint of target lesion failure (95% CI -6·84 to -0·29, p=0·0399), with differences in target vessel myocardial infarction (39 [5%] of 831 patients vs 35 [8%] of 424 patients, p=0·0155). The posterior probability that the bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent is non-inferior to the durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent was 100% (Bayesian analysis, difference in target lesion failure frequency -2·6% [95% credible interval -5·5 to 0·1], non-inferiority margin 3·85%, n=2208). INTERPRETATION: The outperformance of the ultrathin, bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent over the durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent in a complex patient population undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention suggests a new direction in improving next generation drug-eluting stent technology. FUNDING: BIOTRONIK.

Third generation drug eluting stent (DES) with biodegradable polymer in diabetic patients: 5 years follow-up.

OBJECTIVE: To report the long-term safety and efficacy data of a third generation drug eluting stent (DES) with biodegradable polymer in the complex patient population of diabetes mellitus after a follow-up period of 5 years. BACKGROUND: After percutaneous coronary intervention patients with diabetes mellitus are under higher risk of death, restenosis and stent thrombosis (ST) compared to non-diabetic patients. METHODS: In 126 centers worldwide 3067 patients were enrolled in the NOBORI 2 registry, 888 patients suffered from diabetes mellitus (DM), 213 of them (14%) being insulin dependent (IDDM). Five years follow-up has been completed in this study. RESULTS: At 5 years, 89.3% of the patients were available for follow-up. The reported target lesion failure (TLF) rates at 5 years were 12.39% in DM group and 7.34% in non-DM group; (p < 0.0001). In the DM group, the TLF rate in patients with IDDM was significantly higher than in the non-IDDM subgroup (17.84 vs. 10.67%; p < 0.01). The rate of ST at 5 years was not different among diabetic versus non-diabetic patients or IDDM versus NIDDM. Only 10 (<0.4%) very late stent thrombotic events beyond 12 months occurred. CONCLUSIONS: The Nobori DES performed well in patients with DM. As expected patients with DM, particularly those with IDDM, had worse outcomes. However, the very low rate of very late stent thrombosis in IDDM patients might have significant clinical value in the treatment of these patients. Clinical trial registration ISRCTN81649913; http://www.controlled-trials.com/isrctn/search.html?srch=81649913&sort=3&dir=desc&max=10.

Randomized Multicenter Trial Investigating Angiographic Outcomes of Hybrid Sirolimus-Eluting Stents With Biodegradable Polymer Compared With Everolimus-Eluting Stents With Durable Polymer in Chronic Total Occlusions: The PRISON IV Trial.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of the hybrid ultrathin-strut sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) with biodegradable polymer compared with the thin-strut everolimus-eluting stent (EES) with durable polymer in successfully recanalized chronic total occlusions (CTOs). BACKGROUND: The introduction of drug-eluting stents revolutionized the treatment of CTOs. However, limited data are available on new-generation drug-eluting stents with biodegradable polymer in CTOs. METHODS: In this multicenter trial, patients were randomized, after successful CTO recanalization, to either SES or EES. The primary noninferiority endpoint was in-segment late lumen loss (noninferiority margin 0.2 mm). Secondary endpoints included in-stent late lumen loss and clinical endpoints. RESULTS: Overall, 330 patients were included. At 9 months, angiography was available in 281 patients (85%). Duration of occlusion ≥3 months was 92.5%, with mean stent length of 52.4 ± 28.1 mm versus 52.3 ± 26.5 mm in the SES and EES groups. The primary noninferiority endpoint, in-segment late lumen loss, was not met for SES versus EES (0.13 ± 0.63 mm vs. 0.02 ± 0.47 mm; p = 0.08, 2-sided; difference 0.11 mm; 95% confidence interval: -0.01 to 0.25 mm; pnoninferiority = 0.11, 1-sided). In-stent late lumen loss was comparable between SES and EES (0.12 ± 0.59 mm vs. 0.07 ± 0.46 mm; p = 0.52). The incidence of in-stent and in-segment binary restenosis was significantly higher with SES compared with EES (8.0% vs. 2.1%; p = 0.028), with comparable rates of reocclusions (2.2% vs. 1.4%; p = 0.68). Clinically indicated target lesion and target vessel revascularization (9.2% vs. 4.0% [p = 0.08] and 9.2% vs. 6.0% [p = 0.33]), target vessel failure (9.9% vs. 6.6%; p = 0.35), and definite or probable stent thrombosis (0.7% vs. 0.7%; p = 1.00) were comparable between the SES and EES groups. CONCLUSIONS: This randomized trial failed to show noninferiority of hybrid SES relative to EES in terms of in-segment late lumen loss in successfully recanalized CTOs. Furthermore, a statistically significantly higher rate of binary restenosis was found with SES.

Three-year clinical outcome in the Primary Stenting of Totally Occluded Native Coronary Arteries III (PRISON III) trial: a randomised comparison between sirolimus-eluting stent implantation and zotarolimus-eluting stent implantation for the treatment of total coronary occlusions.

AIMS: Sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) have been shown to be superior to Endeavor zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZES) and comparable to Resolute ZES at eight-month angiography in patients treated for total coronary occlusions (TCO). This study investigated clinical outcome at three-year follow-up. METHODS AND RESULTS: The PRISON III trial investigated the efficacy and safety of SES against ZES (Endeavor and Resolute) in two study phases. In the first phase, 51 patients were randomised to receive SES and 46 to Endeavor ZES. In the second phase, 103 and 104 patients were randomised to SES or Resolute ZES, respectively. Between one and three years there were only a few additional clinical events in all groups. As a result, the rates of target lesion revascularisation 12.2% vs. 19.6%, p=0.49, target vessel failure 14.3% vs. 19.6%, p=0.68, and definite or probable stent thrombosis 4.1% vs. 2.2% were comparable between SES and Endeavor ZES at three years. In the second study phase, the rates of target lesion revascularisation 10% vs. 5.9%, p=0.42, target vessel failure 10% vs. 7.9%, p=0.79 and definite or probable stent thrombosis 1.0% vs. 0% were similar between SES and Resolute ZES. CONCLUSIONS: The present study demonstrated a low incidence of clinical events between one- and three-year follow-up with either SES compared to Endeavor ZES or SES versus Resolute ZES in patients treated for total coronary occlusions.

Long-term comparison of sirolimus-eluting and bare-metal stents in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to investigate, in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), whether the previously reported clinical benefits of sirolimus-eluting stent(s) (SES) in terms of reducing a major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event (MACCE) compared with bare-metal stent(s) (BMS) were maintained over a 5-year time period. BACKGROUND: In the prospective single-centre randomized DEBATER trial, SES significantly reduced the rate of MACCE in STEMI patients within 1 year compared with BMS, mainly driven by a reduction of target lesion revascularization. Randomized data on the long-term safety and efficacy of SES in STEMI patients are conflicting and limited. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between January 2006 and May 2008, a total of 907 STEMI patients were randomized to receive SES or BMS. The primary endpoint was MACCE defined as the composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, repeat revascularization and bleeding. Five-year follow-up data were collected by reviewing hospital records, telephone calls and a written questionnaire. RESULTS: At 5 years, the rate of MACCE between the SES group and the BMS group was no longer significantly different (33.3 vs. 39.3%, P=0.12). The cumulative incidence of death and myocardial infarction was similar in both groups (11.0 vs. 9.7%, P=0.51). Repeat revascularization was performed in 21.1 and 25.8% of patients, respectively (P=0.12). The rate of very late stent thrombosis (1-5 years of follow-up) was very low in both groups (2.0 vs. 0.7%, P=0.12). CONCLUSION: The benefits of SES in STEMI patients in terms of reducing MACCE faded over time. We found no safety concerns in terms of SES in the long term, with extremely low rates of very late stent thrombosis.

A brief mindfulness based intervention for increase in emotional well-being and quality of life in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) patients: the MindfulHeart randomized controlled trial.

In this study effects of a brief mindfulness-based stress reduction intervention were examined in cardiac patients who had a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). One-hundred-and-fourteen patients (mean age 55 ± 7 years, 18 % women) were randomly assigned to a 4-session mindfulness group intervention or a minimal mindfulness self-help control group that received a booklet containing identical information. Compared to self-help, the group intervention showed larger increases in psychological and social quality of life (p < .05, partial η(2) = .04 and .05, respectively). For symptoms of anxiety and depression, and for perceived stress, this effect was evident only in patients younger than 60 years (p < .01, partial η(2) = .10 and .15, respectively). These effects were partially or fully mediated by increase in mindfulness. The brief group mindfulness intervention seems beneficial for cardiac PCI patients regarding general psychosocial quality of life, although for specific psychological symptoms, this intervention can be recommended only for nonelderly patients.

Improving the efficiency of the cardiac catheterization laboratories through understanding the stochastic behavior of the scheduled procedures.

BACKGROUND: In this study, we sought to analyze the stochastic behavior of Catherization Laboratories (Cath Labs) procedures in our institution. Statistical models may help to improve estimated case durations to support management in the cost-effective use of expensive surgical resources. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed all the procedures performed in the Cath Labs in 2012. The duration of procedures is strictly positive (larger than zero) and has mostly a large minimum duration. Because of the strictly positive character of the Cath Lab procedures, a fit of a lognormal model may be desirable. Having a minimum duration requires an estimate of the threshold (shift) parameter of the lognormal model. Therefore, the 3-parameter lognormal model is interesting. To avoid heterogeneous groups of observations, we tested every group-cardiologist-procedure combination for the normal, 2- and 3-parameter lognormal distribution. RESULTS: The total number of elective and emergency procedures performed was 6,393 (8,186 h). The final analysis included 6,135 procedures (7,779 h). Electrophysiology (intervention) procedures fit the 3-parameter lognormal model 86.1% (80.1%). Using Friedman test statistics, we conclude that the 3-parameter lognormal model is superior to the 2-parameter lognormal model. Furthermore, the 2-parameter lognormal is superior to the normal model. CONCLUSIONS: Cath Lab procedures are well-modelled by lognormal models. This information helps to improve and to refine Cath Lab schedules and hence their efficient use.

Primary Stenting of Totally Occluded Native Coronary Arteries III (PRISON III): a randomised comparison of sirolimus-eluting stent implantation with zotarolimus-eluting stent implantation for the treatment of total coronary occlusions.

AIMS: We investigated whether sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) are superior to next-generation zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZES) in treating patients with total coronary occlusions (TCO). METHODS AND RESULTS: In a prospective, randomised trial we compared the SES with the zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES; Endeavor or Resolute) after successful recanalisation of TCO. During the first phase of the trial, 51 patients were assigned to receive the SES and 46 patients to receive the Endeavor ZES. In the second phase we randomised 103 patients to the SES group and 104 patients to the Resolute ZES group. The primary endpoint was in-segment late lumen loss at eight-month follow-up. At eight months, patients in the SES group had less in-segment and in-stent late loss as compared to the Endeavor group: -0.13±0.3 mm vs. 0.27±0.6 mm (p=0.0002) and -0.13±0.5 mm vs. 0.54±0.5 mm (p<0.0001), respectively. In contrast, the SES and the Resolute ZES showed comparable amounts of in-segment (-0.03±0.7 mm vs. -0.10±0.7 mm, p=0.6) and in-stent (0.03±0.8 mm vs. 0.05±0.8 mm, p=0.9) late loss. CONCLUSIONS: In the treatment of TCOs, the SES was associated with superior angiographic outcomes compared to the Endeavor ZES. On the other hand, the SES and the Resolute ZES showed comparable angiographic outcomes.