Self-expandable sirolimus-eluting stents compared to second-generation drug-eluting stents for the treatment of the left main: A propensity score analysis from the SPARTA and the FAILS-2 registries.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness and safety of self-expandable, sirolimus-eluting Stentys stents (SES) and second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES-II) for the treatment of the unprotected left main (ULM). BACKGROUND: SES may provide a valuable option to treat distal ULM, particularly when significant caliber gaps with side branches are observed. METHODS: Patients from the multicenter SPARTA (clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02784405) and FAILS2 registries were included. Propensity-score with matching was performed to account for the lack of randomization. Primary end-point was the rate of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE, a composite of all cause death, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization [TLR], unstable angina and definite stent thrombosis [ST]). Single components of MACE were the secondary end-points. RESULTS: Overall, 151 patients treated with SES and 1270 with DES-II were included; no differences in MACE rate at 250 days were observed (9.8% vs. 11.5%, P = 0.54). After propensity score with matching, 129 patients treated with SES and 258 with DES-II, of which about a third of female gender, were compared. After a follow-up of 250 days, MACE rate did not differ between the two groups (9.9% vs. 8.5%, P = 0.66), as well as the rate of ULM TLR (1.6% vs. 3.1%, P = 0.36) and definite ST (0.8% vs. 1.2%, P = 0.78). These results were consistent also when controlling for the treatment with provisional vs. 2-stents strategies for the ULM bifurcation. CONCLUSION: SES use for ULM treatment was associated with a similar MACE rate compared to DES-II at an intermediate-term follow-up. SES might represent a potential option in this setting.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation for severe regurgitation in native and degenerated bioprosthetic aortic valves.

OBJECTIVES: We evaluated transcatheter aortic valve Implantation (TAVI) in high-risk patients with severe aortic regurgitation (AR) in native or degenerated bioprosthetic valves. BACKGROUND: TAVI has emerged as a viable treatment modality for severe aortic stenosis in inoperable or high-risk patients. The use of TAVI for treatment of severe AR has remained largely unexplored. METHODS: Eight patients (age 79.6 years ± 5.75 years) with severe AR underwent TAVI at six tertiary hospitals between April 2010 and May 2011. All patients were considered to be at prohibitive risk for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).TAVI with the nitinol based Core Valve bioprosthesis (CRS) (Medtronic) was performed in all patients. RESULTS: Transfemoral access was used in all cases. Procedural success was obtained in all cases without any intraprocedural complications. There was no in hospital or 30-day mortality. There were no cases of atrioventricular blocks requiring permanent pacemaker implantation. At a mean follow up of 15.5 ± 15 months; all patients had improvement in New York Heart Association functional class. Follow up echocardiography revealed improved or stable left ventricular ejection fraction and optimal device function in all cases. CONCLUSIONS: TAVI with the CRS bioprosthesis is feasible and effective in appropriately selected cases of severe aortic regurgitation in native and bioprosthetic aortic valves.

One-Month Dual Antiplatelet Therapy in Patients With Chronic and Acute Coronary Syndromes Treated With Bioresorbable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stents.

There is a paucity of data regarding the safety of a 1-month dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients at high bleeding risk (HBR) presenting with acute coronary syndromes (ACS). We aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of patients at HBR with chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) or ACS treated with PCI using bioresorbable polymer everolimus-eluting stent (BP-EES) followed by 1-month DAPT. Patients at HBR who underwent PCI with BP-EES were prospectively enrolled in 10 Italian centers. All patients were treated with 1-month DAPT. In case of need for anticoagulation, patients received an oral anticoagulant in addition to a P2Y12 inhibitor for 1 month, followed by oral anticoagulation only after that. The primary end point was a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or definite/probable stent thrombosis at 12 months. Overall, 263 patients (59.4%) with CCS and 180 patients (40.6%) with ACS were enrolled. No significant difference was evident between patients with CCS and ACS for the primary end point (4.3% vs 5.6%, respectively, p = 0.497) and for each isolated component. The risk for Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 1 to 5 or type 3 to 5 bleedings was also similar between patients with CCS and ACS (4.3% vs 5.2%, p = 0.677, and 1.6% vs 2.9%, p = 0.351, respectively). In conclusion, among HBR patients with ACS who underwent PCI with BP-EES, a 1-month DAPT strategy is associated with a similar risk of ischemic and bleeding events compared with those with CCS.

One-Month Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Bioresorbable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stents in High Bleeding Risk Patients.

Background It is unknown whether contemporary drug-eluting stents have a similar safety profile in high bleeding risk patients treated with 1-month dual antiplatelet therapy following percutaneous coronary interventions. Methods and Results We performed an interventional, prospective, multicenter, single-arm trial, powered for noninferiority with respect to an objective performance criterion to evaluate the safety of percutaneous coronary interventions with Synergy bioresorbable-polymer everolimus-eluting stent followed by 1-month dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with high bleeding risk. In case of need for an oral anticoagulant, patients received an oral anticoagulant in addition to a P2Y12 inhibitor for 1 month, followed by an oral anticoagulant only. The primary end point was the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or definite or probable stent thrombosis at 1-year follow-up. The study was prematurely interrupted because of slow recruitment. From April 2017 to October 2019, 443 patients (age, 74.8±9.2 years; women, 29.1%) at 10 Italian centers were included. The 1-year primary outcome occurred in 4.82% (95% CI, 3.17%-7.31%) of patients, meeting the noninferiority compared with the predefined objective performance criterion of 9.4% and the noninferiority margin of 3.85% (Pnoninferiority<0.001) notwithstanding the lower-than-expected sample size. The rates of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and definite or probable stent thrombosis were 1.88% (95% CI, 0.36%-2.50%), 3.42% (95% CI, 2.08%-5.62%), and 0.94% (95% CI, 0.35%-2.49%), respectively. Conclusions Among high bleeding risk patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions with the Synergy bioresorbable-polymer everolimus-eluting stent, a 1-month dual antiplatelet therapy regimen is safe, with low rates of ischemic and bleeding events. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03112707.

Polymer-Free Biolimus-Eluting Stents or Polymer-Based Zotarolimus-Eluting Stents for Coronary Bifurcation Lesions.

BACKGROUND: A polymer-free biolimus-eluting stent (PF-BES) and a zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) recently showed similar clinical profiles and appear to be competing options in specific clinical settings of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Whether they perform similarly also in complex procedural settings as coronary bifurcation lesions remains unaddressed. METHODS: All consecutive patients undergoing coronary bifurcation PCI with PF-BES or the new iteration of the ZES from three large multicenter real-world registries were included. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR) and stent thrombosis (ST). Multiple analyses to adjust for baseline differences were carried out including propensity-score matching, propensity-score stratification and inverse-probability-weighting. Outcomes are reported according to Cox proportional hazard models censored at 400-day follow-up. RESULTS: 1169 patients treated with PF-BES (n = 440) or ZES (n = 729) on the main branch of a coronary bifurcation lesion were included (mean age 69 ± 11 years, 75.4% male, 53.8% acute coronary syndrome at presentation, 26.6% left main bifurcation, median dual antiplatelet therapy duration 12 [range 12-12] months). MACE, all-cause death, TLR and ST tended towards non-statistically higher rates with the PF-BES as compared to the ZES. Higher MI and target vessel revascularization occurrence was observed with PF-BES. CONCLUSIONS: In this large contemporary cohort of patients undergoing coronary bifurcation PCI, the occurrence of MACE was non-statistically different with the use of PF-BES and ZES devices. However, differences favoring the ZES device that may entail clinical relevance were observed. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings and explore whether they remain valid when a short dual antiplatelet therapy is adopted.

Impact of Insulin-Treated and Noninsulin-Treated Diabetes Mellitus in All-Comer Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Interventions With Polymer-Free Biolimus-Eluting Stent (from the RUDI-FREE Registry).

Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) have worse outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Recent evidences suggest a differential impact of insulin-treated and noninsulin-treated DM on prognosis. We evaluated the clinical outcome of diabetic patients after PCI with polymer-free biolimus-eluting stent from the RUDI-FREE Registry, investigating a possible different prognostic impact of insulin-treated and noninsulin-treated DM. A total of 1,104 consecutive patients who underwent PCI with polymer-free biolimus-eluting stent, enrolled in the RUDI-FREE observational, multicenter, single-arm registry, were stratified by diabetic status; diabetic population was further divided on the basis of insulin treatment. Primary end points of the study were target lesion failure (TLF; composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization) and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (composite of cardiac death, stroke, and myocardial infarction). Multiple ischemic adverse events were also single-handedly considered as secondary end points. At 1 year, TLF was significantly higher in the diabetic cohort, as compared with nondiabetic patients (6.0% vs 3.1%, p 0.022). None of the end points resulted significantly different between nondiabetics and noninsulin-treated diabetic patients. Divergently, compared with nondiabetic, insulin-treated diabetic patients faced significant higher rates of TLF (10.8% vs 3.1%, p 0.003), major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (10.8% vs 3.4%, p 0.004), and of most of the analyzed adverse events. In conclusion, patients with DM had a higher risk of TLF compared with nondiabetics; nonetheless, the worse outcome of the diabetic population seems to be driven by the insulin-treated diabetic subpopulation. This finding suggests a different risk profile of insulin-treated and noninsulin-treated diabetic patients in the modern era of PCI.

Safety and efficacy of polymer-free biolimus-eluting stents in all-comer patients: the RUDI-FREE study.

AIMS: Polymer-free biolimus-eluting stents (PF-BES) have been shown to be superior to bare metal stents in high bleeding risk (HBR) patients treated with one-month dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). However, limited evidence is available on PF-BES in non-HBR patients. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of PF-BES in all-comer patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes (ACS) undergoing PCI with PF-BES in routine clinical practice were included in a multicentre, prospective registry. DAPT duration was left to the discretion of the operator. The primary endpoint was the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), and definite/probable stent thrombosis (ST) at one year. Overall, 1,104 consecutive patients treated with PF-BES were included at 16 Italian centres. Mean age was 68.7±11.2 years, 77.2% of patients were male, 30% had diabetes, 15.1% had chronic kidney disease, and 40.5% had ACS at baseline. Mean CRUSADE score was 24.1±13.1, and 83.7% of patients did not have high bleeding risk features. At one year, the primary endpoint occurred in 4.1% of patients, cardiovascular death in 2.4%, MI in 1.8%, and definite/probable ST in 1.1%. With respect to efficacy, target lesion revascularisation occurred in 1.2% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study providing clinical evidence on the use of PF-BES in all-comer patients irrespective of HBR status. Our findings suggest that PF-BES has a favourable safety and efficacy profile in a real-world clinical setting. Further investigation in randomised clinical trials against new-generation DES is warranted.

Clinical outcomes of bioresorbable versus durable polymer-coated everolimus-eluting stents in real-world complex patients.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy profile of new-generation, SYNERGY everolimus-eluting stents (S-EES) as compared to XIENCE everolimus-eluting stents (X-EES) with a durable polymer coating in "complex patients". METHODS AND RESULTS: We included 2,001 consecutive patients treated with S-EES (n=400) or X-EES (n=1,601) at two Italian centres between May 2013 and May 2015. We used propensity score matching to obtain two cohorts of patients with similar baseline risk profiles. Patients were stratified according to baseline complexity based on the EVOLVE II trial exclusion criteria. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as the composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), and target lesion revascularisation (TLR), at one year. Among 391 matched pairs of patients treated with S-EES or X-EES, we identified 253 (63%) as complex. At one-year follow-up, among "complex" patients, MACE rates did not differ between the S-EES and X-EES groups (9.9% vs. 9.5%, p=0.830, HR 1.04, CI: 0.72-1.48). Similarly, death, MI, and TLR, stratified for complexity, were comparable between S-EES and X-EES treated patients at one year. Of note, no definite ST was observed in either the S-EES or the X-EES cohort. CONCLUSIONS: New-generation S-EES with a bioresorbable polymer coating appear to be safe and effective irrespective of patient complexity as compared to X-EES.

Polymer-free amphilimus-eluting stent versus biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stent in patients with and without diabetes mellitus.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare clinical outcome of polymer-free amphilimus-eluting stent (PF-AES) versus biodegradable-polymer biolimus-eluting stent (BD-BES) in "all-comer" diabetes mellitus (DM) and non-DM patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention. BACKGROUND: The PF-AES has shown promising preliminary results in patients with DM. METHODS: Data from 2 multicentre-national registries (the ASTUTE and the INSPIRE-1) were used to analyse 1776 patients stratified in non-DM and DM. A double 1:1 propensity-score matched analysis (PF-AES vs. BD-BES) was performed in each group to adjust for clinical and procedural characteristics. Primary stent-efficacy and stent-safety endpoints were 1-year target-lesion revascularization (TLR) and target-lesion failure (TLF, composed of cardiac-death, target-vessel myocardial infarction and any TLR). RESULTS: After propensity-score matching, 850 patients were stratified as non-DM (425 PF-AES/425 BD-BES) and 480 as DM patients (240 PF-AES/240 BD-BES). Both TLF (20 of 425 [5%] vs. 24 of 425 [6%]; Plog-rank=0.527) and TLR (9 of 425 [2%] vs. 18 of 425 [4%]; Plog-rank=0.079) were similar between PF-AES and BD-BES in non-DM patients. In DM, TLF (12 of 240 [5%] vs. 31 of 240 [13%]; Plog-rank=0.002) and TLR (9 of 240 [4%] vs. 21 of 240 [9%]; Plog-rank=0.019) were significantly lower in PF-AES compared to BD-BES. Upon multivariate analysis, the most powerful predictors of TLF were chronic kidney disease in non-DM (OR 4.24, 95% CI: 2.07-8.70, p<0.001) and stent type in DM patients (OR 2.76, 1.36-5.56, p=0.005). CONCLUSIONS: This matched-cohort study suggests that PF-AES has better safety and efficacy profile than BD-BES in patients with DM.

One-year outcome of biolimus eluting stent with biodegradable polymer in all comers: the Italian Nobori Stent Prospective Registry.

OBJECTIVES: INSPIRE-1 (Italian Nobori Stent ProspectIve REgistry-1) was designed and conducted to assess clinical performance of Nobori biolimus A9-eluting stent (BES) implantation in an unrestricted "real-world" cohort of patients. METHODS: Unrestricted consecutive high-risk patients treated with BES with biodegradable polymer (Nobori, Terumo, Tokyo, Japan) between February 2008 and July 2012 were prospectively enrolled in an independent multicenter registry and divided in two groups: complex and non complex lesions. RESULTS: 1066 patients (1589 lesions) treated with Nobori BES were analyzed. The majority of patients (57%) were treated for at least one complex lesion and presented a high-risk clinical profile (previous CABG 17.6%, diabetes mellitus 33.1%, chronic kidney disease 14.3%). Angiographic success rate was achieved in 96.2% cases. At 1 year, the primary endpoint, (composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and clinically driven target vessel revascularization), occurred in 39 (4.0%) patients, and was higher in the complex lesions (5.2% vs. 2.5%, P = 0.032). Target lesion failure (TLF, secondary endpoint) occurred in 45 (4.6%) patients, and was more frequent in the complex lesions group (6.2% vs. 2.7%, P = 0.011), mainly due to a higher incidence of any target lesion revascularization (4.8% vs. 2.7%; P = 0.095). Definite and probable stent thrombosis (ST) rate was 0.6% and 0.5% respectively, with no difference between groups. CONCLUSIONS: In unrestricted daily practice, BESs were implanted predominantly in high risk patients with complex lesions. Despite this, the Nobori BES was associated with a relatively low rate of primary endpoint and TLF, with a higher risk in patients with complex lesions.

Impact of abciximab on coronary restenosis in diabetic patients undergoing elective paclitaxel-eluting stent implantation. A prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled study.

AIMS: Recent studies suggested that abciximab reduces the risk of restenosis in diabetic patients receiving coronary bare metal stent. We sought to evaluate whether abciximab may reduce in-segment late luminal loss (LLL), in patients with diabetes mellitus undergoing elective drug-eluting stents (PES) implantation. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a prospective, randomized, double-blind study on diabetic patients after a paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) implantation on de novo coronary artery lesions. 132 consecutive patients with diabetes (mean age 63.1+/-7.4 years, 82 males) were randomized to abciximab (n=66) or placebo (n=66). Among the 124 (93.9%) patients who underwent a 6-months angiographic follow-up, the mean difference in in-segment LLL between patients who received abciximab and placebo was 0.02 mm (P=0.8). In addition, the rates of angiographic in-segment restenosis were comparable between the two groups (14.3 versus 9.8%, P=0.5). Cumulative rates of clinical events did not differ (death: 1.5 versus 1.5, P=0.9 and MI: 1.5 versus 3%, P=0.8) between abciximab and placebo group, respectively. Similarly, the incidence of target lesion revascularization was 9.1% and 6.1% (P=0.7) at six months, in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Abciximab does not seem to have any impact on the extent of in-segment LLL in diabetic patients undergoing an elective PES implantation.