Dual Antiplatelet Therapy after PCI in Patients at High Bleeding Risk.

BACKGROUND: The appropriate duration of dual antiplatelet therapy in patients at high risk for bleeding after the implantation of a drug-eluting coronary stent remains unclear. METHODS: One month after they had undergone implantation of a biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting coronary stent, we randomly assigned patients at high bleeding risk to discontinue dual antiplatelet therapy immediately (abbreviated therapy) or to continue it for at least 2 additional months (standard therapy). The three ranked primary outcomes were net adverse clinical events (a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, stroke, or major bleeding), major adverse cardiac or cerebral events (a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or stroke), and major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding; cumulative incidences were assessed at 335 days. The first two outcomes were assessed for noninferiority in the per-protocol population, and the third outcome for superiority in the intention-to-treat population. RESULTS: Among the 4434 patients in the per-protocol population, net adverse clinical events occurred in 165 patients (7.5%) in the abbreviated-therapy group and in 172 (7.7%) in the standard-therapy group (difference, -0.23 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.80 to 1.33; P<0.001 for noninferiority). A total of 133 patients (6.1%) in the abbreviated-therapy group and 132 patients (5.9%) in the standard-therapy group had a major adverse cardiac or cerebral event (difference, 0.11 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.29 to 1.51; P = 0.001 for noninferiority). Among the 4579 patients in the intention-to-treat population, major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding occurred in 148 patients (6.5%) in the abbreviated-therapy group and in 211 (9.4%) in the standard-therapy group (difference, -2.82 percentage points; 95% CI, -4.40 to -1.24; P<0.001 for superiority). CONCLUSIONS: One month of dual antiplatelet therapy was noninferior to the continuation of therapy for at least 2 additional months with regard to the occurrence of net adverse clinical events and major adverse cardiac or cerebral events; abbreviated therapy also resulted in a lower incidence of major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding. (Funded by Terumo; MASTER DAPT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03023020.).

Abbreviated Antiplatelet Therapy in Patients at High Bleeding Risk With or Without Oral Anticoagulant Therapy After Coronary Stenting: An Open-Label, Randomized, Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimal duration of antiplatelet therapy (APT) in patients at high bleeding risk with or without oral anticoagulation (OAC) after coronary stenting remains unclear. METHODS: In the investigator-initiated, randomize, open-label MASTER DAPT trial (Management of High Bleeding Risk Patients Post Bioresorbable Polymer Coated Stent Implantation With an Abbreviated Versus Standard DAPT Regimen), 4579 patients at high bleeding risk were randomized after 1-month dual APT to abbreviated or nonabbreviated APT strategies. Randomization was stratified by concomitant OAC indication. In this subgroup analysis, we report outcomes of populations with or without an OAC indication. In the population with an OAC indication, patients changed immediately to single APT for 5 months (abbreviated regimen) or continued ≥2 months of dual APT and single APT thereafter (nonabbreviated regimen). Patients without an OAC indication changed to single APT for 11 months (abbreviated regimen) or continued ≥5 months of dual APT and single APT thereafter (nonabbreviated regimen). Coprimary outcomes at 335 days after randomization were net adverse clinical outcomes (composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 3 or 5 bleeding events); major adverse cardiac and cerebral events (all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and stroke); and type 2, 3, or 5 Bleeding Academic Research Consortium bleeding. RESULTS: Net adverse clinical outcomes or major adverse cardiac and cerebral events did not differ with abbreviated versus nonabbreviated APT regimens in patients with OAC indication (n=1666; hazard ratio [HR], 0.83 [95% CI, 0.60-1.15]; and HR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.60-1.30], respectively) or without OAC indication (n=2913; HR, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.77-1.33]; or HR, 1.06 [95% CI, 0.79-1.44]; Pinteraction=0.35 and 0.45, respectively). Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 2, 3, or 5 bleeding did not significantly differ in patients with OAC indication (HR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.62-1.12]) but was lower with abbreviated APT in patients without OAC indication (HR, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.41-0.74]; Pinteraction=0.057). The difference in bleeding in patients without OAC indication was driven mainly by a reduction in Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 2 bleedings (HR, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.33-0.69]; Pinteraction=0.021). CONCLUSIONS: Rates of net adverse clinical outcomes and major adverse cardiac and cerebral events did not differ with abbreviated APT in patients with high bleeding risk with or without an OAC indication and resulted in lower bleeding rates in patients without an OAC indication. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03023020.

Multicentre, randomized comparison of two-stent and provisional stenting techniques in patients with complex coronary bifurcation lesions: the DEFINITION II trial.

AIM: The present study aimed to assess the benefits of two-stent techniques for patients with DEFINITION criteria-defined complex coronary bifurcation lesions. METHODS AND RESULTS: In total, 653 patients with complex bifurcation lesions at 49 international centres were randomly assigned to undergo the systematic two-stent technique (two-stent group) or provisional stenting (provisional group). The primary endpoint was the composite of target lesion failure (TLF) at the 1-year follow-up, including cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction (TVMI), and clinically driven target lesion revascularization (TLR). The safety endpoint was definite or probable stent thrombosis. At the 1-year follow-up, TLF occurred in 37 (11.4%) and 20 (6.1%) patients in the provisional and two-stent groups, respectively [77.8%: double-kissing crush; hazard ratio (HR) 0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.30-0.90; P = 0.019], largely driven by increased TVMI (7.1%, HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.20-0.90; P = 0.025) and clinically driven TLR (5.5%, HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.19-1.00; P = 0.049) in the provisional group. At the 1 year after indexed procedures, the incidence of cardiac death was 2.5% in the provisional group, non-significant to 2.1% in the two-stent group (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.31-2.37; P = 0.772). CONCLUSION: For DEFINITION criteria-defined complex coronary bifurcation lesions, the systematic two-stent approach was associated with a significant improvement in clinical outcomes compared with the provisional stenting approach. Further study is urgently warranted to identify the mechanisms contributing to the increased rate of TVMI after provisional stenting. STUDY REGISTRATION: http://www.clinicaltrials.com; Identifier: NCT02284750.

Drug-eluting or bare-metal stents for percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: New-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) have mostly been investigated in head-to-head non-inferiority trials against early-generation DES and have typically shown similar efficacy and superior safety. How the safety profile of new-generation DES compares with that of bare-metal stents (BMS) is less clear. METHODS: We did an individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials to compare outcomes after implantation of new-generation DES or BMS among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. The primary outcome was the composite of cardiac death or myocardial infarction. Data were pooled in a one-stage random-effects meta-analysis and examined at maximum follow-up and a 1-year landmark. Risk estimates are reported as hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs. This study is registered in PROSPERO, number CRD42017060520. FINDINGS: We obtained individual data for 26 616 patients in 20 randomised trials. Mean follow-up was 3·2 (SD 1·8) years. The risk of the primary outcome was reduced in DES recipients compared with BMS recipients (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·78-0·90, p<0·001) owing to a reduced risk of myocardial infarction (0·79, 0·71-0·88, p<0·001) and a possible slight but non-significant cardiac mortality benefit (0·89, 0·78-1·01, p=0·075). All-cause death was unaffected (HR with DES 0·96, 95% CI 0·88-1·05, p=0·358), but risk was lowered for definite stent thrombosis (0·63, 0·50-0·80, p<0·001) and target-vessel revascularisation (0·55, 0·50-0·60, p<0·001). We saw a time-dependent treatment effect, with DES being associated with lower risk of the primary outcome than BMS up to 1 year after placement. While the effect was maintained in the longer term, there was no further divergence from BMS after 1 year. INTERPRETATION: The performance of new-generation DES in the first year after implantation means that BMS should no longer be considered the gold standard for safety. Further development of DES technology should target improvements in clinical outcomes beyond 1 year. FUNDING: Bern University Hospital.

Mortality after coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention with stenting for coronary artery disease: a pooled analysis of individual patient data.

BACKGROUND: Numerous randomised trials have compared coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for patients with coronary artery disease. However, no studies have been powered to detect a difference in mortality between the revascularisation strategies. METHODS: We did a systematic review up to July 19, 2017, to identify randomised clinical trials comparing CABG with PCI using stents. Eligible studies included patients with multivessel or left main coronary artery disease who did not present with acute myocardial infarction, did PCI with stents (bare-metal or drug-eluting), and had more than 1 year of follow-up for all-cause mortality. In a collaborative, pooled analysis of individual patient data from the identified trials, we estimated all-cause mortality up to 5 years using Kaplan-Meier analyses and compared PCI with CABG using a random-effects Cox proportional-hazards model stratified by trial. Consistency of treatment effect was explored in subgroup analyses, with subgroups defined according to baseline clinical and anatomical characteristics. FINDINGS: We included 11 randomised trials involving 11 518 patients selected by heart teams who were assigned to PCI (n=5753) or to CABG (n=5765). 976 patients died over a mean follow-up of 3·8 years (SD 1·4). Mean Synergy between PCI with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) score was 26·0 (SD 9·5), with 1798 (22·1%) of 8138 patients having a SYNTAX score of 33 or higher. 5 year all-cause mortality was 11·2% after PCI and 9·2% after CABG (hazard ratio [HR] 1·20, 95% CI 1·06-1·37; p=0·0038). 5 year all-cause mortality was significantly different between the interventions in patients with multivessel disease (11·5% after PCI vs 8·9% after CABG; HR 1·28, 95% CI 1·09-1·49; p=0·0019), including in those with diabetes (15·5% vs 10·0%; 1·48, 1·19-1·84; p=0·0004), but not in those without diabetes (8·7% vs 8·0%; 1·08, 0·86-1·36; p=0·49). SYNTAX score had a significant effect on the difference between the interventions in multivessel disease. 5 year all-cause mortality was similar between the interventions in patients with left main disease (10·7% after PCI vs 10·5% after CABG; 1·07, 0·87-1·33; p=0·52), regardless of diabetes status and SYNTAX score. INTERPRETATION: CABG had a mortality benefit over PCI in patients with multivessel disease, particularly those with diabetes and higher coronary complexity. No benefit for CABG over PCI was seen in patients with left main disease. Longer follow-up is needed to better define mortality differences between the revascularisation strategies. FUNDING: None.

Design and rationale of the Management of High Bleeding Risk Patients Post Bioresorbable Polymer Coated Stent Implantation With an Abbreviated Versus Standard DAPT Regimen (MASTER DAPT) Study.

BACKGROUND: The optimal duration of antiplatelet therapy in high-bleeding risk (HBR) patients with coronary artery disease treated with newer-generation drug-eluting bioresorbable polymer-coated stents remains unclear. DESIGN: MASTER DAPT (clinicaltrial.govNCT03023020) is an investigator-initiated, open-label, multicenter, randomized controlled trial comparing an abbreviated versus a standard duration of antiplatelet therapy after bioresorbable polymer-coated Ultimaster (TANSEI) sirolimus-eluting stent implantation in approximately 4,300 HBR patients recruited from ≥100 interventional cardiology centers globally. After a mandatory 30-day dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) run-in phase, patients are randomized to (a) a single antiplatelet regimen until study completion or up to 5 months in patients with clinically indicated oral anticoagulation (experimental 1-month DAPT group) or (b) continue DAPT for at least 5 months in patients without or 2 in patients with concomitant indication to oral anticoagulation, followed by a single antiplatelet regimen (standard antiplatelet regimen). With a final sample size of 4,300 patients, this study is powered to assess the noninferiority of the abbreviated antiplatelet regimen with respect to the net adverse clinical and major adverse cardiac and cerebral events composite end points and if satisfied for the superiority of abbreviated as compared to standard antiplatelet therapy duration in terms of major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding. Study end points will be adjudicated by a blinded Clinical Events Committee. CONCLUSIONS: The MASTER DAPT study is the first randomized controlled trial aiming at ascertaining the optimal duration of antiplatelet therapy in HBR patients treated with sirolimus-eluting bioresorbable polymer-coated stent implantation.

Second vs. First generation drug eluting stents in multiple vessel disease and left main stenosis: Two-year follow-up of the observational, prospective, controlled, and multicenter ERACI IV registry.

OBJECTIVE: To compare second generation drug eluting stents (2DES) with first generation (1DES) for the treatment of patients (pts) with multiple coronary vessel disease (MVD). BACKGROUND: Although 2DES improved safety and efficacy compared to 1DES, MVD remains a challenge for percutaneous coronary interventions. METHODS: ERACI IV was a prospective, observational, and controlled study in pts with MVD including left main and treated with 2DES (Firebird 2, Microport). We included 225 pts in 15 sites from Argentina. Primary endpoint was the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACCE) defined as death, myocardial infarction (MI), cerebrovascular accident (CVA) and unplanned revascularization; and to compare with 225 pts from ERACI III study (1DES). PCI strategy was planned to treat lesions ≥70% in vessels ≥ 2.00 mm, introducing a modified Syntax score (SS) where severe lesions in vessels < 2.0 mm and intermediate lesions were not scored. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics showed that compared to ERACI III, ERACI IV pts had higher number of diabetics (P = 0.02), previous revascularization (P = 0.007), unstable angina IIb/IIIc (P < 0.001) and three vessels/left main disease (P = 0.003). Modified SS was 22.2 ± 11. At 2 years of follow-up ERACI IV group had significantly lower incidence of death+ MI + CVA, (P = 0.01) and MACCE (P = 0.001). MACCE rate was similar in diabetics, (5.8%) and nondiabetics (7.0%). After performing a matched propensity score, MACCE remain significantly lower in ERACI IV (P = 0.005). CONCLUSION: This registry showed that 2DES in MVD has a remarkable low incidence of MACCE in unadjusted and adjusted analysis. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Can We Improve the Outcomes of Multivessel Disease Using Modified SYNTAX and Residual SYNTAX Scores?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: In spite of the benefits of drug eluting (DES), these advantages were not translated to better outcome when percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) were compared with coronary artery bypass surgery. PCI strategy allowing stent deployment in all intermediate lesions including small vessels together with DES design may be the reasons of these findings. RECENT FINDINGS: Recently randomized and observational studies demonstrated using functional flow reserve analysis, residual Syntax score risk, or residual ERACI score after PCI that a reasonably incomplete revascularization was associated with good long-term outcome and low events rate at follow-up. In the ERACI IV study, which included patients with multiple vessel disease and left main, all intermediate lesions and severe lesions in small vessels were excluded from the revascularization strategy, and the 3-year follow-up results showed a remarkable low incidence of death/MI and stroke. Intermediate stenosis or severe lesions in small vessels should not be incorporated in the PCI strategy in order to define patient clinical cardiac prognosis or completeness of revascularization.

Reduced risk of myocardial infarct and revascularization following coronary artery bypass grafting compared with percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with chronic kidney disease.

Coronary atherosclerotic disease is highly prevalent in chronic kidney disease (CKD). Although revascularization improves outcomes, procedural risks are increased in CKD, and unbiased data comparing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous intervention (PCI) in CKD are sparse. To compare outcomes of CABG and PCI in stage 3 to 5 CKD, we identified randomized trials comparing these procedures. Investigators were contacted to obtain individual, patient-level data. Ten of 27 trials meeting inclusion criteria provided data. These trials enrolled 3993 patients encompassing 526 patients with stage 3 to 5 CKD of whom 137 were stage 3b-5 CKD. Among individuals with stage 3 to 5 CKD, mortality through 5 years was not different after CABG compared with PCI (hazard ratio [HR] 0.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67-1.46) or stage 3b-5 CKD (HR 1.29, CI 0.68-2.46). However, CKD modified the impact on survival free of myocardial infarction: it was not different between CABG and PCI for individuals with preserved kidney function (HR 0.97, CI 0.80-1.17), but was significantly lower after CABG in stage 3-5 CKD (HR 0.49, CI 0.29-0.82) and stage 3b-5 CKD (HR 0.23, CI 0.09-0.58). Repeat revascularization was reduced after CABG compared with PCI regardless, of baseline kidney function. Results were limited by unavailability of data from several trials and paucity of enrolled patients with stage 4-5 CKD. Thus, our patient-level meta-analysis of individuals with CKD randomized to CABG versus PCI suggests that CABG significantly reduces the risk of subsequent myocardial infarction and revascularization without affecting survival in these patients.

Trends in primary percutaneous coronary intervention for the treatment of acute coronary ST-elevation myocardial infarction in Latin American countries: insights from the CECI consortium.

Background: ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) requires revascularization treatment, preferably via primary percutaneous coronary interventions (pPCI). There is a lack of data about contemporary management of STEMI in Latin America. Methods: This was a multicenter, multinational, prospective, and dynamic registry of patients undergoing pPCI in Latin America for STEMI (STEMI/LATAMI Registry) that was carried out in nine centers from five countries (Argentina, Ecuador, Venezuela, Bolivia, and the Dominican Republic) between June 2021 and June 2023. All interventionalists involved in the study were originally trained at the same institution (Centro de Estudios en Cardiología Intervencionista, Buenos Aires, Argentina). The primary objective was to evaluate procedural and in-hospital outcomes of pPCI in STEMI and in-hospital outcome in the Latin America (LATAM) region; as secondary endpoints, we analyzed the following subgroups: differences between pPCI vs. pharmaco-invasive or late presenters, gender, elderly and very elderly patients, cardiogenic shock outcomes, and causes of STEMI. Results: In total, 744 STEMI patients who underwent PCI between June 2021 and June 2023 in five countries (nine centers) in our continent were included; 76.3% had a pPCI, 8.1% pharmaco-invasive PCI, and 15.6% had late STEMI PCI. There were no differences in region or center when we evaluated in-hospital and 30 days of death. The rate of procedural success was 96.2%, and the overall in-hospital mortality rate was 2.2%. In the subgroup of pPCI, mean symptom onset-to-balloon time was 295.3 ± 246 min, and mean door-to-balloon time was 55.8 ± 49.9 min. The femoral approach was chosen in 60.5%. In 3.0% of patients, the left main disease was the culprit artery, with 1.63 ± 1.00 stents per patient (564 drug-eluting stents and 652 bare metal stents), with 34 patients receiving only plain optimal balloon angioplasty. Definitive stent thrombosis was related to the infarct artery as the primary cause of STEMI in 7.5% of patients. The use of assistant mechanical devices was low, at 2.1% in the pPCI group. Women were older, with large numbers in very elderly age (≥90 years), greater mortality, and incidence of spontaneous coronary dissection as a cause of STEMI (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, p < 0.001, and p < 0.003, respectively). Conclusion: In suitable LATAM Centers from low/medium-income countries, this prospective registry in patients with STEMI, PCI performed by well-trained operators has comparable results to those reported in well-developed countries.

High Non-Cardiac Death Incidence Should Be a Limitation of Drug-Eluting Stents Implantation? Insights from Recent Randomized Data.

Despite the introduction of drug-eluting stents (DES) significantly improved the efficacy and safety of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI), particularly in a high-risk group of patients, the gap between PCI with his competitor's coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) and/or optimal medical treatment alone was not reduced. In this revision, we highlighted the fact that in recent years landmark randomized studies reported at mid and long-term follow-ups a high incidence of non-cardiac death, cancer incidence, or both in the DES group of patients. The overall incidence of non-cardiac death was significantly higher in the DES vs. the comparator arm: 5.5% and 3.8%, respectively, p = 0.000018, and non-cardiac death appears to be more divergent between DES vs. the comparator at the extended follow-up to expenses of the last one. One of these trials reported five times greater cancer incidence in the DES arm at late follow-up, 5% vs. 0.7% p < 0.0018. We review the potential reason for these unexpected findings, although we can discard that DES biology could be involved in it. Until all these issues are resolved, we propose that DES implantation should be tailored accorded patient age, life expectancy, and lesion complexity.

Randomized comparison of cost-saving and effectiveness of oral rapamycin plus bare-metal stents with drug-eluting stents: three-year outcome from the randomized oral rapamycin in Argentina (ORAR) III trial.

OBJECTIVES: The Oral Rapamycin in ARgentina (ORAR) III trial is a randomized study comparing a strategy of oral rapamycin (OR) plus bare-metal stent (BMS) versus a strategy of drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients with de novo coronary lesions. The purpose of this study was to assess the 3 years cost-effectiveness outcome of each strategy. BACKGROUND: OR after BMS has been associated with reduction of target vessel revascularization (TVR) although its value in long-term efficacy in comparison with DES is unknown. METHODS: In three hospitals in Buenos Aires, Argentina, 200 patients were randomized to OR plus BMS (n = 100) or DES (n = 100). Primary objectives were costs and effectiveness. Cost analysis included in-hospital and follow-up costs. Safety was defined as the composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke. Efficacy was defined as TVR. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics between groups were similar. The 3-year follow-up rate was 99%. Cardiac mortality was 2% and 5% in OR group and DES group, respectively (P = 0.44). The composite of death, MI and stroke rate was 11% in OR group and 20% in DES group (P = 0.078). TVR rate was 14.5% in OR group and 17.6% in DES group (P = 0.50), respectively. Three year cumulative costs were significantly lower in the OR arm as compared to the DES arm (P = 0.0001) and DES strategy did not result cost-effective according to the non-inferiority test. CONCLUSIONS: At 3 years follow-up, there were no differences in effectiveness between the two strategies, and DES strategy was not more cost-effective as compared to OR plus BMS.

Abbreviated Antiplatelet Therapy After Coronary Stenting in Patients With Myocardial Infarction at High Bleeding Risk.

BACKGROUND: The optimal duration of antiplatelet therapy (APT) after coronary stenting in patients at high bleeding risk (HBR) presenting with an acute coronary syndrome remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to investigate the safety and efficacy of an abbreviated APT regimen after coronary stenting in an HBR population presenting with acute or recent myocardial infarction. METHODS: In the MASTER DAPT trial, 4,579 patients at HBR were randomized after 1 month of dual APT (DAPT) to abbreviated (DAPT stopped and 11 months single APT or 5 months in patients with oral anticoagulants) or nonabbreviated APT (DAPT for minimum 3 months) strategies. Randomization was stratified by acute or recent myocardial infarction at index procedure. Coprimary outcomes at 335 days after randomization were net adverse clinical outcomes events (NACE); major adverse cardiac and cerebral events (MACCE); and type 2, 3, or 5 Bleeding Academic Research Consortium bleeding. RESULTS: NACE and MACCE did not differ with abbreviated vs nonabbreviated APT regimens in patients with an acute or recent myocardial infarction (n = 1,780; HR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.61-1.12 and HR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.62-1.19, respectively) or without an acute or recent myocardial infarction (n = 2,799; HR: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.77-1.38 and HR: 1.13; 95% CI: 0.80-1.59; Pinteraction = 0.31 and 0.25, respectively). Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 2, 3, or 5 bleeding was significantly reduced in patients with or without an acute or recent myocardial infarction (HR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.46-0.91 and HR: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.54-0.92; Pinteraction = 0.72) with abbreviated APT. CONCLUSIONS: A 1-month DAPT strategy in patients with HBR presenting with an acute or recent myocardial infarction results in similar NACE and MACCE rates and reduces bleedings compared with a nonabbreviated DAPT strategy. (Management of High Bleeding Risk Patients Post Bioresorbable Polymer Coated Stent Implantation With an Abbreviated Versus Prolonged DAPT Regimen [MASTER DAPT]; NCT03023020).

Efficacy and safety of a double-coated paclitaxel-eluting coronary stent: the EUCATAX trial.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was the comparison of a new double-coated paclitaxel-eluting coronary stent with bare-metal stent (BMS) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. BACKGROUND: Stent coating with biodegradable polymers as a platform for elution of drugs has the potential for complete elution of drugs and for decreasing the risk of late complications. METHODS: Multicenter randomized trial comparing a paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) coated with a biodegradable polymer and glycocalyx with the equivalent BMS. We randomly assigned 422 patients with de novo coronary lesions to PES (211 patients) or to BMS (211 patients). Primary end point was target vessel failure (TVF) defined as cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization. Clinical secondary end points were target vessel revascularization, target lesion revascularization, stent thrombosis (ST), and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Angiographic secondary end points were late loss and binary restenosis. RESULTS: At 1 year of follow-up, TVF rate was 9.5% in the PES group and 17.1% in the BMS group (P=0.02), and MACE rate was 10% in PES and 19% in BMS arm (P=0.009). All other secondary end points were reached but ST. ST rate was low and similar in both study arms. CONCLUSIONS: The study shows that patients treated with PES with dual coating technology had significantly lower incidence of TVF and MACE than those treated with BMS design; however, longer follow-up should be necessary to assess true advantages of this technology compared with the previous one.

Randomized comparison between bare-metal stent plus colchicine versus drug-eluting stent alone in prevention of clinical adverse events after percutaneous coronary intervention.

The use of colchicine is associated with a significant reduction of cardiac adverse events in patients with coronary artery disease. Past small randomized trials with oral immunosuppressive or anti-inflammatory therapies have demonstrated a reduction of adverse clinical events after bare metal stent implantation. The potential role of adjunctive colchicine after bare-metal stent implantation, compared with drug-eluting stent alone, is unknown. The primary end point of the study will be to compare cost-effectiveness at 1 year of follow-up of coronary intervention with bare-metal stent implantation plus 1 mg of colchicine during 3 months versus percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stent implantation alone. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04382443.

Drug-Eluting or Bare-Metal Stents for Left Anterior Descending or Left Main Coronary Artery Revascularization.

Background New-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) reduce target-vessel revascularization compared with bare-metal stents (BMS), and recent data suggest that DES have the potential to decrease the risk of myocardial infarction and cardiovascular mortality. We evaluated the treatment effect of DES versus BMS according to the target artery (left anterior descending [LAD] and/or left main [LM] versus other territories [no-LAD/LM]). Methods and Results The Coronary Stent Trialist (CST) Collaboration gathered individual patient data of randomized trials of DES versus BMS for the treatment of coronary artery disease. The primary outcome was the composite of cardiac death or myocardial infarction. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs were derived from a 1-stage individual patient data meta-analysis. We included 26 024 patients across 19 trials: 13 650 (52.4%) in the LAD/LM and 12 373 (47.6%) in the no-LAD/LM group. At 6-year follow-up, there was strong evidence that the treatment effect of DES versus BMS depended on the target vessel (P-interaction=0.024). Compared with BMS, DES reduced the risk of cardiac death or myocardial infarction to a greater extent in the LAD/LM (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.68-0.85) than in the no-LAD/LM territories (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.83-1.05). This benefit was driven by a lower risk of cardiac death (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.70-0.98) and myocardial infarction (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.65-0.85) in patients with LAD/LM disease randomized to DES. An interaction (P=0.004) was also found for all-cause mortality with patients with LAD/LM disease deriving benefit from DES (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.76-0.97). Conclusions As compared with BMS, new-generation DES were associated with sustained reduction in the composite of cardiac death or myocardial infarction if used for the treatment of LAD or left main coronary stenoses. Registration URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO; Unique identifier: CRD42017060520.

Emerging drugs for coronary restenosis: the role of systemic oral agents the in stent era.

Introduction of drug eluting stents (DES) during percutaneous coronary interventions significantly reduces the rate of angiographic restenosis, target lesion and vessel revascularization. In spite of these benefits, other clinical hard end points such as death or myocardial infarction were not reduced and, furthermore, new concerns associated with the presence of late and very late stent thrombosis have been raised. The requirement of long-term dual antiplatelet therapy is another limitation associated with DES. Conversely, in this decade, other options to DES have been simultaneously discussed in observational and randomized studies. Several registries and randomized trials using the systemic approach with anti-inflammatory, immunosuppressive or antiplatelet therapies have been identified and discussed in this manuscript. In spite of all randomized studies with oral therapies in the bare metal stent (BMS) era demonstrating positive reductions in coronary restenosis, this practice has not been introduced clinically. Furthermore, a recent randomized trial comparing oral sirolimus plus BMS versus DES demonstrated that the first approach was cost saving and of comparable efficacy to DES. Conclusive evidence of high incidence of late and very late stent thrombosis with DES, together with clinical limitations for its widespread use, has opened up a large opportunity to search for alternative therapies in coronary restenosis prevention.