Randomized Clinical Comparison of the Dual-Therapy CD34 Antibody-Covered Sirolimus-Eluting Combo Stent With the Sirolimus-Eluting Orsiro Stent in Patients Treated With Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: The SORT OUT X Trial.

BACKGROUND: Target lesion failure remains an issue with contemporary drug-eluting stents. Thus, the dual-therapy sirolimus-eluting and CD34+ antibody-coated Combo stent (DTS) was designed to further improve early healing. This study aimed to investigate whether the DTS is noninferior to the sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent (SES) in an all-comers patient population. METHODS: The SORT OUT X (Combo Stent Versus Orsiro Stent) trial, was a large-scale, randomized, multicenter, single-blind, 2-arm, noninferiority trial with registry-based follow-up. The primary end point target lesion failure was a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization within 12 months, analyzed using intention-to-treat. The trial was powered for assessing target lesion failure noninferiority of the DTS compared with the SES with a predetermined noninferiority margin of 0.021. RESULTS: A total of 3146 patients were randomized to treatment with the DTS (1578 patients; 2008 lesions) or SES (1568 patients; 1982 lesions). At 12 months, intention-to-treat analysis showed that 100 patients (6.3%) assigned the DTS and 58 patients (3.7%) assigned the SES met the primary end point (absolute risk difference, 2.6% [upper limit of 1-sided 95% CI, 4.1%]; P (noninferiority)=0.76). The SES was superior to the DTS (incidence rate ratios for target lesion failure, 1.74 [95% CI, 1.26-2.41]; P=0.00086). The difference was explained mainly by a higher incidence of target lesion revascularization in the DTS group compared with the SES group (53 [3.4%] vs. 24 [1.5%]; incidence rate ratio, 2.22 [95% CI, 1.37-3.61]; P=0.0012). CONCLUSIONS: The DTS did not confirm noninferiority to the SES for target lesion failure at 12 months in an all-comer population. The SES was superior to the DTS mainly because the DTS was associated with an increased risk of target lesion revascularization. However, rates of death, cardiac death, and myocardial infarction at 12 months did not differ significantly between the 2 stent groups. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03216733.

Randomized Comparison of the Polymer-Free Biolimus-Coated BioFreedom Stent With the Ultrathin Strut Biodegradable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Orsiro Stent in an All-Comers Population Treated With Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: The SORT OUT IX Trial.

BACKGROUND: In patients with increased bleeding risk, the biolimus A9-coated BioFreedom stent, a stainless steel drug-coated stent free from polymer, has shown superiority compared with a bare-metal stent. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the BioFreedom stent is noninferior to a modern ultrathin strut biodegradable polymer cobalt-chromium sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent in an all-comers patient population treated with percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS: The SORT OUT IX trial (Scandinavian Organization for Randomized Trials With Clinical Outcome IX), was a large-scale, registry-based, randomized, multicenter, single-blind, 2-arm, noninferiority trial. The primary end point, major adverse cardiovascular events, was defined as the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction not related to any segment other than the target lesion, or target lesion revascularization within 1 year, analyzed by intention-to-treat. The trial was powered to assess noninferiority for major adverse cardiovascular events of the BioFreedom stent compared with the Orsiro stent with a predetermined noninferiority margin of 0.021. RESULTS: Between December 14, 2015 and April 21, 2017, 3151 patients were assigned to treatment with the BioFreedom stent (1572 patients, 1966 lesions) or to the Orsiro stent (1579 patients, 1985 lesions). Five patients were lost to follow-up because of emigration (99.9% follow-up rate). Mean age was 66.3±10.9, diabetes mellitus was seen in 19.3% of patients, and 53% of the patients had acute coronary syndromes. At 1 year, intention-to-treat analysis showed that 79 (5.0%) patients, who were assigned the BioFreedom stent, and 59 (3.7%), who were assigned the Orsiro stent, met the primary end point (absolute risk difference 1.29% [upper limit of one-sided 95% CI 2.50%]; Pnoninferiority=0.14). Significantly more patients in the BioFreedom stent group had target lesion revascularization than those in the Orsiro stent group (55 [3.5%] vs 20 [1.3%], rate ratio 2.77 [95% CI, 1.66-4.62]; P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The biolimus A9-coated BioFreedom polymer-free stent did not meet criteria for noninferiority for major adverse cardiovascular events at 12 months when compared with the ultrathin strut biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent in an all-comers population Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02623140.

Percutaneous coronary angioplasty versus coronary artery bypass grafting in the treatment of unprotected left main stenosis: updated 5-year outcomes from the randomised, non-inferiority NOBLE trial.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is increasingly used in revascularisation of patients with left main coronary artery disease in place of the standard treatment, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). The NOBLE trial aimed to evaluate whether PCI was non-inferior to CABG in the treatment of left main coronary artery disease and reported outcomes after a median follow-up of 3·1 years. We now report updated 5-year outcomes of the trial. METHODS: The prospective, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority NOBLE trial was done at 36 hospitals in nine northern European countries. Patients with left main coronary artery disease requiring revascularisation were enrolled and randomly assigned (1:1) to receive PCI or CABG. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (MACCE), a composite of all-cause mortality, non-procedural myocardial infarction, repeat revascularisation, and stroke. Non-inferiority of PCI to CABG was defined as the upper limit of the 95% CI of the hazard ratio (HR) not exceeding 1·35 after 275 MACCE had occurred. Secondary endpoints included all-cause mortality, non-procedural myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularisation. Outcomes were analysed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01496651. FINDINGS: Between Dec 9, 2008, and Jan 21, 2015, 1201 patients were enrolled and allocated to PCI (n=598) or CABG (n=603), with 17 subsequently lost to early follow-up. 592 patients in each group were included in this analysis. At a median of 4·9 years of follow-up, the predefined number of events was reached for adequate power to assess the primary endpoint. Kaplan-Meier 5-year estimates of MACCE were 28% (165 events) for PCI and 19% (110 events) for CABG (HR 1·58 [95% CI 1·24-2·01]); the HR exceeded the limit for non-inferiority of PCI compared to CABG. CABG was found to be superior to PCI for the primary composite endpoint (p=0·0002). All-cause mortality was estimated in 9% after PCI versus 9% after CABG (HR 1·08 [95% CI 0·74-1·59]; p=0·68); non-procedural myocardial infarction was estimated in 8% after PCI versus 3% after CABG (HR 2·99 [95% CI 1·66-5·39]; p=0·0002); and repeat revascularisation was estimated in 17% after PCI versus 10% after CABG (HR 1·73 [95% CI 1·25-2·40]; p=0·0009). INTERPRETATION: In revascularisation of left main coronary artery disease, PCI was associated with an inferior clinical outcome at 5 years compared with CABG. Mortality was similar after the two procedures but patients treated with PCI had higher rates of non-procedural myocardial infarction and repeat revascularisation. FUNDING: Biosensors.

Age-Stratified Outcome in Treatment of Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis: A NOBLE Trial Substudy.

BACKGROUND: In the treatment of left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease, patients' age may affect the clinical outcome after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). This study stratified the clinical outcome according to the age of patients treated for LMCA stenosis with PCI or CABG in the Nordic-Baltic-British Left Main Revascularization (NOBLE) study. METHODS: Patients with LMCA disease were enrolled in 36 centers in northern Europe and randomized 1:1 to treatment by PCI or CABG. Eligible patients had stable angina pectoris, unstable angina pectoris, or non-ST elevation myocardial infarction. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (MACCEs), a composite of all-cause mortality, nonprocedural myocardial infarction, any repeat coronary revascularization, and stroke. Age-stratified analysis was performed for the groups younger and older than 67 years and for patients older than 80 years. RESULTS: For patients ≥67 years, the 5-year MACCEs were 35.7 versus 22.3% (hazard ratio [HR] 1.72 [95% confidence interval [CI] 1.27-2.33], p = 0.0004) for PCI versus CABG. The difference in MACCEs was driven by more myocardial infarctions (10.8 vs. 3.8% HR 3.01 [95% CI 1.52-5.96], p = 0.0009) and more repeat revascularizations (19.5 vs. 10.0% HR 2.01 [95% CI 1.29-3.12], p = 0.002). In patients younger than 67 years, MACCE was 20.5 versus 15.3% (HR 1.38 [95% CI 0.93-2.06], p = 0.11 for PCI versus CABG. All-cause mortality was similar after PCI and CABG in both age-groups. On multivariate analysis, age was a predictor of MACCE, along with PCI, diabetes, and SYNTAX score. CONCLUSIONS: As the overall NOBLE results show revascularization of LMCA disease, age of 67 years or older was associated with lower 5-year MACCE after CABG compared to PCI. Clinical outcomes were not significantly different in the subgroup younger than 67 years, although no significant interaction was present between age and treatment. Mortality was similar for all subgroups (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01496651).

16-year follow-up of the Danish Acute Myocardial Infarction 2 (DANAMI-2) trial: primary percutaneous coronary intervention vs. fibrinolysis in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.

AIMS: The DANish Acute Myocardial Infarction 2 (DANAMI-2) trial found that interhospital transport to primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) was superior to fibrinolysis at the local hospital in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) at 30 days. The present study investigates the 16-year cardiovascular outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: We randomized 1572 STEMI patients to pPCI or fibrinolysis at 24 referral hospitals and 5 invasive centres in Denmark. Patients randomized to pPCI at referral hospitals were immediately transported to the nearest invasive centre. The main endpoint of the current study was a composite of death or rehospitalization for myocardial infarction (MI). Outcome information beyond 3 years was obtained through Danish health registries. After 16 years, pPCI-treated patients had a sustained lower rate of composite endpoint compared to patients treated with fibrinolysis in the overall cohort [58.7% vs. 62.3%; hazard ratio (HR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76-0.98], and among patients transported for pPCI (58.7% vs. 64.1%; HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.71-0.96). No difference in all-cause mortality was found, but cardiac mortality was reduced by an absolute of 4.4% in favour of pPCI (18.3% vs. 22.7%; HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.63-0.98). pPCI postponed a main event with 12.3 months in average compared to fibrinolysis (95% CI 5.0-19.5). CONCLUSION: The benefit of pPCI over fibrinolysis was maintained at 16-year follow-up. pPCI reduced the composite endpoint of death or rehospitalization for MI, reduced cardiac mortality, and delayed average time to a main event by approximately 1 year.

Lower ST-elevation myocardial infarction incidence during COVID-19 epidemic in Northern Europe.

We compared the ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) incidence during COVID-19 pandemic (March 2020) to January-February 2020 and to same time period in earlier years 2017-2019 in five Nordic-Baltic tertiary centers. During 2017-2019, there were no marked differences in STEMI incidence between January, February and March. During 2020, there was an average drop of 32% in STEMI incidence in March. The isolation measures may decrease the risk for respiratory virus infection and contribute to the lower STEMI incidence and that we might benefit from firmer suggestions on hand hygiene and social distancing during flu season at least among high-risk individuals.

Percutaneous coronary angioplasty versus coronary artery bypass grafting in treatment of unprotected left main stenosis (NOBLE): a prospective, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is the standard treatment for revascularisation in patients with left main coronary artery disease, but use of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for this indication is increasing. We aimed to compare PCI and CABG for treatment of left main coronary artery disease. METHODS: In this prospective, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial, patients with left main coronary artery disease were enrolled in 36 centres in northern Europe and randomised 1:1 to treatment with PCI or CABG. Eligible patients had stable angina pectoris, unstable angina pectoris, or non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Exclusion criteria were ST-elevation myocardial infarction within 24 h, being considered too high risk for CABG or PCI, or expected survival of less than 1 year. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (MACCE), a composite of all-cause mortality, non-procedural myocardial infarction, any repeat coronary revascularisation, and stroke. Non-inferiority of PCI to CABG required the lower end of the 95% CI not to exceed a hazard ratio (HR) of 1·35 after up to 5 years of follow-up. The intention-to-treat principle was used in the analysis if not specified otherwise. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, number NCT01496651. FINDINGS: Between Dec 9, 2008, and Jan 21, 2015, 1201 patients were randomly assigned, 598 to PCI and 603 to CABG, and 592 in each group entered analysis by intention to treat. Kaplan-Meier 5 year estimates of MACCE were 29% for PCI (121 events) and 19% for CABG (81 events), HR 1·48 (95% CI 1·11-1·96), exceeding the limit for non-inferiority, and CABG was significantly better than PCI (p=0·0066). As-treated estimates were 28% versus 19% (1·55, 1·18-2·04, p=0·0015). Comparing PCI with CABG, 5 year estimates were 12% versus 9% (1·07, 0·67-1·72, p=0·77) for all-cause mortality, 7% versus 2% (2·88, 1·40-5·90, p=0·0040) for non-procedural myocardial infarction, 16% versus 10% (1·50, 1·04-2·17, p=0·032) for any revascularisation, and 5% versus 2% (2·25, 0·93-5·48, p=0·073) for stroke. INTERPRETATION: The findings of this study suggest that CABG might be better than PCI for treatment of left main stem coronary artery disease. FUNDING: Biosensors, Aarhus University Hospital, and participating sites.

Clinical outcomes with percutaneous coronary revascularization vs coronary artery bypass grafting surgery in patients with unprotected left main coronary artery disease: A meta-analysis of 6 randomized trials and 4,686 patients.

Some but not all randomized controlled trials (RCT) have suggested that percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents may be an acceptable alternative to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery for the treatment of unprotected left main coronary artery disease (ULMCAD). We therefore aimed to compare the risk of all-cause mortality between PCI and CABG in patients with ULMCAD in a pairwise meta-analysis of RCT. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials comparing PCI vs CABG for the treatment of ULMCAD were searched through MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane databases, and proceedings of international meetings. RESULTS: Six trials including 4,686 randomized patients were identified. After a median follow-up of 39 months, there were no significant differences between PCI vs CABG in the risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 0.99, 95% CI 0.76-1.30) or cardiac mortality. However, a significant interaction for cardiac mortality (Pinteraction= .03) was apparent between randomization arm and SYNTAX score, such that the relative risk for mortality tended to be lower with PCI compared with CABG among patients in the lower SYNTAX score tertile, similar in the intermediate tertile, and higher in the upper SYNTAX score tertile. Percutaneous coronary intervention compared with CABG was associated with a similar long-term composite risk of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.82-1.37), with fewer events within 30 days after PCI offset by fewer events after 30 days with CABG (Pinteraction < .0001). Percutaneous coronary intervention was associated with greater rates of unplanned revascularization compared with CABG (HR 1.74, 95% CI 1.47-2.07). CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing revascularization for ULMCAD, PCI was associated with similar rates of mortality compared with CABG at a median follow-up of 39 months, but with an interaction effect suggesting relatively lower mortality with PCI in patients with low SYNTAX score and relatively lower mortality with CABG in patients with high SYNTAX score. Both procedures resulted in similar long-term composite rates of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, with PCI offering an early safety advantage and CABG demonstrating greater durability.

Chronic total coronary occlusion: treatment results.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the clinical and procedural coronary chronic total occlusion (CTO) treatment results in a Nordic PCI centre during the implementation of a CTO treatment program. DESIGN: In a retrospective registry study, we assessed; (1) indication for the procedure, (2) Canadian Cardiovascular Society angina pectoris score (CCS)/New York Heart Association (NYHA) heart failure score, (3) lesion complexity and (4) adverse events during hospital stay and three months following the index procedure. RESULTS: The study cohort included 503 patients (594 lesions). From 2010 to 2013 96% of procedures were performed with antegrade wire-escalation technique and 4% performed using retrograde techniques, from 2013-2016 the corresponding numbers were 83% and 17.0%. The procedural success rate was 69%, increasing from 64% before to 72% (p = .06) after routinely using the retrograde approach. No individual patient characteristic, lesion variable or score was strongly associated with procedural success or failure. There were 4% serious procedure related complications. In patients with PCI of a CTO lesion only, 87% were in CCS or NYHA functional class ≥2 before the index procedure vs. 22% at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Routine use of retrograde techniques tended to increase the procedural success rate. Clinical results after three months were acceptable, but the complication rate was higher than for non-CTO PCI. Individual patient and lesion characteristics had a low predictability for procedural success. Therefore, clinical symptoms, objective signs of myocardial ischemia and procedural risk should be focus points in coronary chronic total occlusion treatment strategies.

Coronary bifurcation lesions treated with simple or complex stenting: 5-year survival from patient-level pooled analysis of the Nordic Bifurcation Study and the British Bifurcation Coronary Study.

AIMS: Randomized trials of coronary bifurcation stenting have shown better outcomes from a simple (provisional) strategy rather than a complex (planned two-stent) strategy in terms of short-term efficacy and safety. Here, we report the 5-year all-cause mortality based on pooled patient-level data from two large bifurcation coronary stenting trials with similar methodology: the Nordic Bifurcation Study (NORDIC I) and the British Bifurcation Coronary Study: old, new, and evolving strategies (BBC ONE). METHODS AND RESULTS: Both multicentre randomized trials compared simple (provisional T-stenting) vs. complex (culotte, crush, and T-stenting) techniques, using drug-eluting stents. We analysed all-cause death at 5 years. Data were collected from phone follow-up, hospital records, and national mortality tracking. Follow-up was complete for 890 out of 913 patients (97%). Both Simple and Complex groups were similar in terms of patient and lesion characteristics. Five-year mortality was lower among patients who underwent a simple strategy rather than a complex strategy [17 patients (3.8%) vs. 31 patients (7.0%); P = 0.04]. CONCLUSION: For coronary bifurcation lesions, a provisional single-stent approach appears to be associated with lower long-term mortality than a systematic dual stenting technique.

Zotarolimus-eluting durable-polymer-coated stent versus a biolimus-eluting biodegradable-polymer-coated stent in unselected patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (SORT OUT VI): a randomised non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: New-generation drug-eluting coronary stents have reduced the risk of coronary events, especially in patients with complex disease or lesions. To what extent different stent platforms, polymers, and antiproliferative drugs affect outcomes, however, is unclear. We investigated the safety and efficacy of a third-generation stent by comparing a highly biocompatible durable-polymer-coated zotarolimus-eluting stent with a biodegradable-polymer-coated biolimus-eluting stent. METHODS: This open-label, randomised, multicentre, non-inferiority trial was done at three sites across western Denmark. All patients who presented with stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes and at least one coronary artery lesion (more than 50% stenosis) from March, 2011, to August, 2012, were assessed for eligibility. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either the durable-polymer zotarolimus-eluting stent or the biodegradable-polymer biolimus-eluting stent. The primary endpoint was a composite of safety (cardiac death and myocardial infarction not clearly attributable to a non-target lesion) and efficacy (target-lesion revascularisation) at 12 months, analysed by intention to treat. The trial was powered to assess non-inferiority of durable-polymer zotarolimus-eluting stent compared with the biodegradable-polymer biolimus-eluting stent with a predetermined non-inferiority margin of 0·025. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01956448. FINDINGS: Of 7103 screened, 1502 patients with 1883 lesions were assigned to receive the durable-polymer zotarolimus-eluting stent and 1497 patients with 1791 lesions to receive the biodegradable-polymer biolimus-eluting stent. 79 (5·3%) and 75 (5·0%) patients, respectively, met the primary endpoint (absolute risk difference 0·0025, upper limit of one-sided 95% CI 0·016%; p=0·004). The individual components of the primary endpoint did not differ significantly between stent types at 12 months. INTERPRETATION: The durable-polymer-coated zotarolimus-eluting stent was non-inferior to the biodegradable-polymer-coated biolimus-eluting stent in unselected patients. FUNDING: Medtronic Cardiovascular and Biosensors Interventional Technologies.

Differential clinical outcomes after 1 year versus 5 years in a randomised comparison of zotarolimus-eluting and sirolimus-eluting coronary stents (the SORT OUT III study): a multicentre, open-label, randomised superiority trial.

BACKGROUND: In head-to-head comparisons of coronary drug-eluting stents, the primary endpoint is traditionally assessed after 9-12 months. However, the optimum timepoint for this assessment remains unclear. In this study, we assessed clinical outcomes at up to 5 years' follow-up in patients who received two different types of drug-eluting stents. METHODS: We undertook this multicentre, open-label, randomised superiority trial at five percutaneous coronary intervention centres in Denmark. We randomly allocated 2332 eligible adult patients (≥18 years of age) with an indication for drug-eluting stent implantation to the zotarolimus-eluting Endeavor Sprint stent (Medtronic, Santa Rosa, CA, USA) or the sirolimus-eluting Cypher Select Plus stent (Cordis, Johnson & Johnson, Warren, NJ, USA). Randomisation of participants was achieved by computer-generated block randomisation and a telephone allocation service. The primary endpoint of the SORT OUT III study was a composite of major adverse cardiac events-cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularisation-at 9 months' follow-up. In this study, endpoints included the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events and definite stent thrombosis at follow-up times of up to 5 years. Analysis was by intention to treat. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00660478. FINDINGS: We randomly allocated 1162 patients to receive the zotarolimus-eluting stent and 1170 to the sirolimus-eluting stent. At 5-year follow-up, rates of major adverse cardiac events were similar in patients treated with both types of stents (zotarolimus-eluting stents 197/1162 [17.0%] vs sirolimus-eluting stents 182/1170 [15.6%]; odds ratio [OR] 1.10, 95% CI 0.88-1.37; p=0.40). This finding was indicative of the directly contrasting results for rates of major adverse cardiac events at 1-year follow up (zotarolimus 93/1162 [8.0%] vs sirolimus 46/1170 [3.9%]; OR 2.13, 95% CI 1.48-3.07; p<0.0001) compared with those at follow-up between 1 and 5 years (104 [9.0%] vs 136 [11.6%]; OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.59-1.02; p=0.071). At 1-year follow-up, definite stent thrombosis was more frequent after implantation of the zotarolimus-eluting stent (13/1162 [1.1%]) than the sirolimus-eluting stent (4/1170 [0.3%]; OR 3.34, 95% CI 1.08-10.3; p=0.036), whereas the opposite finding was recorded for between 1 and 5 years' follow-up (zotarolimus-eluting stent 1/1162 [0.1%] vs sirolimus-eluting stent 21/1170 [1.8%], OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.01-0.36; p=0.003). 26 of 88 (30%) target lesion revascularisations in the zotarolimus-eluting stent group occurred between 1 and 5 years' follow-up, whereas 54 of 70 (77%) of those in the sirolimus-eluting stent group occurred during this follow-up period. INTERPRETATION: The superiority of sirolimus-eluting stents compared with zotarolimus-eluting stents at 1-year follow-up was lost after 5 years. The traditional 1-year primary endpoint assessment therefore might be insufficient to predict 5-year clinical outcomes in patients treated with coronary drug-eluting stent implantation. FUNDING: Cordis and Medtronic.

Influence of multivessel disease with or without additional revascularization on mortality in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: In patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), timely reperfusion with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is the preferred treatment. In primary PCI patients with multivessel disease, it is unclear whether culprit vessel PCI only is the preferred treatment. We compared mortality among (1) STEMI patients with single-vessel disease and those with multivessel disease and (2) multivessel disease patients with and without additional revascularization of nonculprit lesions within 2 months after the index PCI. METHODS: From January 2002 to June 2009, all patients presenting with STEMI and treated with primary PCI were identified from the Western Denmark Heart Registry, which covers a population of 3.0 million. The hazard ratio (HR) for death was estimated using a Cox regression model, controlling for potential confounding. RESULTS: The study cohort consisted of 8,822 patients: 4,770 (54.1%) had single-vessel disease and 4,052 (45.9%) had multivessel disease. Overall, 1-year cumulative mortality was 7.6%, and 7-year cumulative mortality was 24.0%. Multivessel disease was associated with higher 7-year mortality (adjusted HR 1.45 [95% CI 1.30-1.62], P < .001). Among patients with multivessel disease, lack of additional revascularization beyond the culprit lesion was associated with higher 7-year mortality (adjusted HR 1.50 [95% CI 1.25-1.80], P < .001). In patients with multivessel disease who underwent additional revascularization, 7-year mortality (adjusted HR 1.01 [95% CI 0.84-1.22], P = .89) was similar compared to patients with single-vessel disease. CONCLUSION: In STEMI patients, multivessel disease was associated with a higher mortality compared to single-vessel disease. In multivessel disease patients, additional revascularization was associated with a higher survival compared with culprit vessel PCI only.

Paclitaxel-eluting versus bare metal stents in primary PCI: a pooled patient-level meta-analysis of randomized trials.

Concerns have emerged regarding a higher risk of stent thrombosis after drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation, especially in the setting of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis based on individual patient data to evaluate long-term safety and effectiveness of paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) as compared to bare metal stents (BMS) in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for STEMI. We examined all completed randomized trials on PES for STEMI. Individual patient data were obtained from six trials. We performed survival analyses with the use of Cox-regression analysis stratified according to trial. Kaplan-Meier survival curves are presented with event rates reported as estimated probabilities. A subsequent landmark analysis was performed for patients who were event-free at 1-year follow-up in order to define outcome in terms of early (≤1 year) and late (>1 year) events. A total of six trials were finally included in the meta-analysis with 4435 patients, 2875 (64.8 %) assigned to PES and 1560 (35.2 %) to BMS. No significant differences in baseline characteristics were observed between the two groups. However, a significantly higher percentage of patients in the DES group were on dual antiplatelet therapy during 3-year follow-up, as compared to BMS. At long-term follow-up (1,095 [1,090-1,155] days), no significant difference between PES and BMS was observed in mortality (9.2 vs 11.9 %, respectively, HR [95 % CI] = 0.84 [0.67, 1.06], p = 0.15, pheterogeneity = 0.59), reinfarction (8.8 vs 7 %, respectively; HR [95 % CI] = 1.10 [0.84, 1.44], p = 0.51, pheterogeneity = 0.32), stent thrombosis (6.7 vs 4.0 % respectively, HR [95 % CI] = 1.13 [0.82, 1.55], p = 0.45, pheterogeneity = 0.99) and TVR (11.9 vs 20.0 %; HR [95 % CI] = 0.64 [0.54, 0.77], p < 0.0001, pheterogeneity = 0.25). Landmark analysis showed that PES was associated with a significantly higher rate of very late reinfarction (>1 year) (5.6 vs 3.9 %, HR [95 % CI] = 1.61 [1.05-2.47], p = 0.03, pheterogeneity = 0.51], very late ST (2.9 vs 1.1 %, HR [95 % CI] = 1.88 [1.00-3.54], p = 0.05, pheterogeneity = 0.94]. The present pooled patient-level meta-analysis demonstrates that among STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI, PES compared to BMS is associated with a significant reduction in TVR at long-term follow-up. Although there were no differences in cumulative mortality, reinfarction or stent thrombosis, the incidence of very late reinfarction and stent thrombosis was increased with PES.

Biolimus-eluting biodegradable polymer-coated stent versus durable polymer-coated sirolimus-eluting stent in unselected patients receiving percutaneous coronary intervention (SORT OUT V): a randomised non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Third-generation biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents might reduce the risk of stent thrombosis compared with first-generation permanent polymer drug-eluting stents. We aimed to further investigate the effects of a biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stent compared with a durable polymer-coated sirolimus-eluting stent in a population-based setting. METHODS: This randomised, multicentre, all-comer, non-inferiority trial was undertaken at three sites across western Denmark. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with chronic stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes, and at least one coronary artery lesion (>50% diameter stenosis). We randomly assigned patients (1:1) using an independently managed computer-generated allocation sequence to receive either a biolimus-eluting biodegradable polymer stent (Nobori, Terumo, Tokyo, Japan) or a sirolimus-eluting permanent polymer stent (Cypher Select Plus, Cordis, Johnson & Johnson, Warren, NJ, USA). The primary endpoint was a composite of safety (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, definite stent thrombosis) and efficacy (target vessel revascularisation) at 9 months, analysed by intention to treat (non-inferiority margin of 0·02). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01254981. FINDINGS: From July, 2009, to January, 2011, we assigned 1229 patients (1532 lesions) to receive the biolimus-eluting stent and 1239 (1555 lesions) to receive the sirolimus-eluting stent. One patient was lost to follow-up because of emigration. Intention-to-treat analysis showed that 50 (4·1%) patients who were assigned the biolimus-eluting stent and 39 (3·1%) who were assigned the sirolimus-eluting stent met the primary endpoint (risk difference 0·9% [upper limit of one-sided 95% CI 2·1%]; p(non-inferiority)=0·06). Significantly more patients in the biolimus-eluting stent group had definite stent thrombosis at 12 months than did those in the sirolimus-eluting stent group (9 [0·7%] vs 2 [0·2%], risk difference 0·6% [95% CI 0·0-1·1]; p=0·034). Per-protocol analysis showed that 45 (3·8%) of 1193 patients who received a biolimus-eluting stent and 39 (3·2%) of 1208 who received a sirolimus-eluting stent met the primary endpoint (risk difference 0·5% [upper limit of one-sided 95% CI 1·8%]; p(non-inferiority)=0·03). INTERPRETATION: At 1 year follow-up, the biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting Nobori stent did not improve clinical results compared with a first-generation sirolimus-eluting stent. We will need to obtain long-term data before we can make recommendations for the role of this biolimus-eluting stent in routine clinical practice. FUNDING: Terumo and Cordis (Johnson & Johnson).

Intimal hyperplasia and vascular remodeling after everolimus-eluting and sirolimus-eluting stent implantation in diabetic patients: the randomized Diabetes and Drug-Eluting Stent (DiabeDES) IV Intravascular Ultrasound trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of the everolimus-eluting Xience™/Promus™ stent (EES) and the sirolimus-eluting Cypher™ stent (SES) on intimal hyperplasia (IH) in diabetic patients. BACKGROUND: Patients with diabetes mellitus have increased risk of in-stent restenosis after coronary stent implantation due to intimal hyperplasia (IH). METHODS: In a sub study of the Randomized Comparison of Everolimus-Eluting and Sirolimus-Eluting Stents in Patients Treated with Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (SORT OUT IV trial), serial intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) 10-month follow-up data were available in 88 patients, including 48 EES and 40 SES treated patients. IVUS endpoints included IH volume, in-stent % volume obstruction and changes in external elastic membrane (EEM) volume. RESULTS: Compared with the SES group, IH volume was increased in the EES group [median (interquartile range): 2.8 mm(3) (0.0-12.6) vs. 0.0 mm(3) (0.0-1.1), P = 0.001]. In-stent % volume obstruction was increased in EES compared to SES [median (interquartile range): 1.6% (0.0-8.2) vs. 0.0% (0.0-1.0), P = 0.001]. Peri-stent external elastic membrane (EEM) volume: (post procedure vs. follow-up EES [300 mm(3) (219-491) vs. 307 mm(3) (223-482), P = 0.73] and SES [316 mm(3) (235-399) vs. 323 mm(3) (246-404), P = 0.05]) and peri-stent plaque volume: EES [163 mm(3) (103-273) vs. 184 mm(3) (115-291), P = 0.18] and SES [186 mm(3) (139-248) vs. 175 mm(3) (153-243), P = 0.26]) were unchanged in both groups. In the proximal reference segment a significant increase in plaque area was seen in the EES group only, without vascular remodeling. CONCLUSION: In diabetic patients, EES stent implantation was associated with increased IH volume obstruction without involvement of vascular remodeling.

Long-term outcome following percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents compared with bare-metal stents in saphenous vein graft lesions: from Western Denmark Heart Registry.

OBJECTIVES: We used the Western Denmark Heart Registry to assess one-year and long-term all-cause mortality and stent failure following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES) or bare-metal stents (BMS). BACKGROUND: The use of DES compared with BMS during PCI has reduced the risk of restenosis in native coronary artery lesions. In saphenous vein grafts (SVG) the outcome after DES compared with BMS is insufficiently described. METHODS: From January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2010 all patients with PCI of SVG lesions were identified among 3.0 million inhabitants. Stent failure was defined as clinically driven target lesion revascularization, graft occlusion without intervention, or stent thrombosis. RESULTS: The study cohort consisted of 529 patients with 755 SVG lesions (348 DES patients with 510 lesions and 181 BMS patients with 245 lesions). Mean age did not differ between patients with DES-treated lesions compared to patients with BMS-treated lesions (67.5 ± 9.1 years vs. 67.6 ± 9.3 years; P = 0.85). The median follow-up time was 3.0 years (25th-75th percentile: 1.4-5.1 years). One-year (n = 27 (8.2%) vs. n = 12 (6.7%), log rank P = 0.60) and 3-year cumulative mortality (n = 31 (18.8%) vs. n = 59 (21.8%), log rank P = 0.64) did not differ significantly between DES- and BMS-treated patients. One-year cumulative stent failure was seen in 39 (6.6%) DES-treated lesions vs. 24 (10.8%) BMS-treated lesions (P = 0.088), and 3-year cumulative stent failure in 48 (15.4%) vs. 34 (18.8%) lesions (P = 0.25), respectively. CONCLUSION: In SVG lesions, DES showed no long-term benefit compared to BMS in rates of all-cause mortality or stent failure.

Clopidogrel discontinuation within the first year after coronary drug-eluting stent implantation: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: The impact of adherence to the recommended duration of dual antiplatelet therapy after first generation drug-eluting stent implantation is difficult to assess in real-world settings and limited data are available. METHODS: We followed 4,154 patients treated with coronary drug-eluting stents in Western Denmark for 1 year and obtained data on redeemed clopidogrel prescriptions and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE, i.e., cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis) from medical databases. RESULTS: Discontinuation of clopidogrel within the first 3 months after stent implantation was associated with a significantly increased rate of MACE at 1-year follow-up (hazard ratio (HR) 2.06; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.08-3.93). Discontinuation 3-6 months (HR 1.29; 95% CI: 0.70-2.41) and 6-12 months (HR 1.29; 95% CI: 0.54-3.07) after stent implantation were associated with smaller, not statistically significant, increases in MACE rates. Among patients who discontinued clopidogrel, MACE rates were highest within the first 2 months after discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS: Discontinuation of clopidogrel was associated with an increased rate of MACE among patients treated with drug-eluting stents. The increase was statistically significant within the first 3 months after drug-eluting stent implantation but not after 3 to 12 months.

Similar five-year outcome with paclitaxel- and sirolimus-eluting coronary stents.

OBJECTIVE: Millions of patients were treated with the sirolimus-eluting Cypher™ and the paclitaxel-eluting Taxus™ coronary stents with potential late-occurring increase in event rates. Therefore, the long-term outcome follow-up is of major clinical interest. DESIGN: In total, 2.098 unselected patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), non-STEMI, stable or unstable angina pectoris were randomized to receive Cypher™ (n = 1.065) or Taxus™ (n = 1.033) stents and were followed for 5 years. RESULTS: The primary end-point; the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction and target vessel revascularization (major adverse cardiac event, MACE), occurred in 467 patients (22.3%); Cypher™ n = 222 (20.8%), Taxus™ n = 245 (23.7%), ns. Definite and probable stent thrombosis occurred in 107 patients (5.1%); Cypher™ n = 51 (4.8%), Taxus™ n = 56 (5.4%), ns. No statistically significant differences were found in the elements of the primary end-point or in other secondary end-points between the two stent groups. After one year, the annual rates of stent thrombosis and MACE remained constant. CONCLUSIONS: During 5-year follow-up, the Cypher™ and the Taxus™ coronary stents had similar clinical outcome with no signs of increasing rates of adverse events over time.

Randomized study to assess the effect of thrombus aspiration on flow area in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: an optical frequency domain imaging study--TROFI trial.

AIMS: Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) with thrombectomy (TB) seems to reduce the thrombus burden, resulting in a larger flow area as measured with optical frequency domain imaging (OFDI). METHODS AND RESULTS: In a multi-centre study, 141 patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction <12 h from onset were randomized to either PPCI with TB using an Eliminate catheter (TB: n = 71) or without TB (non-TB: n = 70), having operators blinded for the OFDI results. The primary endpoint was minimum flow area (MinFA) post-procedure assessed by OFDI, defined as: [stent area + incomplete stent apposition (ISA) area] - (intraluminal defect + tissue prolapse area). Sample size was based on the expected difference of 0.72 mm(2) in MinFA. Baseline demographics, pre-procedural quantitative coronary angiography (QCA), and procedural characteristics were well matched between the two groups. On OFDI, the stent area (TB: 7.62 ± 2.23 mm(2), non-TB: 7.05 ± 2.12 mm(2), P = 0.14) and MinFA (TB: 7.08 ± 2.14 mm(2) vs. non-TB: 6.51 ± 1.99 mm(2), Δ0.57 mm(2), P = 0.12) were not different. In addition, the amount of protrusion, intraluminal defect, and ISA area were similar in the both groups. CONCLUSION: PPCI with TB was associated with a similar flow area as well as stent area to PPCI without TB.