Association of acute kidney injury and bleeding events with mortality after radial or femoral access in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing invasive management: secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial.

AIMS: In the Minimizing Adverse Haemorrhagic Events by TRansradial Access Site and Systemic Implementation of angioX (MATRIX) trial, adults with acute coronary syndrome undergoing coronary intervention who were allocated to radial access had a lower risk of bleeding, acute kidney injury (AKI), and all-cause mortality, as compared with those allocated to femoral access. The mechanism of the mortality benefit of radial access remained unclear. METHODS AND RESULTS: We used multistate and competing risk models to determine the effects of radial and femoral access on bleeding, AKI and all-cause mortality in the MATRIX trial and to disentangle the relationship between these different types of events. There were large relative risk reductions in mortality for radial compared with femoral access for the transition from AKI to death [hazard ratio (HR) 0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31-0.97] and for the pathway from coronary intervention to AKI to death (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.26-0.92). Conversely, there was little evidence for a difference between radial and femoral groups for the transition from bleeding to death (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.42-2.64) and the pathway from coronary intervention to bleeding to death (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.28-2.49). CONCLUSION: The prevention of AKI appeared predominantly responsible for the mortality benefit of radial as compared with femoral access in the MATRIX trial. There was little evidence for an equally important, independent role of bleeding.

Long-term impact of diabetes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: Insights from the EXAMINATION randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Long-term outcomes of diabetic patients suffering from ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and treated with second-generation drug-eluting stent have been scarcely evaluated. The aim of this posthoc subanalysis of the EXAMINATION trial was to compare 5-year outcomes according to the presence of diabetes mellitus. METHODS: From a total of 1,497 patients included in the trial, 258 were diabetics (n = 137, received everolimus-eluting stent (EES) and n = 121 bare-metal stent (BMS); whereas 1,239 were nondiabetics (n = 613 treated with EES and n = 626 with BMS). Patient-oriented combined endpoint (POCE) defined as all-cause death, any MI or any revascularization, and other clinical parameters were collected up to 5-years. All results were adjusted for various potential confounders. RESULTS: At 5-years, patients with diabetes showed similar rates of POCE between diabetics treated with EES and those treated with BMS (32.8% vs. 32.2%; p = 0.88). However, rates of TLR were significantly lower in the EES group (4.4% vs. 9.9%; HR 0.52 (0.29-0.94); P = 0.03). In non-diabetics, the use of EES was associated with a significant improvement in all-clinical parameters except for MI rate: POCE: [10.0% vs. 12.6%; HR 0.78(0.62-0.98); P = 0.038], all cause death: [7.0% vs. 12.1%; HR 0.62(0.42-0.90); P = 0.014], and [TLR: 4.2 vs. 6.7; HR 0.60 (0.37-0.98); P = 0.04]. Overall, diabetics showed higher rate of POCE at 5-years (32.6% vs. 21.5% in nondiabetics HR1.45[1.03-2.04];p = 0.03) driven by increased rates of MI and the need for revascularization that occurred in coronary segments remote from target lesions [2.7% vs. 1.1%; HR: 2.27 (1.12-5.23); P = 0.02 and 14% vs. 6.2%; HR: 2.11 (1.38-3.22); P = 0.001, respectively]. CONCLUSIONS: Diabetics had worse clinical outcomes than nondiabetics after STEMI mainly due to atherosclerosis progression. At 5-years, the treatment with EES did not reduce the rate of POCE in diabetics but reduced the need for revascularization compared with BMS.

Clinical outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction treated with everolimus-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents (EXAMINATION): 5-year results of a randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Data for the safety and efficacy of new-generation drug-eluting stents at long-term follow-up, and specifically in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, are scarce. In the EXAMINATION trial, we compared everolimus-eluting stents (EES) with bare-metal stents (BMS) in an all-comer population with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. In this study, we assessed the 5-year outcomes of the population in the EXAMINATION trial. METHODS: In the multicentre EXAMINATION trial, done in Italy, Spain, and the Netherlands, patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive EES or BMS. The random allocation schedule was computer-generated and central randomisation (by telephone) was used to allocate patients in blocks of four or six, stratified by centre. Patients were masked to treatment assignment. At 5 years, we assessed the combined patient-oriented outcome of all-cause death, any myocardial infarction, or any revascularisation. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00828087. FINDINGS: 1498 patients were randomly assigned to receive either EES (n=751) or BMS (n=747). At 5 years, complete clinical follow-up data were obtained for 731 patients treated with EES and 727 treated with BMS (97% of both groups). The patient-oriented endpoint occurred in 159 (21%) patients in the EES group versus 192 (26%) in the BMS group (hazard ratio 0·80, 95% CI 0·65-0·98; p=0·033). This difference was mainly driven by a reduced rate of all-cause mortality (65 [9%] vs 88 [12%]; 0·72, 0·52-0·10; p=0·047). INTERPRETATION: Our findings should be taken as a point of reference for the assessment of new bioresorbable polymer-based metallic stents or bioresorbable scaffolds in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. FUNDING: Spanish Heart Foundation.

Everolimus-eluting stent versus bare-metal stent in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (EXAMINATION): 1 year results of a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Everolimus-eluting stent (EES) reduces the risk of restenosis in elective percutaneous coronary intervention. However, the use of drug-eluting stent in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is still controversial. Data regarding the performance of second-generation EES in this setting are scarce. We report the 1-year result of the EXAMINATION (clinical Evaluation of the Xience-V stent in Acute Myocardial INfArcTION) trial, comparing EES with bare-metal stents (BMS) in patients with STEMI. METHODS: This multicentre, prospective, randomised, all-comer controlled trial was done in 12 medical centres in three countries. Between Dec 31, 2008, and May 15, 2010, we recruited patients with STEMI up to 48 h after the onset of symptoms requiring emergent percutaneous coronary intervention. Patients were randomly assigned (ratio 1:1) to receive EES or BMS. Randomisation was in blocks of four or six patients, stratified by centre and centralised by telephone. Patients were masked to treatment. The primary endpoint was the patient-oriented combined endpoint of all-cause death, any recurrent myocardial infarction, and any revascularisation at 1 year and was analysed by intention to treat. The secondary endpoints of the study included the device-oriented combined endpoint of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction or target lesion revascularisation, and rates of all cause or cardiac death, recurrent myocardial infarction, target lesion or target vessel revascularisation, stent thrombosis, device and procedure success, and major and minor bleeding. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00828087. FINDINGS: Of the 1504 patients randomised, 1498 patients were randomly assigned to receive EES (n=751) or BMS (n=747). The primary endpoint was similar in both groups (89 [11·9%] of 751 patients in the EES group vs 106 [14·2%] of 747 patients in the BMS group; difference -2·34 [95% CI -5·75 to 1·07]; p=0·19). Device-oriented endpoint (44 [5·9%] in the EES group vs 63 [8·4%] in the BMS group; difference -2·57 [95% CI -5·18 to 0·03]; p=0·05) did not differ between groups, although rates of target lesion and vessel revascularisation were significantly lower in the EES group (16 [2·1%] vs 37 [5·0%], p=0·003, and 28 [3·7%] vs 51 [6·8%], p=0·0077, respectively). Rates of all cause (26 [3·5%] for EES vs 26 [3·5%] for BMS, p=1·00) or cardiac death (24 [3·2%] for EES vs 21 [2·8%] for BMS, p=0·76) or myocardial infarction (10 [1·3%] vs 15 [2·0%], p=0·32) did not differ between groups. Stent thrombosis rates were significantly lower in the EES group (4 [0·5%] patients with definite stent thrombosis in the EES group vs 14 [1·9%] in the BMS group and seven [0·9%] patients with definite or probable stent thrombosis in the EES group vs 19 [2·5%] in the BMS group, both p=0·019). Although device success rate was similar between groups, procedure success rate was significantly higher in the EES group (731 [97·5%] vs 705 [94·6%]; p=0·0050). Finally, Bleeding rates at 1 year were comparable between groups (29 [3·9%] patients in the EES group vs 39 [5·2%] in the BMS group; p=0·19). INTERPRETATION: The use of EES compared with BMS in the setting of STEMI did not lower the patient-oriented endpoint. However, at the stent level both rates of target lesion revascularisation and stent thrombosis were reduced in recipients of EES. FUNDING: Spanish Heart Foundation.

Everolimus-eluting stent versus bare metal stent in proximal left anterior descending ST-elevation myocardial infarction: insights from the EXAMINATION trial.

BACKGROUND: ST-elevation myocardial infarctions (STEMI) caused by proximal left-anterior descending (LAD) lesions have more myocardium at risk and worse outcomes than those located in other segments. The aim is to compare outcomes of patients with STEMI and proximal-LAD lesions treated with bare-metal stents (BMS) versus everolimus-eluting stents (EES). METHODS: The EXAMINATION trial randomized 1498 STEMI patients to BMS versus EES. The primary end point was the patient-oriented combined of all-cause death, any-recurrent myocardial infarction (MI) and any-revascularization. The secondary end point included the device-oriented combined of cardiac death, target-vessel MI and target-lesion revascularization (TLR). RESULTS: STEMI with a proximal-LAD occlusion was observed in 290 patients (BMS = 132 and EES = 158). Both groups were similar except for diabetes (12.9% vs 24.1%; P = .016). At 1 year, the primary end point was observed in 18.9% and 9.5% of patients treated with BMS and EES, respectively (P = .023). The secondary end point was observed in 11.4% and 5.1%, respectively (P = .053). There were no differences in cardiac death (4.5% vs 3.8%; P = .750) and MI (1.5% vs 0%; P = .121). BMS had higher rate of TLR compared to EES (6.8% vs 1.3%; P = .014). Patients with proximal-LAD STEMI had higher mortality than patients with non proximal-LAD STEMI (5.5% vs 2.9%; P = .027). Proximal-LAD lesions treated with BMS tended to increase the risk of the primary end point compared with other segments (18.9% vs 13.0%; P = .079). However, EES implanted in proximal-LAD had similar outcomes compared with other locations (9.5% vs 12.0%; P = .430). Adjusting for confounders, the interaction between BMS and proximal-LAD location was associated with the primary end point. CONCLUSION: Patients with STEMI and proximal-LAD lesions treated with EES have better outcomes compared with BMS at 1 year. Although further investigations are required, it seems reasonable to consider EES for proximal-LAD STEMI-lesions.

Outcomes in Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation.

The use of valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation (ViV-TAVI) is increasing, but studies evaluating clinical outcomes in these patients are scarce. Also, there are limited data to guide the choice of valve type in ViV-TAVI. Therefore, this CENTER-study evaluated clinical outcomes in patients with ViV-TAVI compared to patients with native valve TAVI (NV-TAVI). In addition, we compared outcomes in patients with ViV-TAVI treated with self-expandable versus balloon-expandable valves. A total of 256 patients with ViV-TAVI and 11333 patients with NV-TAVI were matched 1:2 using propensity score matching, resulting in 256 patients with ViV-TAVI and 512 patients with NV-TAVI. Mean age was 81±7 years, 58% were female, and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality was 6.3% (4.0% to 12.8%). Mortality rates were comparable between ViV-TAVI and NV-TAVI patients at 30 days (4.1% vs 5.9%, p = 0.30) and 1 year (14.2% vs 17.3%, p = 0.34). Stroke rates were also similar at 30 days (2.8% vs 1.8%, p = 0.38) and 1 year (4.9% vs 4.3%, p = 0.74). Permanent pacemakers were less frequently implanted in patients with ViV-TAVI (8.8% vs 15.0%, relative risk 0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37 to 0.92, p = 0.02). Patients with ViV-TAVI were treated with self-expandable valves (n = 162) and balloon-expandable valves (n = 94). Thirty-day major bleeding was less frequent in patients with self-expandable valves (3% vs 13%, odds ratio 5.12, 95% CI 1.42 to 18.52, p = 0.01). Thirty-day mortality was numerically lower in patients with self-expandable valves (3% vs 7%, odds ratio 3.35, 95% CI 0.77 to 14.51, p = 0.11). In conclusion, ViV-TAVI seems a safe and effective treatment for failing bioprosthetic valves with low mortality and stroke rates comparable to NV-TAVI for both valve types.

Rescue angioplasty: characteristics and results in a single-center experience.

PURPOSE AND METHODS: Rescue angioplasty (RA) has demonstrated its efficacy for the treatment of failed thrombolysis after acute myocardial infarction (AMI). We analyzed clinical, angiographic, and procedural characteristics, and prognosis at 30 days of prospective cohort of unselected patients admitted for RA. RESULTS: From August 2004 to August 2009, 361 patients were included in a single center. The median time pain to the thrombolysis was 140 minutes (interquartile range [IQR] 90-210), delay transfer 100 minutes (IQR 65-120); pain to PCI was 330 minutes (IQR 270-400). Initial flow TIMI 3 (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction) was presented in 102 (28.3%) of cases and blush grade 3 in 88 (24.4%). After the procedure, TIMI 3 flow was achieved in 286 (79.2%) and blush grade 3 in 256 (71%) (P < 0.001 and P < 0,001, respectively). A glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitor (Abciximab) was used in 115 patients (32%). Stents were implanted in 339 (94%) of patients, 137 (38%) of which were drug-eluting stent. Complete ST segment resolution was observed in 202 (64.5%) patients in 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) and procedural success was 77.6%. Adverse cardiac events and death after 30 days follow-up were 13.6% and 10.7%, respectively. Target vessel revascularization at 30 days was 1.9%. CONCLUSIONS: Routine application of RA in patients with persistent ST elevation 90 minutes after thrombolysis is a useful technique for achieving revascularization of the affected artery. In-hospital mortality remains high especially in patients with cardiac shock, despite new interventional techniques available, and adjunctive antithrombotic therapy.

10-Year Follow-Up of Patients With Everolimus-Eluting Versus Bare-Metal Stents After ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: Outcomes data for a durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stent (EES) at extended long-term follow-up in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) are unknown. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the 10-year outcomes of patients enrolled in the EXAMINATION (A Clinical Evaluation of Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stents in the Treatment of Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction) trial. METHODS: The EXAMINATION-EXTEND (10-Years Follow-Up of the EXAMINATION Trial) study is an investigator-driven 10-year follow-up of the EXAMINATION trial, which randomly assigned 1,498 patients with STEMI in a 1:1 ratio to receive either EES (n = 751) or bare-metal stents (n = 747). The primary endpoint was a patient-oriented composite endpoint of all-cause death, any myocardial infarction, or any revascularization. Secondary endpoints included a device-oriented composite endpoint of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization; the individual components of the combined endpoints; and stent thrombosis. RESULTS: Complete 10-year clinical follow-up was obtained in 94.5% of the EES group and 95.9% of the bare-metal stent group. Rates of the patient-oriented composite endpoint and device-oriented composite endpoint were significantly reduced in the EES group (32.4% vs. 38.0% [hazard ratio: 0.81; 95% confidence interval: 0.68 to 0.96; p = 0.013] and 13.6% vs. 18.4% [hazard ratio: 0.72; 95% confidence interval: 0.55 to 0.93; p = 0.012], respectively), driven mainly by target lesion revascularization (5.7% vs. 8.8%; p = 0.018). The rate of definite stent thrombosis was similar in both groups (2.2% vs. 2.5%; p = 0.590). No differences were found between the groups in terms of target lesion revascularization (1.4% vs. 1.3%; p = 0.963) and definite or probable stent thrombosis (0.6% vs. 0.4%; p = 0.703) between 5 and 10 years. CONCLUSIONS: At 10-year follow-up, EES demonstrated confirmed superiority in combined patient- and device-oriented composite endpoints compared with bare-metal stents in patients with STEMI requiring primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Between 5- and 10-year follow-up, a low incidence of adverse cardiovascular events related to device failure was found in both groups. (10-Years Follow-Up of the EXAMINATION Trial; NCT04462315).

Does Large Vessel Size Justify Use of Bare-Metal Stents in Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention?

BACKGROUND: Drug-eluting stents (DES) showed improved efficacy and safety compared with bare-metal stents (BMS), and international guidelines recommend their use as first line treatment. Yet, BMS are still widely used in practice, especially in large coronary vessels. We aimed to compare efficacy and safety of second-generation DES over BMS in large coronary culprit ST-segment elevated myocardial infarction lesions. METHODS: We evaluated impact of large coronary stents (maximum size ≥3.50 mm) or smaller stents (<3.50 mm), among 1498 patients with ST-segment elevated myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention, randomly allocated to everolimus-eluting DES or to an equivalent BMS platform in the EXAMINATION trial (Clinical Evaluation of the Xience-V Stent in Acute Myocardial Infarction Trial). Clinical events up to 5 years of follow-up were evaluated. RESULTS: Large coronary stents were used in 683 patients (45.9%). At 5-year follow-up, the crude rate of the primary end point, a composite of all-cause death, any myocardial infarction, or any revascularization, was similar among patients treated with large or smaller coronary stents. The impact of DES versus BMS implantation was consistent irrespective of the stent size both for the primary end point (Pint=0.82) and other secondary ischemic end points. Within patients treated with bigger stents, DES implantation was associated to a trend toward a reduction of target lesion (hazard ratio, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.27-1.02; P=0.05) and target vessel revascularization (hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.34-1.03; P=0.066). CONCLUSIONS: Our results do not support the preferential use of BMS for patients with large coronary vessels. DES may warrant improved efficacy irrespective of stent size among patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00828087.

Procedural, Functional and Prognostic Outcomes Following Recanalization of Coronary Chronic Total Occlusions. Results of the Iberian Registry.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: There is current controversy regarding the benefits of percutaneous recanalization (PCI) of chronic total coronary occlusions (CTO). Our aim was to determine acute and follow-up outcomes in our setting. METHODS: Two-year prospective registry of consecutive patients undergoing PCI of CTO in 24 centers. RESULTS: A total of 1000 PCIs of CTO were performed in 952 patients. Most were symptomatic (81.5%), with chronic ischemic heart disease (59.2%). Previous recanalization attempts had been made in 15%. The mean SYNTAX score was 19.5 ± 10.6 and J-score was > 2 in 17.3%. A retrograde procedure was performed in 92 patients (9.2%). The success rate was 74.9% and was higher in patients without previous attempts (82.2% vs 75.2%; P = .001), those with a J-score ≤ 2 (80.5% vs 69.5%; P = .002), and in intravascular ultrasound-guided PCI (89.9% vs 76.2%, P = .001), which was an independent predictor of success. In contrast, severe calcification, length > 20mm, and blunt proximal cap were independent predictors of failed recanalization. The rate of procedural complications was 7.1%, including perforation (3%), myocardial infarction (1.3%), and death (0.5%). At 1-year of follow-up, 88.2% of successfully revascularized patients showed clinical improvement (vs 34.8%, P < .001), which was associated with lower mortality. At 1-year of follow-up, the mortality rate was 1.5%. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with other national registries, patients in the Iberian registry undergoing PCI of a CTO showed similar complexity, success rate, and complications. Successful recanalization was strongly associated with functional improvement, which was related to lower mortality.

Cost-effectiveness of everolimus-eluting versus bare-metal stents in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: An analysis from the EXAMINATION randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Use of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) has proven to be clinically effective and safe in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction but it remains unclear whether it is cost-effective compared to bare-metal stents (BMS) in the long-term. We sought to assess the cost-effectiveness of EES versus BMS based on the 5-year results of the EXAMINATION trial, from a Spanish health service perspective. METHODS: Decision analysis of the use of EES versus BMS was based on the patient-level clinical outcome data of the EXAMINATION trial. The analysis adopted a lifelong time horizon, assuming that long-term survival was independent of the initial treatment strategy after the end of follow-up. Life-expectancy, health-state utility scores and unit costs were extracted from published literature and publicly available sources. Non-parametric bootstrapping was combined with probabilistic sensitivity analysis to co-assess the impact of patient-level variation and parameter uncertainty. The main outcomes were total costs and quality-adjusted life-years. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was expressed as cost per quality-adjusted life-years gained. Costs and effects were discounted at 3%. RESULTS: The model predicted an average survival time in patients receiving EES and BMS of 10.52 and 10.38 undiscounted years, respectively. Over the life-long time horizon, the EES strategy was €430 more costly than BMS (€8,305 vs. €7,874), but went along with incremental gains of 0.10 quality-adjusted life-years. This resulted in an average incremental cost-effectiveness ratio over all simulations of €3,948 per quality-adjusted life-years gained and was below a willingness-to-pay threshold of €25,000 per quality-adjusted life-years gained in 86.9% of simulation runs. CONCLUSIONS: Despite higher total costs relative to BMS, EES appeared to be a cost-effective therapy for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients due to their incremental effectiveness. Predicted incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were below generally acceptable threshold values.

Role of ST-Segment Resolution in Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Treated With Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (from the 5-Year Outcomes of the EXAMINATION [Evaluation of the Xience-V Stent in Acute Myocardial Infarction] Trial).

In patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI), lack of ST-segment resolution (STR) is associated with poor prognosis at short- and long-term follow-up. The aim of this study was to evaluate the role of STR on very long-term outcomes in patients with STEMI treated with pPCI included in the EXAMINATION (Evaluation of the Xience-V Stent in Acute Myocardial Infarction) trial. Patients were stratified according to the presence of STR < 50% and STR < 70% at the 30-minute post-pPCI electrocardiogram. Primary end point was the patient-oriented composite endpoint (POCE) of all-cause death, any myocardial infarction, or any revascularization at 5-year follow-up. Both baseline and post-PCI 30-minute electrocardiograms were available for STR assessment in 1,351 patients. Of these patients, 228 (16.9%) and 500 (37.0%) exhibited STR < 50% and STR < 70%, respectively. At 5-year follow-up, the POCE was observed more frequently in patients with STR < 50% (hazard ratio [HR] 1.556; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.194 to 2.027; p <0.001) and in patients with STR < 70% (HR 1.460, 95% CI 1.169 to 1.824, p <0.001) compared with patients with STR > 50% and STR ≥ 70%, respectively. In both cases, this difference was mainly driven by a significant increase in the rate of all-cause death and any revascularization. After multivariable adjustment, STR < 70%, but not STR < 50%, resulted as a 5-year independent predictor of POCE (adjusted HR 1.338, 95% CI 1.008 to 1.778, p = 0.044). In conclusion, in patients with STEMI, the evaluation of 70% STR after pPCI provides independent prognostic information at 5-year follow-up and it can be used to identify patients at high risk of very long-term cardiovascular events.

Correlates of non-target vessel-related adverse events in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: insights from five-year follow-up of the EXAMINATION trial.

AIMS: The aim of this substudy was to determine the five-year correlates of non-TV-related adverse events (AE) in STEMI patients included in the EXAMINATION trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: The EXAMINATION trial randomised 1,498 STEMI patients to bare metal or everolimus-eluting stent implantation. In this substudy, patients were analysed according to non-TV-related AE, defined as the composite of either non-TV revascularisation (non-TVR) or non-TV-related myocardial infarction (MI). At five-year follow-up, 125 patients (8.3%) exhibited 136 non-TV-related AE (124 [8.3%] non-TVR, 12 [0.8%] non-TV-related MI), accounting for 47.1% of 289 non-fatal cardiac events overall. These patients had a higher incidence of diabetes mellitus (p<0.001), arterial hypertension (p=0.032), previous MI (p=0.073), multivessel disease (p<0.001), and incomplete revascularisation (p=0.049), and a lower rate of ST-segment resolution >70% (p=0.042) as compared to the rest. At Cox analysis, previous MI (HR 1.872, 95% CI: 1.004-3.489; p=0.048), incomplete revascularisation (HR 1.746, 95% CI: 1.029-2.963; p=0.039) and diabetes (HR 1.942, 95% CI: 1.292-2.919; p=0.001) were independent correlates of non-TV-related AE. CONCLUSIONS: In STEMI patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention, previous MI, incomplete revascularisation and diabetes resulted in being independent correlates of five-year non-TV-related AE.

3-Year Clinical Follow-Up of the RIBS IV Clinical Trial: A Prospective Randomized Study of Drug-Eluting Balloons Versus Everolimus-Eluting Stents in Patients With In-Stent Restenosis in Coronary Arteries Previously Treated With Drug-Eluting Stents.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare the long-term safety and efficacy of drug-eluting balloons (DEB) and everolimus-eluting stents (EES) in patients with in-stent restenosis (ISR) of drug-eluting stents (DES). BACKGROUND: Treatment of patients with DES-ISR remains a challenge. METHODS: The RIBS IV (Restenosis Intra-Stent of Drug-Eluting Stents: Drug-Eluting Balloons vs Everolimus-Eluting Stents) trial is a prospective multicenter randomized clinical trial comparing DEB and EES in patients with DES-ISR. The pre-specified comparison of the 3-year clinical outcomes obtained with these interventions is the main objective of the present study. RESULTS: A total of 309 patients with DES-ISR were randomized to DEB (n = 154) or EES (n = 155). At angiographic follow-up, the in-segment minimal lumen diameter was larger in the EES arm (2.03 ± 0.7 mm vs. 1.80 ± 0.6 mm; p < 0.01). Three-year clinical follow-up was obtained in all enrolled patients (100%). The combined clinical outcome measure of cardiac death, myocardial infarction and target lesion revascularization was significantly reduced in the EES arm (19 [12.3%] vs. 31 [20.1%]; p = 0.04; hazard ratio: 0.57 [95% confidence interval: 0.34 to 0.96]), driven by a lower need for target lesion revascularization (11 [7.1%] vs. 24 [15.6%]; p = 0.015; hazard ratio: 0.43 [95% confidence interval: 0.21 to 0.87]). The need for "late" (>1 year) target lesion revascularization (2.6% vs. 4%) and target vessel revascularization (4% vs. 6.6%) was similar in the 2 arms. Rates of cardiac death (3.9% vs. 3.2%), myocardial infarction (2.6% vs. 4.5%), and stent thrombosis (1.3% vs. 2.6%) at 3 years were also similar in both arms. CONCLUSIONS: The 3-year clinical follow-up of this randomized clinical trial demonstrates that in patients with DES-ISR, EES reduce the need for repeat interventions compared with DEB. (Restenosis Intra-Stent of Drug-Eluting Stents: Drug-Eluting Balloons vs Everolimus-Eluting Stents [RIBS IV]; NCT01239940).

Impact of stent overlapping on long-term clinical outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: insights from the five-year follow-up of the EXAMINATION trial.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to compare the long-term outcomes of STEMI patients treated with overlap vs. no-overlap stents. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analysed the one- and five-year clinical outcomes of 1,498 STEMI patients according to overlapping stent implantation. The primary endpoint was a patient-oriented composite endpoint (PoCE) of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularisation. Stent thrombosis data were also analysed. Four hundred and four (27.0%) patients were treated with overlapping stents, whereas the remaining 1,094 (73.0%) were not. At one and five years, there was no difference in PoCE between the overlap vs. no-overlap group, even after adjustment (14.9% vs. 12.4%; HR 1.20, 95% CI: 0.76-1.90; p=0.44, and 26.3% vs. 22.3%; HR 1.14, 95% CI: 0.80-1.62; p=0.47, respectively). At five years, within the overlap group, patients who received BMS had a trend towards a higher rate of PoCE and DoCE as compared to those who received EES. At one year, there was a trend towards a higher rate of definite/probable stent thrombosis in the overlap compared to the no-overlap group (2.2% vs. 1.6%; HR 2.35, 95% CI: 0.95-5.90; p=0.06). This difference was driven by a higher rate for BMS compared to EES (4.4% vs. 0%, p for interaction=0.03) in the overlap group. At five years, the absolute risk difference for overlap (3.5% vs. 2.2%, p=0.99) and interaction for BMS (p=0.03) were similar. CONCLUSIONS: In patients presenting with STEMI, the long-term PoCE was similar for the overlap and no-overlap groups. Overlap among patients receiving BMS appears to be associated with a higher risk for adverse cardiovascular outcomes and stent thrombosis.

Impact of Body Mass Index on 5-Year Clinical Outcomes in Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction After Everolimus-Eluting or Bare-Metal Stent Implantation.

Patients with high body mass index (BMI) seem to have better outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention than normal-weight patients. However, contrasting results have been reported on the "obesity paradox" in patients presenting with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). The aim of our study was to investigate the impact of BMI on mortality in the population enrolled in the Evaluation of the Xience-V stent in Acute Myocardial INfArcTION (EXAMINATION) trial. The EXAMINATION trial randomized 1,498 patients with STEMI to a bare-metal stent or an everolimus-eluting stent. In this substudy patients were stratified into 3 groups according to BMI values: normal (BMI < 25 kg/m2), overweight (BMI = 25 to 29.9 kg/m2), and obese (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2). The coprimary end points were the all-cause and cardiac deaths among the groups at the 5-year follow-up. BMI was available in 1,421 patients, divided in 401 (28.2%) normal, 702 (49.4%) overweight, and 318 (22.4%) obese. Obese patients were younger (p = 0.012) compared with the other groups, but with a worse cardiovascular risk profile. They were more frequently female (p <0.001) and with a higher rate of obesity-related co-morbidity conditions such as diabetes mellitus (p = 0.005), arterial hypertension (p <0.001), and hyperlipidemia (p = 0.001) compared with the other groups. At the 5-year follow-up, all-cause and cardiac deaths were less frequent in obese patients than in the other groups (p = 0.003 and p = 0.030, respectively). After adjustment for confounding variables, BMI was an independent predictor of all-cause death (hazard ratio 0.765, 95% confidence interval 0.599 to 0.979, p = 0.033), but not of cardiac death, without any interaction with the stent type. In conclusion, in patients with STEMI who underwent primary PCI, the long-term all-cause death rate decreased as BMI increased, confirming the obesity paradox, irrespective of the stent type.

[Economic impact of the taxus coronary stent: implications for the Spanish healthcare system]. / Impacto económico del stent coronario Taxus: implicaciones para el sistema sanitario Español.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: This article examines the cost impact associated with the utilization of the Taxus drug eluting stent versus a conventional bare-metal stent for percutaneous coronary interventions in a Spanish hospital setting. METHODS: A decision analysis model has been developed to compare the intervention and re-hospitalization costs at 12 and 24 months post-intervention. The analysis considers the general patient population and a high-risk subpopulation (diabetes, small vessel, long lesion). The analysis simulates the results of the TAXUS-IV clinical trial, in a population with similar risks, with appropriate costs, and including budget impact analyses with alternative utilization scenarios. RESULTS: The expected average per patient hospital cost at 12 months was 6934 euros with Taxus and 6756 euros with bare-metal stent (and increase of 2.6%). At 24 months, per patient hospital cost was 6,991 euros for Taxus and 6887 euros for bare-metal stent (an increase of 1.5%). In the high-risk subpopulation, Taxus was overall cost saving as compared to bare-metal stent both at 12 months (decrease of 3.0%) and 24 months (decrease of 4.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Use of Taxus in the overall population slightly raises treatment costs, while in patients with greater risk of restenosis the treatment cost is reduced. Given the decrease in the number of repeat revascularizations with this stent, the cost-effectiveness relationship could be acceptable in the general patient population and is dominant in the high-risk subpopulation.

[Efficacy of sirolimus-eluting stents in diabetics with complex coronary lesions]. / Utilidad de los stents recubiertos de rapamicina en pacientes diabéticos con lesiones coronarias complejas.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Diabetics are at an increased risk of restenosis and adverse events after coronary stenting. Drug-eluting stents may, therefore, be useful in these patients. Our objective was to evaluate the use of sirolimus-eluting stents in diabetics with complex coronary lesions. PATIENTS AND METHOD: Between May 2002 and August 2003, we treated 231 patients with 260 complex coronary lesions using sirolimus-eluting stents. Of these patients, 56% did not have diabetes (ND), 22% had non-insulin-dependent diabetes (NIRD), and 20% had insulin-dependent diabetes (IRD). The primary clinical endpoint was target vessel failure at 1 year. The primary angiographic endpoints in the stent were late loss and binary restenosis at 6 months. RESULTS: At 6 months, late loss was greater in the IRD group (0.35 [0.71] mm) than in the ND group (0,096 [0.54] mm; P =.016) or the NIRD group (0.058 [0.52] mm; P=.017), and restenosis was more frequent (IRD, 16.3%; ND, 6.3%; and NIRD 7.8%; P=.05 for linear trend). At one year, target vessel failure occurred more frequently in the IRD group (IRD, 17.4%; NIRD, 7.7%; ND, 7.7%; P=.07 for linear trend) and the rate of survival free of target vessel failure was lower in the IRD group (82.1%) compared with the ND group (92.3%, P=.06) or the NIRD group (92.3%, P=NS). The only independent predictor of restenosis and target vessel failure was female sex. CONCLUSIONS: Despite IRD patients having greater late lumen loss and more frequent restenosis at six months and a trend towards a poorer clinical outcome at 1 year, no independent relationship was found between type of diabetes and clinical outcome.

Evaluation of a 'color coding' system for the assessment of patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

AIMS: The reduction of delay times as well as the rate of false alarms (FA) have become some of the main points of the different infarction networks. We propose a simple way of classifying patients derived for primary PCI (pPCI) into well-defined simple groups by colors, where we can assess real delays of each clinical presentation, define the FA and, furthermore, establish their immediate and short term prognosis. METHODS AND RESULTS: Prospective study of STEMI consecutive patients derived for pPCI during 2014. Patients were categorized into one of the 3 predesigned groups [(i) Green: diagnostic-ECG with compatible clinical presentation for pPCI; (ii) Yellow: LBBB, pacemaker rate or non-diagnostic ECG; and (iii) Red: very complex patients], always before performing the angiography in 518 patients. Delay times were highest in the Yellow group, with much longer first medical contact (FMC) to balloon time (median Green 118'; Yellow 163'; Red 130'; p<0.001) mainly due to higher times from the first medical contact to the diagnosis and team activation (median Green 30'; Yellow 70'; Red 39'; p<0.001). In the whole cohort, pPCI was performed in 80.2% of patients, with 11.9% of FA. The Green group had only a 2.5% FA rate, in contrast to the Yellow group where FA were 43.2%. CONCLUSIONS: This simple classification differentiates the 3 very clear groups in which delay times and prognosis are very different. This classification allows us to measure, evaluate and compare the performance of each of our pPCI networks with others and within different periods of times.

A randomized comparison of novel bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent and durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent in patients with acute coronary syndromes: The CENTURY II high risk ACS substudy.

BACKGROUND: To investigate clinical outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention using a sirolimus-eluting stent with bioresorbable polymer, Ultimaster (BP-SES) compared with a permanent polymer everolimus-eluting stent, Xience (PP-EES) in patients with high risk (ST-segment elevation and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction) acute coronary syndromes (ACS) enrolled in the CENTURY II trial. METHODS: CENTURY II is a prospective, multicenter, randomized, single blind, controlled trial comparing BP-SES and PP-EES, with primary endpoint of target lesion failure (TLF) at 9month post-stent implantation. Out of 1123 patients enrolled in CENTURY II trial, 264 high risk ACS patients were included in this subgroup analysis, and the clinical outcomes including target lesion failure (TLF), target vessel failure (TVF), cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and stent thrombosis were evaluated at 24months. RESULTS: The baseline clinical, angiographic and procedural characteristics were similar between two groups. At 24months, TLF occurred in 6.3% of patients receiving a BP-SES and 6.5% of patients receiving a PP-EES (P=0.95); TVF was 6.3% in patients receiving a BP-SES and 9.4% in patients receiving a PP-EES (P=0.36). There were no significant differences in cardiac death, myocardial infarction and stent thrombosis rate. CONCLUSIONS: BP-SES achieved similar safety and efficacy outcomes as PP-EES in this ACS subgroup of CENTURY II study, at 24-month follow-up. This finding is hypothesis-generating and needs to be confirmed in larger trials with longer follow-up.