Randomized trial of ticagrelor vs. aspirin in patients after coronary artery bypass grafting: the TiCAB trial.

AIMS: The antiplatelet treatment strategy providing optimal balance between thrombotic and bleeding risks in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is unclear. We prospectively compared the efficacy of ticagrelor and aspirin after CABG. METHODS AND RESULTS: We randomly assigned in double-blind fashion patients scheduled for CABG to either ticagrelor 90 mg twice daily or 100 mg aspirin (1:1) once daily. The primary outcome was the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), repeat revascularization, and stroke 12 months after CABG. The main safety endpoint was based on the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium classification, defined as BARC ≥4 for periprocedural and hospital stay-related bleedings and BARC ≥3 for post-discharge bleedings. The study was prematurely halted after recruitment of 1859 out of 3850 planned patients. Twelve months after CABG, the primary endpoint occurred in 86 out of 931 patients (9.7%) in the ticagrelor group and in 73 out of 928 patients (8.2%) in the aspirin group [hazard ratio 1.19; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87-1.62; P = 0.28]. All-cause mortality (ticagrelor 2.5% vs. aspirin 2.6%, hazard ratio 0.96, CI 0.53-1.72; P = 0.89), cardiovascular death (ticagrelor 1.2% vs. aspirin 1.4%, hazard ratio 0.85, CI 0.38-1.89; P = 0.68), MI (ticagrelor 2.1% vs. aspirin 3.4%, hazard ratio 0.63, CI 0.36-1.12, P = 0.12), and stroke (ticagrelor 3.1% vs. 2.6%, hazard ratio 1.21, CI 0.70-2.08; P = 0.49), showed no significant difference between the ticagrelor and aspirin group. The main safety endpoint was also not significantly different (ticagrelor 3.7% vs. aspirin 3.2%, hazard ratio 1.17, CI 0.71-1.92; P = 0.53). CONCLUSION: In this prematurely terminated and thus underpowered randomized trial of ticagrelor vs. aspirin in patients after CABG no significant differences in major cardiovascular events or major bleeding could be demonstrated. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT01755520.

A randomized, parallel group, double-blind study of ticagrelor compared with aspirin for prevention of vascular events in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft operation: Rationale and design of the Ticagrelor in CABG (TiCAB) trial: An Investigator-Initiated trial.

BACKGROUND: For patients with coronary artery disease undergoing coronary bypass surgery, acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) currently represents the gold standard of antiplatelet treatment. However, adverse cardiovascular event rates in the first year after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) still exceed 10%. Graft failure, which is predominantly mediated by platelet aggregation, has been identified as a major contributing factor in this context. Therefore, intensified platelet inhibition is likely to be beneficial. Ticagrelor, an oral, reversibly binding and direct-acting P2Y12 receptor antagonist, provides a rapid, competent, and consistent platelet inhibition and has shown beneficial results compared with clopidogrel in the subset of patients undergoing bypass surgery in a large previous trial. HYPOTHESIS: Ticagrelor is superior to ASA for the prevention of major cardiovascular events within 1 year after CABG. STUDY DESIGN: The TiCAB trial (NCT01755520) is a multicenter, phase III, double-blind, double-dummy, randomized trial comparing ticagrelor with ASA for the prevention of major cardiovascular events within 12 months after CABG. Patients undergoing CABG will be randomized in a 1:1 fashion to either ticagrelor 90 mg twice daily or ASA 100 mg once daily. The study medication will be started within 24 hours after surgery and maintained for 12 months. The primary end point is the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and repeat revascularization at 12 months after CABG. The sample size is based on an expected event rate of 13% of the primary end point within the first 12 months after randomization in the control group, a 2-sided α level of .0492 (to preserve the overall significance level of .05 after planned interim analysis), a power of 0.80%, 2-sided testing, and an expected relative risk of 0.775 in the active group compared with the control group and a dropout rate of 2%. According to power calculations based on a superiority design for ticagrelor, it is estimated that 3,850 patients should be enrolled. SUMMARY: There is clinical equipoise on the issue of optimal platelet inhibition after CABG. The TiCAB trial will provide a pivotal comparison of the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor compared with ASA after CABG.

Intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation (IABP) for myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock.

BACKGROUND: Intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation (IABP) is currently the most commonly used mechanical assist device for patients with cardiogenic shock due to acute myocardial infarction. Although there has been only limited evidence from randomised controlled trials, the previous guidelines of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology (AHA/ACC) and the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) strongly recommended the use of the IABP in patients with infarction-related cardiogenic shock on the basis of pathophysiological considerations, non-randomised trials and registry data. The recent guidelines downgraded the recommendation based on a meta-analysis which could only include non-randomised trials showing conflicting results. Up to now, there have been no guideline recommendations and no actual meta-analysis including the results of the large randomised multicentre IABP-SHOCK II Trial which showed no survival benefit with IABP support. This systematic review is an update of the review published in 2011. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate, in terms of efficacy and safety, the effect of IABP versus non-IABP or other assist devices guideline compliant standard therapy on mortality and morbidity in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. SEARCH METHODS: Searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE (Ovid) and EMBASE (Ovid), LILACS, IndMed and KoreaMed, registers of ongoing trials and proceedings of conferences were updated in October 2013. Reference lists were scanned and experts in the field contacted to obtain further information. No language restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials on patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data collection and analysis were performed according to the published protocol. Individual patient data were provided for six trials and merged with aggregate data. Summary statistics for the primary endpoints were hazard ratios (HRs) and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). MAIN RESULTS: Seven eligible studies were identified from a total of 2314 references. One new study with 600 patients was added to the original review. Four trials compared IABP to standard treatment and three to other percutaneous left assist devices (LVAD). Data from a total of 790 patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock were included in the updated meta-analysis: 406 patients were treated with IABP and 384 patients served as controls; 339 patients were treated without assisting devices and 45 patients with other LVAD. The HR for all-cause 30-day mortality of 0.95 (95% CI 0.76 to 1.19) provided no evidence for a survival benefit. Different non-fatal cardiovascular events were reported in five trials. During hospitalisation, 11 and 4 out of 364 patients from the intervention groups suffered from reinfarction or stroke, respectively. Altogether 5 out of 363 patients from the control group suffered from reinfarction or stroke. Reocclusion was treated with subsequent re-revascularization in 6 out of 352 patients from the intervention group and 13 out of 353 patients of the control group. The high incidence of complications such as moderate and severe bleeding or infection in the control groups has to be attributed to interventions with other LVAD. Possible reasons for bias were more frequent in small studies with high cross-over rates, early stopping and the inclusion of patients with IABP at randomisation. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Available evidence suggests that IABP may have a beneficial effect on some haemodynamic parameters. However, this did not result in survival benefits so there is no convincing randomised data to support the use of IABP in infarct-related cardiogenic shock.

Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (IABP-SHOCK II): final 12 month results of a randomised, open-label trial.

BACKGROUND: In current international guidelines the recommendation for intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) use has been downgraded in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction on the basis of registry data. In the largest randomised trial (IABP-SHOCK II), IABP support did not reduce 30 day mortality compared with control. However, previous trials in cardiogenic shock showed a mortality benefit only at extended follow-up. The present analysis therefore reports 6 and 12 month results. METHODS: The IABP-SHOCK II trial was a randomised, open-label, multicentre trial. Patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction who were undergoing early revascularisation and optimum medical therapy were randomly assigned (1:1) to IABP versus control via a central web-based system. The primary efficacy endpoint was 30 day all-cause mortality, but 6 and 12 month follow-up was done in addition to quality-of-life assessment for all survivors with the Euroqol-5D questionnaire. A masked central committee adjudicated clinical outcomes. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment allocation. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00491036. FINDINGS: Between June 16, 2009, and March 3, 2012, 600 patients were assigned to IABP (n=301) or control (n=299). Of 595 patients completing 12 month follow-up, 155 (52%) of 299 patients in the IABP group and 152 (51%) of 296 patients in the control group had died (relative risk [RR] 1·01, 95% CI 0·86-1·18, p=0·91). There were no significant differences in reinfarction (RR 2·60, 95% CI 0·95-7·10, p=0·05), recurrent revascularisation (0·91, 0·58-1·41, p=0·77), or stroke (1·50, 0·25-8·84, p=1·00). For survivors, quality-of-life measures including mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain or discomfort, and anxiety or depression did not differ significantly between study groups. INTERPRETATION: In patients undergoing early revascularisation for myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock, IABP did not reduce 12 month all-cause mortality. FUNDING: German Research Foundation; German Heart Research Foundation; German Cardiac Society; Arbeitsgemeinschaft Leitende Kardiologische Krankenhausärzte; University of Leipzig--Heart Centre; Maquet Cardiopulmonary; Teleflex Medical.

Stent thrombosis with drug-eluting and bare-metal stents: evidence from a comprehensive network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The relative safety of drug-eluting stents and bare-metal stents, especially with respect to stent thrombosis, continues to be debated. In view of the overall low frequency of stent thrombosis, large sample sizes are needed to accurately estimate treatment differences between stents. We compared the risk of thrombosis between bare-metal and drug-eluting stents. METHODS: For this network meta-analysis, randomised controlled trials comparing different drug-eluting stents or drug-eluting with bare-metal stents currently approved in the USA were identified through Medline, Embase, Cochrane databases, and proceedings of international meetings. Information about study design, inclusion and exclusion criteria, sample characteristics, and clinical outcomes was extracted. FINDINGS: 49 trials including 50,844 patients randomly assigned to treatment groups were analysed. 1-year definite stent thrombosis was significantly lower with cobalt-chromium everolimus eluting stents (CoCr-EES) than with bare-metal stents (odds ratio [OR] 0·23, 95% CI 0·13-0·41). The significant difference in stent thrombosis between CoCr-EES and bare-metal stents was evident as early as 30 days (OR 0·21, 95% CI 0·11-0·42) and was also significant between 31 days and 1 year (OR 0·27, 95% CI 0·08-0·74). CoCr-EES were also associated with significantly lower rates of 1-year definite stent thrombosis compared with paclitaxel-eluting stents (OR 0·28, 95% CI 0·16-0·48), permanent polymer-based sirolimus-eluting stents (OR 0·41, 95% CI 0·24-0·70), phosphorylcholine-based zotarolimus-eluting stents (OR 0·21, 95% CI 0·10-0·44), and Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stents (OR 0·14, 95% CI 0·03-0·47). At 2-year follow-up, CoCr-EES were still associated with significantly lower rates of definite stent thrombosis than were bare-metal (OR 0·35, 95% CI 0·17-0·69) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (OR 0·34, 95% CI 0·19-0·62). No other drug-eluting stent had lower definite thrombosis rates compared with bare-metal stents at 2-year follow-up. INTERPRETATION: In randomised studies completed to date, CoCr-EES has the lowest rate of stent thrombosis within 2 years of implantation. The finding that CoCr-EES also reduced stent thrombosis compared with bare-metal stents, if confirmed in future randomised trials, represents a paradigm shift. FUNDING: The Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

Biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents reduce the risk of stent thrombosis at 4 years in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a pooled analysis of individual patient data from the ISAR-TEST 3, ISAR-TEST 4, and LEADERS randomized trials.

AIMS: The efficacy of durable polymer drug-eluting stents (DES) is delivered at the expense of delayed healing of the stented vessel. Biodegradable polymer DES aim to avoid this shortcoming and may potentially improve long-term clinical outcomes, with benefit expected to accrue over time. We sought to compare long-term outcomes in patients treated with biodegradable polymer DES vs. durable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (SES). METHODS AND RESULTS: We pooled individual patient data from three large-scale multicentre randomized clinical trials (ISAR-TEST 3, ISAR-TEST 4, and LEADERS) comparing biodegradable polymer DES with durable polymer SES and assessed clinical outcomes during follow-up through 4 years. The efficacy endpoint of interest was target lesion revascularization and the safety endpoint of interest was definite stent thrombosis. Out of 4062 patients included in the present analysis, 2358 were randomly assigned to treatment with biodegradable polymer DES (sirolimus-eluting, n= 1501; biolimus-eluting, n= 857) and 1704 patients to durable polymer SES. No heterogeneity across the trials was observed in analyses of the primary and secondary endpoints. At 4 years, the risk of target lesion revascularization was significantly lower among patients treated with biodegradable polymer DES vs. durable polymer SES (hazard ratio 0.82, 95% CI 0.68-0.98, P= 0.029). In addition, the risk of stent thrombosis was significantly reduced with biodegradable polymer DES vs. durable polymer SES (hazard ratio 0.56, 95% CI 0.35-0.90, P= 0.015), driven by a lower risk of very late stent thrombosis (hazard ratio 0.22, 95% CI 0.08-0.61, P= 0.004). In keeping with this, in landmark analysis between 1 and 4 years, the incidence of myocardial infarction was lower for patients treated with biodegradable polymer DES vs. durable polymer SES (hazard ratio 0.59, 95% CI 0.73-0.95, P= 0.031). CONCLUSION: Biodegradable polymer DES improve safety and efficacy compared with durable polymer SES during long-term follow-up to 4 years.

Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in patients with acute myocardial infarction without cardiogenic shock. A meta-analysis of randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Conflicting data on intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation (IABC) as adjunctive therapy in high-risk acute myocardial infarction (AMI) without cardiogenic shock (CS) have been published. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized trials evaluating the benefits of IABC in patients with AMI without CS. METHODS: We searched Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and relevant Web sites for randomized trials comparing IABC versus no IABC in patients with AMI without CS. No language, publication date, or publication status restrictions were applied. Primary end point was all-cause death. Secondary end points were congestive heart failure (CHF), reinfarction, recurrent myocardial ischemia, cerebrovascular accidents (CVA), and bleeding (moderate to severe) according to per protocol definitions. RESULTS: Six trials were included (1,054 patients, 49.1% IABC vs 50.9% no IABC). At follow-up, counterpulsation does not reduce all-cause death (4.4% vs 4.1%, odds ratio [OR] [95% CI] 1.11 [0.49-2.54], P = .80), CHF (17.1% vs 18%, OR 0.92 [0.43-1.96], P = .83), or reinfarction (5.3% vs 7.7%, OR 0.68 [0.23-1.76], P = .42). Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation versus no IABC significantly reduces recurrent myocardial ischemia (3.6% vs 20.3%, OR 0.15 [0.08-0.28], P < .00001), but it increases the risk of CVA (2% vs 0.3%, OR 4.39 [1.11-17.36], P = .03) and bleeding (21.4% vs 16.1%, respectively, OR 1.46 [1.05-2.04], P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Counterpulsation does not reduce death, CHF, or reinfarction in patients with AMI without CS. The significant reduction of recurrent myocardial ischemia associated with IABC use is offset by a higher risk of CVAs and bleeding.

Coracoid impingement: current concepts.

For many years, coracoid impingement has been a well-recognized cause of anterior shoulder pain. However, a precise diagnosis of coracoid impingement remains difficult in some cases due to the presence of multifactorial pathologies and a paucity of supporting evidence in the literature. This review provides an update on the current anatomical and biomechanical knowledge regarding this pathology, describes the diagnostic process, and discusses the possible treatment options, based on a systematic review of the literature. Level of evidence V.

Prognostic impact of secondary prevention after coronary artery bypass grafting-insights from the TiCAB trial.

OBJECTIVES: There are disparities in the adherence to guideline-recommended therapies after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG). We therefore sought to evaluate the effect of guideline-adherent medical secondary prevention on 1-year outcome after CABG. METHODS: Data were taken from the randomized 'Ticagrelor in CABG' trial. From April 2013 until April 2017, patients who underwent CABG were included. For the present analysis, we compared patients who were treated with optimal medical secondary prevention with those where 1 or more of the recommended medications were missing. RESULTS: Follow-up data at 12 months were available in 1807 patients. About half (54%) of them were treated with optimal secondary prevention. All-cause mortality [0.5% vs 3.5%, hazard ratio (HR) 0.14 (0.05-0.37), P < 0.01], cardiovascular mortality [0.1% vs 1.7%, HR 0.06 (0.01-0.46), P = 0.007] and major adverse events [6.5% vs 11.5%, HR 0.54 (0.39-0.74), P < 0.01] were significantly lower in the group with optimal secondary prevention. The multivariable model for the primary end point based on binary concordance to guideline recommended therapy identified 3 independent factors: adherence to guideline recommended therapy [HR 0.55 (0.39-0.78), P < 0.001]; normal renal function [HR 0.99 (0.98-0.99), P = 0.040]; and off-pump surgery [HR 2.06 (1.02-4.18), P = 0.045]. CONCLUSIONS: Only every second patient receives optimal secondary prevention after CABG. Guideline adherent secondary prevention therapy is associated with lower mid-term mortality and less adverse cardiovascular events after 12 months.

A meta-analysis of specifically designed randomized trials of sirolimus-eluting versus paclitaxel-eluting stents in diabetic patients with coronary artery disease.

BACKGROUND: There is an ongoing debate on the optimal drug-eluting stent (DES) in diabetic patients with coronary artery disease. We addressed this issue by making a synthesis of the available evidence on the relative long-term efficacy and safety of sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) in these patients. METHODS: Individual patient data were analyzed from 6 randomized trials specifically designed to compare SES with PES in diabetic patients. In total, 1183 patients were followed up for a median of 3.9 years (25th, 75th percentiles 3.4-4.5 years). The primary efficacy end point was target lesion revascularization (TLR). The composite of death and myocardial infarction (MI) was the primary safety end point. Stent thrombosis was a secondary end point. Overall hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs were calculated as summary estimates. RESULTS: No significant heterogeneity was seen across the 6 randomized trials for all analyzed events. Sirolimus-eluting stent was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of TLR (HR 0.65 [0.47-0.91], P = .01). No significant differences were observed regarding the risk of death or MI (HR 1.04 [0.74-1.45], P = .83) and stent thrombosis (HR 1.00 [0.31-3.30], P = .67). Mortality was also not affected by the type of DES (HR 0.95 [0.65-1.39], P = .79). CONCLUSIONS: In diabetic patients with coronary artery disease, SES leads to a sustained reduction in the risk of TLR compared with PES. Both these DES types are, however, comparable with respect to the risk of stent thrombosis, MI, or death over long-term follow-up.

Intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation (IABP) for myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock.

BACKGROUND: Intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation (IABP) is currently the most commonly used mechanical assist device for patients with cardiogenic shock due to acute myocardial infarction.Although there is only limited evidence by randomised controlled trials, the current guidelines of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology and the European Society of Cardiology strongly recommend the use of the intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in patients with infarction-related cardiogenic shock on the basis of pathophysiological considerations as also non-randomised trials and registry data.    OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of IABP versus non-IABP or other assist devices guideline compliant standard therapy, in terms of efficacy and safety, on mortality and morbidity in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. SEARCH STRATEGY: Searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE, LILACS, IndMed and KoreaMed, registers of ongoing trials and proceedings of conferences were conducted in January 2010, unrestricted by date. Reference lists were scanned and experts in the field contacted to obtain further information. No language restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials on patients with myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data collection and analysis were performed according to a published protocol. Individual patient data were provided for five trials and merged with aggregate data. Summary statistics for the primary endpoints were hazard ratios (HR's) and odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CI). MAIN RESULTS: Six eligible and two ongoing studies were identified from a total of 1410 references. Three compared IABP to standard treatment and three to percutaneous left assist devices (LVAD). Data from a total of 190 patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock were included in the meta-analysis: 105 patients were treated with IABP and 85 patients served as controls. 40 patients were treated without assisting devices and 45 patients with LVAD. HR's for all-cause 30-day mortality of 1.04 (95% CI 0.62 to 1.73) provides no evidence for a survival benefit. While differences in survival were comparable in patients treated with IABP, with and without LVAD, haemodynamics and incidences of device related complications show heterogeneous results. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Available evidence suggests that IABP may have a beneficial effect on the haemodynamics, however there is no convincing randomised data to support the use of IABP in infarct related cardiogenic shock.

Anatomic and Flow Characteristics of Left Anterior Descending Coronary Artery Angiographic Stenoses Predisposing to Myocardial Infarction.

The impact of the anatomic characteristics of coronary stenoses on the development of future coronary thrombosis has been controversial. This study aimed at identifying the anatomic and flow characteristics of left anterior descending (LAD) coronary artery stenoses that predispose to myocardial infarction, by examining angiograms obtained before the index event. We identified 90 patients with anterior ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) for whom coronary angiograms and their reconstruction in the three-dimensional space were available at 6 to 12 months before the STEMI, and at the revascularization procedure. The majority of culprit lesions responsible for STEMI occurred between 20 and 40 mm from the LAD ostium, whereas the majority of stable lesions not associated with STEMI were found in distances >60 mm (p < 0.001). Culprit lesions were significantly more stenosed (diameter stenosis 68.6 ± 14.2% vs 44.0 ± 10.4%, p < 0.001), and significantly longer than stable ones (15.3 ± 5.4 mm vs 9.2 ± 2.5 mm, p < 0.001). Bifurcations at culprit lesions were significantly more frequent (88.8%) compared with stable lesions (34.4%, p < 0.001). Computational fluid dynamics simulations demonstrated that hemodynamic conditions in the vicinity of culprit lesions promote coronary thrombosis due to flow recirculation. A multiple logistic regression model with diameter stenosis, lesion length, distance from the LAD ostium, distance from bifurcation, and lesion symmetry, showed excellent accuracy in predicting the development of a culprit lesion (AUC: 0.993 [95% CI: 0.969 to 1.000], p < 0.0001). In conclusion, specific anatomic and hemodynamic characteristics of LAD stenoses identified on coronary angiograms may assist risk stratification of patients by predicting sites of future myocardial infarction.

Polymorphisms in thrombospondin genes and myocardial infarction: a case-control study and a meta-analysis of available evidence.

A role of thrombospondins (TSPs) in atherosclerosis and thrombosis was suggested by associations of single nucleotide polymorphisms in the genes coding for TSP-1 (rs2228262; Asn700Ser), TSP-2 (rs8089; 3' untranslated region), and TSP-4 (rs1866389; Ala387Pro) with myocardial infarction (MI). However, these findings were not consistently confirmed in replication studies. We determined the genotypes related to these polymorphisms in a large case-control sample of MI and performed a meta-analysis of data obtained in the present sample and available from prior studies that included Europeans or Americans of European origin. In the population examined here, the carriers of the minor allele of the polymorphism in the TSP-2 gene (GG and TG genotypes) had a mildly statistically significant higher risk of MI than the homozygous carriers of the major allele (TT genotype) [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 1.19; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.02 to 1.39]. In similar comparisons, no associations of the polymorphisms in the TSP-1 (adjusted OR 1.12; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.35) and TSP-4 (adjusted OR 0.99; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.16) genes with MI were observed. The meta-analysis included 6388 (TSP-1), 4930 (TSP-2), and 6978 (TSP-4) cases. None of the polymorphisms was found to be linked with the risk of MI. Thus, despite associations in certain individual studies, the synthesis of available evidence did not suggest that the TSP polymorphisms included in this study were associated with MI.

Outcomes of patients treated with durable polymer platinum-chromium everolimus-eluting stents: a meta-analysis of randomised trials.

AIMS: The durable polymer platinum-chromium everolimus-eluting stent (PtCr-EES) is a new-generation drug-eluting stent (DES) with a platinum-enriched metallic platform developed to improve the percutaneous treatment of patients with coronary artery disease. We sought to investigate the performance of durable polymer PtCr-EES versus other new-generation DES. METHODS AND RESULTS: We undertook a meta-analysis of trials in which patients receiving percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were randomly assigned to durable polymer PtCr-EES versus other new-generation DES (other DES). Primary efficacy and safety outcomes were target lesion revascularisation (TLR) and definite/probable stent thrombosis (ST), respectively. Secondary outcomes were myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularisation (TVR), death, cardiac death and longitudinal stent deformation (LSD). A total of 11,036 patients in seven trials received a PCI with either durable polymer PtCr-EES (n=6,613) or other DES (n=4,423). This latter group comprised patients treated with biolimus- (n=325), cobalt-chromium everolimus- (n=1,940) or zotarolimus-eluting stents (n=2,158). After a median follow-up of 12 months (interquartile range 12-24), durable polymer PtCr-EES displayed a risk of TLR (odds ratio 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.75-1.29; p=0.90) and definite/probable ST (0.89 [0.55-1.45]; p=0.63) comparable to that of other DES. However, the durable polymer PtCr-EES was associated with a higher risk of LSD (12.05 [1.60-90.71], p=0.02) compared to other DES. There was no significant difference with regard to other secondary outcomes nor was there heterogeneity across trials. CONCLUSIONS: At one-year follow-up, the durable polymer PtCr-EES displays a performance comparable to that of other new-generation DES platforms.

Culprit lesion location and outcome in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction: a substudy of the IABP-SHOCK II-trial.

BACKGROUND: In myocardial infarction without cardiogenic shock (CS), the affected coronary vessel has significant influence on the final infarct size and patient prognosis. CS data on this relation are scarce. The objective of this study was to determine the prognostic relevance of the culprit lesion location in patients with CS complicating acute myocardial infarction. METHODS: In the Intraaortic Balloon Pump in Cardiogenic Shock II (IABP-SHOCK II) trial patients with CS were randomized to therapy with intraaortic balloon pump or control. Additional CS patients not eligible for the randomized trial were included in a registry. We compared the location of the culprit lesions in these patients with regard to the affected coronary vessel [left main (LM), left anterior descending (LAD), left circumflex (LCX) and right coronary artery (RCA)] and location within the vessel (proximal, mid or distal) regarding short- and long-term outcome. RESULTS: Of 758 patients, the majority had the culprit lesion in the LAD (44 %) compared to RCA (27 %), LCX (19 %) or LM (10 %). Proximal lesions were more frequent than mid or distal culprit lesions (60 vs. 27 vs. 13 %, p < 0.001). No differences were observed for mortality with respect to either culprit vessel (log-rank p value = 0.54). In contrast, a higher mortality was observed for patients with distal culprit lesions after 1 year (log-rank p value = 0.04). This difference persisted after multivariable adjustment (hazard ratio for distal lesions 1.40; 95 % confidential interval 1.03-1.90; p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: For patients with CS complicating myocardial infarction, the culprit vessel seems to be unrelated with mortality whereas distal culprit lesions may have a worse outcome.

Long-term outcomes of biodegradable versus durable polymer drug-eluting stents in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a pooled analysis of individual patient data from three randomised trials.

AIMS: Arterial plaque rupture and thrombus characterise ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and may aggravate delayed arterial healing following durable polymer drug-eluting stent (DP-DES) implantation. Biodegradable polymer (BP) may improve biocompatibility. We compared long-term outcomes in STEMI patients receiving BP-DES vs. durable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (DP-SES). METHODS AND RESULTS: We pooled individual patient-level data from three randomised clinical trials (ISAR-TEST-3, ISAR-TEST-4 and LEADERS) comparing outcomes from BP-DES with DP-SES at four years. The primary endpoint (MACE) comprised cardiac death, MI, or target lesion revascularisation (TLR). Secondary endpoints were TLR, cardiac death or MI, and definite or probable stent thrombosis. Of 497 patients with STEMI, 291 received BP-DES and 206 DP-SES. At four years, MACE was significantly reduced following treatment with BP-DES (hazard ratio [HR] 0.59, 95% CI: 0.39-0.90; p=0.01) driven by reduced TLR (HR 0.54, 95% CI: 0.30-0.98; p=0.04). Trends towards reduction were seen for cardiac death or MI (HR 0.63, 95% CI: 0.37-1.05; p=0.07) and definite or probable stent thrombosis (3.6% vs. 7.1%; HR 0.49, 95% CI: 0.22-1.11; p=0.09). CONCLUSIONS: In STEMI, BP-DES demonstrated superior clinical outcomes to DP-SES at four years. Trends towards reduced cardiac death or myocardial infarction and reduced stent thrombosis require corroboration in specifically powered trials.

Gender differences in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction: a substudy of the IABP-SHOCK II-trial.

BACKGROUND: Cardiogenic shock (CS) complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is associated with high mortality. Previous studies regarding gender-specific differences in CS are conflicting and there are insufficient data for the presence of gender-associated differences in the contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention era. Aim of this study was therefore to investigate gender-specific differences in a large cohort of AMI patients with CS undergoing contemporary treatment. METHODS: In the randomized Intra-aortic Balloon Pump in Cardiogenic Shock II (IABP-SHOCK II) trial, 600 patients with CS complicating AMI undergoing early revascularization were assigned to therapy with or without intra-aortic balloon pump. We compared sex-specific differences in these patients with regard to baseline and procedural characteristics as well as short- and long-term clinical outcome. RESULTS: Of 600 patients 187 (31%) were female. Women were significantly older than men and had a significantly lower systolic and diastolic blood pressure at presentation (p < 0.05 for all). Diabetes mellitus and hypertension were more frequent in women, whereas smoking was more frequent in men (p < 0.05 for all). Women showed a higher mortality within the first day after randomization (p = 0.004). However, after multivariable adjustment this numerical difference was no longer statistically significant. No gender-related differences in clinical outcome were observed after 1, 6 and 12 months of follow-up. CONCLUSION: In this large-scale multicenter study in patients with CS complicating AMI, women had a worse-risk profile in comparison to men. No significant gender-related differences in treatment as well as short- and long-term outcome were observed.

Sirolimus-eluting versus paclitaxel-eluting stents in diabetic and non-diabetic patients within sirolimus-eluting stent restenosis: results from the ISAR-DESIRE 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Concern exists relating to potential attenuated efficacy of limus-eluting stents in patients with diabetes mellitus. In this respect diabetic patients with sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) failure requiring reintervention may be expected to derive particular benefit from a treatment-switch to paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) implantation. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the current report was to investigate outcomes of patients with SES restenosis randomized to treatment with SES (same stent strategy) or PES (switch stent strategy) in the pre-specified subgroups of patients with and without diabetes mellitus. METHODS: In the setting of ISAR-DESIRE 2 trial, 450 patients with clinically significant SES restenosis were randomly assigned to receive either SES or PES. The primary end point was in-stent late loss at 6-8month follow-up angiography. Secondary endpoints were binary angiographic restenosis (diameter stenosis >50%) and target lesion revascularization (TLR), the composite of death or myocardial infarction (MI) and definite stent thrombosis at 12months. RESULTS: Of 450 patients enrolled, 162 (36.0%) had a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus. In patients with diabetes 86 patients were randomly assigned to SES versus 76 to PES. In patients without diabetes 139 were assigned to SES versus 149 to PES. Late loss was comparable between SES and PES both in patients with diabetes (0.38±0.59mm vs. 0.37±0.59mm; p=0.97) and without (0.41±0.67mm vs. 0.38±0.6mm; p=0.98; pinteraction=0.89). Similarly binary restenosis was comparable between SES and PES in patients with diabetes (19.0% vs. 26.0%; p=0.32) or without (18.9% vs. 17.8%; p=0.98; pinteraction=0.36). TLR, death or MI and definite stent thrombosis were also similar in SES versus PES treatment groups regardless of diabetes status. CONCLUSIONS: In cases of SES-restenosis, treatment with either repeat SES or switch to PES was associated with a comparable degree of efficacy, regardless of diabetic status.

Long-term outcomes of biodegradable polymer versus durable polymer drug-eluting stents in patients with diabetes a pooled analysis of individual patient data from 3 randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: There is ongoing debate on the optimal drug-eluting stent (DES) in diabetic patients with coronary artery disease. Biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents (BP-DES) may potentially improve clinical outcomes in these high-risk patients. We sought to compare long-term outcomes in patients with diabetes treated with biodegradable polymer DES vs. durable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (SES). METHODS: We pooled individual patient-level data from 3 randomized clinical trials (ISAR-TEST 3, ISAR-TEST 4 and LEADERS) comparing biodegradable polymer DES with durable polymer SES. Clinical outcomes out to 4 years were assessed. The primary end point was the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction and target-lesion revascularization. Secondary end points were target lesion revascularization and definite or probable stent thrombosis. RESULTS: Of 1094 patients with diabetes included in the present analysis, 657 received biodegradable polymer DES and 437 durable polymer SES. At 4 years, the incidence of the primary end point was similar with BP-DES versus SES (hazard ratio = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.74-1.21, P = 0.67). Target lesion revascularization was also comparable between the groups (hazard ratio = 0.89, 95% CI = 0.65-1.22, P = 0.47). Definite or probable stent thrombosis was significantly reduced among patients treated with BP-DES (hazard ratio = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.28-0.96, P = 0.04), a difference driven by significantly lower stent thrombosis rates with BP-DES between 1 and 4 years (hazard ratio = 0.15, 95% CI = 0.03-0.70, P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with diabetes, biodegradable polymer DES, compared to durable polymer SES, were associated with comparable overall clinical outcomes during follow-up to 4 years. Rates of stent thrombosis were significantly lower with BP-DES.

What is the evidence for IABP in STEMI with and without cardiogenic shock?

Intraaortic balloon pump (IABP) is the most widely used left ventricular support device in a variety of indications. This review focuses on the current literature and discusses the evidence of IABP in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) with and without cardiogenic shock. In high-risk STEMI patients without cardiogenic shock several randomized clinical trials have been performed. The majority of the studies could not demonstrate an efficacy benefit for IABP as adjunctive therapy in comparison to standard treatment alone. Hence, recent meta-analyses could not reveal diverging mortality rates at a higher incidence of stroke and major bleedings with IABP use independent of the type of reperfusion therapy. IABP in STEMI patients with cardiogenic shock is recommended according to current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (AHA/ACC) and European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines. In recent meta-analyses, IABP in cardiogenic shock complicated by STEMI has been shown to be associated with decreased mortality. However, these beneficial effects are limited to patients treated with thrombolysis, whereas in patients undergoing mechanical revascularization IABP therapy is associated with an increase in mortality. Nevertheless, these data only arise from prospective and retrospective cohort studies, as up to date only one very small randomized clinical trial has been completed. In summary, in high-risk STEMI patients without cardiogenic shock, current data do not support the use of IABP and should only be considered as a standby and bailout strategy if patients develop haemodynamic instability. Current data on IABP in patients with cardiogenic shock complicated by STEMI are scarce and highly limited due to the nonrandomized design of previous trials. However, according to current AHA/ACC and ESC guidelines its use is recommended. Although recent meta-analyses challenge current AHA/ACC/ESC guidelines, adequately powered randomized studies are needed to elucidate the role of IABP in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock.