Optical Coherence Tomography-Guided versus Angiography-Guided PCI.

BACKGROUND: Data regarding clinical outcomes after optical coherence tomography (OCT)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) as compared with angiography-guided PCI are limited. METHODS: In this prospective, randomized, single-blind trial, we randomly assigned patients with medication-treated diabetes or complex coronary-artery lesions to undergo OCT-guided PCI or angiography-guided PCI. A final blinded OCT procedure was performed in patients in the angiography group. The two primary efficacy end points were the minimum stent area after PCI as assessed with OCT and target-vessel failure at 2 years, defined as a composite of death from cardiac causes, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target-vessel revascularization. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: The trial was conducted at 80 sites in 18 countries. A total of 2487 patients underwent randomization: 1233 patients were assigned to undergo OCT-guided PCI, and 1254 to undergo angiography-guided PCI. The minimum stent area after PCI was 5.72±2.04 mm2 in the OCT group and 5.36±1.87 mm2 in the angiography group (mean difference, 0.36 mm2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.21 to 0.51; P<0.001). Target-vessel failure within 2 years occurred in 88 patients in the OCT group and in 99 patients in the angiography group (Kaplan-Meier estimates, 7.4% and 8.2%, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.67 to 1.19; P = 0.45). OCT-related adverse events occurred in 1 patient in the OCT group and in 2 patients in the angiography group. Stent thrombosis within 2 years occurred in 6 patients (0.5%) in the OCT group and in 17 patients (1.4%) in the angiography group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing PCI, OCT guidance resulted in a larger minimum stent area than angiography guidance, but there was no apparent between-group difference in the percentage of patients with target-vessel failure at 2 years. (Funded by Abbott; ILUMIEN IV: OPTIMAL PCI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03507777.).

OCT-Guided vs Angiography-Guided Coronary Stent Implantation in Complex Lesions: An ILUMIEN IV Substudy.

BACKGROUND: ILUMIEN IV was the first large-scale, multicenter, randomized trial comparing optical coherence tomography (OCT)-guided vs angiography-guided stent implantation in patients with high-risk clinical characteristics and/or complex angiographic lesions. OBJECTIVES: The authors aimed to specifically examine outcomes in the complex angiographic lesions subgroup. METHODS: From the original trial population (N = 2,487), high-risk patients without complex angiographic lesions were excluded (n = 514). Complex angiographic lesion characteristics included: 1) long or multiple lesions with intended total stent length ≥28 mm; 2) bifurcation lesion with intended 2-stent strategy; 3) severely calcified lesion; 4) chronic total occlusion; or 5) in-stent restenosis. The study endpoints were: 1) final minimal stent area (MSA); 2) 2-year composite of serious major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) (cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction [MI], or stent thrombosis); and 3) 2-year effectiveness, defined as target-vessel failure (TVF), a composite of cardiac death, target-vessel MI, or ischemia-driven target-vessel revascularization. RESULTS: The postpercutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) MSA was larger in the OCT-guided (n = 992) vs angiography-guided (n = 981) group (5.56 ± 1.95 mm2 vs 5.26 ± 1.81 mm2; difference, 0.30; 95% CI: 0.14-0.47; P < 0.001). Compared with angiography-guided PCI, OCT-guided PCI resulted in a lower risk of serious MACE (3.1% vs 4.9%; HR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.40-0.99; P = 0.04). TVF was not significantly different between groups (7.3% vs 8.8%; HR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.59-1.12; P = 0.20). CONCLUSIONS: In complex angiographic lesions, OCT-guided PCI led to a larger MSA and reduced the serious MACE, the composite of cardiac death, target-vessel MI, or stent thrombosis, compared with angiography-guided PCI at 2 years, but did not significantly improve TVF. (Optical Coherence Tomography Guided Coronary Stent Implantation Compared to Angiography: A Multicenter Randomized Trial in PCI; NCT03507777).

3-(alphaR)-alpha-((2S,5R)-4-allyl-2,5-dimethyl-1-piperazinyl)-3-hydroxybenzyl)-N-alkyl-N-arylbenzamides: potent, non-peptidic agonists of both the micro and delta opioid receptors.

Opioid analgesics with both micro and delta opioid receptor activation represent a new approach to the treatment of severe pain with an improved safety profile. Compounds with this profile may exhibit strong analgesic properties due to micro agonism, with a reduced side effect profile resulting from delta agonism. Replacing the p-diethylamide of the known potent delta opioid receptor selective agonist BW373U86 with a m-diethylamide resulted in a compound with agonist activity at both the micro and delta opioid receptors. Modifying the amide to an N-methyl-N-phenylamide increased agonist potency at both receptors. A series of 3-(alphaR)-alpha-((2S,5R)-4-allyl-2,5-dimethyl-1-piperazinyl)-3-hydroxybenzyl)-N-alkyl-N-arylbenzamides have been made to explore the structure-activity relationship (SAR) around the N-methyl-N-phenylamide. Several potent agonists of both the micro and delta opioid receptors have been identified, including (+)-3-((alphaR)-alpha-((2S,5R)-4-allyl-2,5-dimethyl-1-piperazinyl)-3-hydroxybenzyl)-N-(4-fluorophenyl)-N-methylbenzamide (23), which has EC50 values of 0.67 and 1.1 nM at the micro (guinea pig ileum assay) and delta (mouse vas deferens assay) opioid receptors, respectively.