TransCatheter aortic valve implantation and fractional flow reserve-guided percutaneous coronary intervention versus conventional surgical aortic valve replacement and coronary bypass grafting for treatment of patients with aortic valve stenosis and multivessel or advanced coronary disease: The transcatheter valve and vessels trial (TCW trial): Design and rationale.

BACKGROUND: Patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) frequently present with concomitant obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD). In those, current guidelines recommend combined coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) as the preferred treatment option, although this surgical approach is associated with a high rate of clinical events. Combined transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with or without FFR have evolved as a valid alternative for cardiac surgery in patients with AS and multivessel or advanced CAD. To date, no dedicated trial has prospectively evaluated the outcomes of a percutaneous versus surgical treatment for patients with both severe AS and CAD. AIMS: To investigate whether fractional-flow reserve (FFR)-guided PCI and TAVI is noninferior to combined CABG and SAVR for the treatment of severe AS and multivessel or advanced CAD. METHODS: The Transcatheter Valve and Vessels (TCW) trial (clinicaltrial.gov: NCT03424941) is a prospective, randomized, controlled, open label, international trial. Patients ≥ 70 years with severe AS and multivessel (≥ 2 vessels) or advanced CAD, deemed feasible by the heart team for both; a full percutaneous or surgical treatment, will be randomised in a 1:1 fashion to either FFR-guided PCI followed by TAVI (intervention arm) vs. CABG and SAVR (control arm). The primary endpoint is a patient-oriented composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, disabling stroke, unscheduled clinically-driven target vessel revascularization, valve reintervention, and life threatening or disabling bleeding at 1 year. The TCW trial is powered for noninferiority, and if met, superiority will be tested. Assuming a primary endpoint rate of 30% in the CABG-SAVR arm, with a significance level α of 5%, a noninferiority limit delta of 15% and a loss to follow-up of 2%, a total of 328 patients are needed to obtain a power of 90%. The primary endpoint analysis is performed on an intention-to-treat basis. SUMMARY: The TCW Trial is the first prospective randomized trial that will study if a less invasive percutaneous treatment for severe AS and concomitant advanced CAD (i.e., FFR-guided PCI-TAVI) is noninferior to the guidelines recommended approach (CABG-SAVR).

Bifurcation PCI with a hybrid strategy with drug- eluting balloons versus a stepwise provisional two- stent strategy: Rationale and design of the hybrid DEB study.

The optimal treatment strategy for coronary bifurcation lesions by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is complex and remains a subject of debate. Current guidelines advise a stepwise provisional approach with optional two-stent strategy. However, a two-stent strategy, both upfront and stepwise provisional, is technically demanding. Therefore, there is increasing interest in the use of drug-eluting balloons (DEB) in bifurcation lesions, mainly after a provisional approach with unsatisfactory result of the side branch. Some small pilot studies already showed that the use of DEB in bifurcation lesions is safe and feasible. However, a randomized comparison of this hybrid DEB strategy with a two-stent strategy is currently lacking. TRIAL DESIGN: The Hybrid DEB study is a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial investigating noninferiority of a hybrid DEB approach, using a combination of a drug-eluting stent (DES) in the main vessel and DEB in the side branch, compared to stepwise provisional two-stent strategy in patients with true bifurcation lesions. A total of 500 patients with de novo true coronary bifurcation lesions, treated with a stepwise provisional approach and an unsatisfactory result of the side branch after main vessel stenting (≥ 70% stenosis and/or < thrombolysis in myocardial infarction III flow), will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either treatment with a DEB or with a DES in the side branch. The primary endpoint is a composite endpoint of the occurrence of all-cause death, periprocedural or spontaneous myocardial infarction and/or target vessel revascularization at the anticipated median 2-year follow-up. CONCLUSION: The Hybrid DEB study will compare in a multicenter, randomized fashion a hybrid DEB approach with a stepwise provisional two-stent strategy in patients with true bifurcation lesions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov no. NCT05731687.

Angiography-derived physiology guidance vs usual care in an All-comers PCI population treated with the healing-targeted supreme stent and Ticagrelor monotherapy: PIONEER IV trial design.

BACKGROUND: Current ESC guidelines recommend the use of intra-coronary pressure guidewires for functional assessment of intermediate-grade coronary stenoses. Angiography-derived quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is a novel method of assessing these stenoses, and guiding percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS/DESIGN: The PIONEER IV trial is a prospective, all-comers, multi-center trial, which will randomize 2,540 patients in a 1:1 ratio to PCI guided by angiography-derived physiology or usual care, with unrestricted use in both arms of the Healing-Targeted Supreme sirolimus-eluting stent (HT Supreme). The stent's fast, biologically healthy, and robust endothelial coverage allows for short dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT); hence the antiplatelet regimen of choice is 1-month DAPT, followed by ticagrelor monotherapy. In the angiography-derived physiology guided arm, lesions will be functionally assessed using on-line QFR, with stenting indicated in lesions with a QFR ≤0.80. Post-stenting, QFR will be repeated in the stented vessel(s), with post-dilatation or additional stenting recommended if the QFR<0.91 distal to the stent, or if the delta QFR (across the stent) is >0.05. Usual care PCI is performed according to standard clinical practice. The primary endpoint is a non-inferiority comparison of the patient-oriented composite endpoint (POCE) of all-cause death, any stroke, any myocardial infarction, or any clinically, and physiologically driven revascularization with a non-inferiority risk-difference margin of 3.2%, at 1-year post-procedure. Clinical follow-up will be up to 3 years. SUMMARY: The PIONEER IV trial aims to demonstrate non-inferiority of QFR-guided PCI to usual care PCI with respect to POCE at 1-year in patients treated with HT Supreme stents and ticagrelor monotherapy. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov UNIQUE IDENTIFIER: NCT04923191 CLASSIFICATIONS: Interventional Cardiology.

Acute myocardial infarction treated with novel Resolute Onyx and Orsiro stents in the randomized BIONYX trial.

OBJECTIVES: To compare 2-year outcome following treatment with drug-eluting stents (DES) for acute myocardial infarction (MI) versus non-MI clinical syndromes. In acute MI patients, a stent-level comparison was performed, comparing Resolute Onyx versus Orsiro stents. BACKGROUND: In patients presenting with acute MI, higher adverse event rates have been reported. So far, no clinical results >1 year have been published of acute MI patients treated with Resolute Onyx. METHODS: This post-hoc analysis of the randomized BIONYX trial(NCT02508714) assessed the main outcome target vessel failure (TVF: cardiac death, target vessel MI, or target vessel revascularization) with Kaplan-Meier methods. RESULTS: Of all 2,488 trial participants, acute MI patients (n = 1,275[51.2%]) were significantly younger and had less comorbidities than non-MI patients (n = 1,213[48.8%]). TVF rates were lower in acute MI patients (77/1,275[6.1%] vs. 103/1,213[8.6%], HR:0.70, 95%-CI 0.52-0.94; plog-rank  = 0.02), mainly driven by target vessel revascularization (4.1 vs. 6.1%, plog-rank  = 0.03). Multivariate analysis showed no independent association of clinical syndrome with TVF (adjusted-HR: 0.81, 95%-CI 0.60-1.10; p = .17). In MI patients treated with Resolute Onyx (n = 626) versus Orsiro (n = 649), there was no difference in TVF (6.2 vs. 6.1%; plog-rank  = 0.97) and its components. There was only 1(0.2%) definite-or-probable stent thrombosis in RO-ZES and 8(1.2%) in O-SES (p = .053). CONCLUSIONS: Two years after treatment with thin-strut DES in this randomized trial, patients treated for acute MI had lower adverse event rates than non-MI patients. Yet, these findings were mainly attributable to between-group differences in patient and lesion characteristics. In patients who underwent PCI for acute MI, both Resolute Onyx and Orsiro showed favorable and similar 2-year outcomes.

A global registry of fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided management during routine care: Study design, baseline characteristics and outcomes of invasive management.

BACKGROUND: The use and clinical outcomes of fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided revascularization in patients presenting with either stable coronary artery disease (CAD) or an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in daily clinical practice are uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To prospectively characterize the frequency of the change in treatment plan when FFR is performed compared to the initial decision based on angiography alone and procedure-related outcomes. METHODS: We undertook a prospective, multicenter, multinational, open-label, observational study of coronary physiologic measurements during clinically indicated coronary angiography. The treatment plan, including medical therapy, PCI or CABG, was prospectively recorded before and after performing FFR. Adverse events were pre-defined and prospectively recorded per local investigators (PRESSUREwire; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02935088). RESULTS: Two thousand two hundred and seventeen subjects were enrolled in 70 hospitals across 15 countries between October 2016-February 2018. The mean FFR (all measurements) was 0.84. The treatment plan based on angiography-alone changed in 763/2196 subjects (34.7%) and 872/2931 lesions (29.8%) post-FFR. In the per-patient analysis, the initial treatment plan based on angiography versus the final treatment plan post-FFR were medical management 1,350 (61.5%) versus 1,470 (66.9%) (p = .0017); PCI 717 (32.7%) versus 604 (27.5%) (p = .0004); CABG 119 (5.4%) versus 121 (5.5%) (p = .8951). The frequency of intended revascularization changed from 38.1 to 33.0% per patient (p = .0005) and from 35.5 to 29.6% per lesion (p < .0001) following FFR. CONCLUSIONS: On an individual patient basis, use of FFR in everyday practice changes the treatment plan compared to angiography in more than one third of all-comers selected for physiology-guided managements. FFR measurement is safe, providing incremental information to guide revascularization decisions.

Thin composite wire strut, durable polymer-coated (Resolute Onyx) versus ultrathin cobalt-chromium strut, bioresorbable polymer-coated (Orsiro) drug-eluting stents in allcomers with coronary artery disease (BIONYX): an international, single-blind, randomised non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: During the past decade, many patients had zotarolimus-eluting stents implanted, which had circular shape cobalt-chromium struts with limited radiographic visibility. The Resolute Onyx stent was developed to improve visibility while reducing strut thickness, which was achieved by using a novel composite wire with a dense platinum-iridium core and an outer cobalt-chromium layer. We did the first randomised clinical trial to assess the safety and efficacy of this often-used stent compared with the Orsiro stent, which consists of ultrathin cobalt-chromium struts. METHODS: We did an investigator-initiated, assessor-blinded and patient-blinded, randomised non-inferiority trial in an allcomers population at seven independently monitored centres in Belgium, Israel, and the Netherlands. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older and required percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents. After guide wire passage with or without predilation, members of the catheterisation laboratory team used web-based computer-generated allocation sequences to randomly assign patients (1:1) to either the Resolute Onyx or the Orsiro stent. Randomisation was stratified by sex and diabetes status. Patients and assessors were masked to allocated stents, but treating clinicians were not. The primary endpoint was target vessel failure at 1 year, a composite of cardiac death, target-vessel-related myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularisation, and was assessed by intention to treat (non-inferiority margin 2·5%) on the basis of outcomes adjudicated by an independent event committee. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02508714. FINDINGS: Between Oct 7, 2015, and Dec 23, 2016, 2516 patients were enrolled, 2488 of whom were included in the intention-to-treat analysis (28 withdrawals or screening failures). 1243 participants were assigned to the Resolute Onyx group, and 1245 to the Orsiro group. Overall, 1765 (70·9%) participants presented with acute coronary syndromes and 1275 (51·2%) had myocardial infarctions. 1-year follow-up was available for 2478 (99·6%) patients. The primary endpoint was met by 55 (4·5%) patients in the Resolute Onyx group and 58 (4·7%) in the Orsiro group. Non-inferiority of Resolute Onyx to Orsiro was thus established (absolute risk difference -0·2% [95% CI -1·9 to 1·4]; upper limit of the one-sided 95% CI 1·1%; pnon-inferiority=0·0005). Definite or probable stent thrombosis occurred in one (0·1%) participant in the Resolute Onyx group and nine (0·7%) in the Orsiro group (hazard ratio 0·11 [95% CI 0·01-0·87]; p=0·0112). INTERPRETATION: The Resolute Onyx stent was non-inferior to Orsiro for a combined safety and efficacy endpoint at 1-year follow-up in allcomers. The low event rate in both groups suggests that both stents are safe, and the very low rate of stent thrombosis in the Resolute Onyx group warrants further clinical investigation. FUNDING: Biotronik and Medtronic.

Very thin strut biodegradable polymer everolimus-eluting and sirolimus-eluting stents versus durable polymer zotarolimus-eluting stents in allcomers with coronary artery disease (BIO-RESORT): a three-arm, randomised, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: In patients with coronary artery disease, treated with durable polymer-coated drug-eluting stents, the life-long presence of the polymer might delay arterial healing. Novel very thin strut biodegradable polymer stents, which leave only a bare metal stent after polymer resorption, might improve long-term outcome. We investigated in allcomers the safety and efficacy of three stents eluting either everolimus, sirolimus, or zotarolimus, often clinically used but never compared, of which the biodegradable polymer everolimus-eluting stent was never before assessed in allcomers. METHODS: The large-scale, investigator-initiated, multicentre, assessor and patient blinded, three-arm, randomised, BIO-RESORT non-inferiority trial was done at four clinical sites in the Netherlands. All-comer patients were aged 18 years or older, capable of providing informed consent, and required a percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stent implantation according to clinical guidelines or the operators' judgment. Exclusion criteria were: participation in another randomised drug or device study before reaching the primary endpoint of that study; planned surgery necessitating interruption of dual antiplatelet therapy within the first 6 months; known intolerance to components of the investigational product or medication required; uncertainty about the adherence to follow-up procedures or an assumed life expectancy of less than 1 year; or known pregnancy. Web-based computer-generated allocation sequences randomly assigned patients (1:1:1) to treatment with very thin strut biodegradable polymer everolimus-eluting or sirolimus-eluting stents (which differ substantially in type, amount, distribution, and resorption speed of their respective coating), or thin strut durable polymer zotarolimus-eluting stents. The primary endpoint was a composite of safety (cardiac death or target vessel-related myocardial infarction) and efficacy (target vessel revascularisation) at 12 months of follow up with a very thin strut biodegradable polymer of either everolimus-eluting or sirolimus-eluting stents, compared with durable polymer zotarolimus-eluting stents, analysed by intention to treat (non-inferiority margin 3·5%). This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01674803. FINDINGS: From Dec 21, 2012, to Aug 24, 2015, 3514 patients were enrolled and analysed, of whom 2449 (70%) had acute coronary syndromes, which included 1073 (31%) ST-elevation myocardial infarctions. 12 month follow-up of 3490 (99%) patients (three lost to follow-up; 21 withdrawals) was available. The primary endpoint was met by 55 (5%) of 1172 patients assigned to everolimus-eluting stents, 55 (5%) of 1169 assigned to sirolimus-eluting stents and 63 (5%) of 1173 assigned to zotarolimus-eluting stents. Non-inferiority of the everolimus-eluting stents and sirolimus-eluting stents compared with zotarolimus-eluting stents was confirmed (both -0·7% absolute risk difference, 95% CI -2·4 to 1·1; upper limit of one sided 95% CI 0·8%, pnon-inferiority<0·0001). Definite stent thrombosis (defined by the Academic Research Consortium) occurred in four (0·3%) of 1172 patients who were allocated to everolimus-eluting stents, four (0·3%) of 1169 patients who were allocated to sirolimus-eluting stents, and three (0·3%) of 1173 patients who were allocated to zotarolimus-eluting stents (log-rank p=0·70 for both comparisons with zotarolimus-eluting stents). INTERPRETATION: At 12 month follow-up, both very thin strut drug-eluting stents with dissimilar biodegradable polymer coatings (eluting either everolimus or sirolimus) were non-inferior to the durable polymer stent (eluting zotarolimus) in treating allcomers with a high proportion of patients with acute coronary syndromes. The absence of a loss of 1 year safety and efficacy with the use of these two biodegradable polymer-coated stents is a prerequisite before assessing their potential longer-term benefits. FUNDING: Biotronik, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic.

Final 5-Year Report of the Randomized BIO-RESORT Trial Comparing 3 Contemporary Drug-Eluting Stents in All-Comers.

Background In a previous trial, higher 5-year mortality was observed following treatment with biodegradable polymer Orsiro sirolimus-eluting stents (SES). We assessed 5-year safety and efficacy of all-comers as well as patients with diabetes treated with SES or Synergy everolimus-eluting stents (EES) versus durable polymer Resolute Integrity zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZES). Methods and Results The randomized BIO-RESORT (Comparison of Biodegradable Polymer and Durable Polymer Drug-Eluting Stents in an All Comers Population) trial enrolled 3514 all-comer patients at 4 Dutch cardiac centers. Patients aged ≥18 years who required percutaneous coronary intervention were eligible. Participants were stratified for diabetes and randomized to treatment with SES, EES, or ZES (1:1:1). The main end point was target vessel failure (cardiac mortality, target vessel myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization). Five-year follow-up was available in 3183 of 3514 (90.6%) patients. The main end point target vessel failure occurred in 142 of 1169 (12.7%) patients treated with SES, 130 of 1172 (11.6%) treated with EES, versus 157 of 1173 (14.1%) treated with ZES (hazard ratio [HR], 0.89 [95% CI, 0.71-1.12], Plog-rank=0.31; and HR, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.65-1.04], Plog-rank=0.10, respectively). Individual components of target vessel failure showed no significant between-stent difference. Very late definite stent thrombosis rates were low and similar (SES, 1.1%; EES, 0.6%; ZES, 0.9%). In patients with diabetes, target vessel failure did not differ significantly between stent-groups (SES, 19.8%; EES, 19.2%; versus ZES, 21.1% [Plog-rank=0.69 and Plog-rank=0.63]). Conclusions Orsiro SES, Synergy EES, and Resolute Integrity ZES showed similar 5-year outcomes of safety and efficacy, including mortality. A prespecified stent comparison in patients with diabetes also revealed no significant differences in 5-year clinical outcomes. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01674803.

Thin Composite-Wire-Strut Zotarolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Ultrathin-Strut Sirolimus-Eluting Stents in BIONYX at 2 Years.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess 2-year safety and efficacy of the current-generation thin composite-wire-strut durable-polymer Resolute Onyx zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES), compared with the ultrathin-strut biodegradable-polymer Orsiro sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) in all-comers and a pre-specified small-vessel subgroup analysis. BACKGROUND: The Resolute Onyx ZES is widely used in clinical practice, but no follow-up data beyond 1 year have been published. The randomized BIONYX (Bioresorbable Polymer-Coated Orsiro Versus Durable Polymer-Coated Resolute Onyx Stents) trial (NCT02508714) established the noninferiority of ZES versus SES regarding target vessel failure (TVF) rates. METHODS: A total of 2,488 all-comer patients were treated at 7 coronary intervention centers in Belgium, Israel, and the Netherlands. The main endpoint, TVF, was a composite of safety (cardiac death or target vessel-related myocardial infarction) and efficacy (clinically indicated target vessel revascularization). Two-year follow-up data were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier methods. RESULTS: Two-year follow-up data were available for 2,460 of 2,488 patients (98.9%). TVF occurred in 93 of 1,243 patients (7.6%) assigned to ZES versus 87 of 1,245 patients (7.1%) assigned to SES (log-rank p = 0.66). There was no significant between-stent difference in individual components of this endpoint. The incidence of definite-or-probable stent thrombosis was low for both treatment arms (0.4% vs. 1.1%; log-rank p = 0.057). In patients stented in small vessels, there was no between-stent difference (TVF 8.2% vs. 8.7% [log-rank p = 0.75], target lesion revascularization 4.0% vs. 4.4% [log-rank p = 0.77]). CONCLUSIONS: At 2-year follow-up, the novel thin composite-wire-strut durable-polymer Resolute Onyx ZES showed in all-comers similar safety and efficacy compared with the ultrathin cobalt-chromium-strut biodegradable-polymer Orsiro SES. The analysis of patients who were treated in small vessels also suggested no advantage for either stent.

Thin, Very Thin, or Ultrathin Strut Biodegradable or Durable Polymer-Coated Drug-Eluting Stents: 3-Year Outcomes of BIO-RESORT.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the 3-year safety and efficacy of treating all-comer patients with 3 contemporary drug-eluting stents (DES). BACKGROUND: The BIO-RESORT (Comparison of Biodegradable Polymer and Durable Polymer Drug-Eluting Stents in an All Comers Population) (TWENTE III) randomized trial (NCT01674803) found similar 1-year safety and efficacy for the 2 biodegradable-polymer DES (i.e., ultrathin-strut cobalt-chromium Orsiro sirolimus-eluting stent [SES] and very-thin-strut platinum-chromium Synergy everolimus-eluting stent) compared with the durable-polymer thin-strut cobalt-chromium Resolute Integrity zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES). Two-year follow-up suggested that the SES might reduce repeat revascularizations beyond 1 year compared with the ZES. METHODS: A total of 3,514 all-comer patients were treated at 4 centers for coronary intervention. The main clinical endpoint, target vessel failure, was a composite of safety (cardiac death or target vessel-related myocardial infarction) and efficacy (target vessel revascularization). Secondary endpoints included the individual components of target vessel failure and stent thrombosis. RESULTS: Three-year follow-up data were available for 3,393 of 3,514 patients (96.6%). Target vessel failure occurred in 8.5% with SES and 10.0% with ZES (plog rank = 0.22) and in 8.8% with everolimus-eluting stents (vs. ZES, plog rank = 0.32). Rates of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization were similar between stent groups. Landmark analyses found no statistically significant between-stent difference in repeat revascularization between 1 and 3 years. Definite or probable stent thrombosis rates were low (SES, 1.1%; everolimus-eluting stent, 1.1%; ZES, 0.9%) and similar with all 3 DES. CONCLUSIONS: Despite substantial differences in stent backbone and polymer coating, all 3 DES showed favorable 3-year safety and efficacy in all comers, without significant between-stent differences. Further follow-up is required to definitely answer the question of whether one stent might improve clinical outcomes at a later stage.

Diagnostic Performance of In-Procedure Angiography-Derived Quantitative Flow Reserve Compared to Pressure-Derived Fractional Flow Reserve: The FAVOR II Europe-Japan Study.

BACKGROUND: Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is a novel modality for physiological lesion assessment based on 3-dimensional vessel reconstructions and contrast flow velocity estimates. We evaluated the value of online QFR during routine invasive coronary angiography for procedural feasibility, diagnostic performance, and agreement with pressure-wire-derived fractional flow reserve (FFR) as a gold standard in an international multicenter study. METHODS AND RESULTS: FAVOR II E-J (Functional Assessment by Various Flow Reconstructions II Europe-Japan) was a prospective, observational, investigator-initiated study. Patients with stable angina pectoris were enrolled in 11 international centers. FFR and online QFR computation were performed in all eligible lesions. An independent core lab performed 2-dimensional quantitative coronary angiography (2D-QCA) analysis of all lesions assessed with QFR and FFR. The primary comparison was sensitivity and specificity of QFR compared with 2D-QCA using FFR as a reference standard. A total of 329 patients were enrolled. Paired assessment of FFR, QFR, and 2D-QCA was available for 317 lesions. Mean FFR, QFR, and percent diameter stenosis were 0.83±0.09, 0.82±10, and 45±10%, respectively. FFR was ≤0.80 in 104 (33%) lesions. Sensitivity and specificity by QFR was significantly higher than by 2D-QCA (sensitivity, 86.5% (78.4-92.4) versus 44.2% (34.5-54.3); P<0.001; specificity, 86.9% (81.6-91.1) versus 76.5% (70.3-82.0); P=0.002). Area under the receiver curve was significantly higher for QFR compared with 2D-QCA (area under the receiver curve, 0.92 [0.89-0.96] versus 0.64 [0.57-0.70]; P<0.001). Median time to QFR was significantly lower than median time to FFR (time to QFR, 5.0 minutes [interquartile range, -6.1] versus time to FFR, 7.0 minutes [interquartile range, 5.0-10.0]; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Online computation of QFR in the catheterization laboratory is clinically feasible and is superior to angiographic assessment for evaluation of intermediary coronary artery stenosis using FFR as a reference standard. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02959814.

Direct drug-eluting stenting to reduce stent restenosis: a randomized comparison of direct stent implantation to conventional stenting with pre-dilation or provisional stenting in elective PCI patients.

OBJECTIVES: The aim was to investigate whether a strategy of direct drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation without pre-dilation is associated with a reduced incidence of restenosis compared with CS with pre-dilation or provisional stenting (PS). BACKGROUND: Previous studies were performed comparing direct stenting (DS) with conventional stenting (CS) after pre-dilation; however, none of these in the DES era. Therefore, the STRESSED (direct Stenting To reduce REStenosis in Stent Era with Drug elution) study was designed and carried out. METHODS: A total of 600 patients with angina pectoris or recent myocardial infarction were randomized to a DS, CS, or PS strategy. The primary endpoint was the mean minimal lumen diameter at 9-month follow-up angiography. Secondary endpoints were clinical procedural success defined as angiographic success without in-hospital major adverse cardiac events (MACE), and MACE at 9-month and 2-year follow-up. RESULTS: Stent implantation in the DS group was 98%, 99% in the CS group, and 77% in the PS group. Percutaneous coronary intervention success was 99% in all groups. The minimal lumen diameter at 9-month follow-up was 2.12 ± 0.58 mm (DS), 2.17 ± 0.67 mm (CS), and 1.99 ± 0.69 mm (PS), p = 0.556 for comparison of DS with CS, p = 0.073 for comparison of DS with PS. The absolute difference was -0.05 (DS to CS), 95% confidence interval: -0.19 to -0.09, p = 0.48 and 0.13 (DS to PS), confidence interval: -0.02 to -0.27, p = 0.087. Restenosis was found in 3.4% (DS), 6.7% (CS), and 11.5% (PS), p = 0.025. At 9-month and 2-year follow-up, MACE occurred in 6.8% and 11.5% (DS), 4.6% and 10.3% (CS), and 7.6% and 13.8% (PS) (p = 0.439 and 0.536), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Direct DES implantation compared with conventional DES implantation did not reduce restenosis. Provisional stenting, however, was associated with a higher rate of restenosis. This did not translate into a difference in the rate of MACE. (STRESSED study: direct Stenting To reduce REStenosis in Stent Era with Drug elution; ISRCTN41213536).