Outcomes and regional differences in practice in a worldwide coronary stent registry.

OBJECTIVE: The primary objective was to assess the performance of a new generation thin-strut sirolimus-eluting coronary stent with abluminal biodegradable polymer in an all comer population. The secondary objective was to detail differences in contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) practice worldwide. METHODS: e-Ultimaster was an all-comer, prospective, global registry (NCT02188355) with independent event adjudication enrolling patients undergoing PCI with the study stent. The primary outcome measure was target lesion failure (TLF) at 1 year, defined as the composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction and clinically driven target lesion revascularisation. Data were stratified according to 4 geographical regions. RESULTS: A total of 37 198 patients were enrolled (Europe 69.2%, Asia 17.8%, Africa/Middle East 6.6% and South America/Mexico 6.5%) and 1-year follow-up was available for 35 389 patients (95.1%). One-year TLF occurred in 3.2% of the patients, ranging from 2% (Africa/Middle East) to 4.1% (South America/Mexico). In patients with acute coronary syndrome, potent P2Y12 inhibitors were prescribed in 48% of patients at discharge, while at 1 year 72% were on any dual antiplatelet therapy. Lipid-lowering treatment was administered in 80.9% and 75.5% of patients at discharge and 1 year, respectively. Regional differences in the profile of the treated patients as well as in PCI practice were reported. CONCLUSIONS: In this investigation with worldwide representation, contemporary PCI using a new generation thin-strut sirolimus-eluting coronary stent with abluminal biodegradable polymer was associated with low 1-year TLF across clinical presentations and continents. Suboptimal adherence to current recommendations around antiplatelet and lipid lowering treatments was detected.

SeQuentPlease World Wide Registry: clinical results of SeQuent please paclitaxel-coated balloon angioplasty in a large-scale, prospective registry study.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to assess the safety and efficacy of paclitaxel-coated balloon (PCB) angioplasty in an international, multicenter, prospective, large-scale registry study. BACKGROUND: In small randomized trials, PCB angioplasty was superior to uncoated balloon angioplasty for treatment of bare-metal stent (BMS) and drug-eluting stent (DES) restenosis. METHODS: Patients treated with SeQuent Please PCBs were included. The primary outcome measure was the clinically driven target lesion revascularization (TLR) rate at 9 months. RESULTS: At 75 centers, 2,095 patients with 2,234 lesions were included. The TLR rate was 5.2% after 9.4 months. Definite vessel thrombosis occurred in 0.1%. PCB angioplasty was performed in 1,523 patients (72.7%) with DES or BMS restenosis and 572 patients (27.3%) with de novo lesions. The TLR rate was significantly lower in patients with PCB angioplasty for BMS restenosis compared with DES restenosis (3.8% vs. 9.6%, p < 0.001). The TLR rate did not differ for PCB angioplasty of paclitaxel-eluting stent and non-paclitaxel-eluting sten restenosis (8.3% vs. 10.8%, p = 0.46). In de novo lesions (small vessels), the TLR rate was low and did not differ between PCB angioplasty with and without additional BMS implantation (p = 0.31). CONCLUSIONS: PCB angioplasty in an all-comers, prospective, multicenter registry was safe and confirmed in a large population the low TLR rates seen in randomized clinical trials. PCB angioplasty was more effective in BMS restenosis compared with DES restenosis, with no difference regarding the type of DES.

The Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-Term Use Evaluation (VALUE) trial: outcomes in patients receiving monotherapy.

In the main Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-Term Use Evaluation (VALUE) report, we investigated outcomes in 15 245 high-risk hypertensive subjects treated with valsartan- or amlodipine-based regimens. In this report, we analyzed outcomes in 7080 patients (46.4%) who, at the end of the initial drug adjustment period (6 months), remained on monotherapy. Baseline characteristics were similar in the valsartan (N=3263) and amlodipine (N=3817) groups. Time on monotherapy was 3.2 years (78% of treatment exposure time). The average in-trial blood pressure was similar in both groups. Event rates in the monotherapy group were 16% to 39% lower than in the main VALUE trial. In the first analysis, we censored patients when they discontinued monotherapy ("censored"); in the second, we counted events regardless of subsequent therapy (intention-to-treat principle). We also assessed the impact of duration of monotherapy on outcomes. No difference was found in primary composite cardiac end points, strokes, myocardial infarctions, and all-cause deaths with both analyses. Heart failure in the valsartan group was lower both in the censored and intention-to-treat analyses (hazard ratios: 0.63, P=0.004 and 0.78, P=0.045, respectively). Longer duration of monotherapy amplified between-group differences in heart failure. New-onset diabetes was lower in the valsartan group with both analyses (odds ratios: 0.78, P=0.012 and 0.82, P=0.034). Thus, despite lower absolute event rates in monotherapy patients, the relative risks of heart failure and new-onset diabetes favored valsartan. Moreover, these findings support the feasibility of comparative prospective trials in lower-risk hypertensive patients.