Impact of pathogenic bacterial communities present in wastewater on aquatic organisms: Application of nanomaterials for the removal of these pathogens.

Contaminated wastewater (WW) can cause severe hazards to numerous delicate ecosystems and associated life forms. In addition, human health is negatively impacted by the presence of microorganisms in water. Multiple pathogenic microorganisms in contaminated water, including bacteria, fungi, yeast, and viruses, are vectors for several contagious diseases. To avoid the negative impact of these pathogens, WW must be free from pathogens before being released into stream water or used for other reasons. In this review article, we have focused on pathogenic bacteria in WW and summarized the impact of the different types of pathogenic bacteria on marine organisms. Moreover, we presented a variety of physical and chemical techniques that have been developed to provide a pathogen-free aquatic environment. Among the techniques, membrane-based techniques for trapping hazardous biological contaminants are gaining popularity around the world. Besides, novel and recent advancements in nanotechnological science and engineering suggest that many waterborne pathogens could be inactivated using nano catalysts, bioactive nanoparticles, nanostructured catalytic membranes, nanosized photocatalytic structures, and electrospun nanofibers and processes have been thoroughly examined.

Biosynthesis of Nanoparticles Using Plant Extracts and Essential Oils.

Plant extracts and essential oils have a wide variety of molecules with potential application in different fields such as medicine, the food industry, and cosmetics. Furthermore, these plant derivatives are widely interested in human and animal health, including potent antitumor, antifungal, anti-inflammatory, and bactericidal activity. Given this diversity, different methodologies were needed to optimize the extraction, purification, and characterization of each class of biomolecules. In addition, these plant products can still be used in the synthesis of nanomaterials to reduce the undesirable effects of conventional synthesis routes based on hazardous/toxic chemical reagents and associate the properties of nanomaterials with those present in extracts and essential oils. Vegetable oils and extracts are chemically complex, and although they are already used in the synthesis of nanomaterials, limited studies have examined which molecules are effectively acting in the synthesis and stabilization of these nanostructures. Similarly, few studies have investigated whether the molecules coating the nanomaterials derived from these extracts and essential oils would bring benefits or somehow reduce their potential activity. This synergistic effect presents a promising field to be further explored. Thus, in this review article, we conducted a comprehensive review addressing the main groups of molecules present in plant extracts and essential oils, their extraction capacity, and available methodologies for their characterization. Moreover, we highlighted the potential of these plant products in the synthesis of different metallic nanomaterials and their antimicrobial capacity. Furthermore, we correlated the extract's role in antimicrobial activity, considering the potential synergy between molecules from the plant product and the different metallic forms associated with nanomaterials.

Bionanotechnology in Agriculture: A One Health Approach.

Healthy eating habits are one of the requirements for the health of society. In particular, in natura foods are increasingly encouraged, since they have a high concentration of nutrients. However, these foods are often grown in the presence of agrochemicals, such as fertilizers and pesticides. To increase crop productivity and achieve high vigor standards in less time, farmers make excessive use of agrochemicals that generate various economic, environmental, and clinical problems. In this way, bionanotechnology appears as an ally in developing technologies to improve planting conditions, ranging from the health of farmers and consumers to the production of new foods and functional foods. All these improvements are based on the better use of land use in synergy with the lowest generation of environmental impacts and the health of living beings, with a view to the study and production of technologies that take into account the concept of One Health in its processes and products. In this review article, we will address how caring for agriculture can directly influence the quality of the most desired foods in contemporary society, and how new alternatives based on nanotechnology can point to efficient and safe solutions for living beings on our planet.

Environmental Implications Associated with the Development of Nanotechnology: From Synthesis to Disposal.

Nanotechnology remains under continuous development. The unique, fascinating, and tunable properties of nanomaterials make them interesting for diverse applications in different fields such as medicine, agriculture, and remediation. However, knowledge about the risks associated with nanomaterials is still poorly known and presents variable results. Furthermore, the interaction of nanomaterials with biological systems and the environment still needs to be clarified. Moreover, some issues such as toxicity, bioaccumulation, and physicochemical transformations are found to be dependent on several factors such as size, capping agent, and shape, making the comparisons even more complex. This review presents a comprehensive discussion about the consequences of the use and development of nanomaterials regarding their potential risks to the environment as well as human and animal health. For this purpose, we reviewed the entire production chain from manufacturing, product development, applications, and even product disposal to raise the important implications at each stage. In addition, we present the recent developments in terms of risk management and the recycling of nanomaterials. Furthermore, the advances and limitations in the legislation and characterization of nanomaterials are also discussed.

Graphene Oxide (GO) Materials-Applications and Toxicity on Living Organisms and Environment.

Graphene-based materials have attracted much attention due to their fascinating properties such as hydrophilicity, high dispersion in aqueous media, robust size, high biocompatibility, and surface functionalization ability due to the presence of functional groups and interactions with biomolecules such as proteins and nucleic acid. Modified methods were developed for safe, direct, inexpensive, and eco-friendly synthesis. However, toxicity to the environment and animal health has been reported, raising concerns about their utilization. This review focuses primarily on the synthesis methods of graphene-based materials already developed and the unique properties that make them so interesting for different applications. Different applications are presented and discussed with particular emphasis on biological fields. Furthermore, antimicrobial potential and the factors that affect this activity are reviewed. Finally, questions related to toxicity to the environment and living organisms are revised by highlighting factors that may interfere with it.

Green nanotechnology: only the final product that matters?

Nanotechnology is increasingly showing interest in eco-friendly nanotechnology products. However, the final product does not always establish a connection with the principles established by green chemistry. Thus, much confusion is present in the literature, where nanostructures are synthesized with aggressive protocols to the environment but are subsequently exposed to natural products. The confusion established is associated with the natural products related to these nanostructures. Thus, the final nanotechnological product is considered green, even though it undergoes too drastic processes related to toxic precursors, the formation of by-products, high energy consumption. In this article, the importance of strengthening green chemistry principles to discuss green nanotechnology will be discussed.

The Role of Biosynthesized Silver Nanoparticles in Antimicrobial Mechanisms.

Nanotechnology is an area of science in which new materials are developed. The correlation between nanotechnology and microbiology is essential for the development of new drugs and vaccines. The main advantage of combining these areas is to associate the latest technology in order to obtain new ways for solving problems related to microorganisms. This review seeks to investigate nanoparticle formation's antimicrobial properties, primarily when connected to the green synthesis of silver nanoparticles. The development of new sustainable methods for nanoparticle production has been instrumental in designing alternative, non-toxic, energy-friendly, and environmentally friendly routes. In this sense, it is necessary to study silver nanoparticles' green synthesis concerning their antimicrobial properties. Antimicrobial silver nanoparticles' mechanisms demonstrate efficiency to gram-positive bacteria, gram-negative bacteria, fungi, viruses, and parasites. However, attention is needed with the emergence of resistance to these antimicrobials. This article seeks to relate the parameters of green silver- based nanosystems with the efficiency of antimicrobial activity.

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.

Arterial healing following primary PCI using the Absorb everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold (Absorb BVS) versus the durable polymer everolimus-eluting metallic stent (XIENCE) in patients with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction: rationale and design of the randomised TROFI II study.

AIMS: The Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (Absorb BVS) provides similar clinical outcomes compared with a durable polymer-based everolimus-eluting metallic stent (EES) in stable coronary artery disease patients. ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) lesions have been associated with delayed arterial healing and impaired stent-related outcomes. The purpose of the present study is to compare directly the arterial healing response, angiographic efficacy and clinical outcomes between the Absorb BVS and metallic EES. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 191 patients with acute STEMI were randomly allocated to treatment with the Absorb BVS or a metallic EES 1:1. The primary endpoint is the neointimal healing (NIH) score, which is calculated based on a score taking into consideration the presence of uncovered and malapposed stent struts, intraluminal filling defects and excessive neointimal proliferation, as detected by optical frequency domain imaging (OFDI) six months after the index procedure. The study will provide 90% power to show non-inferiority of the Absorb BVS compared with the EES. CONCLUSIONS: This will be the first randomised study investigating the arterial healing response following implantation of the Absorb BVS compared with the EES. The healing response assessed by a novel NIH score in conjunction with results on angiographic efficacy parameters and device-oriented events will elucidate disease-specific applications of bioresorbable scaffolds.

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.

The EXAMINATION trial (Everolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Bare-Metal Stents in ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction): 2-year results from a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to assess the 2-year outcomes of the population included in the EXAMINATION (Everolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Bare-Metal Stents in ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction) trial beyond the 1-year prescription period of dual antiplatelet therapy. BACKGROUND: The EXAMINATION trial compared the performance of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) versus bare-metal stents (BMS) in an all-comer ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) population. METHODS: This was a multicenter, multinational, prospective, randomized, single-blind, controlled trial in patients with STEMI. The primary endpoint, which was the combined endpoint of all-cause death, any recurrent myocardial infarction, and any revascularization, and the endpoints target lesion revascularization and stent thrombosis were assessed at 2 years. RESULTS: Between December 31, 2008, and May 15, 2010, 1,498 patients were randomized to receive EES (n = 751) or BMS (n = 747). Compliance with dual antiplatelet regimen was reduced at 2 years to a similar degree (17.3% vs. 17.2%, p = 0.91). At 2 years, the primary endpoint occurred in 108 (14.4%) patients of the EES group and in 129 (17.3%) patients of the BMS group (p = 0.11). Rate of target lesion revascularization was significantly lower in the EES group than in the BMS group (2.9% vs. 5.6%; p = 0.009). Rates of definite and definite or probable stent thrombosis were also significantly reduced in the EES group (0.8% vs. 2.1%; p = 0.03, and 1.3% vs. 2.8%; p = 0.04, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The 2-year follow-up of the EXAMINATION trial confirms the safety and efficacy of the EES compared with BMS in the setting of STEMI. Specifically, both rates of target lesion revascularization and stent thrombosis were reduced in recipients of EES without any signs of late attrition for either of these endpoints. (A Clinical Evaluation of Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stents in the Treatment of Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: EXAMINATION Study; NCT00828087).

Predictors and clinical implications of stent thrombosis in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: Insights from the EXAMINATION trial.

BACKGROUND: Few data are available about safety of second generation drug eluting stents in an all-comer ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) population. We sought to investigate the predictors and clinical implications of 1-year stent thrombosis (ST) in patients with STEMI, included in the EXAMINATION trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: The EXAMINATION trial is an all-comer prospective, randomized 1:1 controlled trial, testing everolimus-eluting stent (EES) vs. cobalt chromium bare metal stent (BMS) in STEMI patients. It included 1498 patients, randomized to EES (n = 751) or BMS (n = 747). At 1 year, definite/probable stent thrombosis, defined according to ARC criteria, occurred in 26 patients (1.73%), including 18 definite and 8 probable events. The incidence of ST was lower in patients treated with EES than in those treated with BMS (HR 0.16, 95% CI 0.03-0.29, p = 0.017). Patients with ST have higher 1-year rates of cardiac death (30.8% vs. 2.5%, p<0.001), myocardial infarction (30.8% vs. 0.5%, p<0.001) and target vessel revascularization (65.4% vs. 4.2%, p<0.001) compared with those without. Independent predictors of 1-year definite/probable ST were BMS implantation at the index procedure (HR 3.41, 95% CI 1.35-8.60), ST segment resolution of at least 70% in the EKG post-PCI (HR 0.30, 95% CI 0.13-0.70) and Killip class on admission (HR 2.57, 95% CI 1.70-3.90). CONCLUSIONS: ST had low frequency in the first year after implantation of EES/BMS in STEMI patients, but it is associated with adverse events. BMS implantation, lack of ST-segment resolution and high Killip class on admission were independent predictors of 1-year ST.

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.

Rationale and design of the EXAMINATION trial: a randomised comparison between everolimus-eluting stents and cobalt-chromium bare-metal stents in ST-elevation myocardial infarction.

AIMS: To assess the performance of the everolimus-eluting stent (EES) versus cobalt chromium bare-metal stent (BMS) in the setting of primary percutaneous coronary intervention for treatment of patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). The implantation of a drug-eluting stent in the setting of an acute myocardial infarction is still controversial. In several registries this clinical scenario has been associated with the development of stent thrombosis. The EES has demonstrated to reduce the stent thrombosis rate as compared to paclitaxel-eluting stent in randomised controlled trials, mainly performed in patients in stable clinical conditions. There are however few data regarding the effectiveness of EES in the context of STEMI. METHODS AND RESULTS: This is an investigator-driven, prospective, multicentre, multinational, randomised, single blind, two-arm, controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT00828087). This trial, with an all comer design, randomises approximately 1,500 patients 1:1 to EES or BMS. Overall, any patient presenting with STEMI up to 48 hours who requires emergent percutaneous coronary intervention can be included. The primary endpoint is the patient-oriented combined endpoint of all-cause death, any myocardial infarction and any revascularisation at 1-year according to the Academic Research Consortium. Clinical follow-up will be scheduled at 30 days, six months, one year and yearly up to five years. No angiographic follow-up is mandated per protocol. CONCLUSIONS: This trial with broad inclusion and few exclusion criteria will shed light on the performance of the second generation EES in the complex scenario of STEMI.

Noninvasive detection of subclinical coronary atherosclerosis coupled with assessment of changes in plaque characteristics using novel invasive imaging modalities: the Integrated Biomarker and Imaging Study (IBIS).

OBJECTIVES: Our purpose was to assess noninvasive imaging in detection of subclinical atherosclerosis and to examine novel invasive modalities to describe prevalence and temporal changes in putative characteristics of "high-risk" plaques. BACKGROUND: Conventional coronary imaging cannot identify "high-risk" lesions. METHODS: Conventional (quantitative angiography and intravascular ultrasound [IVUS]) and novel imaging (IVUS-based palpography and gray scale echogenicity) were performed at baseline and 6 months later in 67 patients with diverse clinical presentations. Different imaging techniques were compared within a common segment defined by multislice computed tomography (MSCT). RESULTS: Compared with IVUS, the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive value of MSCT for detecting significant plaque was 86%, 69%, 90%, and 61%, respectively. In coronary arteries with <50% stenosis, there were no temporal changes in luminal and plaque dimensions measured by quantitative coronary angiography or IVUS; however, a significant reduction in abnormal strain pattern was detected on palpography (density high strain spots/cm: 1.6 +/- 1.5 vs. 1.2 +/- 1.4, p = 0.0123. These changes were mainly related to significant changes in patients who presented with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. The assessment of plaque echogenicity showed no temporal changes. There were no correlations between circulating biomarkers and quantifiable imaging parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Mild angiographic disease is associated with large atherosclerotic plaques on MSCT. Conventional invasive coronary imaging reveals static luminal and plaque dimensions on standard medical therapy with plaque hypoechogenicity remaining unchanged over the 6-month period. By contrast, palpography measurements of strain correlate with clinical presentation and significantly decrease on standard medical therapy. Novel imaging modalities, such as palpography, might provide insights into plaque biology and might eventually serve as intermediate end points in interventional trials.

Five-year outcomes after coronary stenting versus bypass surgery for the treatment of multivessel disease: the final analysis of the Arterial Revascularization Therapies Study (ARTS) randomized trial.

OBJECTIVES: The long-term (five-year) comparative results of treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease with stenting or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is at present unknown. BACKGROUND: The Arterial Revascularization Therapies Study (ARTS) was designed to compare CABG and stenting in patients with multivessel disease. METHODS: A total of 1,205 patients with the potential for equivalent revascularization were randomly assigned to CABG (n = 605) or stent implantation (n = 600). The primary clinical end point was freedom from major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) at one year; MACCE at five-year follow-up constituted the final secondary end point. RESULTS: At five years, there were 48 and 46 deaths in the stent and CABG groups, respectively (8.0% vs. 7.6%; p = 0.83; relative risk [RR], 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71 to 1.55). Among 208 diabetic patients, mortality was 13.4% in the stent group and 8.3% in the CABG group (p = 0.27; RR, 1.61; 95% CI, 0.71 to 3.63). Overall freedom from death, stroke, or myocardial infarction was not significantly different between groups (18.2% in the stent group vs. 14.9% in the surgical group; p = 0.14; RR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.58). The incidence of repeat revascularization was significantly higher in the stent group (30.3%) than in the CABG group (8.8%; p < 0.001; RR, 3.46; 95% CI, 2.61 to 4.60). The composite event-free survival rate was 58.3% in the stent group and 78.2% in the CABG group (p < 0.0001; RR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.60 to 2.28). CONCLUSIONS: At five years there was no difference in mortality between stenting and surgery for multivessel disease. Furthermore, the incidence of stroke or myocardial infarction was not significantly different between the two groups. However, overall MACCE was higher in the stent group, driven by the increased need for repeat revascularization.

Rationale and methods of the integrated biomarker and imaging study (IBIS): combining invasive and non-invasive imaging with biomarkers to detect subclinical atherosclerosis and assess coronary lesion biology.

Death or myocardial infarction, the most serious clinical consequences of atherosclerosis, often result from plaque rupture at non-flow limiting lesions. Current diagnostic imaging with coronary angiography only detects large plaques that already impinge on the lumen and cannot accurately identify those that have a propensity to cause unheralded events. Accurate evaluation of the composition or of the biomechanical characteristics of plaques with invasive or non-invasive methods, alone or in conjunction with assessment of circulating biomarkers, could help identify high-risk patients, thus providing the rationale for aggressive treatments in order to reduce future clinical events. The IBIS (Integrated Biomarker and Imaging Study) study is a prospective, single-center, non-randomized, observational study conducted in Rotterdam. The aim of the IBIS study is to evaluate both invasive (quantitative coronary angiography, intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) and palpography) and non-invasive (multislice spiral computed tomography) imaging techniques to characterize non-flow limiting coronary lesions. In addition, multiple classical and novel biomarkers will be measured and their levels correlated with the results of the different imaging techniques. A minimum of 85 patients up to a maximum of 120 patients will be included. This paper describes the study protocol and methodological solutions that have been devised for the purpose of comparisons among several imaging modalities. It outlines the analyses that will be performed to compare invasive and non-invasive imaging techniques in conjunction with multiple biomarkers to characterize non-flow limiting subclinical coronary lesions.

Three-year outcome after coronary stenting versus bypass surgery for the treatment of multivessel disease.

BACKGROUND: The primary results of Arterial Revascularization Therapy Study reported a greater need for repeated revascularization after percutaneous coronary intervention with stenting (PCI). However, PCI was less expensive than coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and offered the same degree of protection against death, stroke, and myocardial infarction. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with multivessel disease (n=1205) were randomly assigned to either CABG or PCI and followed up for up to 3 years. Survival rates without stroke or myocardial infarction were similar in each group at 1 year and 3 years (90.5% versus 91.4% for PCI versus CABG at 1 year and 87.2% versus 88.4% for PCI versus CABG at 3 years). However, the respective repeat revascularization rates were 21.2% and 26.7% at 1 and 3 years in patients allocated to PCI, compared with 3.8% and 6.6% in patients allocated to CABG (P<0.0001). Diabetes (P<0.0009) and maximal pressure for stent deployment (P<0.002) are the strongest independent predictors of events at 3 years after PCI, whereas left anterior descending coronary artery grafting (P<0.006) is the best predictor of event-free survival at 3 years after CABG. The incremental cost of surgery compared with PCI for an event-free patient was 19 257 at 1 year but decreased to 10 492 at 3 years. It remained at 142 391 at 3 years when revascularization procedures were excluded in the efficacy end point, however. CONCLUSIONS: Three-year survival rates without stroke and myocardial infarction are identical in both groups, and the cost/benefit ratio of stenting is determined primarily by the increasing need for revascularization in the PCI group.

TAXUS III Trial: in-stent restenosis treated with stent-based delivery of paclitaxel incorporated in a slow-release polymer formulation.

BACKGROUND: The first clinical study of paclitaxel-eluting stent for de novo lesions showed promising results. We performed the TAXUS III trial to evaluate the feasibility and safety of paclitaxel-eluting stent for the treatment of in-stent restenosis (ISR). METHODS AND RESULTS: The TAXUS III trial was a single-arm, 2-center study that enrolled 28 patients with ISR meeting the criteria of lesion length < or =30 mm, 50% to 99% diameter stenosis, and vessel diameter 3.0 to 3.5 mm. They were treated with one or more TAXUS NIRx paclitaxel-eluting stents. Twenty-five patients completed the angiographic follow-up at 6 months, and 17 of these underwent intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) examination. No subacute stent thrombosis occurred up to 12 months, but there was one late chronic total occlusion, and additional 3 patients showed angiographic restenosis. The mean late loss was 0.54 mm, with neointimal hyperplasia volume of 20.3 mm3. The major adverse cardiac event rate was 29% (8 patients; 1 non-Q-wave myocardial infarction, 1 coronary artery bypass grafting, and 6 target lesion revascularization [TLR]). Of the patients with TLR, 1 had restenosis in a bare stent implanted for edge dissection and 2 had restenosis in a gap between 2 paclitaxel-eluting stents. Two patients without angiographic restenosis underwent TLR as a result of the IVUS assessment at follow-up (1 incomplete apposition and 1 insufficient expansion of the stent). CONCLUSIONS: Paclitaxel-eluting stent implantation is considered safe and potentially efficacious in the treatment of ISR. IVUS guidance to ensure good stent deployment with complete coverage of target lesion may reduce reintervention.

A randomized comparison of the value of additional stenting after optimal balloon angioplasty for long coronary lesions: final results of the additional value of NIR stents for treatment of long coronary lesions (ADVANCE) study.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to investigate the clinical benefit of additional stent implantation after achieving an optimal result of balloon angioplasty (BA) in long coronary lesions (>20 mm). BACKGROUND: Long coronary lesions are associated with increased early complications and late restenosis after BA. Stenting improves the early outcome, but stent restenosis is also related to both lesion length and stent length. METHODS: A total of 437 patients with a single native lesion 20 to 50 mm in length were included and underwent BA, using long balloons matched to lesion length and vessel diameter (balloon/artery ratio 1.1) to achieve a diameter stenosis (DS) <30% by on-line quantitative coronary angiography (QCA). "Bail-out stenting" was performed for flow-limiting dissections or >50% DS. Patients in whom an optimal BA result was achieved were randomized to additional stenting (using NIR stents) or no stenting. The primary end point was freedom from major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at nine months, and core laboratory QCA was performed on serial angiograms. RESULTS: Bailout stenting was necessary in 149 patients (34%) and was associated with a significantly increased risk of peri-procedural infarction (p < 0.02). Among the 288 randomized patients, the mean lesion length was 27+/-9 mm, and the vessel diameter was 2.78+/-0.52 mm. The procedural success rate was 90% for the 143 patients assigned to BA alone (control group), as compared with 93% in the 145 patients assigned to additional stenting (stent group), which resulted in a superior early minimal lumen diameter (0.54 mm, p < 0.001) and led to reduced angiographic restenosis (27% vs. 42%, p = 0.022). Freedom from MACE at nine months was 77% in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: A strategy of provisional stenting for long coronary lesions led to bailout stenting in one-third of patients, with a threefold increase in peri-procedural infarction. Additional stenting yielded a lower angiographic restenosis rate, but no reduction in MACE at nine months.