Five-year clinical outcomes using the bioresorbable vascular scaffold: Insights from the FRANCE ABSORB registry.

BACKGROUND: Randomized trials comparing the first-generation absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA, USA) with a drug-eluting stent showed a moderate but significant increase in the rate of 3-year major adverse cardiac events and scaffold thrombosis, followed by a decrease in adverse events after 3 years. AIM: The objective of this study was to assess the 5-year outcomes of patients treated with at least one absorb BVS and included in the FRANCE ABSORB registry. METHODS: All patients treated in France with an absorb BVS were prospectively included in a large nationwide multicentre registry. The primary efficacy outcome was the occurrence of 5-year major adverse cardiac events. Secondary efficacy outcomes were the rates of 5-year target vessel revascularization and definite/probable scaffold thrombosis. RESULTS: Between September 2014 and April 2016, 2,070 patients were included in 86 centres (mean age 55±11 years; 80% men; 49% with acute coronary syndrome). The rates of 1-, 3- and 5-year major adverse cardiac events were 3.9%, 9.4% and 12.1%, respectively (including cardiac death in 2.5% and target vessel revascularization in 10.4%). By multivariable analysis, diabetes, oral anticoagulation, the use of multiple Absorb BVSs and the use of a 2.5mm diameter absorb BVS were associated with 5-year major adverse cardiac events. The rates of 1-, 3- and 5-year definite/probable scaffold thrombosis were 1.5%, 3.1% and 3.6%, respectively. By multivariable analysis, older age, diabetes, anticoagulation at discharge and the use of a 2.5mm diameter absorb BVS were associated with 5-year scaffold thrombosis. CONCLUSIONS: Absorb BVS implantation was associated with low rates of 1-year major adverse cardiac events, which increased significantly at 3-year follow-up. There was a clear decrease in the rates of scaffold thrombosis and major adverse cardiac events after 3 years.

6- Versus 24-Month Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Implantation of Drug-Eluting Stents in Patients Nonresistant to Aspirin: Final Results of the ITALIC Trial (Is There a Life for DES After Discontinuation of Clopidogrel).

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that 6-month dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is noninferior to 24-month DAPT in aspirin-sensitive patients. BACKGROUND: The ITALIC (Is There a Life for DES After Discontinuation of Clopidogrel) trial showed that rates of bleeding and thrombotic events at 1 year were much the same with 6 versus 12 months of DAPT after percutaneous coronary intervention with second-generation drug-eluting stents. In this report, 2-year follow-up is presented. METHODS: In a multicenter randomized study, patients with confirmed nonresistance to aspirin undergoing drug-eluting stent implantation were allocated to 6 or 24 months of DAPT. The primary endpoint was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, urgent target vessel revascularization, stroke, and major bleeding at 12 months post-percutaneous coronary intervention. The secondary endpoints comprised the same composite endpoint at 24 months and each individual component. RESULTS: Overall, 2,031 patients from 70 centers were screened; 926 were randomized to 6-month and 924 to 24-month DAPT. Noninferiority was demonstrated for 6- versus 12-month DAPT, with an absolute risk difference of 0.11% (95% confidence interval: -1.04% to 1.26%; p = 0.0002). At 2 years, the composite endpoint was unchanged, at 3.5% for 6 months and 3.7% for 24 months (p = 0.79), and rates of myocardial infarction (1.3% vs. 1.0%; p = 0.51), stroke (0.6% vs. 0.8%; p = 0.77), and target vessel revascularization (1.0% vs. 0.3%; p = 0.09) were likewise similar. There was a trend toward higher mortality with longer DAPT (2.2% vs. 1.2%; p = 0.11). Four patients (0.4%) in the 24-month group and none in the 6-month group had major bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: Two-year outcomes in the ITALIC trial confirmed the 1-year results and showed that patients receiving 6-month DAPT after percutaneous coronary intervention with second-generation drug-eluting stent have similar outcomes to those receiving 24-month DAPT.

6- versus 24-month dual antiplatelet therapy after implantation of drug-eluting stents in patients nonresistant to aspirin: the randomized, multicenter ITALIC trial.

BACKGROUND: The currently recommended duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in drug-eluting stent (DES) recipients is 12 months to reduce the risk of late stent thrombosis, particularly in those with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). OBJECTIVES: This study hypothesized that antiplatelet treatment with DAPT for 6 months may be noninferior to 24-month DAPT in aspirin-sensitive patients. METHODS: A multicenter, randomized study assigned patients undergoing implantation of everolimus-eluting stents with confirmed nonresistance to aspirin to receive 6- or 24-month DAPT. The primary endpoint was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, urgent target vessel revascularization, stroke, and major bleeding at 12 months post-stenting. RESULTS: A total of 2,031 patients were enrolled in 70 European and Middle Eastern centers. The trial was prematurely terminated due to recruitment problems, leaving 941 patients randomized to 24-month DAPT and 953 to 6-month DAPT. The 2 treatment groups had similar baseline and procedural characteristics. There was no significant difference in the primary endpoint (24-month: 1.5% vs. 6-month: 1.6%; p = 0.85). Noninferiority was demonstrated for 6- versus 24-month DAPT, with an absolute risk difference of 0.11% (95% confidence interval: -1.04% to 1.26%; p for noninferiority = 0.0002). There were no significant differences in stent thrombosis or bleeding complications. In the 792 (44%) high-risk patients with ACS, primary and secondary endpoints did not significantly differ (hazard ratio: 1.7 [95% confidence interval: 0.519 to 6.057; p = 0.361]). CONCLUSIONS: Rates of bleeding and thrombotic events were not significantly different according to 6- versus 24-month DAPT after PCI with new-generation DES in good aspirin responders. (Is There A LIfe for DES After Discontinuation of Clopidogrel [ITALICplus]; NCT01476020).

Thrombotic and bleeding events after coronary stenting according to clopidogrel and aspirin platelet reactivity: VerifyNow French Registry (VERIFRENCHY).

BACKGROUND: Dual antiplatelet therapy, comprising aspirin and clopidogrel, is recommended in patients undergoing coronary stenting to avoid the occurrence of stent thrombosis and others ischaemic events. Interindividual response to clopidogrel varies, however, with poor response associated with an increased risk of ischaemic events. New assays are available for testing aspirin and clopidogrel response routinely at the bedside. AIM: To evaluate the prognostic value of testing antiplatelet response in an intermediate-risk population undergoing stent implantation. METHODS: We prospectively assessed clopidogrel and aspirin response using the VerifyNow assay at the time of coronary stenting in 1001 patients who presented with stable coronary disease or non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome. The main ischaemic endpoint was the composite of definite and probable stent thrombosis, cardiovascular death or spontaneous myocardial infarction at one year. The safety endpoint was major bleeding. RESULTS: Overall, 36.0% of patients had high on-clopidogrel platelet reactivity (OCR) and 8.6% had high on-aspirin platelet reactivity (OAR). The main ischaemic composite endpoint occurred in 3.9% of patients with high vs. 2.3% of patients with normal OCR (hazard ratio 1.66, 95% confidence interval 0.78-3.54; P=0.18). Definite or probable stent thrombosis occurred in 1.1% of patients with high vs. 0.3% of patients with normal OCR (P=0.86). There was no significant difference in ischaemic endpoints according to OAR and there was no difference in rates of major bleeding between patients with high versus normal on-treatment platelet reactivity. CONCLUSIONS: On-treatment platelet reactivity was not associated with 1-year ischaemic or bleeding events in an intermediate-risk population undergoing stent implantation.

DECOPI (DEsobstruction COronaire en Post-Infarctus): a randomized multi-centre trial of occluded artery angioplasty after acute myocardial infarction.

AIM: To determine whether late recanalization of an occluded infarct artery after acute myocardial infarction is beneficial. METHODS AND RESULTS: Two hundred and twelve patients with a first Q-wave myocardial infarction (MI) and an occluded infarct vessel were enrolled. After coronary and left ventricular contrast angiography, patients were randomized to percutaneous revascularization (PTCA, n=109), carried out 2-15 days after symptom onset or medical therapy (n=103). The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiac death, non-fatal MI, or ventricular tachyarrhythmia. The majority had single-vessel disease and less than one-third had involvement of the left anterior descending artery. The use of pharmacological therapy was high in both groups. At six months, left ventricular ejection fraction was 5% higher in the invasive compared with the medical group (P=0.013) and more patients had a patent artery (82.8% vs 34.2%, P<0.0001). Restenosis was seen in 49.4% of patients in the PTCA group. At a mean of 34 months of follow-up, the occurrence of the primary endpoint was similar in the medical and PTCA groups (8.7% vs 7.3% respectively, P=0.68), but the overall costs were higher for PTCA. The secondary endpoint combining the primary endpoint with admission for heart failure was also similar between groups (12.6% vs 10.1% in the medical and PTCA groups, respectively, P=0.56). CONCLUSIONS: Systematic late PTCA of the infarct vessel was associated with a higher left ventricular ejection fraction at six months, no difference in clinical outcomes, and higher costs than medical therapy. These results must be interpreted with caution given the small size and low risk of the population.