Trends in primary percutaneous coronary intervention for the treatment of acute coronary ST-elevation myocardial infarction in Latin American countries: insights from the CECI consortium.

Background: ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) requires revascularization treatment, preferably via primary percutaneous coronary interventions (pPCI). There is a lack of data about contemporary management of STEMI in Latin America. Methods: This was a multicenter, multinational, prospective, and dynamic registry of patients undergoing pPCI in Latin America for STEMI (STEMI/LATAMI Registry) that was carried out in nine centers from five countries (Argentina, Ecuador, Venezuela, Bolivia, and the Dominican Republic) between June 2021 and June 2023. All interventionalists involved in the study were originally trained at the same institution (Centro de Estudios en Cardiología Intervencionista, Buenos Aires, Argentina). The primary objective was to evaluate procedural and in-hospital outcomes of pPCI in STEMI and in-hospital outcome in the Latin America (LATAM) region; as secondary endpoints, we analyzed the following subgroups: differences between pPCI vs. pharmaco-invasive or late presenters, gender, elderly and very elderly patients, cardiogenic shock outcomes, and causes of STEMI. Results: In total, 744 STEMI patients who underwent PCI between June 2021 and June 2023 in five countries (nine centers) in our continent were included; 76.3% had a pPCI, 8.1% pharmaco-invasive PCI, and 15.6% had late STEMI PCI. There were no differences in region or center when we evaluated in-hospital and 30 days of death. The rate of procedural success was 96.2%, and the overall in-hospital mortality rate was 2.2%. In the subgroup of pPCI, mean symptom onset-to-balloon time was 295.3 ± 246 min, and mean door-to-balloon time was 55.8 ± 49.9 min. The femoral approach was chosen in 60.5%. In 3.0% of patients, the left main disease was the culprit artery, with 1.63 ± 1.00 stents per patient (564 drug-eluting stents and 652 bare metal stents), with 34 patients receiving only plain optimal balloon angioplasty. Definitive stent thrombosis was related to the infarct artery as the primary cause of STEMI in 7.5% of patients. The use of assistant mechanical devices was low, at 2.1% in the pPCI group. Women were older, with large numbers in very elderly age (≥90 years), greater mortality, and incidence of spontaneous coronary dissection as a cause of STEMI (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, p < 0.001, and p < 0.003, respectively). Conclusion: In suitable LATAM Centers from low/medium-income countries, this prospective registry in patients with STEMI, PCI performed by well-trained operators has comparable results to those reported in well-developed countries.

High Non-Cardiac Death Incidence Should Be a Limitation of Drug-Eluting Stents Implantation? Insights from Recent Randomized Data.

Despite the introduction of drug-eluting stents (DES) significantly improved the efficacy and safety of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI), particularly in a high-risk group of patients, the gap between PCI with his competitor's coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) and/or optimal medical treatment alone was not reduced. In this revision, we highlighted the fact that in recent years landmark randomized studies reported at mid and long-term follow-ups a high incidence of non-cardiac death, cancer incidence, or both in the DES group of patients. The overall incidence of non-cardiac death was significantly higher in the DES vs. the comparator arm: 5.5% and 3.8%, respectively, p = 0.000018, and non-cardiac death appears to be more divergent between DES vs. the comparator at the extended follow-up to expenses of the last one. One of these trials reported five times greater cancer incidence in the DES arm at late follow-up, 5% vs. 0.7% p < 0.0018. We review the potential reason for these unexpected findings, although we can discard that DES biology could be involved in it. Until all these issues are resolved, we propose that DES implantation should be tailored accorded patient age, life expectancy, and lesion complexity.

Abbreviated Antiplatelet Therapy After Coronary Stenting in Patients With Myocardial Infarction at High Bleeding Risk.

BACKGROUND: The optimal duration of antiplatelet therapy (APT) after coronary stenting in patients at high bleeding risk (HBR) presenting with an acute coronary syndrome remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to investigate the safety and efficacy of an abbreviated APT regimen after coronary stenting in an HBR population presenting with acute or recent myocardial infarction. METHODS: In the MASTER DAPT trial, 4,579 patients at HBR were randomized after 1 month of dual APT (DAPT) to abbreviated (DAPT stopped and 11 months single APT or 5 months in patients with oral anticoagulants) or nonabbreviated APT (DAPT for minimum 3 months) strategies. Randomization was stratified by acute or recent myocardial infarction at index procedure. Coprimary outcomes at 335 days after randomization were net adverse clinical outcomes events (NACE); major adverse cardiac and cerebral events (MACCE); and type 2, 3, or 5 Bleeding Academic Research Consortium bleeding. RESULTS: NACE and MACCE did not differ with abbreviated vs nonabbreviated APT regimens in patients with an acute or recent myocardial infarction (n = 1,780; HR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.61-1.12 and HR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.62-1.19, respectively) or without an acute or recent myocardial infarction (n = 2,799; HR: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.77-1.38 and HR: 1.13; 95% CI: 0.80-1.59; Pinteraction = 0.31 and 0.25, respectively). Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 2, 3, or 5 bleeding was significantly reduced in patients with or without an acute or recent myocardial infarction (HR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.46-0.91 and HR: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.54-0.92; Pinteraction = 0.72) with abbreviated APT. CONCLUSIONS: A 1-month DAPT strategy in patients with HBR presenting with an acute or recent myocardial infarction results in similar NACE and MACCE rates and reduces bleedings compared with a nonabbreviated DAPT strategy. (Management of High Bleeding Risk Patients Post Bioresorbable Polymer Coated Stent Implantation With an Abbreviated Versus Prolonged DAPT Regimen [MASTER DAPT]; NCT03023020).

Resultados de un registro prospectivo de pacientes con desórdenes hipertensivos del embarazo en un centro de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires / Results of a Prospective Registry of Patients with Hypertensive Disorders of Pregnancy in a Center of the City of Buenos Aires

RESUMEN Introducción: Los desórdenes hipertensivos del embarazo (DHE) complican el 10% de los embarazos. Son la principal causa de mortalidad materna, y requieren un equipo multidisciplinario para su abordaje. Objetivos: Cuantificar prevalencia y definir características y evolución de los DHE en un centro con un programa dedicado para su abordaje. Material y métodos: Registro continuo y prospectivo desde noviembre 2019 hasta julio 2021 que incluyó todas las pacientes con DHE (Hipertensión arterial crónica - HTAC, hipertensión gestacional - HTg, preeclampsia precoz - PEp, preeclampsia tardía - PEt, preeclampsia sobreimpuesta - PESI, y eclampsia) y que cumplieran los criterios de inclusión. Se excluyeron las pacientes sin cobertura médica que impidiera su seguimiento ambulatorio a largo plazo en la institución. Se evaluaron características basales y evolución, tratamiento y persistencia de HTA luego del puerperio. Se analizó la incidencia de retardo en el crecimiento intrauterino (RCIU), parto pretérmino, mortalidad materna y muerte neonatal dentro de los primeros 28 días de vida. Resultados: Se realizaron 5825 partos/cesáreas y se incluyeron 152 pacientes que cumplieron criterios de inclusión, con HTg (37,5%), PEp (19,7%), PEt (38,8%), PESI (3,3%)), eclampsia (0,6%). Edad media 36,4 ± 5,6 años. El 38,1% recibió aspirina. Los antihipertensivos más utilizados fueron labetalol (65,8%) y enalapril (44,1 %) en el embarazo y el puerperio respectivamente. No hubo mortalidad materna, y la neonatal fue 3,6%. La persistencia de HTA fue del 20,0% Conclusión: La preeclampsia tardía fue el DHE más frecuente en la población analizada. Más de la mitad de las pacientes que desarrollaron DHE no recibían tratamiento preventivo con aspirina, evidenciándose un déficit en la identificación de la población de riesgo. Una de cada 5 pacientes con DHE quedó con hipertensión arterial crónica luego del puerperio.

ABSTRACT Background: Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP) complicate 10% of pregnancies. They are the main cause of maternal mortality and require a multidisciplinary team to address them. Objectives: The aim of this study was to quantify the prevalence and define the characteristics and outcome of HDP in a center with a program focused on its management. Methods: This was a continuous and prospective registry from November 2019 to July 2021 that included all patients with HDP [chronic hypertension (CHT), gestational hypertension (GHT), early-onset preeclampsia (EPE), late preeclampsia (LPE), superimposed preeclampsia (SIPE) and eclampsia] who met the inclusion criteria. Patients without medical coverage that prevented long-term outpatient follow-up at the institution were excluded. Baseline characteristics and evolution, treatment and persistent HT after puerperium were evaluated. The incidence of intrauterine growth retardation (IUGR), preterm delivery, maternal mortality and neonatal death within the first 28 days of life was analyzed. Results: Among a total f 5825 deliveries/caesarean sections, 152 patients with GHT (37.5%), EPE (19.7%), LPE (38.8%), SIPE (3.3%), and eclampsia (0.6%) who met the inclusion criteria were included in the study. Mean age was 36.4±5.6 years. Aspirin was administered to 38.1% of patients. The most commonly used antihypertensive drugs were labetalol (65.8%) and enalapril (44.1%) during pregnancy and puerperium, respectively. There was no maternal mortality, and neonatal mortality was 3.6%. Persistent HT was 20.0%. Conclusion: Late preeclampsia was the most frequent HDP in the population analyzed. More than half of the patients who developed HDP did not receive preventive treatment with aspirin, showing a deficit in the identification of the population at risk. One in 5 HDP patients remained with CHTN after puerperium.

Drug-Eluting or Bare-Metal Stents for Left Anterior Descending or Left Main Coronary Artery Revascularization.

Background New-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) reduce target-vessel revascularization compared with bare-metal stents (BMS), and recent data suggest that DES have the potential to decrease the risk of myocardial infarction and cardiovascular mortality. We evaluated the treatment effect of DES versus BMS according to the target artery (left anterior descending [LAD] and/or left main [LM] versus other territories [no-LAD/LM]). Methods and Results The Coronary Stent Trialist (CST) Collaboration gathered individual patient data of randomized trials of DES versus BMS for the treatment of coronary artery disease. The primary outcome was the composite of cardiac death or myocardial infarction. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs were derived from a 1-stage individual patient data meta-analysis. We included 26 024 patients across 19 trials: 13 650 (52.4%) in the LAD/LM and 12 373 (47.6%) in the no-LAD/LM group. At 6-year follow-up, there was strong evidence that the treatment effect of DES versus BMS depended on the target vessel (P-interaction=0.024). Compared with BMS, DES reduced the risk of cardiac death or myocardial infarction to a greater extent in the LAD/LM (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.68-0.85) than in the no-LAD/LM territories (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.83-1.05). This benefit was driven by a lower risk of cardiac death (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.70-0.98) and myocardial infarction (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.65-0.85) in patients with LAD/LM disease randomized to DES. An interaction (P=0.004) was also found for all-cause mortality with patients with LAD/LM disease deriving benefit from DES (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.76-0.97). Conclusions As compared with BMS, new-generation DES were associated with sustained reduction in the composite of cardiac death or myocardial infarction if used for the treatment of LAD or left main coronary stenoses. Registration URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO; Unique identifier: CRD42017060520.

Drug-Eluting or Bare-Metal Stents for Left Anterior Descending or Left Main Coronary Artery Revascularization

BACKGROUND: New-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) reduce target-vessel revascularization compared with bare-metal stents (BMS), and recent data suggest that DES have the potential to decrease the risk of myocardial infarction and cardiovascular mortality. We evaluated the treatment effect of DES versus BMS according to the target artery (left anterior descending [LAD] and/or left main [LM] versus other territories [no-LAD/LM]). METHODS AND RESULTS: The Coronary Stent Trialist (CST) Collaboration gathered individual patient data of randomized trials of DES versus BMS for the treatment of coronary artery disease. The primary outcome was the composite of cardiac death or myocardial infarction. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs were derived from a 1-stage individual patient data meta-analysis. We included 26 024 patients across 19 trials: 13 650 (52.4%) in the LAD/LM and 12 373 (47.6%) in the no-LAD/LM group. At 6-year follow-up, there was strong evidence that the treatment effect of DES versus BMS depended on the target vessel (P interaction=0.024). Compared with BMS, DES reduced the risk of cardiac death or myocardial infarction to a greater extent in the LAD/LM (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.68­0.85) than in the no-LAD/LM territories (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.83­1.05). This benefit was driven by a lower risk of cardiac death (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.70­0.98) and myocardial infarction (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.65­0.85) in patients with LAD/LM disease randomized to DES. An interaction (P=0.004) was also found for all-cause mortality with patients with LAD/LM disease deriving benefit from DES (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.76­0.97). CONCLUSIONS: As compared with BMS, new-generation DES were associated with sustained reduction in the composite of cardiac death or myocardial infarction if used for the treatment of LAD or left main coronary stenoses.

Abbreviated Antiplatelet Therapy in Patients at High Bleeding Risk With or Without Oral Anticoagulant Therapy After Coronary Stenting: An Open-Label, Randomized, Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimal duration of antiplatelet therapy (APT) in patients at high bleeding risk with or without oral anticoagulation (OAC) after coronary stenting remains unclear. METHODS: In the investigator-initiated, randomize, open-label MASTER DAPT trial (Management of High Bleeding Risk Patients Post Bioresorbable Polymer Coated Stent Implantation With an Abbreviated Versus Standard DAPT Regimen), 4579 patients at high bleeding risk were randomized after 1-month dual APT to abbreviated or nonabbreviated APT strategies. Randomization was stratified by concomitant OAC indication. In this subgroup analysis, we report outcomes of populations with or without an OAC indication. In the population with an OAC indication, patients changed immediately to single APT for 5 months (abbreviated regimen) or continued ≥2 months of dual APT and single APT thereafter (nonabbreviated regimen). Patients without an OAC indication changed to single APT for 11 months (abbreviated regimen) or continued ≥5 months of dual APT and single APT thereafter (nonabbreviated regimen). Coprimary outcomes at 335 days after randomization were net adverse clinical outcomes (composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 3 or 5 bleeding events); major adverse cardiac and cerebral events (all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and stroke); and type 2, 3, or 5 Bleeding Academic Research Consortium bleeding. RESULTS: Net adverse clinical outcomes or major adverse cardiac and cerebral events did not differ with abbreviated versus nonabbreviated APT regimens in patients with OAC indication (n=1666; hazard ratio [HR], 0.83 [95% CI, 0.60-1.15]; and HR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.60-1.30], respectively) or without OAC indication (n=2913; HR, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.77-1.33]; or HR, 1.06 [95% CI, 0.79-1.44]; Pinteraction=0.35 and 0.45, respectively). Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 2, 3, or 5 bleeding did not significantly differ in patients with OAC indication (HR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.62-1.12]) but was lower with abbreviated APT in patients without OAC indication (HR, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.41-0.74]; Pinteraction=0.057). The difference in bleeding in patients without OAC indication was driven mainly by a reduction in Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 2 bleedings (HR, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.33-0.69]; Pinteraction=0.021). CONCLUSIONS: Rates of net adverse clinical outcomes and major adverse cardiac and cerebral events did not differ with abbreviated APT in patients with high bleeding risk with or without an OAC indication and resulted in lower bleeding rates in patients without an OAC indication. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03023020.

Dual Antiplatelet Therapy after PCI in Patients at High Bleeding Risk.

BACKGROUND: The appropriate duration of dual antiplatelet therapy in patients at high risk for bleeding after the implantation of a drug-eluting coronary stent remains unclear. METHODS: One month after they had undergone implantation of a biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting coronary stent, we randomly assigned patients at high bleeding risk to discontinue dual antiplatelet therapy immediately (abbreviated therapy) or to continue it for at least 2 additional months (standard therapy). The three ranked primary outcomes were net adverse clinical events (a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, stroke, or major bleeding), major adverse cardiac or cerebral events (a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or stroke), and major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding; cumulative incidences were assessed at 335 days. The first two outcomes were assessed for noninferiority in the per-protocol population, and the third outcome for superiority in the intention-to-treat population. RESULTS: Among the 4434 patients in the per-protocol population, net adverse clinical events occurred in 165 patients (7.5%) in the abbreviated-therapy group and in 172 (7.7%) in the standard-therapy group (difference, -0.23 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.80 to 1.33; P<0.001 for noninferiority). A total of 133 patients (6.1%) in the abbreviated-therapy group and 132 patients (5.9%) in the standard-therapy group had a major adverse cardiac or cerebral event (difference, 0.11 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.29 to 1.51; P = 0.001 for noninferiority). Among the 4579 patients in the intention-to-treat population, major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding occurred in 148 patients (6.5%) in the abbreviated-therapy group and in 211 (9.4%) in the standard-therapy group (difference, -2.82 percentage points; 95% CI, -4.40 to -1.24; P<0.001 for superiority). CONCLUSIONS: One month of dual antiplatelet therapy was noninferior to the continuation of therapy for at least 2 additional months with regard to the occurrence of net adverse clinical events and major adverse cardiac or cerebral events; abbreviated therapy also resulted in a lower incidence of major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding. (Funded by Terumo; MASTER DAPT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03023020.).

Randomized comparison between bare-metal stent plus colchicine versus drug-eluting stent alone in prevention of clinical adverse events after percutaneous coronary intervention.

The use of colchicine is associated with a significant reduction of cardiac adverse events in patients with coronary artery disease. Past small randomized trials with oral immunosuppressive or anti-inflammatory therapies have demonstrated a reduction of adverse clinical events after bare metal stent implantation. The potential role of adjunctive colchicine after bare-metal stent implantation, compared with drug-eluting stent alone, is unknown. The primary end point of the study will be to compare cost-effectiveness at 1 year of follow-up of coronary intervention with bare-metal stent implantation plus 1 mg of colchicine during 3 months versus percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stent implantation alone. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04382443.

Multicentre, randomized comparison of two-stent and provisional stenting techniques in patients with complex coronary bifurcation lesions: the DEFINITION II trial.

AIM: The present study aimed to assess the benefits of two-stent techniques for patients with DEFINITION criteria-defined complex coronary bifurcation lesions. METHODS AND RESULTS: In total, 653 patients with complex bifurcation lesions at 49 international centres were randomly assigned to undergo the systematic two-stent technique (two-stent group) or provisional stenting (provisional group). The primary endpoint was the composite of target lesion failure (TLF) at the 1-year follow-up, including cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction (TVMI), and clinically driven target lesion revascularization (TLR). The safety endpoint was definite or probable stent thrombosis. At the 1-year follow-up, TLF occurred in 37 (11.4%) and 20 (6.1%) patients in the provisional and two-stent groups, respectively [77.8%: double-kissing crush; hazard ratio (HR) 0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.30-0.90; P = 0.019], largely driven by increased TVMI (7.1%, HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.20-0.90; P = 0.025) and clinically driven TLR (5.5%, HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.19-1.00; P = 0.049) in the provisional group. At the 1 year after indexed procedures, the incidence of cardiac death was 2.5% in the provisional group, non-significant to 2.1% in the two-stent group (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.31-2.37; P = 0.772). CONCLUSION: For DEFINITION criteria-defined complex coronary bifurcation lesions, the systematic two-stent approach was associated with a significant improvement in clinical outcomes compared with the provisional stenting approach. Further study is urgently warranted to identify the mechanisms contributing to the increased rate of TVMI after provisional stenting. STUDY REGISTRATION: http://www.clinicaltrials.com; Identifier: NCT02284750.

One-Year Follow-Up Results From the Observational, Multicenter, Prospective, and Controlled Registry: The WALTZ All-Comers Study.

The aim of this study was to evaluate 1-year follow-up results in an all "comers" population treated with a new cobalt chromium bare-metal stent (BMS) design. Since August 2016 to March 2017, 201 (9.7% of screening population) consecutive patients undergoing coronary stent implantation in 11 centers in Argentina were prospectively included in our registry. The inclusion criteria were multiple-vessel disease and/or unprotected left main disease, acute coronary syndromes (ACS) with at least one severe (⩾70%) stenosis in any of major epicardial vessel. In-stent restenosis, protected left main stenosis, or impossibility to receive dual-antiplatelet therapy was an exclusion criterion. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) were the primary endpoint and included cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), and target lesion revascularization (TLR); also, all components of the primary endpoint were separately analyzed. Completeness of revascularization was analyzed as post hoc data using residual SYNTAX or ERACI risk scores. Demographic characteristics showed that 6.5% of patients were very elderly, 22.5% have diabetes, 47% have multiple-vessel disease, 67% have ACS, and 32% have ST elevation MI. At a mean of 376 ± 18.1 days of follow-up, MACE was observed in 10.4% of patients: death + MI + cardiovascular accident (CVA) in 3% (6 of 201) and cardiac death + MI + CVA in 1.5% (3 of 201). Residual ERACI score ⩽5 was associated with 98% of event-free survival (P < .04). In conclusion, this prospective, multicenter, and observational all-comers registry with this novel BMS design showed a low incidence of adverse events at 1 year mainly due to coronary restenosis.

Drug-eluting or bare-metal stents for percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials

Background New-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) have mostly been investigated in head-to-head non-inferiority trials against early-generation DES and have typically shown similar efficacy and superior safety. How the safety profile of new-generation DES compares with that of bare-metal stents (BMS) is less clear.Methods We did an individual patient data meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials to compare outcomes after implantation of new-generation DES or BMS among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. The primary outcome was the composite of cardiac death or myocardial infarction. Data were pooled in a one-stage random-effects meta-analysis and examined at maximum follow-up and a 1-year landmark. Risk estimates are reported as hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs. This study is registered in PROSPERO, number CRD42017060520.Findings We obtained individual data for 26 616 patients in 20 randomized trials. Mean follow-up was 3·2 (SD 1·8) years. The risk of the primary outcome was reduced in DES recipients compared with BMS recipients (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·78­0·90, p<0·001) owing to a reduced risk of myocardial infarction (0·79, 0·71­0·88, p<0·001) and a possible slight but non-significant cardiac mortality benefit (0·89, 0·78­1·01, p=0·075). All-cause death was unaffected (HR with DES 0·96, 95% CI 0·88­1·05, p=0·358), but risk was lowered for definite stent thrombosis (0·63, 0·50­0·80, p<0·001) and target-vessel revascularization (0·55, 0·50­0·60, p<0·001). We saw a time-dependent treatment effect, with DES being associated with lower risk of the primary outcome than BMS up to 1 year after placement. While the effect was maintained in the longer term, there was no further divergence from BMS after 1 year. Interpretation The performance of new-generation DES in the first year after implantation means that BMS should no longer be considered the gold standard for safety. Further development of DES technology should target improvements in clinical outcomes beyond 1 year. (AU)

Drug-eluting or bare-metal stents for percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: New-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) have mostly been investigated in head-to-head non-inferiority trials against early-generation DES and have typically shown similar efficacy and superior safety. How the safety profile of new-generation DES compares with that of bare-metal stents (BMS) is less clear. METHODS: We did an individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials to compare outcomes after implantation of new-generation DES or BMS among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. The primary outcome was the composite of cardiac death or myocardial infarction. Data were pooled in a one-stage random-effects meta-analysis and examined at maximum follow-up and a 1-year landmark. Risk estimates are reported as hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs. This study is registered in PROSPERO, number CRD42017060520. FINDINGS: We obtained individual data for 26 616 patients in 20 randomised trials. Mean follow-up was 3·2 (SD 1·8) years. The risk of the primary outcome was reduced in DES recipients compared with BMS recipients (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·78-0·90, p<0·001) owing to a reduced risk of myocardial infarction (0·79, 0·71-0·88, p<0·001) and a possible slight but non-significant cardiac mortality benefit (0·89, 0·78-1·01, p=0·075). All-cause death was unaffected (HR with DES 0·96, 95% CI 0·88-1·05, p=0·358), but risk was lowered for definite stent thrombosis (0·63, 0·50-0·80, p<0·001) and target-vessel revascularisation (0·55, 0·50-0·60, p<0·001). We saw a time-dependent treatment effect, with DES being associated with lower risk of the primary outcome than BMS up to 1 year after placement. While the effect was maintained in the longer term, there was no further divergence from BMS after 1 year. INTERPRETATION: The performance of new-generation DES in the first year after implantation means that BMS should no longer be considered the gold standard for safety. Further development of DES technology should target improvements in clinical outcomes beyond 1 year. FUNDING: Bern University Hospital.

Design and rationale of the Management of High Bleeding Risk Patients Post Bioresorbable Polymer Coated Stent Implantation With an Abbreviated Versus Standard DAPT Regimen (MASTER DAPT) Study.

BACKGROUND: The optimal duration of antiplatelet therapy in high-bleeding risk (HBR) patients with coronary artery disease treated with newer-generation drug-eluting bioresorbable polymer-coated stents remains unclear. DESIGN: MASTER DAPT (clinicaltrial.govNCT03023020) is an investigator-initiated, open-label, multicenter, randomized controlled trial comparing an abbreviated versus a standard duration of antiplatelet therapy after bioresorbable polymer-coated Ultimaster (TANSEI) sirolimus-eluting stent implantation in approximately 4,300 HBR patients recruited from ≥100 interventional cardiology centers globally. After a mandatory 30-day dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) run-in phase, patients are randomized to (a) a single antiplatelet regimen until study completion or up to 5 months in patients with clinically indicated oral anticoagulation (experimental 1-month DAPT group) or (b) continue DAPT for at least 5 months in patients without or 2 in patients with concomitant indication to oral anticoagulation, followed by a single antiplatelet regimen (standard antiplatelet regimen). With a final sample size of 4,300 patients, this study is powered to assess the noninferiority of the abbreviated antiplatelet regimen with respect to the net adverse clinical and major adverse cardiac and cerebral events composite end points and if satisfied for the superiority of abbreviated as compared to standard antiplatelet therapy duration in terms of major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding. Study end points will be adjudicated by a blinded Clinical Events Committee. CONCLUSIONS: The MASTER DAPT study is the first randomized controlled trial aiming at ascertaining the optimal duration of antiplatelet therapy in HBR patients treated with sirolimus-eluting bioresorbable polymer-coated stent implantation.

Stroke Rates Following Surgical Versus Percutaneous Coronary Revascularization.

BACKGROUND: Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are used for coronary revascularization in patients with multivessel and left main coronary artery disease. Stroke is among the most feared complications of revascularization. Due to its infrequency, studies with large numbers of patients are required to detect differences in stroke rates between CABG and PCI. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare rates of stroke after CABG and PCI and the impact of procedural stroke on long-term mortality. METHODS: We performed a collaborative individual patient-data pooled analysis of 11 randomized clinical trials comparing CABG with PCI using stents; ERACI II (Argentine Randomized Study: Coronary Angioplasty With Stenting Versus Coronary Bypass Surgery in Patients With Multiple Vessel Disease) (n = 450), ARTS (Arterial Revascularization Therapy Study) (n = 1,205), MASS II (Medicine, Angioplasty, or Surgery Study) (n = 408), SoS (Stent or Surgery) trial (n = 988), SYNTAX (Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery) trial (n = 1,800), PRECOMBAT (Bypass Surgery Versus Angioplasty Using Sirolimus-Eluting Stent in Patients With Left Main Coronary Artery Disease) trial (n = 600), FREEDOM (Comparison of Two Treatments for Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease in Individuals With Diabetes) trial (n = 1,900), VA CARDS (Coronary Artery Revascularization in Diabetes) (n = 198), BEST (Bypass Surgery Versus Everolimus-Eluting Stent Implantation for Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease) (n = 880), NOBLE (Percutaneous Coronary Angioplasty Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Treatment of Unprotected Left Main Stenosis) trial (n = 1,184), and EXCEL (Evaluation of Xience Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization) trial (n = 1,905). The 30-day and 5-year stroke rates were compared between CABG and PCI using a random effects Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by trial. The impact of stroke on 5-year mortality was explored. RESULTS: The analysis included 11,518 patients randomly assigned to PCI (n = 5,753) or CABG (n = 5,765) with a mean follow-up of 3.8 ± 1.4 years during which a total of 293 strokes occurred. At 30 days, the rate of stroke was 0.4% after PCI and 1.1% after CABG (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.33; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.20 to 0.53; p < 0.001). At 5-year follow-up, stroke remained significantly lower after PCI than after CABG (2.6% vs. 3.2%; HR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.61 to 0.97; p = 0.027). Rates of stroke between 31 days and 5 years were comparable: 2.2% after PCI versus 2.1% after CABG (HR: 1.05; 95% CI: 0.80 to 1.38; p = 0.72). No significant interactions between treatment and baseline clinical or angiographic variables for the 5-year rate of stroke were present, except for diabetic patients (PCI: 2.6% vs. CABG: 4.9%) and nondiabetic patients (PCI: 2.6% vs. CABG: 2.4%) (p for interaction = 0.004). Patients who experienced a stroke within 30 days of the procedure had significantly higher 5-year mortality versus those without a stroke, both after PCI (45.7% vs. 11.1%, p < 0.001) and CABG (41.5% vs. 8.9%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This individual patient-data pooled analysis demonstrates that 5-year stroke rates are significantly lower after PCI compared with CABG, driven by a reduced risk of stroke in the 30-day post-procedural period but a similar risk of stroke between 31 days and 5 years. The greater risk of stroke after CABG compared with PCI was confined to patients with multivessel disease and diabetes. Five-year mortality was markedly higher for patients experiencing a stroke within 30 days after revascularization.