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.

Lowering risk score profile during PCI in multiple vessel disease is associated with low adverse events: The ERACI risk score.

In recent years angiographic risk scores have been introduced in clinical practice to stratify different levels of risk after percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). The SYNTAX score included all intermediate lesions in vessels ≥1.5 mm, consequently, multiple stent implantation was required. Four years ago, we built a new angiographic score in order to guide PCI strategy avoiding stent deployment both in intermediate stenosis as in small vessels, therefore these were not scored (ERACI risk score). The purpose of this mini review is to validate the strategy of PCI guided by this scoring, taking into account long term follow up outcomes of two observational and prospective registries where this policy was used. With this new risk score we have modified risk profile of our patient's candidates for PCI or coronary artery bypass surgery lowering the risk and <20% of them are now included anatomically as high risk for PCI. The simple exclusion of small vessels and intermediate stenosis from the revascularization approach resulted in clinical outcome comparable with the one of fractional flow reserve guided revascularization. Low events rate at late follow up observed in both studies was also in agreement with guided PCI by functional lesion assessment observed by Syntax II registry, where investigators found lower events rate in spite of a few number of stents implanted per patient. In conclusion: use of ERACI risk scores may significantly reclassify patients into a lower risk category and be associated with low adverse events rate.

Did Prasugrel and Ticagrelor Offer the Same Benefit in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes after Percutaneous Coronary Interventions Compared to Clopidogrel? Insights from Randomized Clinical Trials, Registries and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: According to ACC/ AHA guidelines, a minimum of 1 year of dual anti- platelet therapy (DAPT) consisting of aspirin and a platelet ADP-receptor antagonist (P2Y12 inhibitor) is recommended for patients presenting acute coronary syndromes (ACS), regardless of which type of revascularization is performed during the acute event. METHODS: The purpose of this presentation was to review the present data either from a direct randomized comparison among the three compounds and also large prospective observational registries and meta-analysis were analyzed in detail. With this aim, we performed an extensive large search from PubMed/Medline Journals identifying studies comparing fashion the new P2Y12 inhibitors in patients with ACS including ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) in direct and indirect manner. RESULTS: Pivotal large randomized clinical trials (RCT) in patients with ACS including STEMI, comparing clopidogrel, a first generation P2Y12 inhibitor against the newer prasugrel and ticagrelor showed major efficacy advantages of the latters although both drugs had more bleeding risk than clopidogrel. Direct comparisons of prasugrel and ticagrelor from large RCT are not yet available, however, several observational registries and metaanalysis reported results from an indirect comparison between both compounds. Major findings and limitations of each of these studies were identified, highlighted and discussed. CONCLUSION: Prasugrel and ticagrelor are both more effective than clopidogrel to prevent adverse cardiac events in patients with ACS. Compared to ticagrelor, prasugrel appears to be more effective in patients with STEMI, although lack of randomized data didn't allow to draw definitive conclusions.

Second vs. First generation drug eluting stents in multiple vessel disease and left main stenosis: Two-year follow-up of the observational, prospective, controlled, and multicenter ERACI IV registry.

OBJECTIVE: To compare second generation drug eluting stents (2DES) with first generation (1DES) for the treatment of patients (pts) with multiple coronary vessel disease (MVD). BACKGROUND: Although 2DES improved safety and efficacy compared to 1DES, MVD remains a challenge for percutaneous coronary interventions. METHODS: ERACI IV was a prospective, observational, and controlled study in pts with MVD including left main and treated with 2DES (Firebird 2, Microport). We included 225 pts in 15 sites from Argentina. Primary endpoint was the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACCE) defined as death, myocardial infarction (MI), cerebrovascular accident (CVA) and unplanned revascularization; and to compare with 225 pts from ERACI III study (1DES). PCI strategy was planned to treat lesions ≥70% in vessels ≥ 2.00 mm, introducing a modified Syntax score (SS) where severe lesions in vessels < 2.0 mm and intermediate lesions were not scored. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics showed that compared to ERACI III, ERACI IV pts had higher number of diabetics (P = 0.02), previous revascularization (P = 0.007), unstable angina IIb/IIIc (P < 0.001) and three vessels/left main disease (P = 0.003). Modified SS was 22.2 ± 11. At 2 years of follow-up ERACI IV group had significantly lower incidence of death+ MI + CVA, (P = 0.01) and MACCE (P = 0.001). MACCE rate was similar in diabetics, (5.8%) and nondiabetics (7.0%). After performing a matched propensity score, MACCE remain significantly lower in ERACI IV (P = 0.005). CONCLUSION: This registry showed that 2DES in MVD has a remarkable low incidence of MACCE in unadjusted and adjusted analysis. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Second vs. first-generation drug-eluting stents in complex lesions subsets: 3 years' follow-up of ERACI IV study.

BACKGROUND: Although percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with first-generation drug-eluting stents (DES-1) did not show a benefit in terms of death rate and myocardial infarction (MI) compared to bypass surgery (coronary artery bypass graft [CABG]), DES platforms have seen a remarkable improvement in the last few years, and a significant increase in their safety and efficacy was observed in randomized controlled trials and observational studies in comparison with DES-1 in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). One-year results from the ERACI IV registry using a second-generation DES (DES-2) demonstrated significantly greater efficacy and safety in patients with multiple vessel CAD, including diabetics, compared to DES-1. Long-term results are yet unknown. METHODS: The ERACI IV registry was a multicenter, prospective and controlled open-label study conducted in 9 sites in Argentina during 2013 and 2014, which evaluated a DES-2 for the treatment of patients with multiple vessel CAD including unprotected left main disease (ULMD) and diabetes. The primary endpoint was to compare the composite of death of any cause, MI and cerebrovascular accident (CVA) as hard endpoints with ERACI III DES-1 arm. Secondary endpoints included each component of the primary endpoint and target vessel revascularization (TVR) as major adverse cardiovascular events (MACCE) and stent thrombosis. We include a modified Syntax Score (SS) taking in account functional revascularization, treating lesions ≥70% in vessels ≥ 2.00 mm, whereas severe lesions in vessels < 2.0 mm and intermediate lesions were not rated. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar between groups, with higher numbers of diabetics and 3-vessel/ULMD (P=0.02 and P=0.003, respectively) in ERACI IV. At 34.7 months' follow-up, the incidence of the composite of death/MI/CVA between ERACI IV and ERACI III (4.9% vs. 13.7%, P<0.001); unplanned new revascularization (5.3% vs. 14.2%, P<0.001) and MACCE (9.3% vs. 22.7%, P<0.001), were significantly lower in ERACI IV DES-2. MACCE rate was similar in diabetics, (5.8%) and nondiabetics (7.0%). After performing a matched propensity score, MACCE remain significantly lower in ERACI IV (P = 0.005). Incidence of stent thrombosis was lower although not significantly between groups, (0.9% vs. 3.1% in ERACI IV and III, respectively; P=0.13). CONCLUSIONS: The use of DES-2 in patients with complex lesions subsets together with a functional PCI strategy were associated with a remarkable low incidence of adverse events at 3 years' follow-up and the benefit was also seen in in diabetic population. Late outcome of this study strongly validated our lesion PCI scoring and assessment.

Reduced risk of myocardial infarct and revascularization following coronary artery bypass grafting compared with percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with chronic kidney disease.

Coronary atherosclerotic disease is highly prevalent in chronic kidney disease (CKD). Although revascularization improves outcomes, procedural risks are increased in CKD, and unbiased data comparing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous intervention (PCI) in CKD are sparse. To compare outcomes of CABG and PCI in stage 3 to 5 CKD, we identified randomized trials comparing these procedures. Investigators were contacted to obtain individual, patient-level data. Ten of 27 trials meeting inclusion criteria provided data. These trials enrolled 3993 patients encompassing 526 patients with stage 3 to 5 CKD of whom 137 were stage 3b-5 CKD. Among individuals with stage 3 to 5 CKD, mortality through 5 years was not different after CABG compared with PCI (hazard ratio [HR] 0.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67-1.46) or stage 3b-5 CKD (HR 1.29, CI 0.68-2.46). However, CKD modified the impact on survival free of myocardial infarction: it was not different between CABG and PCI for individuals with preserved kidney function (HR 0.97, CI 0.80-1.17), but was significantly lower after CABG in stage 3-5 CKD (HR 0.49, CI 0.29-0.82) and stage 3b-5 CKD (HR 0.23, CI 0.09-0.58). Repeat revascularization was reduced after CABG compared with PCI regardless, of baseline kidney function. Results were limited by unavailability of data from several trials and paucity of enrolled patients with stage 4-5 CKD. Thus, our patient-level meta-analysis of individuals with CKD randomized to CABG versus PCI suggests that CABG significantly reduces the risk of subsequent myocardial infarction and revascularization without affecting survival in these patients.

Randomized trials of PCIs versus CABG surgery: why coronary stenting should remain the first choice of revascularization in non-diabetic patients and why the controversy is still present in diabetics.

Knowing the best revascularization option for diabetic patients with multiple vessel disease is a challenge without a definitive answer. There have been several randomized clinical trials and subsequent meta-analyses comparing current available technology trying to reach an exhaustive conclusion; comparisons between coronary artery bypass grafts and bare-metal stents, coronary artery bypass grafts and first generation drug-eluting stents and, most recently, first generation versus latest generation drug-eluting stents generated some interesting results. Information provided by pooled data from some of the most important randomized clinical cardiology trials from the last two decades have produced surprising results. The authors analyze these data to discuss the best therapeutic procedures for each patient.

Comparison of cost-effectiveness of oral rapamycin plus bare-metal stents versus first generation of drug-eluting stents (from the Randomized Oral Rapamycin in Argentina [ORAR] 3 trial).

The aim of this study was to compare 5-year cost-effectiveness and clinical outcomes of patients with oral rapamycin (OR) plus bare-metal stent versus the drug-eluting stent (DES) strategy. During 2006 to 2007, a total of 200 patients were randomized to OR (n = 100) and DES (n = 100). Primary end point was to compare costs of initial procedure and cost-effectiveness of both revascularization strategies. Safety was evaluated by the composite of death, myocardial infarction, and cerebrovascular accident. Efficacy was assessed by target vessel and target lesion revascularizations. The 2 groups had similar baseline demographic, clinical, and angiographic characteristics. In the DES group, paclitaxel-, zotarolimus-, and sirolimus-eluting stents were used. Five-year clinical follow-up was accomplished in 99% patients. The DES group had significantly higher procedural (p <0.001), discharge to first-year (p = 0.02), and 1- to 5-year costs (p <0.001) compared with the OR group. At 5 years, the composite end point of death, myocardial infarction, and cerebrovascular accident (12% in the OR group vs 25% in the DES group, p = 0.01) was significantly less in the OR group. Target vessel revascularization (14.5% in the OR group vs 21% in the DES group, p = 0.16) and target lesion revascularization (10% in the OR group vs 17.6% in the DES group, p = 0.05) were not significantly different. In conclusion, a strategy of OR plus bare-metal stent was cost saving than a first-generation DES.

Changes in the safety paradigm with percutaneous coronary interventions in the modern era: Lessons learned from the ASCERT registry.

In the past, comparative effectiveness trials evaluating percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI), using either balloon angioplasty or bare metal stent (BMS) implantation, versus coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) found similar survival rates at long-term follow-up with both revascularization strategies. Two major meta-analyses of these trials reported 5- and 6-year comparative effectiveness between PCI and CABG: one included only four trials that compared PCI with BMS implantation versus CABG whereas the largest one also included trials using balloon angioplasty. In these studies, the authors observed no survival differences between groups although a significant survival advantage was seen in diabetics treated with CABG and this benefit was also perceived in elderly patients. In both reports, number of involved vessels, presence of left anterior descending artery stenosis or poor left ventricular ejection fraction were no predictors of poor survival with PCI. Therefore, extent of the coronary artery disease (CAD) was not associated with poor outcome after PCI in the pre-drug eluting stent (DES) era. Recently, the ASCERT (Database Collaboration on the Comparative Effectiveness of Revascularization Strategies) registry found higher mortality rate with PCI in patients ≥ 65 years old in comparison with CABG, and advantages of surgery were seen in all subgroups including those at low risk. In this registry, PCI was accomplished by implantation of the first type of DES designs in 78% of cases. The intriguing observation of high mortality rate with PCI, including for non-diabetics and patients with two-vessel CAD, meaning a lack of clinical benefit with DES implantation, had not been seen previously. The study was not randomized, although its results are largely strengthened by its sample size. In this manuscript, the authors describe other registries and randomized trials reporting similar results supporting the findings of the aforementioned study and explore the reasons for these results, while also searching for potential solutions.

Randomized comparison of cost-saving and effectiveness of oral rapamycin plus bare-metal stents with drug-eluting stents: three-year outcome from the randomized oral rapamycin in Argentina (ORAR) III trial.

OBJECTIVES: The Oral Rapamycin in ARgentina (ORAR) III trial is a randomized study comparing a strategy of oral rapamycin (OR) plus bare-metal stent (BMS) versus a strategy of drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients with de novo coronary lesions. The purpose of this study was to assess the 3 years cost-effectiveness outcome of each strategy. BACKGROUND: OR after BMS has been associated with reduction of target vessel revascularization (TVR) although its value in long-term efficacy in comparison with DES is unknown. METHODS: In three hospitals in Buenos Aires, Argentina, 200 patients were randomized to OR plus BMS (n = 100) or DES (n = 100). Primary objectives were costs and effectiveness. Cost analysis included in-hospital and follow-up costs. Safety was defined as the composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke. Efficacy was defined as TVR. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics between groups were similar. The 3-year follow-up rate was 99%. Cardiac mortality was 2% and 5% in OR group and DES group, respectively (P = 0.44). The composite of death, MI and stroke rate was 11% in OR group and 20% in DES group (P = 0.078). TVR rate was 14.5% in OR group and 17.6% in DES group (P = 0.50), respectively. Three year cumulative costs were significantly lower in the OR arm as compared to the DES arm (P = 0.0001) and DES strategy did not result cost-effective according to the non-inferiority test. CONCLUSIONS: At 3 years follow-up, there were no differences in effectiveness between the two strategies, and DES strategy was not more cost-effective as compared to OR plus BMS.

Efficacy and safety of a double-coated paclitaxel-eluting coronary stent: the EUCATAX trial.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was the comparison of a new double-coated paclitaxel-eluting coronary stent with bare-metal stent (BMS) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. BACKGROUND: Stent coating with biodegradable polymers as a platform for elution of drugs has the potential for complete elution of drugs and for decreasing the risk of late complications. METHODS: Multicenter randomized trial comparing a paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) coated with a biodegradable polymer and glycocalyx with the equivalent BMS. We randomly assigned 422 patients with de novo coronary lesions to PES (211 patients) or to BMS (211 patients). Primary end point was target vessel failure (TVF) defined as cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization. Clinical secondary end points were target vessel revascularization, target lesion revascularization, stent thrombosis (ST), and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Angiographic secondary end points were late loss and binary restenosis. RESULTS: At 1 year of follow-up, TVF rate was 9.5% in the PES group and 17.1% in the BMS group (P=0.02), and MACE rate was 10% in PES and 19% in BMS arm (P=0.009). All other secondary end points were reached but ST. ST rate was low and similar in both study arms. CONCLUSIONS: The study shows that patients treated with PES with dual coating technology had significantly lower incidence of TVF and MACE than those treated with BMS design; however, longer follow-up should be necessary to assess true advantages of this technology compared with the previous one.

Comparison of AngioJet rheolytic thrombectomy before direct infarct artery stenting with direct stenting alone in patients with acute myocardial infarction. The JETSTENT trial.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine whether rheolytic thrombectomy (RT) before direct infarct artery stenting as compared with direct stenting (DS) alone results in improved myocardial reperfusion and clinical outcome in patients with acute myocardial infarction. BACKGROUND: The routine removal of thrombus before infarct artery stenting is still a matter of debate. METHODS: This is a multicenter, international, randomized, 2-arm, prospective study. Eligible patients were patients with acute myocardial infarction, angiographic evidence of thrombus grade 3 to 5, and a reference vessel diameter ≥2.5 mm. Coprimary end points were early ST-segment resolution and (99m)Tc-sestamibi infarct size. An α value = 0.05 achieved by both coprimary surrogate end points or an α value = 0.025 for a single primary surrogate end point would be considered evidence of statistical significance. Other surrogate end points were Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) flow grade 3, corrected TIMI frame count, and TIMI grade 3 blush. Clinical end points were a composite of major adverse cardiovascular events at 1, 6, and 12 months. RESULTS: From December 2005 to September 2009, 501 patients were randomly allocated to RT before DS or to DS alone. The ST-segment resolution was more frequent in the RT arm as compared with the DS alone arm: 85.8% and 78.8%, respectively (p = 0.043), while no difference between groups were revealed in the other surrogate end points. The 6-month major adverse cardiovascular events rate was 11.2% in the thrombectomy arm and 19.4% in the DS alone arm (p = 0.011). The 1-year event-free survival rates were 85.2 ± 2.3% for the RT arm, and 75.0 ± 3.1% for the DS alone arm (p = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Although the primary efficacy end points were not met, the results of this study support the use of RT before infarct artery stenting in patients with acute myocardial infarction and evidence of coronary thrombus. (AngioJet Rheolytic Thrombectomy Before Direct Infarct Artery Stenting in Patients Undergoing Primary PCI for Acute Myocardial Infarction [JETSTENT]; NCT00275990).

New coating stent design for patients with high-risk coronary lesions for thrombotic events: early and long-term results of the Camouflage registry.

BACKGROUND: Semisynthetic coating of the Camouflage bare-metal stent (BMS) (Eucatech AG, Rheinfelden, Germany) mimics luminal endothelial cell glycocalix, potentially preventing the activation of the coagulation system. Purpose. We sought to determine in a clinical registry the acute and long-term clinical and angiographic outcomes of this BMS design in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) or who were unable to be on long-term clopidogrel therapy. METHODS: From March 2007 to December 2008, 150 patients undergoing coronary stent implantation at three centers in Buenos Aires, Argentina, were included in our registry. Patients with ACS, including non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) and STelevation MI (STEMI), or those unable to be on long-term dual antiplatelet therapy were considered for inclusion. The primary endpoint was a major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) defined as the incidence of cardiac death, MI or target lesion revascularization (TLR). The incidence of acute and late stent thrombosis (ST) was also analyzed. Angiographic late loss and the presence of late stent malapposition (LSM) was recorded at 9-month follow up. Clopidogrel was prescribed for 1 month. RESULTS: 54.7% of patients had acute MI, 36% had STEMI and 20.7% of patients were ineligible for long-term clopidogrel therapy because of previously planned non-vascular or general surgery within 30 days after percutaneous coronary intervention. During 11.5 months of clinical follow up, 2% suffered cardiac death, 4% had a MI, 8.9% underwent TLR and the overall cumulative major adverse cardiac event rate was 15.3%. No patient developed acute or late ST. There were no in-hospital complications for patients who underwent surgery. Intravascular ultrasound studies did not detect the presence of late malapposition. CONCLUSION: In this high-risk thrombotic patient population, the Camouflage coated stent design demonstrated a very good safety profile, as reflected by the low incidence of hard adverse cardiac events including ST at follow up.

Percutaneous coronary intervention with oral sirolimus and bare metal stents has comparable safety and efficacy to treatment with drug eluting stents, but with significant cost saving: long-term follow-up results from the randomised, controlled ORAR III (Oral Rapamycin in ARgentina) study.

AIMS: Previous randomised studies have shown a significant reduction in restenosis when oral rapamycin (OR) is administered to patients undergoing bare metal stent (BMS) implantation. How this regimen compares to drug eluting stents (DES) is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: Two-hundred patients with de novo coronary lesions were randomised to treatment with OR plus BMS (100 pts) or with DES (100 pts). OR was given as a bolus of 10 mg per day before PCI followed by daily doses of 3 mg during following 13 days. Primary endpoints were to compare hospital, follow-up and overall cost at one, two, three and five years of follow-up. The secondary endpoints included death, myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke and were analysed as major adverse cardiovascular events (MACCE). Target vessel (TVR) and target lesion revascularisation (TLR) were independently analysed. Costs included procedural resources, hospitalisation, medications, repeat revascularisation procedures and professional fees. Baseline demographic, clinical and angiographic characteristics were similar. At 18.3 +/- 7 months of follow-up, the initial strategy of OR plus BMS resulted in significant cost saving when compared to DES (p=0.0001). TLR rate was 8.2% with DES and 7.0% with OR plus BMS (p=0.84), similarly no differences in TVR rate in both groups was seen (10.6% and 10.5% in OR and DES group respectively, p=0.86). Non-inferiority testing, determined that DES therapy failed to be cost saving compared to OR in all possible cost scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: A strategy of OR plus BMS is cost saving compared to DES in patients undergoing PCI for de novo coronary lesions.

Oral rapamycin after coronary bare-metal stent implantation to prevent restenosis: the Prospective, Randomized Oral Rapamycin in Argentina (ORAR II) Study.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to assess the role of oral rapamycin in decreased restenosis after bare metal stent implantation. BACKGROUND: Small observational studies suggest that the administration of oral rapamycin reduces angiographic restenosis after bare metal stent implantation. METHODS: Between September 2003 and September 2004, 100 patients were randomized to either oral rapamycin (6-mg loading dose given 2.7 h before intervention followed by 3 mg/day for 14 days) plus diltiazem 180 mg/day or no therapy after the implantation of a coronary bare metal stent design. The primary study end point was incidence of angiographic binary restenosis and late loss at nine months. The secondary end points were target lesion revascularization, target vessel revascularization, and incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events at 1 year. RESULTS: Angiographic follow-up was completed in 87% of patients. In the rapamycin group, the drug was well tolerated (26% minor side effects) and was maintained in 96% of patients. At 9 months, the in-segment binary restenosis was reduced by 72% (11.6% rapamycin vs. 42.8% no-therapy group, p = 0.001) and the in-stent binary restenosis was reduced by 65% (12% rapamycin vs. 34.6% no-therapy group, p = 0.009). The in-segment late loss was also significantly reduced with oral therapy (0.66 vs. 1.13 mm, respectively; 43% reduction, p < 0.001). At 1 year, patients in the oral rapamycin group also showed a significantly lower incidence of target vessel revascularization (8.3% vs. 38%, respectively, p < 0.001), target lesion revascularization (7.6% vs. 37.2%, respectively, p < 0.001), and major adverse cardiovascular events (20% vs. 44%, respectively, p = 0.018). CONCLUSIONS: This randomized, controlled, and unblinded study showed that the administration of oral rapamycin during 14 days after stent implantation significantly reduces angiographic and clinical parameters of restenosis.

Revascularization strategies of coronary multiple vessel disease in the Drug Eluting Stent Era: one year follow-up results of the ERACI III Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the incidence of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) in patients with multiple vessel coronary artery disease treated with drug eluted stents (DES), bare metal stents, percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) or bypass surgery (CABG). METHODS: In the Argentine Randomized Study Coronary Angioplasty versus Coronary Bypass Surgery in Multiple Vessel Disease (ERACI) III trial, 225 patients with multivessel disease who received DES met clinical and angiographic inclusion criteria for the ERACI II trial. This cohort (ERACI III-DES) was compared to both ERACI II treatment arms (ERACII-PCI and ERACI II-CABG). The primary end point was freedom from MACCE at one year. RESULTS: Comparison of baseline demographic and angiographic data, revealed that ERACI III-DES patients were older, smoked more, had more diabetes, hyperlipidaemia, hypertension, type C lesions and received more stents. At one year freedom from MACCE was significantly greater in ERACI III-DES cohort (88%) than ERACI II CABG (80.5% p=0.038) and ERACI II PCI (78% p=0.006) patients. The ERACI III-DES cohort had similar freedom from death and acute myocardial infarction (AMI) to ERACI II PCI patients but greater than ERACI II-CABG arm. Freedom from repeat revascularization was similar between ERACI III-DES to ERACI II-CABG (95.1% p=ns) patients, but both were significantly better than those in the ERACI II-PCI arm ( 91.2% and 83%p=0.002 and 0.02 respectively). CONCLUSION: Patients with multiple vessel disease treated with DES in ERACI III had better one year outcomes than those treated with PCI or CABG in ERACI II.