Randomized Comparison of the Polymer-Free Biolimus-Coated BioFreedom Stent With the Ultrathin Strut Biodegradable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Orsiro Stent in an All-Comers Population Treated With Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: The SORT OUT IX Trial.

BACKGROUND: In patients with increased bleeding risk, the biolimus A9-coated BioFreedom stent, a stainless steel drug-coated stent free from polymer, has shown superiority compared with a bare-metal stent. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the BioFreedom stent is noninferior to a modern ultrathin strut biodegradable polymer cobalt-chromium sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent in an all-comers patient population treated with percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS: The SORT OUT IX trial (Scandinavian Organization for Randomized Trials With Clinical Outcome IX), was a large-scale, registry-based, randomized, multicenter, single-blind, 2-arm, noninferiority trial. The primary end point, major adverse cardiovascular events, was defined as the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction not related to any segment other than the target lesion, or target lesion revascularization within 1 year, analyzed by intention-to-treat. The trial was powered to assess noninferiority for major adverse cardiovascular events of the BioFreedom stent compared with the Orsiro stent with a predetermined noninferiority margin of 0.021. RESULTS: Between December 14, 2015 and April 21, 2017, 3151 patients were assigned to treatment with the BioFreedom stent (1572 patients, 1966 lesions) or to the Orsiro stent (1579 patients, 1985 lesions). Five patients were lost to follow-up because of emigration (99.9% follow-up rate). Mean age was 66.3±10.9, diabetes mellitus was seen in 19.3% of patients, and 53% of the patients had acute coronary syndromes. At 1 year, intention-to-treat analysis showed that 79 (5.0%) patients, who were assigned the BioFreedom stent, and 59 (3.7%), who were assigned the Orsiro stent, met the primary end point (absolute risk difference 1.29% [upper limit of one-sided 95% CI 2.50%]; Pnoninferiority=0.14). Significantly more patients in the BioFreedom stent group had target lesion revascularization than those in the Orsiro stent group (55 [3.5%] vs 20 [1.3%], rate ratio 2.77 [95% CI, 1.66-4.62]; P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The biolimus A9-coated BioFreedom polymer-free stent did not meet criteria for noninferiority for major adverse cardiovascular events at 12 months when compared with the ultrathin strut biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent in an all-comers population Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02623140.

Everolimus-Eluting Versus Biolimus-Eluting Stents With Biodegradable Polymers in Unselected Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Randomized Noninferiority Trial With 1-Year Follow-Up (SORT OUT VIII Trial).

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the thin-strut biodegradable-polymer everolimus-eluting platinum-chromium stent (EES) with the biodegradable-polymer biolimus-eluting stainless-steel stent (BES). BACKGROUND: Currently available drug-eluting coronary stents have been refined to reduce the risk for coronary events following implantation. METHODS: This randomized, multicenter, all-comers, noninferiority trial was undertaken at 3 sites in western Denmark. Patients with clinical indications for percutaneous coronary intervention were eligible for inclusion. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either EES or BES. The primary endpoint, target lesion failure, was a composite of safety (cardiac death and myocardial infarction not clearly attributable to a nontarget lesion) and efficacy (target lesion revascularization) at 12 months, analyzed using intention-to-treat principles. The trial was powered to assess target lesion failure noninferiority of the EES compared with the BES with a predetermined noninferiority margin of 3%. RESULTS: A total of 1,385 patients were assigned to treatment with EES and 1,369 patients to treatment with BES. The analysis showed that 55 patients (4.0%) assigned to the EES and 60 (4.4%) assigned to the BES met the primary endpoint (absolute risk difference 0.4%; upper limit of 1-sided 95% confidence interval: 1.7%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: At 1-year follow-up, the EES was found to be noninferior to the BES with respect to target lesion failure. (Everolimus-eluting SYNERGY Stent Versus Biolimus-Eluting Biomatrix NeoFlex Stent-SORT-OUT VIII; NCT02093845).

Impact of diabetes on clinical outcomes after revascularization with sirolimus-eluting and biolimus-eluting stents with biodegradable polymer from the SORT OUT VII trial.

OBJECTIVES: In this substudy of the SORT OUT VII trial, the clinical outcomes among patient with diabetes mellitus treated with Orsiro sirolimus-eluting stent (O-SES; Biotronik, Bülach, Switzerland) or Nobori biolimus-eluting stent (N-BES; Terumo, Tokyo, Japan) were compared. BACKGROUND: Diabetes is associated with increased risk of target lesion failure (TLF) after percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS: In total, 2525 patients were randomized to stent implantation with O-SES (n = 1261, diabetes: n = 236) or N-BES (n = 1264, diabetes: n = 235). The primary endpoint, TLF, was a composite of cardiac death, target-lesion myocardial infarction (MI), or target lesion revascularization (TLR) within 2 years. RESULTS: At 2 year, TLF did not differ between O-SES vs N-BES in diabetic (9.3% vs 9.4%; RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.54-1.78) patients. The individual components of the primary endpoint did not differ among stent type. In diabetics, cardiac death occurred in 3% of O-SES-treated and in 3.8% of N-BES-treated patients (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.29-2.08), MI occurred in 3.0% of O-SES-treated and in 3.8% of N-BES-treated patients (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.28-2.06) and TLR occurred in 5,5% of O-SES-treated and in 6.0% of N-BES-treated patients (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.43-1.95). CONCLUSION: TLF did not differ between O-SES- and N-BES-treated diabetic patients.

Chronic total coronary occlusion: treatment results.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the clinical and procedural coronary chronic total occlusion (CTO) treatment results in a Nordic PCI centre during the implementation of a CTO treatment program. DESIGN: In a retrospective registry study, we assessed; (1) indication for the procedure, (2) Canadian Cardiovascular Society angina pectoris score (CCS)/New York Heart Association (NYHA) heart failure score, (3) lesion complexity and (4) adverse events during hospital stay and three months following the index procedure. RESULTS: The study cohort included 503 patients (594 lesions). From 2010 to 2013 96% of procedures were performed with antegrade wire-escalation technique and 4% performed using retrograde techniques, from 2013-2016 the corresponding numbers were 83% and 17.0%. The procedural success rate was 69%, increasing from 64% before to 72% (p = .06) after routinely using the retrograde approach. No individual patient characteristic, lesion variable or score was strongly associated with procedural success or failure. There were 4% serious procedure related complications. In patients with PCI of a CTO lesion only, 87% were in CCS or NYHA functional class ≥2 before the index procedure vs. 22% at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Routine use of retrograde techniques tended to increase the procedural success rate. Clinical results after three months were acceptable, but the complication rate was higher than for non-CTO PCI. Individual patient and lesion characteristics had a low predictability for procedural success. Therefore, clinical symptoms, objective signs of myocardial ischemia and procedural risk should be focus points in coronary chronic total occlusion treatment strategies.

Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided Complete Revascularization Improves the Prognosis in Patients With ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Severe Nonculprit Disease: A DANAMI 3-PRIMULTI Substudy (Primary PCI in Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Disease: Treatment of Culprit Lesion Only or Complete Revascularization).

BACKGROUND: The impact of disease severity on the outcome after complete revascularization in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease is uncertain. The objective of this post hoc study was to evaluate the impact of number of diseased vessel, lesion location, and severity of the noninfarct-related stenosis on the effect of fractional flow reserve-guided complete revascularization. METHODS AND RESULTS: In the DANAMI-3-PRIMULTI study (Primary PCI in Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Disease: Treatment of Culprit Lesion Only or Complete Revascularization), we randomized 627 ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction patients to fractional flow reserve-guided complete revascularization or infarct-related percutaneous coronary intervention only. In patients with 3-vessel disease, fractional flow reserve-guided complete revascularization reduced the primary end point (all-cause mortality, reinfarction, and ischemia-driven revascularization; hazard ratio [HR], 0.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.17-0.64; P=0.001), with no significant effect in patients with 2-vessel disease (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.47-1.26; P=0.29; P for interaction =0.046). A similar effect was observed in patients with diameter stenosis ≥90% of noninfarct-related arteries (HR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.18-0.62; P=0.001), but not in patients with less severe lesions (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.44-1.19; P=0.21; P for interaction =0.06). The effect was most pronounced in patients with 3-vessel disease and noninfarct-related stenoses ≥90%, and in this subgroup, there was a nonsignificant reduction in the end point of mortality and reinfarction (HR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.08-1.32; P=0.09). Proximal versus distal location did not influence the benefit from complete revascularization. CONCLUSIONS: The benefit from fractional flow reserve-guided complete revascularization in ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction patients with multivessel disease was dependent on the presence of 3-vessel disease and noninfarct diameter stenosis ≥90% and was particularly pronounced in patients with both of these angiographic characteristics. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01960933.

Randomized Comparison of a Biodegradable Polymer Ultrathin Strut Sirolimus-Eluting Stent With a Biodegradable Polymer Biolimus-Eluting Stent in Patients Treated With Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: The SORT OUT VII Trial.

BACKGROUND: Coronary drug-eluting stents with biodegradable polymers have been designed to improve safety and efficacy. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Scandinavian Organization for Randomized Trials With Clinical Outcome (SORT OUT) VII trial-a large-scale registry-based randomized, multicenter, single-blind, 2-arm, noninferiority trial-compared 2 biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents: the thin-strut cobalt-chromium sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent and the stainless steel biolimus-eluting Nobori stent in an all-comer patient population. The primary end point target lesion failure was a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (not related to other than index lesion), or target lesion revascularization within 1 year, analyzed by intention to treat (noninferiority margin of 3.0%). Clinically driven event detection based on Danish registries was used. A total of 1261 patients were assigned to receive the sirolimus-eluting stent (1590 lesions) and 1264 patients to the biolimus-eluting stent (1588 lesions). At 1 year, the composite end point target lesion failure occurred in 48 patients (3.8%) in the sirolimus-eluting group and in 58 patients (4.6%) in the biolimus-eluting group (absolute risk difference, -0.78% [upper limit of 1-sided 95% confidence interval, 0.61%]; P<0.0001). Rates of definite stent thrombosis occurred in 5 (0.4%) of the sirolimus-eluting group compared with 15 (1.2%) biolimus-eluting stent-treated patients (rate ratio, 0.33; 95% confidence interval, 0.12-0.92; P=0.034), which largely was attributable to a lower risk of subacute definite stent thrombosis: 0.1% versus 0.6% (rate ratio, 0.12; 95% confidence interval, 0.02-1.00; P=0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The thin-strut sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent was noninferior to the biolimus-eluting Nobori stent in unselected patients for target lesion failure at 1 year. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01879358.

Complete revascularisation versus treatment of the culprit lesion only in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease (DANAMI-3­PRIMULTI): an open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary disease have a worse prognosis compared with individuals with single-vessel disease. We aimed to study the clinical outcome of patients with STEMI treated with fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided complete revascularisation versus treatment of the infarct-related artery only. METHODS: We undertook an open-label, randomised controlled trial at two university hospitals in Denmark. Patients presenting with STEMI who had one or more clinically significant coronary stenosis in addition to the lesion in the infarct-related artery were included. After successful percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the infarct-related artery, patients were randomly allocated (in a 1:1 ratio) either no further invasive treatment or complete FFR-guided revascularisation before discharge. Randomisation was done electronically via a web-based system in permuted blocks of varying size by the clinician who did the primary PCI. All patients received best medical treatment. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, non-fatal reinfarction, and ischaemia-driven revascularization of lesions in non-infarct-related arteries and was assessed when the last enrolled patient had been followed up for 1 year. Analysis was on an intention-to-treat basis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01960933. FINDINGS: From March, 2011, to February, 2014, we enrolled 627 patients to the trial; 313 were allocated no further invasive treatment after primary PCI of the infarct-related artery only and 314 were assigned complete revascularization guided by FFR values. Median follow-up was 27 months (range 12­44 months). Events comprising the primary endpoint were recorded in 68 (22%) patients who had PCI of the infarct-related artery only and in 40 (13%) patients who had complete revascularisation (hazard ratio 0∙56, 95% CI 0∙38­0∙83; p=0∙004). INTERPRETATION: In patients with STEMI and multivessel disease, complete revascularisation guided by FFR measurements significantly reduces the risk of future events compared with no further invasive intervention after primary PCI. This effect is driven by significantly fewer repeat revascularisations, because all-cause mortality and non-fatal reinfarction did not differ between groups. Thus, to avoid repeat revascularisation, patients can safely have all their lesions treated during the index admission. Future studies should clarify whether complete revascularization should be done acutely during the index procedure or at later time and whether it has an effect on hard endpoints. FUNDING: Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation and Danish Council for Strategic Research.

Zotarolimus-eluting durable-polymer-coated stent versus a biolimus-eluting biodegradable-polymer-coated stent in unselected patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (SORT OUT VI): a randomised non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: New-generation drug-eluting coronary stents have reduced the risk of coronary events, especially in patients with complex disease or lesions. To what extent different stent platforms, polymers, and antiproliferative drugs affect outcomes, however, is unclear. We investigated the safety and efficacy of a third-generation stent by comparing a highly biocompatible durable-polymer-coated zotarolimus-eluting stent with a biodegradable-polymer-coated biolimus-eluting stent. METHODS: This open-label, randomised, multicentre, non-inferiority trial was done at three sites across western Denmark. All patients who presented with stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes and at least one coronary artery lesion (more than 50% stenosis) from March, 2011, to August, 2012, were assessed for eligibility. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either the durable-polymer zotarolimus-eluting stent or the biodegradable-polymer biolimus-eluting stent. The primary endpoint was a composite of safety (cardiac death and myocardial infarction not clearly attributable to a non-target lesion) and efficacy (target-lesion revascularisation) at 12 months, analysed by intention to treat. The trial was powered to assess non-inferiority of durable-polymer zotarolimus-eluting stent compared with the biodegradable-polymer biolimus-eluting stent with a predetermined non-inferiority margin of 0·025. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01956448. FINDINGS: Of 7103 screened, 1502 patients with 1883 lesions were assigned to receive the durable-polymer zotarolimus-eluting stent and 1497 patients with 1791 lesions to receive the biodegradable-polymer biolimus-eluting stent. 79 (5·3%) and 75 (5·0%) patients, respectively, met the primary endpoint (absolute risk difference 0·0025, upper limit of one-sided 95% CI 0·016%; p=0·004). The individual components of the primary endpoint did not differ significantly between stent types at 12 months. INTERPRETATION: The durable-polymer-coated zotarolimus-eluting stent was non-inferior to the biodegradable-polymer-coated biolimus-eluting stent in unselected patients. FUNDING: Medtronic Cardiovascular and Biosensors Interventional Technologies.

Biolimus-eluting biodegradable polymer-coated stent versus durable polymer-coated sirolimus-eluting stent in unselected patients receiving percutaneous coronary intervention (SORT OUT V): a randomised non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Third-generation biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents might reduce the risk of stent thrombosis compared with first-generation permanent polymer drug-eluting stents. We aimed to further investigate the effects of a biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stent compared with a durable polymer-coated sirolimus-eluting stent in a population-based setting. METHODS: This randomised, multicentre, all-comer, non-inferiority trial was undertaken at three sites across western Denmark. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with chronic stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes, and at least one coronary artery lesion (>50% diameter stenosis). We randomly assigned patients (1:1) using an independently managed computer-generated allocation sequence to receive either a biolimus-eluting biodegradable polymer stent (Nobori, Terumo, Tokyo, Japan) or a sirolimus-eluting permanent polymer stent (Cypher Select Plus, Cordis, Johnson & Johnson, Warren, NJ, USA). The primary endpoint was a composite of safety (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, definite stent thrombosis) and efficacy (target vessel revascularisation) at 9 months, analysed by intention to treat (non-inferiority margin of 0·02). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01254981. FINDINGS: From July, 2009, to January, 2011, we assigned 1229 patients (1532 lesions) to receive the biolimus-eluting stent and 1239 (1555 lesions) to receive the sirolimus-eluting stent. One patient was lost to follow-up because of emigration. Intention-to-treat analysis showed that 50 (4·1%) patients who were assigned the biolimus-eluting stent and 39 (3·1%) who were assigned the sirolimus-eluting stent met the primary endpoint (risk difference 0·9% [upper limit of one-sided 95% CI 2·1%]; p(non-inferiority)=0·06). Significantly more patients in the biolimus-eluting stent group had definite stent thrombosis at 12 months than did those in the sirolimus-eluting stent group (9 [0·7%] vs 2 [0·2%], risk difference 0·6% [95% CI 0·0-1·1]; p=0·034). Per-protocol analysis showed that 45 (3·8%) of 1193 patients who received a biolimus-eluting stent and 39 (3·2%) of 1208 who received a sirolimus-eluting stent met the primary endpoint (risk difference 0·5% [upper limit of one-sided 95% CI 1·8%]; p(non-inferiority)=0·03). INTERPRETATION: At 1 year follow-up, the biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting Nobori stent did not improve clinical results compared with a first-generation sirolimus-eluting stent. We will need to obtain long-term data before we can make recommendations for the role of this biolimus-eluting stent in routine clinical practice. FUNDING: Terumo and Cordis (Johnson & Johnson).

Randomized comparison of everolimus-eluting and sirolimus-eluting stents in patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention: the Scandinavian Organization for Randomized Trials with Clinical Outcome IV (SORT OUT IV).

BACKGROUND: Among drug-eluting stents released to date, the sirolimus-eluting stent has demonstrated the least amount of late lumen loss, but its efficacy and safety have not been compared head-to-head with the next-generation everolimus-eluting stent. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Scandinavian Organization for Randomized Trials with Clinical Outcome IV (SORT OUT IV) trial was a randomized multicenter, single-blind, all-comer, 2-arm, noninferiority trial comparing the everolimus-eluting stent with the sirolimus-eluting stent in patients with coronary artery disease. The primary end point was a composite of safety (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, definite stent thrombosis) and efficacy (target vessel revascularization) parameters. The noninferiority criterion was a risk difference of 0.015. Intention-to-treat analyses were done at 9- and 18-month follow-ups. A total of 1390 patients were assigned to receive the everolimus-eluting stent and 1384 patients to the sirolimus-eluting stent. At the 9-month follow-up, 68 patients (4.9%) treated with the everolimus-eluting stent compared with 72 patients (5.2%) treated with the sirolimus-eluting stent experienced the primary end point (hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.67-1.31; P for noninferiority=0.01). At the 18-month follow-up, this differential remained: 99 patients (7.2%) treated with the everolimus-eluting stent versus 105 (7.6%) treated with the sirolimus-eluting stent (hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.71-1.23). At the 9-month follow-up, the rate of definite stent thrombosis was higher in the sirolimus-eluting group (2 patients [0.1%] versus 9 patients [0.7%]; hazard ratio, 0.22; 95% confidence interval, 0.05-1.02). At the 18-month follow-up, this difference was sustained (3 patients [0.2%] versus 12 patients [0.9%]; hazard ratio, 0.25; 95% confidence interval, 0.07-0.88). CONCLUSION: The everolimus-eluting stent was found to be noninferior to the sirolimus-eluting stent. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00552877.

Outcome in high risk patients with unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis treated with percutaneous coronary intervention.

OBJECTIVE: We examined mortality, risk of myocardial infarction (MI), and target lesion revascularization (TLR) in high-risk patients with unprotected left main (LM) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in Western Denmark. BACKGROUND: PCI of left main coronary artery lesions may be an alternative to coronary artery bypass grafting in high-risk surgical patients. METHODS: From January 2005 to May 2007, all patients who had unprotected LM PCI with stent implantation were identified in the Western Denmark Heart Registry. The indications for PCI were: (1) ST segment elevation MI (STEMI), (2) non-STEMI (NSTEMI) or unstable angina, and (3) stable angina. All patients were followed up for 18 months. RESULTS: A total of 344 patients were treated with LM PCI (STEMI: 71, NSTEMI/unstable angina: 157, and stable angina: 116). In STEMI patients, the median logistic EuroSCORE was 22.5 (interquartile range 12.5-39.5), in non-STEMI (NSTEMI)/unstable angina patients 13.8 (4.8-23.9), and in stable angina patients 4.8 (2.2-10.4). Mortality after 18 months 38.0, 18.5, and 11.2% (P < 0.001) in patients with STEMI, NSTEMI/unstable angina, and stable angina, respectively. MI after 18 months was 9.9, 6.4, and 6.0% (P = ns), respectively. Four subacute and one late definite stent thrombosis were seen. TLR occurred in 5.6, 4.5, and 6.9% (P = ns) of patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: After PCI, patients with STEMI and LM culprit lesion have a high-mortality risk, whereas long-term outcome for patients with NSTEMI and stable angina pectoris is comparable with other high surgical risk patients with unprotected left main lesion. Further, TLR rates and risk of stent thrombosis were low.

Acute coronary artery thrombosis and a giant coronary artery aneurysm: an atypical combination and an unconventional catheter-based intervention.

Coronary artery aneurysm is an unusual finding at coronary arteriography. We present a case of acute myocardial infarction and a giant aneurysm of the left circumflex coronary artery (CX) in a 70-year-old male with hypertension. The culprit lesion was a thrombus occupying the aneurysm and the distal CX. By an unconventional manoeuvre the thrombus was aspirated via the 7 French guiding catheter. After stent implantation in the distal CX a thrombolysis in myocardial infarction 3 flow was achieved and still present at 2-month follow-up. The patient was prescribed aspirin and clopidogrel as a life-long therapy.

[A year"s experience with primary percutaneous intervention as the standard treatment of patients with ST-elevation infarction in the County of North Jutland]. / Et års erfaring med primaer perkutan koronarintervention som rutinebehandling af patienter med ST-elevations myokardieinfarkt i Nordjyllands Amt.

INTRODUCTION: Primary percutaneous intervention (PCI) became the standard treatment of patients with ST-elevation infarction in the hospitals in the County of North Jutland in May 2002, according to a protocol that was slightly modified from that used in the DANAMI-2 study: A cumulated ST elevation of 2 mm was required, versus 4 mm in the DANAMI-2 study; the ECG analyses were performed centrally after transmission of the ECGs to a mobile fax at the PCI centre; and in selected cases the intervention technique was supplemented with thrombectomy. The purpose of this study was to assess whether primary PCI in clinical practice with these modifications gave satisfactory results compared to the invasive arm of the DANAMI-2 study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study comprised all patients who underwent acute coronary angiography due to ST-elevation infarction in the Department of Cardiology, Aalborg Hospital, from 1 May 2002 to 30 April 2003. The patients were admitted to the nearest hospital and transferred to the PCI centre for acute intervention. RESULTS: The study comprised 297 patients. In transported as well as non-transported patients, the median times from onset of symptoms to invasive treatment in the Aalborg material were a few minutes shorter than in the DANAMI-2 study. PCI treatment was performed in 266 patients (90%), of whom 247 (93%) had a stent implanted, as had been done in the DANAMI-2 study. TIMI III flow was achieved in 94% of the cases versus 89% in the DANAMI-2 study. In the patients who underwent PCI treatment, the mortality rates after 30 days were 4.0% and 5.4%, respectively. DISCUSSION: This study showed that it was possible to implement primary PCI in clinical practice with results better than those attained by fibrinolysis. Consequently, primary PCI should continue to be the preferred reperfusion treatment of ST-elevation infarction.