Bifurcation PCI with a hybrid strategy with drug- eluting balloons versus a stepwise provisional two- stent strategy: Rationale and design of the hybrid DEB study.

The optimal treatment strategy for coronary bifurcation lesions by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is complex and remains a subject of debate. Current guidelines advise a stepwise provisional approach with optional two-stent strategy. However, a two-stent strategy, both upfront and stepwise provisional, is technically demanding. Therefore, there is increasing interest in the use of drug-eluting balloons (DEB) in bifurcation lesions, mainly after a provisional approach with unsatisfactory result of the side branch. Some small pilot studies already showed that the use of DEB in bifurcation lesions is safe and feasible. However, a randomized comparison of this hybrid DEB strategy with a two-stent strategy is currently lacking. TRIAL DESIGN: The Hybrid DEB study is a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial investigating noninferiority of a hybrid DEB approach, using a combination of a drug-eluting stent (DES) in the main vessel and DEB in the side branch, compared to stepwise provisional two-stent strategy in patients with true bifurcation lesions. A total of 500 patients with de novo true coronary bifurcation lesions, treated with a stepwise provisional approach and an unsatisfactory result of the side branch after main vessel stenting (≥ 70% stenosis and/or < thrombolysis in myocardial infarction III flow), will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either treatment with a DEB or with a DES in the side branch. The primary endpoint is a composite endpoint of the occurrence of all-cause death, periprocedural or spontaneous myocardial infarction and/or target vessel revascularization at the anticipated median 2-year follow-up. CONCLUSION: The Hybrid DEB study will compare in a multicenter, randomized fashion a hybrid DEB approach with a stepwise provisional two-stent strategy in patients with true bifurcation lesions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov no. NCT05731687.

Comparison of Supraflex Cruz 60 µm Versus Ultimaster Tansei 80 µm Stent Struts in High Bleeding Risk PCI Patients: Study design and Rational of Compare 60/80 HBR trial.

Up to 45% of patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) may have a high bleeding risk (HBR), depending on the bleeding risk definition.1 This condition is often associated with an enhanced risk of thrombotic events with a negative impact on short- and long-term outcomes,2-8 making the choice of an appropriate antithrombotic regimen after PCI particularly challenging. Advances in stent technologies, in which the introduction of newer generations of thinner strut drug-eluting stents (DES), have significantly reduced the rate of thrombotic complications and may justify a shorter dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) duration. Both in vitro and in vivo studies have shown that local hemodynamic factors may critically affect the natural history of atherosclerosis. Strut thickness correlates with flow disturbances and endothelial shear stress. Flow separation within struts determines areas of recirculation with low endothelial shear stress which promotes local concentration of activated platelets.9 By mitigating inflammation, vessel injury, and neointimal proliferation, thin and streamlined struts have been associated with faster vascular healing and re-endothelization and have resulted in lower rates of thrombotic events after PCI.10,11 The use of thin strut and ultra-thin strut stents may lead to a favorable trade-off in bleeding and ischemic events in patients with HBR. However, dedicated studies evaluating the performance of thin strut versus ultrathin strut stents in patients with HBR are lacking.

Sirolimus-eluting stents with ultrathin struts versus everolimus-eluting stents for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: final three-year results of the TALENT trial.

BACKGROUND: In the TALENT study, the sirolimus-eluting ultrathin strut Supraflex stent was non-inferior to the XIENCE stent for a device-oriented composite endpoint (DoCE: defined as cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction [TV-MI], or clinically indicated target lesion revascularisation [CI-TLR]) at 12 months. AIMS: This study investigated the 3-year outcomes of the TALENT trial and long-term impact of ultrathin drug-eluting stents (DES), compared to the XIENCE everolimus-eluting thin stent. METHODS: The TALENT trial is a prospective, multicentre, randomised all-comers trial comparing the Supraflex sirolimus-eluting stent with the XIENCE everolimus-eluting stent, with planned follow-up for 3 years. RESULTS: The TALENT trial enrolled 1,435 patients (Supraflex n=720, XIENCE n=715) with 3-year follow-up data available in 97.8% in the Supraflex group, and in 98.9% in the XIENCE group. At 3 years, DoCE occurred in 57 patients (8.1%) in the Supraflex group, and in 66 patients (9.4%) in the XIENCE group (p=0.406). There were no significant between-group differences in rates of cardiac death, TV-MI or CI-TLR. The rates of definite or probable stent thrombosis were low and similar between groups (1.1% vs 1.4%; p=0.640). In a meta-analysis of long-term follow-up (3-5 years), ultrathin strut DES tended to reduce DoCE (relative risk 0.89 [0.79-1.01]; p=0.068), compared to thicker strut DES. The risks for cardiac death and definite or probable stent thrombosis were similar between ultrathin strut DES and thicker strut DES. CONCLUSIONS: At 3-year follow-up, the use of the Supraflex stent was at least as safe and efficacious as the XIENCE stent in an all-comers population. CLINICALTRIALS: gov: NCT02870140.

Angiography-derived physiology guidance vs usual care in an All-comers PCI population treated with the healing-targeted supreme stent and Ticagrelor monotherapy: PIONEER IV trial design.

BACKGROUND: Current ESC guidelines recommend the use of intra-coronary pressure guidewires for functional assessment of intermediate-grade coronary stenoses. Angiography-derived quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is a novel method of assessing these stenoses, and guiding percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS/DESIGN: The PIONEER IV trial is a prospective, all-comers, multi-center trial, which will randomize 2,540 patients in a 1:1 ratio to PCI guided by angiography-derived physiology or usual care, with unrestricted use in both arms of the Healing-Targeted Supreme sirolimus-eluting stent (HT Supreme). The stent's fast, biologically healthy, and robust endothelial coverage allows for short dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT); hence the antiplatelet regimen of choice is 1-month DAPT, followed by ticagrelor monotherapy. In the angiography-derived physiology guided arm, lesions will be functionally assessed using on-line QFR, with stenting indicated in lesions with a QFR ≤0.80. Post-stenting, QFR will be repeated in the stented vessel(s), with post-dilatation or additional stenting recommended if the QFR<0.91 distal to the stent, or if the delta QFR (across the stent) is >0.05. Usual care PCI is performed according to standard clinical practice. The primary endpoint is a non-inferiority comparison of the patient-oriented composite endpoint (POCE) of all-cause death, any stroke, any myocardial infarction, or any clinically, and physiologically driven revascularization with a non-inferiority risk-difference margin of 3.2%, at 1-year post-procedure. Clinical follow-up will be up to 3 years. SUMMARY: The PIONEER IV trial aims to demonstrate non-inferiority of QFR-guided PCI to usual care PCI with respect to POCE at 1-year in patients treated with HT Supreme stents and ticagrelor monotherapy. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov UNIQUE IDENTIFIER: NCT04923191 CLASSIFICATIONS: Interventional Cardiology.

Long-term clinical outcomes of everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffolds versus everolimus-eluting stents: final five-year results of the AIDA randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS)-related events have been reported between 1 and 3 years - the period of active scaffold bioresorption. Data on the performance of the Absorb BVS in daily clinical practice beyond this time point are scarce. AIMS: This report aimed to provide the final five-year clinical follow-up of the Absorb BVS in comparison with the XIENCE everolimus-eluting stent (EES). In addition, we evaluated the effect of prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) administration on events in the scaffold group. METHODS: AIDA was a multicentre, investigator-initiated, non-inferiority trial, in which 1,845 unselected patients with coronary artery disease were randomly assigned to either the Absorb BVS (n=924) or the XIENCE EES (n=921). Target vessel failure (TVF), a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction or target vessel revascularisation, was the primary endpoint. Scaffold thrombosis cases were matched with controls and tested for the effect of prolonged DAPT. RESULTS: Up to five-year follow-up, there was no difference in TVF between the Absorb BVS (17.7%) and the XIENCE EES (16.1%) (hazard ratio [HR] 1.31, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.90-1.41; p=0.302). Definite or probable device thrombosis (DT) occurred in 43 patients (4.8%) in the scaffold group compared to 13 patients (1.5%) in the stent group (HR 3.32, 95% CI: 1.78-6.17; p<0.001). DT between 3 and 4 years occurred six times in the Absorb arm versus three times in the XIENCE arm. Between 4 and 5 years, the incidence was three versus two, respectively. Of those three DT in the scaffold group, two occurred in XIENCE EES-treated lesions. The odds ratio of scaffold thrombosis in patients on DAPT compared to off DAPT throughout five-year follow-up was 0.36 (95% CI: 0.15-0.86). CONCLUSIONS: The excess risk of the Absorb BVS on late adverse events, in particular device thrombosis, in routine PCI continues up to 4 years and seems to plateau afterwards. Clinical Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01858077.

Prehospital risk stratification in patients with chest pain.

OBJECTIVES: The History, ECG, Age, Risk Factors and Troponin (HEART) Score is a decision support tool applied by physicians in the emergency department developed to risk stratify low-risk patients presenting with chest pain. We assessed the potential value of this tool in prehospital setting, when applied by emergency medical services (EMS), and derived and validated a tool adapted to the prehospital setting in order to determine if it could assist with decisions regarding conveyance to a hospital. METHODS: In 2017, EMS personnel prospectively determined the HEART Score, including point-of-care (POC) troponin measurements, in patients presenting with chest pain, in the north of the Netherlands. The primary endpoint was a major adverse cardiac event (MACE), consisting of acute myocardial infarction or death, within 3 days. The components of the HEART Score were evaluated for their discriminatory value, cut-offs were calibrated for the prehospital setting and sex was substituted for cardiac risk factors to develop a prehospital HEART (preHEART) Score. This score was validated in an independent prospective cohort of 435 patients in 2018. RESULTS: Among 1208 patients prospectively recruited in the first cohort, 123 patients (10.2%) developed a MACE. The HEART Score had a negative predictive value (NPV) of 98.4% (96.4-99.3), a positive predictive value (PPV) of 35.5% (31.8-39.3) and an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.81 (0.78-0.85). The preHEART Score had an NPV of 99.3% (98.1-99.8), a PPV of 49.4% (42.0-56.9) and an AUC of 0.85 (0.82-0.88), outperforming the HEART Score or POC troponin measurements on their own. Similar results were found in a validation cohort. CONCLUSIONS: The HEART Score can be used in the prehospital setting to assist with conveyance decisions and choice of hospitals; however, the preHEART Score outperforms both the HEART Score and single POC troponin measurements when applied by EMS personnel in the prehospital setting.

Clopidogrel in noncarriers of CYP2C19 loss-of-function alleles versus ticagrelor in elderly patients with acute coronary syndrome: A pre-specified sub analysis from the POPular Genetics and POPular Age trials CYP2C19 alleles in elderly patients.

BACKGROUND: Patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) who are carrying CYP2C19 loss-of-function alleles derive less benefit from clopidogrel treatment. Despite this, in elderly patients, clopidogrel might be preferred over more potent P2Y12 inhibitors due to a lower bleeding risk. Whether CYP2C19 genotype-guided antiplatelet treatment in the elderly could be of benefit has not been studied specifically. METHODS: Patients aged 70 years and older with known CYP2C19*2 and *3 genotype were identified from the POPular Genetics and POPular Age trials. Noncarriers of loss-of-function alleles treated with clopidogrel were compared to patients, irrespective of CYP2C19 genotype, treated with ticagrelor and to clopidogrel treated carriers of loss-of-function alleles. We assessed net clinical benefit (all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke and Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes (PLATO) major bleeding), atherothrombotic outcomes (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke) and bleeding outcomes (PLATO major and minor bleeding). RESULTS: A total of 991 patients were assessed. There was no significant difference in net clinical benefit (17.2% vs. 15.1%, adjusted hazard ratio (adjHR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77-1.44), atherothrombotic outcomes (9.7% vs. 9.2%, adjHR 1.00, 95%CI 0.66-1.50), and bleeding outcomes (17.7% vs. 19.8%, adjHR 0.80, 95%CI 0.62-1.12) between clopidogrel in noncarriers of loss-of-function alleles and ticagrelor respectively. CONCLUSION: In ACS patients aged 70 years and older, there was no significant difference in net clinical benefit and atherothrombotic outcomes between noncarriers of a loss-of-function allele treated with clopidogrel and patients treated with ticagrelor. The bleeding rate was numerically; though not statistically significant, lower in patients using clopidogrel.

Novel Supreme Drug-Eluting Stents With Early Synchronized Antiproliferative Drug Delivery to Inhibit Smooth Muscle Cell Proliferation After Drug-Eluting Stents Implantation in Coronary Artery Disease: Results of the PIONEER III Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Accelerated endothelial healing after targeted antiproliferative drug delivery may limit the long-term inflammatory response of drug-eluting stents (DESs). The novel Supreme DES is designed to synchronize early drug delivery within 4 to 6 weeks of implantation, leaving behind a prohealing permanent base layer. Whether the Supreme DES is safe and effective in the short term and can improve long-term clinical outcomes is not known. METHODS: In an international, 2:1 randomized, single-blind trial, we compared treatment with Supreme DES to durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP-EES) in patients with acute and chronic coronary syndromes. The primary end point was target lesion failure-a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target lesion revascularization. The trial was designed to demonstrate noninferiority (margin of 3.58%) of the Supreme DES at 12 months compared with DP-EES (URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03168776). RESULTS: From October 2017 to July 2019, a total of 1629 patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to the Supreme DES (N=1086) or DP-EES (N=543). At 12 months, target lesion failure occurred in 57 of 1057 patients (5.4%) in the Supreme DES group and in 27 of 532 patients (5.1%) in the DP-EES group (absolute risk difference, 0.32% [95% CI, -1.87 to 2.5]; Pnoninferiority=0.002]. There were no significant differences in rates of device success, clinically driven target lesion revascularization, or stent thrombosis at 12 months, and the safety composite of cardiovascular death and target vessel myocardial infarction was 3.5% versus 4.6% (hazard ratio, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.46-1.25]) with Supreme DES compared with DP-EES, although rates of combined clinically and non-clinically driven target lesion revascularization at 12 months were higher with Supreme DES. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with acute and chronic coronary syndromes undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, the Supreme DES proved to be noninferior to the standard DP-EES. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03168776.

Three-year clinical outcomes of the absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold compared to Xience everolimus-eluting stent in routine PCI in patients with diabetes mellitus-AIDA sub-study.

BACKGROUND: In this prespecified AIDA-trial sub-study we investigate the clinical performance of absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) compared to Xience everolimus-eluting stent (EES) in routine percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) at complete 3-year follow-up. METHODS AND RESULTS: All 1,845 randomized patients were subdivided by medical history with DM or without DM. Of the 924 Absorb BVS patients, 171 (18.5%) patients had DM, of which 65 (38.0%) were treated with insulin (iTDM). Of the 921 Xience EES patients, 153 (16.6%) patients had DM, of which 45 (29.4%) were insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (iTDM). Target vessel failure (TVF), composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization, occurred in 18.7% of diabetic patients treated with Absorb patients versus in 18.0% patients treated with Xience EES (p = .840). In nondiabetics the rates of TVF were 12.3% in Absorb BVS versus 11.0% in Xience EES (p = .391). Definite/probable device thrombosis occurred more frequently in Absorb BVS compared to Xience EES in both diabetic and nondiabetic patients (4.8% versus 0.7%; p = .028 and 3.2% vs. 0.5%; p < .001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In routine PCI practice, both Absorb BVS and Xience EES have worse clinical outcomes in diabetic patients as compared to nondiabetic patients. Throughout all clinical presentations, Absorb BVS was associated with higher rates of device thrombosis at 3-year follow-up.

Ticagrelor Versus Clopidogrel in Older Patients with NSTE-ACS Using Oral Anticoagulation: A Sub-Analysis of the POPular Age Trial.

There are no randomised data on which antiplatelet agent to use in elderly patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) and an indication for oral anticoagulation (OAC). The randomised POPular Age trial, in patients of 70 years or older with NSTE-ACS, showed a reduction in bleeding without increasing thrombotic events in patients using clopidogrel as compared to ticagrelor. In this sub-analysis of the POPular AGE trial, we compare clopidogrel with ticagrelor in patients with a need for oral anticoagulation. The follow-up duration was one year. The primary bleeding outcome was Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes (PLATO) major and minor bleeding. The primary thrombotic outcome consisted of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction and stroke. The primary net clinical benefit outcome was a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and PLATO major and minor bleeding. A total of 184/1011 (18.2%) patients on OAC were included in this subanalysis; 83 were randomized to clopidogrel and 101 to ticagrelor. The primary bleeding outcome was lower in the clopidogrel group (17/83, 20.9%) compared to the ticagrelor group (33/101, 33.5%; p = 0.051), as was the thrombotic outcome (7/83, 8.4% vs. 19/101, 19.2%; p = 0.035) and the primary net clinical benefit outcome (23/83, 27.7% vs. 49/101, 48.5%; p = 0.003). In this subgroup of patients using OAC, clopidogrel reduced PLATO major and minor bleeding compared to ticagrelor without increasing thrombotic risk. This analysis therefore suggests that, in line with the POPular Age trial, clopidogrel is a better option than ticagrelor in NSTE-ACS patients ≥70 years using OAC.

Final 3-Year Outcomes of MiStent Biodegradable Polymer Crystalline Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Xience Permanent Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stent: Insights From the DESSOLVE III All-Comers Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Numerous randomized clinical trials have demonstrated the superiority of thin-strut biodegradable polymer second-generation drug-eluting stent to the first-generation drug-eluting stent and the noninferiority to the thin-strut second-generation permanent polymer drug-eluting stent. Data on long-term clinical outcomes with a novel ultrathin drug-eluting stent, to date, are limited. METHODS: The DESSOLVE III trial (Multicenter Randomized Study of the MiStent Sirolimus Eluting Absorbable Polymer Stent System for Revascularization of Coronary Arteries; n=1398) is a prospective, multicenter, single-blinded, all-comers, randomized controlled trial (NCT02385279), allocating in a 1:1 ratio to either ultrathin-strut biodegradable polymer MiStent sirolimus-eluting stent or to thin-strut permanent polymer Xience everolimus-eluting stent. The primary end point was device-oriented composite end point, defined as the composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically indicated target lesion revascularization. The secondary end point was patient-oriented composite end point, defined as the composite of all-cause mortality, any myocardial infarction, or any revascularization. RESULTS: At 3 years, follow-up data were available in 1381 patients (98.8%). The primary end point of device-oriented composite end point occurred in 10.5% for MiStent sirolimus-eluting stent and in 11.5% for Xience everolimus-eluting stent (P=0.55). Rates of cardiac death (3.9% versus 3.8%; P=0.88), target vessel myocardial infarction (3.2% versus 2.5%; P=0.43), and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization (5.2% versus 6.5%; P=0.30) did not differ significantly between the 2 devices. The rate of definite or probable stent thrombosis was infrequent and similar between the 2 arms (1.2% versus 1.5%; P=0.64). The 90-day landmark analysis showed no significant difference in device-oriented composite end point between the 2 groups after polymer degradation of MiStent. The risk of patient-oriented composite end point was comparable between the 2 groups (22.7% versus 22.9%; P=0.34). CONCLUSIONS: In the DESSOLVE III trial, early safety and efficacy with MiStent sirolimus-eluting bioabsorbable polymer-coated stent are confirmed at a longer term follow-up when compared with Xience everolimus-eluting permanent polymer-coated stent in a large all-comers population. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02385279.

Clopidogrel versus ticagrelor or prasugrel in patients aged 70 years or older with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (POPular AGE): the randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend potent platelet inhibition with ticagrelor or prasugrel in patients after an acute coronary syndrome. However, data about optimal platelet inhibition in older patients are scarce. We aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of clopidogrel compared with ticagrelor or prasugrel in older patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS). METHODS: We did the open-label, randomised controlled POPular AGE trial in 12 sites (ten hospitals and two university hospitals) in the Netherlands. Patients aged 70 years or older with NSTE-ACS were enrolled and randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio using an internet-based randomisation procedure with block sizes of six to receive a loading dose of clopidogrel 300 mg or 600 mg, or ticagrelor 180 mg or prasugrel 60 mg, and then a maintenance dose for the duration of 12 months (clopidogrel 75 mg once daily, ticagrelor 90 mg twice daily, or prasugrel 10 mg once daily) on top of standard care. Patient and treating physicians were aware of the allocated treatment strategy, but the outcome assessors were masked to treatment allocation. Primary bleeding outcome consisted of PLATelet inhibition and patient Outcomes (PLATO; major or minor bleeding [superiority hypothesis]). Co-primary net clinical benefit outcome consisted of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, PLATO major and minor bleeding (non-inferiority hypothesis, margin of 2%). Follow-up duration was 12 months. Analyses were done on intention-to-treat basis. This trial is registered with the Netherlands Trial Register (NL3804), ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02317198), and EudraCT (2013-001403-37). FINDINGS: Between June 10, 2013, and Oct 17, 2018, 1002 patients were randomly assigned to clopidogrel (n=500) or ticagrelor or prasugrel (n=502). Because 475 (95%) patients received ticagrelor in the ticagrelor or prasugrel group, we will refer to this group as the ticagrelor group. Premature discontinuation of the study drug occurred in 238 (47%) of 502 ticagrelor group patients randomly assigned to ticagrelor, and in 112 (22%) of 500 patients randomly assigned to clopidogrel. Primary bleeding outcome was significantly lower in the clopidogrel group (88 [18%] of 500 patients) than in the ticagrelor group (118 [24%] of 502; hazard ratio 0·71, 95% CI 0·54 to 0·94; p=0·02 for superiority). Co-primary net clinical benefit outcome was non-inferior for the use of clopidogrel (139 [28%]) versus ticagrelor (161 [32%]; absolute risk difference -4%, 95% CI -10·0 to 1·4; p=0·03 for non-inferiority). The most important reasons for discontinuation were occurrence of bleeding (n=38), dyspnoea (n=40), and the need for treatment with oral anticoagulation (n=35). INTERPRETATION: In patients aged 70 years or older presenting with NSTE-ACS, clopidogrel is a favourable alternative to ticagrelor, because it leads to fewer bleeding events without an increase in the combined endpoint of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and bleeding. Clopidogrel could be an alternative P2Y12 inhibitor especially for elderly patients with a higher bleeding risk. FUNDING: ZonMw.

Association of diabetes with outcomes in patients undergoing contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention: Pre-specified subgroup analysis from the randomized GLOBAL LEADERS study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Diabetes has been well recognized as a strong predictor for adverse outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), however, studies in the era of drug-eluting stent and potent P2Y12 inhibitors have shown conflicting results. We aimed to assess ischemic and bleeding outcomes after contemporary PCI according to diabetic status. METHODS: We studied 15,957 patients undergoing PCI for stable or acute coronary syndrome in the GLOBAL LEADERS study with known baseline diabetic status. The primary endpoint was all-cause death or new Q-wave myocardial infarction at 2 years. The secondary safety endpoint was major bleeding defined as bleeding academic research consortium (BARC) type 3 or 5. RESULTS: A quarter of the study cohort were diabetic (4038/15,957), and these patients had a significantly higher risk of primary endpoint at 2 years compared to non-diabetics (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.38; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.17-1.63). The difference was driven by a significantly higher risk of all-cause mortality at 2 years in diabetics (adjusted HR 1.47, 95% CI 1.22-1.78). The risk of BARC 3 or 5 bleeding was comparable between the two groups (adjusted HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.86-1.39). The antiplatelet strategy (experimental versus reference strategy) had no significant effect on the rates of primary endpoint and secondary safety endpoint at 2 years in patients with and without diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: Diabetic patients had higher risk of ischemic events after PCI than non-diabetic patients, whilst bleeding risk was comparable. The outcomes of diabetic patients following PCI were not affected by the two different antiplatelet strategies.

The influence of implantation techniques on lesion oriented-outcomes in Absorb BVS and Xience EES lesions treated in routine clinical practice at complete three year follow-up: AIDA trial QCA substudy.

It has been hypothesized that dedicated optimized Absorb BVS implantation techniques might mitigate the risk of adverse events such as target vessel failure and device thrombosis. In this explorative AIDA trial QCA substudy, we sought to investigate the influence of implantation techniques on lesion-oriented outcomes in both the Absorb BVS and Xience EES arm at complete 3-year follow-up. The current analysis includes 2152 study lesions treated with at least one study device, of which the baseline angiogram was suited for offline QCA analysis, including Dmax analysis. The lesion-oriented composite outcome (LOCE) of this analysis was a composite of definite device thrombosis, target lesion revascularization and target-vessel myocardial infarction. In Absorb BVS, the Lesion-oriented composite endpoint (LOCE) occurred numerically less in correctly QCA sized vessels when compared to incorrectly sized vessels 8.5% (58/696) versus 11.1% (39/358), p = 0.151. In Xience EES, LOCE had occurred more frequently in incorrectly sized devices according to device diameter/RVD matching; 2.2% (4/187) in correctly sized devices versus 7.1% (63/911) in incorrectly sized devices (p = 0.014). In this AIDA trial QCA substudy, rates of LOCE were significantly lower in Xience EES treated lesions in which devices were correctly sized according to the definitions of device diameter/RVD matching.

A paradox in sex-specific clinical outcomes after bioresorbable scaffold implantation: 2-year results from the AIDA trial.

BACKGROUND: Females are underrepresented in clinical trials evaluating new stent technologies whilst results may differ between the sexes. Females are known to have smaller, more tortuous coronary arteries and have generally more comorbidities. On the other hand, they may have smaller plaque burden. This subgroup-analysis sought to assess sex-specific outcomes after Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) or XIENCE everolimus-eluting stent (EES) implantation. METHODS: The AIDA trial was an investigator-initiated, non-inferiority, all-comers trial, in which 1845 patients were randomly assigned to either Absorb BVS or XIENCE EES. Baseline clinical, angiography and procedural variables, as well as 2-year clinical outcomes were analyzed by sex and device modality. RESULTS: Of the 1845 randomized patients, 475 (25.7%) were females. The 2-year rates of target vessel failure (TVF) with Absorb BVS versus XIENCE EES in females were 6.4% versus 10.6% (HR 0.59; 95% CI: 0.31-1.11; p = 0.10) and in males 12.7% versus 9.7% (HR 1.34; 95% CI: 0.98-1.85; p = 0.07). Males treated with Absorb BVS were at higher risk for TVF compared to females treated with Absorb BVS (HR 2.06; 95% CI 1.21-3.53; p = 0.007). Definite/probable device thrombosis occurred in females with Absorb BVS versus XIENCE EES in 1.6% versus 1.4% (HR 1.15; 95% CI: 0.26-5.12; p = 0.86) and in males 3.9% versus 0.7% (HR 5.55; 95% CI: 2.11-14.35; p < 0.001). A statistical significant interaction between sex and device was present for TVF (p = 0.02), but was not seen for definite/probable device thrombosis (p = 0.08). CONCLUSIONS: In this subgroup analysis, Absorb BVS used in routine practice tends to result in better clinical outcomes in females compared to males.

Clinical outcomes at 2 years of the Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold versus the Xience drug-eluting metallic stent in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome versus stable coronary disease-AIDA trial substudy.

BACKGROUND: Patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) might represent a specific subgroup, in which bioresorbable scaffold implantation in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), might lead to better outcomes when compared to conventional treatment with metallic drug eluting stents. In this prespecified subgroup analysis of the Amsterdam Investigator-Initiated Absorb Strategy All-Comers (AIDA) trial, we evaluated the clinical outcomes of Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) versus Xience everolimus eluting stent (EES) treated patients presenting either with or without ACS. METHODS AND RESULTS: We classified AIDA patients on the basis of clinical presentation of ACS or of no-ACS. The rate of the 2-year primary endpoint of target vessel failure (TVF) was similar after treatment with Absorb BVS or Xience EES in ACS patients (10.2% versus 9.0% respectively; P = 0.49) and in no-ACS patients (11.7% versus 10.7%, respectively; P = 0.67) Definite or probable device thrombosis occurred more frequently with Absorb BVS compared to Xience EES in ACS patients (4.3% versus 1.7%, respectively, P = 0.03) as well as in no-ACS patients (2.4% versus 0.2%, respectively; P = 0.002). There were no statistically significant interactions between clinical presentation and randomized device modality for TVF (P = 0.80) and for the endpoint of definite or probable device thrombosis (P = 0.17). CONCLUSION: In the AIDA trial, the 2-year outcomes of PCI with Absorb BVS versus Xience EES were consistent in ACS and no-ACS patients: similar rates for TVF and consistently higher rates of definite or probable stent thrombosis under Absorb BVS versus Xience EES. There were no statistically significant interactions between clinical presentation and randomized device modality.

Outcomes of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds versus everolimus-eluting stents by coronary complexity: a sub-analysis of the AIDA trial.

AIMS: We aimed to evaluate the impact of the complexity of coronary disease as assessed by the SYNTAX score (SXscore) on the clinical outcomes in the AIDA trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: In the AIDA trial, we compared Absorb versus XIENCE in routine clinical practice. Clinical outcomes were stratified by SXscore tertiles: SXlow (SXscore ≤8), SXmid (SXscore >8 and ≤15) and SXhigh (>15). The SXscore was available in 1,661 of the 1,845 (90%) patients. The event rate of TVF was numerically lower in Absorb compared to XIENCE (3.7% versus 5.6%; p=0.257) in the SXlow tertile, numerically higher in Absorb in the SXmid tertile (11.4% versus 9.3%, p=0.421) and similar in the SXhigh tertile (15.5% versus 15.6%; p=0.960). The rates of definite/probable device thrombosis in Absorb versus XIENCE were significantly higher in the SXmid tertile (3.3% versus 0.8%, p=0.043) and in the SXhigh tertile (3.7% versus 0.8%, p=0.006). CONCLUSIONS: We found no significantly different rates of TVF between Absorb and XIENCE patients. Absorb-treated patients in the SXmid and SXhigh tertiles had an increased risk of device thrombosis when compared to XIENCE-treated patients. The rates of device thrombosis in the SXlow tertile, while still higher for Absorb, are more acceptable than in the SXmid and SXhigh score tertiles.

Efficacy and Safety of Stents in ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: To date, no specific drug-eluting stent (DES) has fully proven its superiority over others in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of coronary artery stents in STEMI patients in a patient-level network meta-analysis. METHODS: Eligible studies were dedicated randomized controlled trials comparing different stents in STEMI patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with at least 12 months of clinical follow-up. Of 19 studies identified from the published data, individual patient data were collected in 15 studies with 10,979 patients representing 87.7% of patients in the overall network of evidence. The primary endpoint was the composite of cardiac death, reinfarction, or target lesion revascularization. RESULTS: Overall, 8,487 (77.3%) of 10,979 STEMI patients were male and the mean age was 60.7 years. At a median follow-up of 3 years, compared with bare-metal stents (BMS), patients treated with paclitaxel-, sirolimus-, everolimus-, or biolimus-eluting stents had a significantly lower risk of the primary endpoint (adjusted hazard ratios [HRs]: 0.74 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.63 to 0.88], 0.65 [95% CI: 0.49 to 0.85], 0.70 [95% CI: 0.53 to 0.91], and 0.66 [95% CI: 0.49 to 0.88], respectively). The risk of primary endpoint was not different between patients treated with BMS and zotarolimus-eluting stents (adjusted HR: 0.83 [95% CI: 0.51 to 1.38]). Among patients treated with DES, no significant difference in the risk of the primary outcome was demonstrated. Treatment with second-generation DES was associated with significantly lower risk of definite or probable stent thrombosis compared with BMS (adjusted HR: 0.61 [95% CI: 0.42 to 0.89]) and first-generation DES (adjusted HR: 0.56 [95% CI: 0.36 to 0.88]). CONCLUSIONS: In STEMI patients, DES were superior to BMS with respect to long-term efficacy. No difference in long-term efficacy and safety was observed among specific DES. Second-generation were superior to first-generation DES in reducing stent thrombosis. (Clinical Outcomes After Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention [PCI] Using Contemporary Drug-Eluting Stent [DES]: Evidence From the Individual Patient Data Network Meta-Analysis; CRD42018104053).