P2Y12 Inhibitor Monotherapy vs Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Deployment of a Drug-Eluting Stent: The SHARE Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy after dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT; a P2Y12 inhibitor plus aspirin) for a brief duration has recently emerged as an attractive alternative for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with a drug-eluting stent. Objective: To investigate whether P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy after 3 months of DAPT was noninferior to 12 months of DAPT following PCI with a drug-eluting stent. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Short-Term Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Deployment of Bioabsorbable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stent (SHARE) open-label, noninferiority randomized clinical trial was conducted from December 15, 2017, through December 14, 2020. Final 1-year clinical follow-up was completed in January 2022. This study was a multicenter trial that was conducted at 20 hospitals in South Korea. Patients who underwent successful PCI with bioabsorbable polymer everolimus-eluting stents were enrolled. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to receive P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy after 3 months of DAPT (n = 694) or 12 months of DAPT (n = 693). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a net adverse clinical event, a composite of major bleeding (based on Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 or type 5 bleeding) and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, stroke, or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization) between 3 and 12 months after the index PCI. The major secondary outcomes were major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events and major bleeding. The noninferiority margin was 3.0%. Results: Of the total 1452 eligible patients, 65 patients were excluded before the 3-month follow-up, and 1387 patients (mean [SD] age, 63.0 [10.7] years; 1055 men [76.1%]) were assigned to P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy (n = 694) or DAPT (n = 693). Between 3 and 12 months of follow-up, the primary outcome (using Kaplan-Meier estimates) occurred in 9 patients (1.7%) in the P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy group and in 16 patients (2.6%) in the DAPT group (absolute difference, -0.93 [1-sided 95% CI, -2.64 to 0.77] percentage points; P < .001 for noninferiority). For the major secondary outcomes (using Kaplan-Meier estimates), major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events occurred in 8 patients (1.5%) in the P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy group and in 12 patients (2.0%) in the DAPT group (absolute difference, -0.49 [95% CI, -2.07 to 1.09] percentage points; P = .54). Major bleeding occurred in 1 patient (0.2%) in the P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy group and in 5 patients (0.8%) in the DAPT group (absolute difference, -0.60 [95% CI, -1.33 to 0.12] percentage points; P = .10). Conclusions and Relevance: In patients with coronary artery disease undergoing PCI with the latest generation of drug-eluting stents, P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy after 3-month DAPT was not inferior to 12-month DAPT for net adverse clinical events. Considering the study population and lower-than-expected event rates, further research is required in other populations. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03447379.

Randomized Trial Evaluating Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for the Treatment of Chronic Total Occlusion.

BACKGROUND: Procedural results for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in coronary vessels with chronic total occlusion (CTO) have improved in recent years, and PCI strategies have moved toward more complete revascularization with more liberal use of CTO-PCI. However, evidence evaluating CTO-PCI is limited to observational studies and small clinical trials. METHODS: In this open-label, multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial, PCI-eligible patients were assigned to receive either 1 of 2 strategies: PCI or no PCI for the qualifying de novo CTO lesion with the option for PCI of obstructive non-CTO lesions at the discretion of the operator. The primary end point was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or any revascularization. Health-related quality of life was assessed at baseline and at 1, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months. Because of slow recruitment, the trial was stopped before completion of the 1284 planned enrollments. RESULTS: Between March 2010 and September 2016, 834 patients were randomly assigned to the CTO-PCI (n=417) or no CTO-PCI (n=398) strategy. Among the patients assigned to the no CTO-PCI strategy, 78 (19.6%) crossed over to receive staged CTO-PCI within 3 days of randomization. The overall CTO-PCI success rate was 90.6%. Serious nonfatal complications associated with CTO-PCI occurred in 3 patients (1 stroke, 1 cardiac tamponade, and 1 patient with recurrent episodes of ventricular tachyarrhythmia induced by intracoronary thrombus). Approximately half of the patients in each group underwent PCI for an average of 1.3 non-CTO lesions, resulting in a comparable residual SYNTAX score (Synergy Between PCI With TAXUS and Cardiac Surgery; 3.7±5.4 versus 4.0±5.9, P=0.42) confined to non-CTO vessels. During a median follow-up of 4.0 years (interquartile range, 2.4 to 5.1 years), there was no significant difference between the CTO-PCI and the no CTO-PCI strategies in the incidence of the primary end point (22.3% versus 22.4%, hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.37; P=0.86). Both CTO-PCI and no CTO-PCI strategy were associated with significant improvements but without between-group differences in disease-specific health status that was sustained through 36 months. CONCLUSIONS: CTO-PCI was feasible with high success rates. There was no difference in the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events with CTO-PCI versus no CTO-PCI, but the study was limited by low power for clinical end points and high crossover rates between groups. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01078051.

Ergonovine Stress Echocardiography for the Diagnosis of Vasospastic Angina and Its Prognostic Implications in 3,094 Consecutive Patients.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Ergonovine stress echocardiography (ErgECHO) has been proposed as a noninvasive tool for the diagnosis of coronary vasospasm. However, concern over the safety of ErgECHO remains. This study was undertaken to investigate the safety and prognostic value of ErgECHO in a large population. METHODS: We studied 3,094 consecutive patients from a single-center registry who underwent ErgECHO from November 2002 to June 2009. Medical records, echocardiographic data, and laboratory findings obtained from follow-up periods were analyzed. RESULTS: The overall positive rate of ErgECHO was 8.6%. No procedure-related mortality or myocardial infarction (MI) occurred. Nineteen patients (0.6%) had transient symptomatic complications during ErgECHO including one who was successfully resuscitated. Cumulative major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) occurred in 14.0% and 5.1% of the patients with positive and negative ErgECHO results, respectively (p<0.001) at a median follow-up of 10.5 years. Cox regression survival analyses revealed that male sex, age, presence of diabetes, total cholesterol level of >220 mg/dL, and positive ErgECHO result itself were independent factors associated with MACEs. CONCLUSIONS: ErgECHO can be performed safely by experienced physicians and its positive result may be an independent risk factor for long-term adverse outcomes. It may also be an alternative tool to invasive ergonovine-provoked coronary angiography for the diagnosis of vasospastic angina.

Tratamiento de alta intensidad con estatinas para pacientes estables en monoterapia con ácido acetilsalicílico a los 12 meses de un implante de stent farmacoactivo: estudio aleatorizado / High-intensity statin treatments in clinically stable patients on aspirin monotherapy 12 months after drug-eluting stent implantation: A randomized study

Introducción y objetivos: La vigente guía de práctica clínica para el tratamiento de la hipercolesterolemia recomienda mantener la terapia intensiva con estatinas de los pacientes tratados con implante de stent farmacoactivo (SFA). Sin embargo, el tratamiento intensivo con estatinas, una vez estabilizado el paciente, con frecuencia no se lleva a cabo en la práctica clínica tras la revascularización con SFA. Actualmente se desconoce el impacto de mantener esa terapia intensiva con estatinas en estos pacientes estables. Se estudia la reducción de eventos adversos en pacientes clínicamente estables en monoterapia con ácido acetilsalicílico tras el implante de un SFA según la terapia de alta o baja intensidad con estatinas. Métodos: Se aleatorizó a pacientes estables a los 12 meses del implante de un SFA y en monoterapia con ácido acetilsalicílico a recibir terapia de alta intensidad con estatinas (atorvastatina 40 mg; n = 1.000) o terapia de baja intensidad (pravastatina 20 mg; n = 1.000). El objetivo primario fueron los eventos clínicos adversos a los 12 meses de seguimiento (objetivo compuesto de muerte, infarto de miocardio, revascularización, trombosis del stent, accidente cerebrovascular, insuficiencia renal, necesidad de intervención arterial periférica y nuevo ingreso hospitalario por eventos cardiacos). Resultados: El objetivo primario a los 12 meses de seguimiento se produjo en 25 pacientes (2,5%) en tratamiento de alta intensidad con estatinas y en 40 (4,1%) en tratamiento de baja intensidad (HR = 0,58; IC95%, 0,36-0,92; p = 0,018). Esta diferencia se debió principalmente a la menor incidencia de muerte cardiaca (0 frente al 0,4%; p = 0,025) y de infarto de miocardio no relacionado con el vaso diana (el 0,1 frente al 0,7%; p = 0,033) en el grupo de tratamiento de alta intensidad con estatinas. Conclusiones: Entre los pacientes clínicamente estables en monoterapia con ácido acetilsalicílico, el tratamiento de alta intensidad con estatinas redujo la incidencia de eventos comparado con el tratamiento de baja intensidad

Introduction and objectives: Current guidelines on the treatment of blood cholesterol recommend continuous maintenance of high-intensity statin treatment in drug-eluting stent (DES)-treated patients. However, high-intensity statin treatment is frequently underused in clinical practice after stabilization of DES-treated patients. Currently, the impact of continuous high-intensity statin treatment on the incidence of late adverse events in these patients is unknown. We investigated whether high-intensity statin treatment reduces late adverse events in clinically stable patients on aspirin monotherapy 12 months after DES implantation. Methods: Clinically stable patients who underwent DES implantation 12 months previously and received aspirin monotherapy were randomly assigned to receive either high-intensity (40 mg atorvastatin, n = 1000) or low-intensity (20 mg pravastatin, n = 1000) statin treatment. The primary endpoint was adverse clinical events at 12-month follow-up (a composite of all death, myocardial infarction, revascularization, stent thrombosis, stroke, renal deterioration, intervention for peripheral artery disease, and admission for cardiac events). Results: The primary endpoint at 12-month follow-up occurred in 25 patients (2.5%) receiving high-intensity statin treatment and in 40 patients (4.1%) receiving low-intensity statin treatment (HR, 0.58; 95%CI, 0.36-0.92; P = .018). This difference was mainly driven by a lower rate of cardiac death (0 vs 0.4%, P = .025) and nontarget vessel myocardial infarction (0.1 vs 0.7%, P = .033) in the high-intensity statin treatment group. Conclusions: Among clinically stable DES-treated patients on aspirin monotherapy, high-intensity statin treatment significantly reduced late adverse events compared with low-intensity statin treatment

High-intensity Statin Treatments in Clinically Stable Patients on Aspirin Monotherapy 12 Months After Drug-eluting Stent Implantation: A Randomized Study.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Current guidelines on the treatment of blood cholesterol recommend continuous maintenance of high-intensity statin treatment in drug-eluting stent (DES)-treated patients. However, high-intensity statin treatment is frequently underused in clinical practice after stabilization of DES-treated patients. Currently, the impact of continuous high-intensity statin treatment on the incidence of late adverse events in these patients is unknown. We investigated whether high-intensity statin treatment reduces late adverse events in clinically stable patients on aspirin monotherapy 12 months after DES implantation. METHODS: Clinically stable patients who underwent DES implantation 12 months previously and received aspirin monotherapy were randomly assigned to receive either high-intensity (40mg atorvastatin, n = 1000) or low-intensity (20mg pravastatin, n = 1000) statin treatment. The primary endpoint was adverse clinical events at 12-month follow-up (a composite of all death, myocardial infarction, revascularization, stent thrombosis, stroke, renal deterioration, intervention for peripheral artery disease, and admission for cardiac events). RESULTS: The primary endpoint at 12-month follow-up occurred in 25 patients (2.5%) receiving high-intensity statin treatment and in 40 patients (4.1%) receiving low-intensity statin treatment (HR, 0.58; 95%CI, 0.36-0.92; P = .018). This difference was mainly driven by a lower rate of cardiac death (0 vs 0.4%, P = .025) and nontarget vessel myocardial infarction (0.1 vs 0.7%, P = .033) in the high-intensity statin treatment group. CONCLUSIONS: Among clinically stable DES-treated patients on aspirin monotherapy, high-intensity statin treatment significantly reduced late adverse events compared with low-intensity statin treatment. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01557075.

Optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy after drug-eluting stent implantation: a randomized, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The risks and benefits of long-term dual antiplatelet therapy remain unclear. METHODS AND RESULTS: This prospective, multicenter, open-label, randomized comparison trial was conducted in 24 clinical centers in Korea. In total, 5045 patients who received drug-eluting stents and were free of major adverse cardiovascular events and major bleeding for at least 12 months after stent placement were enrolled between July 2007 and July 2011. Patients were randomized to receive aspirin alone (n=2514) or clopidogrel plus aspirin (n=2531). The primary end point was a composite of death resulting from cardiac causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke 24 months after randomization. At 24 months, the primary end point occurred in 57 aspirin-alone group patients (2.4%) and 61 dual-therapy group patients (2.6%; hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.66-1.35; P=0.75). The 2 groups did not differ significantly in terms of the individual risks of death resulting from any cause, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, or stroke. Major bleeding occurred in 24 (1.1%) and 34 (1.4%) of the aspirin-alone group and dual-therapy group patients, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.42-1.20; P=0.20). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients who were on 12-month dual antiplatelet therapy without complications, an additional 24 months of dual antiplatelet therapy versus aspirin alone did not reduce the risk of the composite end point of death from cardiac causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01186146.

Comparison of Zotarolimus-Eluting stent versus Sirolimus-Eluting stent for de novo coronary artery disease in patients with diabetes mellitus from the ESSENCE-DIABETES II trial.

Angiographic and clinical outcomes remain relatively unfavorable for diabetic patients even after the use of drug-eluting stent. This prospective, multicenter, randomized study compared the relative efficacy and safety of resolute zotarolimus-eluting stent (R-ZES) and sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) implantation in diabetic patients with coronary artery disease. The primary end point was noninferiority of angiographic in-segment late loss at 9 months. Clinical events were also monitored for at least 12 months. Patient recruitment was prematurely stopped after enrollment of 256 patients (127 in R-ZES group and 129 in SES) because of discontinuing production of SES. The R-ZES was noninferior to the SES for 9-month in-segment late loss (0.34 ± 0.30 vs 0.39 ± 0.43 mm; difference -0.048; 95% confidence interval -0.157 to 0.061; upper 1-sided 95% confidence interval 0.044; p <0.001 for noninferiority). In addition, in-stent late loss (0.22 ± 0.29 vs 0.21 ± 0.40 mm, p = 0.849) and the rates of in-segment (1.2% vs 6.7%, p = 0.119) and in-stent (1.2% vs 3.3%, p = 0.621) binary restenoses were similar between the 2 groups. At 12 months, there were no statistical differences between the 2 groups in the incidence of any clinical outcomes (death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization, ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization, and composite outcomes). In conclusion, despite having reduced power because of early study termination, our study suggests that the R-ZES has noninferior angiographic outcomes at 9 months to the SES in diabetic patients with coronary artery disease.

Study design and rationale of "a multicenter, open-labeled, randomized controlled trial comparing three 2nd-generation drug-eluting stents in real-world practice" (CHOICE trial).

BACKGROUND: The second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) have shown superiority in many studies relating to safety and efficacy when compared with the first-generation DES. However, it is unclear whether there are differences in efficacy and safety among the second-generation DES after long-term follow-up. METHODS: This multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-labeled trial will directly compare the efficacy and safety among the patients treated with either everolimus-eluting stent (EES), zotarolimus-eluting stent with biolinx polymer (ZES-R), or biolimus-eluting stent (BES) with minimal exclusion criteria. The primary end point is a patient-oriented composite consisted of cardiac death, myocardial infarction not clearly attributable to a nontarget vessel and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization at 24-month clinical follow-up post-index procedure. With the hypothesis that "BES is non-inferior to EES" or "BES is non-inferior to ZES-R" in primary end point, approximately 2,600 patients will be assigned to one of the types of stents using a web-based randomization system. CONCLUSIONS: The CHOICE trial will directly compare the efficacy and safety of EES, ZES-R, and BES in everyday clinical practice for long-term follow-up.