An updated meta-analysis of optimal medical therapy with or without invasive therapy in patients with stable coronary artery disease.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of optimal medical therapy (OMT) with or without revascularization therapy in patients with stable coronary artery disease (SCAD) remains controversial. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared OMT with or without revascularization therapy for SCAD patients. METHODS: Studies were searched in PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials from January 1, 2005, to December 30, 2023. The main efficacy outcome was a composite of all-cause death, myocadiac infarction, revascularization, and cerebrovascular accident. Results were pooled using random effects model and fixed effects model and are presented as odd ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: Ten studies involving 12,790 participants were included. The arm of OMT with revascularization compared with OMT alone was associated with decreased risks for MACCE (OR 0.55 [95% CI 0.38-0.80], I²=93%, P = 0.002), CV death (OR 0.84 [95% CI 0.73-0.97], I²=36%, P = 0.02), revascularization (OR 0.32 [95% CI 0.20-0.50], I²=92%, P < 0.001), and MI (OR 0.85 [95% CI 0.76-0.96], I²=45%, P = 0.007). While there was no significant difference between OMT with revascularization and OMT alone in the odds of all-cause death (OR 0.94 [95% CI 0.84-1.05], I²=0%, P = 0.30). CONCLUSIONS: The current updated meta-analysis of 10 RCTs shows that in patients with SCAD, OMT with revascularization would reduce the risk for MACCE, cardiovascular death, and MI. However, the invasive strategy does not decrease the risks for all-cause mortality when comparing with OMT alone.

Outcomes With Limus- vs Paclitaxel-Coated Balloons for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the outcomes with limus drug-coated balloons (DCBs) vs paclitaxel DCBs were small and underpowered for clinical endpoints. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare the angiographic and clinical outcomes with limus DCBs vs paclitaxel DCBs for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS: An electronic search of Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases was performed through January 2024 for RCTs comparing limus DCBs vs paclitaxel DCBs for PCI. The primary endpoint was clinically driven target lesion revascularization (TLR). The secondary endpoints were late angiographic findings. Summary estimates were constructed using a random effects model. RESULTS: Six RCTs with 821 patients were included; 446 patients received a limus DCB, and 375 patients received a paclitaxel DCB. There was no difference between limus DCBs and paclitaxel DCBs in the incidence of TLR at a mean of 13.4 months (10.3% vs 7.8%; risk ratio [RR]: 1.32; 95% CI: 0.84-2.08). Subgroup analysis suggested no significant interaction among studies for de novo coronary lesions vs in-stent restenosis (Pinteraction = 0.58). There were no differences in the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, cardiac mortality, or target vessel myocardial infarction between groups. However, limus DCBs were associated with a higher risk of binary restenosis (RR: 1.89; 95% CI: 1.14-3.12), late lumen loss (mean difference = 0.16; 95% CI: 0.03-0.28), and a smaller minimum lumen diameter (mean difference = -0.12; 95% CI: -0.22 to -0.02) at late follow-up. In addition, late lumen enlargement occurred more frequently (50% vs 27.5%; RR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.45-0.77) with paclitaxel DCBs. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing DCB-only PCI, there were no differences in the risk of clinically driven TLR and other clinical outcomes between limus DCBs and paclitaxel DCBs. However, paclitaxel DCBs were associated with better late angiographic outcomes. These findings support the need for future trials to establish the role of new-generation limus DCBs for PCI.

Efficacy and safety of drug-coated balloons in chronic total coronary occlusion recanalization: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: With advancements in chronic total coronary occlusion (CTO) recanalization techniques and concepts, the success rate of recanalization has been steadily increasing. However, the current data are too limited to draw any reliable conclusions about the efficacy and safety of drug-coated balloons (DCBs) in CTO percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Herein, we conducted a meta-analysis to confirm the efficacy of DCB in CTO PCI. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science and Embase from inception to July 25, 2023. The primary outcome was major advent cardiovascular events (MACE), including cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR), and target vessel revascularization (TVR). The follow-up angiographic endpoints were late lumen enlargement (LLE), reocclusion and restenosis. RESULTS: Five studies with a total of 511 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Across studies, patients were predominantly male (72.9-85.7%) and over fifty years old. The summary estimate rate of MACE was 13.0% (95% CI 10.1%-15.9%, I2 = 0%, p = 0.428). The summary estimate rates of cardiac death and MI were 2.2% (95% CI 0.7%-3.7%, I2 = 0%, p = 0.873) and 1.2% (95% CI -0.2-2.6%, I2 = 13.7%, p = 0.314), respectively. Finally, the pooled incidences of TLR and TVR were 10.1% (95% CI 5.7%-14.5%, I2 = 51.7%, p = 0.082) and 7.1% (95% CI 3.0%-11.2%, I2 = 57.6%, p = 0.070), respectively. Finally, the summary estimate rates of LLE, reocclusion and restenosis were 59.4% (95% CI 53.5-65.3%, I2 = 0%, p = 0.742), 3.3% (95% CI 1.1-5.4%, I2 = 0%, p = 0.865) and 17.5% (95% CI 12.9-22.0%, I2 = 0%, p = 0.623), respectively. CONCLUSION: Accordingly, DCB has the potential to be used as a treatment for CTO in suitable patients.

Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy and Survival After TEER for Secondary Mitral Regurgitation With Right Ventricular Impairment.

BACKGROUND: Right ventricular impairment is common among patients undergoing transcatheter edge-to-edge repair for secondary mitral regurgitation (SMR). Adherence to guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for heart failure is poor in these patients. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of GDMT on long-term survival in this patient cohort. METHODS: Within the EuroSMR (European Registry of Transcatheter Repair for Secondary Mitral Regurgitation) international registry, we selected patients with SMR and right ventricular impairment (tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion ≤17 mm and/or echocardiographic right ventricular-to-pulmonary artery coupling <0.40 mm/mm Hg). Titrated guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMTtit) was defined as a coprescription of 3 drug classes with at least one-half of the target dose at the latest follow-up. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 6 years. RESULTS: Among 1,213 patients with SMR and right ventricular impairment, 852 had complete data on medical therapy. The 123 patients who were on GDMTtit showed a significantly higher long-term survival vs the 729 patients not on GDMTtit (61.8% vs 36.0%; P < 0.00001). Propensity score-matched analysis confirmed a significant association between GDMTtit and higher survival (61.0% vs 43.1%; P = 0.018). GDMTtit was an independent predictor of all-cause mortality (HR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.39-0.93; P = 0.02 for patients on GDMTtit vs those not on GDMTtit). Its association with better outcomes was confirmed among all subgroups analyzed. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with right ventricular impairment undergoing transcatheter edge-to-edge repair for SMR, titration of GDMT to at least one-half of the target dose is associated with a 40% lower risk of all-cause death up to 6 years and should be pursued independent of comorbidities.

Drug-coated balloon angioplasty with provisional stenting versus primary stenting for the treatment of de novo coronary artery lesions: REC-CAGEFREE I trial rationale and design.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with primary stenting, which stands for stent implantation regardless of obtaining satisfactory results with balloon angioplasty, has superseded conventional plain old balloon angioplasty with provisional stenting. With drug-coated balloon (DCB), primary DCB angioplasty with provisional stenting has shown non-inferiority to primary stenting for de novo coronary small vessel disease. However, the long-term efficacy and safety of such a strategy to the primary stenting on clinical endpoints in de novo lesions without vessel diameter restrictions remain uncertain. STUDY DESIGN: The REC-CAGEFREE I is an investigator-initiated, multicenter, randomized, open-label trial aimed to enroll 2270 patients with acute or chronic coronary syndrome from 43 interventional cardiology centers in China to evaluate the non-inferiority of primary paclitaxel-coated balloons angioplasty to primary stenting for the treatment of de novo, non-complex lesions without vessel diameter restrictions. Patients who fulfill all the inclusion and exclusion criteria and have achieved a successful lesion pre-dilatation will be randomly assigned to the two arms in a 1:1 ratio. Protocol-guided DCB angioplasty and bailout stenting after unsatisfactory angioplasty are mandatory in the primary DCB angioplasty group. The second-generation sirolimus-eluting stent will be used as a bailout stent in the primary DCB angioplasty group and the treatment device in the primary stenting group. The primary endpoint is the incidence of Device-oriented Composite Endpoint (DoCE) within 24 months after randomization, including cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically and physiologically indicated target lesion revascularization. DISCUSSION: The ongoing REC-CAGEFREE I trial is the first randomized trial with a clinical endpoint to assess the efficacy and safety of primary DCB angioplasty for the treatment of de novo, non-complex lesions without vessel diameter restrictions. If non-inferiority is shown, PCI with primary DCB angioplasty could be an alternative treatment option to primary stenting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered on clinicaltrial.gov (NCT04561739).

When cardiovascular medicines should be discontinued.

An integral component of the practice of medicine is focused on the initiation of medications, based on clinical practice guidelines and underlying trial evidence, which usually test the addition of novel medications intended for life-long use in short-term clinical trials. Much less attention is given to the question of medication discontinuation, especially after a lengthy period of treatment, during which patients age gets older and diseases may either progress or new diseases may emerge. Given the paucity of data, clinical practice guidelines offer little to no guidance on when and how to deprescribe cardiovascular medications. Such decisions are often left to the discretion of clinicians, who, together with their patients, express concern of potential adverse effects of medication discontinuation. Even in the absence of adverse effects, the continuation of medications without any proven effect may cause harm due to drug-drug interactions, the emergence of polypharmacy, and additional preventable spending to already strained health systems. Herein, several cardiovascular medications or medication classes are discussed that in the opinion of this author group should generally be discontinued, either for the prevention of potential harm, for a lack of benefit, or for the availability of better alternatives.

A Novel Sirolimus-Coated Balloon for the Treatment of Femoropopliteal Lesions: The SELUTION SFA Japan Trial.

BACKGROUND: Sirolimus-coated balloons (SCB) for the treatment of femoropopliteal (FP) lesions have not been systematically studied, but initial outcomes from early studies are promising. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the SELUTION SLR SCB, composed of proprietary microreservoir technology combining sirolimus and biodegradable polymer, when used to treat mild-to-moderate FP disease in a Japanese population. METHODS: This multicenter, prospective, single-arm study (SELUTION SFA JAPAN) enrolled 134 patients with FP disease. It was independently adjudicated by an imaging core laboratory and clinical events committee. The primary endpoint was 12-month primary patency, defined as peak systolic velocity ratio ≥2.5 by duplex ultrasound and compared against a prespecified performance goal of 60% based on established angioplasty data. RESULTS: The mean age was 73.8 ± 6.9 years, and 60.3% of patients had diabetes mellitus. The mean lesion length was 127.4 ± 59.7 mm, 17.2% were chronic total occlusions, and 47.8% involved the popliteal artery. Data on 12-month restenosis were available in 127 patients (94.8%). The 12-month primary patency rate was 87.9%, and the freedom from clinically driven target lesion revascularization (CD-TLR) was 97.0% per Kaplan-Meier estimate. The major adverse event rate was 6.7%, driven by 4 CD-TLRs and 5 deaths, none of which were related to the device or procedure. Ankle-brachial index data improved significantly from 0.73 ± 0.16 at baseline to 0.96 ± 0.14 at 30 days postprocedure and was sustained through 12 months (0.94 ± 0.13). CONCLUSIONS: The SELUTION SFA JAPAN trial demonstrated that a novel SELUTION SCB is a safe and effective treatment option for FP disease in symptomatic patients.

Intravascular Ultrasound vs Angiography-Guided Drug-Coated Balloon Angioplasty: The ULTIMATE â ¢ Trial.

BACKGROUND: Drug-coated balloon (DCB) angioplasty seems a safe and effective option for specific de novo coronary lesions. However, the beneficial effect of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-guided DCB angioplasty in de novo lesions remains uncertain. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the benefits of IVUS guidance over angiography guidance during DCB angioplasty in de novo coronary lesions. METHODS: A total of 260 patients with high bleeding risk who had a de novo coronary lesion (reference vessel diameter 2.0-4.0 mm, and lesion length ≤15 mm) were randomly assigned to either an IVUS-guided or an angioplasty-guided DCB angioplasty group. The primary endpoint was in-segment late lumen loss (LLL) at 7 months after procedure. The secondary endpoint was target vessel failure at 6 months. RESULTS: A total of 2 patients in the angiography-guided group and 7 patients in the IVUS-guided group underwent bailout stent implantation (P = 0.172). The primary endpoint of 7-month LLL was 0.03 ± 0.52 mm with angiography guidance vs -0.10 ± 0.34 mm with IVUS guidance (mean difference 0.14 mm; 95% CI: 0.02-0.26; P = 0.025). IVUS guidance was also associated with a larger 7-month minimal lumen diameter (2.06 ± 0.62 mm vs 1.75 ± 0.63 mm; P < 0.001) and a smaller diameter stenosis (28.15% ± 13.88% vs 35.83% ± 17.69%; P = 0.001) compared with angiography guidance. Five target vessel failures occurred at 6 months, with 4 (3.1%) in the angiography-guided group and 1 (0.8%) in the IVUS-guided group (P = 0.370). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that IVUS-guided DCB angioplasty is associated with a lower LLL in patients with a de novo coronary lesion compared with angiography guidance. (Intravascular Ultrasound Versus Angiography Guided Drug-Coated Balloon [ULTIMATE-III]; NCT04255043).

Differences in provider approach to initiating and titrating guideline directed medical therapy in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

BACKGROUND: Despite the strong evidence supporting guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), prescription rates in clinical practice are still lacking. METHODS: A survey containing 20 clinical vignettes of patients with HFrEF was answered by a national sample of 127 cardiologists and 68 internal/family medicine physicians. Each vignette had 4-5 options for adjusting GDMT and the option to make no medication changes. Survey respondents could only select one option. For analysis, responses were dichotomized to the answer of interest. RESULTS: Cardiologists were more likely to make GDMT changes than general medicine physicians (91.8% vs. 82.0%; OR 1.84 [1.07-3.19]; p = 0.020). Cardiologists were more likely to initiate beta-blockers (46.3% vs. 32.0%; OR 2.38 [1.18-4.81], p = 0.016), angiotensin receptor blocker/neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) (63.8% vs. 48.1%; OR 1.76 [1.01-3.09], p = 0.047), and hydralazine and isosorbide dinitrate (HYD/ISDN) (38.2% vs. 23.7%; OR 2.47 [1.48-4.12], p < 0.001) compared to general medicine physicians. No differences were found in initiating angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker (ACEi/ARBs), initiating mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), sodium-glucose transporter protein 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, digoxin, or ivabradine. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate cardiologists were more likely to adjust GDMT than general medicine physicians. Future focus on improving GDMT prescribing should target providers other than cardiologists to improve care in patients with HFrEF.

Randomized comparison of the effects of tailored text messaging versus pillbox organizers on medication adherence of heart failure patients.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) is a major public health issue worldwide, affecting approximately 64.3 million people in 2017. Non-adherence to medication is a common and serious issue in the management of HF. However, new reminder systems utilizing mobile technology, such as text messaging, have shown promise in improving medication adherence. The purpose of this study was to compare the impact of tailored text messaging (TTM) and pillbox organizers on medication adherence in individuals with HF. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was conducted, involving 189 eligible patients with HF who were randomly assigned to either the TTM, pillbox organizer, or control group. Medication adherence was evaluated using pill counting and the Medication Adherence Rating Scale (MARS) over a period of three months and compared across the groups. The data were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis, Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), and Repeated Measures ANOVA tests. RESULTS: The results indicate that both the TTM and pillbox organizers groups had significantly higher medication adherence compared to the control group, as measured by pill counting (MD = 0.05, 95%CI = 0.03-0.06; p < 0.001 for TTM group, MD = 0.04, 95%CI = 0.03-0.06; p < 0.001 for pillbox organizers group) and the MARS (MD = 1.32, 95%CI = 0.93 to 1.72; p < 0.001 for TTM group, MD = 1.33, 95%CI = 0.95 to 1.72; p < 0.001 for pillbox organizers group). However, there was no statistically significant difference in medication adherence between the two intervention groups using either measurement method. The TTM group exhibited a lower hospitalization rate than the other groups in the first follow up (p = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: Both the TTM and pillbox organizers were shown to be effective in enhancing medication adherence among patients with HF. Therefore, healthcare providers should take into account the patient's condition and preferences when selecting one of these methods to promote medication adherence. Future research should aim to address the limitations of this study, such as controlling for confounding variables, considering long-term effects, and comparing the effectiveness of different interventions.

Drug-Coated Balloons in the Management of Coronary Artery Disease.

Drug-coated balloons (DCBs) are specialized coronary devices comprised of a semicompliant balloon catheter with an engineered coating that allows the delivery of antiproliferative agents locally to the vessel wall during percutaneous coronary intervention. Although DCBs were initially developed more than a decade ago, their potential in coronary interventions has recently sparked renewed interest, especially in the United States. Originally designed to overcome the limitations of conventional balloon angioplasty and stenting, they aim to match or even improve upon the outcomes of drug-eluting stents without leaving a permanent implant. Presently, in-stent restenosis is the condition with the most robust evidence supporting the use of DCBs. DCBs provide improved long-term vessel patency compared with conventional balloon angioplasty and may be comparable to drug-eluting stents without the need for an additional stent layer, supporting their use as a first-line therapy for in-stent restenosis. Beyond the treatment of in-stent restenosis, DCBs provide an additional tool for de novo lesions for a strategy that avoids a permanent metal scaffold, which may be especially useful for the management of technically challenging anatomies such as small vessels and bifurcations. DCBs might also be advantageous for patients with high bleeding risk due to the decreased necessity for extended antiplatelet therapy, and in patients with diabetes and patients with diffuse disease to minimize long-stented segments. Further studies are crucial to confirm these broader applications for DCBs and to further validate safety and efficacy.

Safety of cardiovascular disease drugs approved between 2014 and 2021 in the US: a pharmacovigilance analysis.

BACKGROUND: Recently FDA-approved drugs for cardiovascular disease (CVD) require robust post-marketing surveillance. The objective of this study was to assess their safety using a large pharmacovigilance database. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We analyzed adverse event (AE) reports for 17 drugs approved from 2014 to 2021, utilizing the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS). Descriptive and disproportionality analyses were conducted by estimating the reporting odds ratio (ROR) and its 95% confidence interval. RESULTS: Among the 43,664,773 AE reports 97,702 (0.22%) were related to newly approved CVD drugs. No AEs were reported for finerenone and evinacumab. The results from the disproportionality analyses revealed potential risks of acute kidney injury (ROR = 8.24, 95% CI: 6.05-11.22), cardiac failure (ROR = 4.80, 95% CI: 3.82-6.05), and hypotension (ROR = 3.98, 95% CI: 3.44-4.61) among sacubitril/valsartan users. Additionally, ivabradine was found to be associated with tachycardia (ROR = 11.94, 95% CI: 8.35-17.08), abnormal feeling (ROR = 4.40, 95% CI: 2.70-7.18), and dizziness (ROR = 2.56, 95% CI: 1.68-3.90). CONCLUSIONS: This study identified specific safety concerns related to recently approved CVD drugs. Further research is required to understand the underlying mechanisms and clinical implications of these findings.

Target population for a selective cardiac myosin inhibitor in hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy: Real-life estimation from the French register of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (REMY).

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of current pharmacological therapies in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy is limited. A cardiac myosin inhibitor, mavacamten, has recently been approved as a first-in-class treatment for symptomatic hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy. AIMS: To assess the profile and burden of cardiac myosin inhibitor candidates in the hypertrophic cardiomyopathy prospective Register of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (REMY) held by the French Society of Cardiology. METHODS: Data were collected at baseline and during follow-up from patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy enrolled in REMY by the three largest participating centres. RESULTS: Among 1059 adults with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, 461 (43.5%) had obstruction; 325 (30.7%) of these were also symptomatic, forming the "cardiac myosin inhibitor candidates" group. Baseline features of this group were: age 58±15years; male sex (n=196; 60.3%); diagnosis-to-inclusion delay 5 (1-12)years; maximum wall thickness 20±6mm; left ventricular ejection fraction 69±6%; family history of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy or sudden cardiac death (n=133; 40.9%); presence of a pathogenic sarcomere gene mutation (n=101; 31.1%); beta-blocker or verapamil treatment (n=304; 93.8%), combined with disopyramide (n=28; 8.7%); and eligibility for septal reduction therapy (n=96; 29%). At the end of a median follow-up of 66 (34-106) months, 319 (98.2%) were treated for obstruction (n=43 [13.2%] received disopyramide), 46 (14.2%) underwent septal reduction therapy and the all-cause mortality rate was 1.9/100 person-years (95% confidence interval 1.4-2.6) (46 deaths). Moreover, 41 (8.9%) patients from the initial hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy group became eligible for a cardiac myosin inhibitor. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy selected from the REMY registry, one third were eligible for a cardiac myosin inhibitor.

Randomized Trial Comparing a Stent-Avoiding With a Stent-Preferred Strategy in Complex Femoropopliteal Lesions.

BACKGROUND: Limited comparative data exist on different interventional strategies for endovascular revascularization of complex femoropopliteal interventions. OBJECTIVES: In this study, the authors aimed to compare a stent-avoiding (SA) vs a stent-preferred (SP) strategy, promoting optimal lesion preparation and the use of drug-eluting technologies in both arms. METHODS: Within a prospective, multicenter, pilot study, 120 patients with symptomatic complex femoropopliteal lesions (Rutherford classification 2-4, mean lesion length 187.7 ± 78.3 mm, 79.2% total occlusions) were randomly assigned in a 1:1 fashion to endovascular treatment with either paclitaxel-coated balloons or polymer-coated, paclitaxel-eluting stents. Lesion preparation including the use of devices for plaque modification and/or removal was at the operators' discretion in both treatment arms. RESULTS: In the SA group, lesion preparation was more frequently performed (71.7% SA [43/60] vs 51.7% [31/60] SP; P = 0.038) with a high provisional stenting rate (48.3% [29/60]). At the 12-month follow-up, primary patency was 78.2% (43/55) in the SA group and 78.6% (44/56) in the SP group (P = 1.0; relative risk: 0.995; 95% CI: 0.818-1.210). Freedom from major adverse events was determined in 93.1% (54/58) in the SA group and in 94.9% (56/59) in the SP group (P = 0.717; relative risk: 0.981; 95% CI: 0.895-1.075), with all adverse events attributable to clinically driven target lesion revascularization. CONCLUSIONS: Both endovascular strategies promoting lesion preparation before the use of drug-eluting devices suggest promising efficacy and safety results in complex femoropopliteal procedures with a high proportion of total occlusions through 12 months. Ongoing follow-up will show whether different results emerge over time. (Best Endovascular Strategy for Complex Lesions of the Superficial Femoral Artery [BEST-SFA]; NCT03776799).

Final 5-year report of BIONYX comparing the thin-composite wire-strut zotarolimus-eluting stent versus ultrathin-strut sirolimus-eluting stent.

BACKGROUND: The BIONYX randomized trial is the first study to evaluate the Resolute Onyx durable polymer-coated zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) in all-comers. Furthermore, it is the first trial to assess safety and efficacy of this stent versus the Orsiro biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) in all-comers, paying particular attention to patients with diabetes. It has previously shown promising results until 3 years of follow-up. AIMS: We aimed to assess long-term clinical outcome after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with Onyx ZES versus Orsiro SES at 5-year follow-up. METHODS: The main composite endpoint was target vessel failure (TVF): cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization. Time to primary and secondary endpoints was assessed using Kaplan-Meier methods, applying the log-rank test for between-group comparison. RESULTS: Follow-up was available in 2414/2488 (97.0%) patients. After 5 years, TVF showed no significant difference between Onyx ZES and Orsiro SES (12.7% vs. 13.7%, hazard ratio [HR] 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.75-1.17], plog-rank = 0.55). Landmark analysis between 3- and 5-year follow-up found a lower target lesion revascularization rate for Onyx ZES (1.1% vs. 2.4%, HR 0.47, 95% CI [0.24-0.93], plog-rank = 0.026). A prespecified subgroup analysis showed no significant between-stent difference in clinical outcome among patients with diabetes. After treatment with Onyx ZES, patients aged ≥75 years had significantly lower rates of TVF (13.8% vs. 21.9%, HR 0.60, 95% CI [0.39-0.93], plog-rank = 0.023). CONCLUSIONS: The final 5-year analysis of the randomized BIONYX trial showed favorable and similar long-term outcomes of safety and efficacy for Onyx ZES and Orsiro SES in both all-comers and patients with diabetes.

Biodegradable Polymer Versus Polymer-Free Ultrathin Sirolimus-Eluting Stents: Analysis of the Stent Arm Registry From the HOST-IDEA Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of each third-generation drug-eluting stent with ultrathin struts and advanced polymer technology remain unclear. We investigated the clinical outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention using the Coroflex ISAR polymer-free sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) or Orsiro biodegradable polymer SES. METHODS: The HOST-IDEA trial (Harmonizing Optimal Strategy for Treatment of Coronary Artery Stenosis-Coronary Intervention With Next-Generation Drug-Eluting Stent Platforms and Abbreviated Dual Antiplatelet Therapy), initially designed with a 2×2 factorial approach, sought to randomize patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention based on dual antiplatelet therapy duration (3 versus 12 months) and stent type (Coroflex ISAR versus Orsiro). Despite randomizing 2013 patients for dual antiplatelet therapy duration, the stent arm transitioned to a registry format during the trial. Among these, 328 individuals (16.3%) were randomized for Coroflex ISAR or Orsiro SES, while 1685 (83.7%) underwent percutaneous coronary intervention without stent-type randomization. In this study, the Coroflex ISAR (n=559) and Orsiro groups (n=1449) were matched using a propensity score. The prespecified primary end point was target lesion failure, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically driven target lesion revascularization at 12 months. RESULTS: The baseline patient and procedural characteristics were well balanced between the Coroflex ISAR and Orsiro groups after propensity score matching (n=559, each group). The Coroflex ISAR group was significantly associated with a higher rate of target lesion failure, mainly driven by clinically driven target lesion revascularization, compared with the Orsiro group (3.4% versus 1.1%; hazard ratio, 3.21 [95% CI, 1.28-8.05]; P=0.01). A higher risk of target lesion failure in the Coroflex ISAR group was consistently observed across various subgroups. The rates of any bleeding (hazard ratio, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.51-1.40]; P=0.52) and major bleeding (hazard ratio, 1.58 [95% CI, 0.61-4.08]; P=0.34) were comparable between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this propensity score-matched analysis of the stent arm registry from the HOST-IDEA trial, the Orsiro SES was associated with significantly better outcomes in terms of 1-year target lesion failure, mainly driven by clinically driven target lesion revascularization, than the Coroflex ISAR SES. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02601157.