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.

Predictors of target lesion failure after percutaneous coronary intervention with a drug-coated balloon for de novo lesions.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data about determinant factors of target lesion failure (TLF) in lesions after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using a drug-coated balloon (DCB) for de novo coronary artery lesions, including optical coherence tomography (OCT) findings. AIMS: The present study aims to investigate the associated factors of TLF in de novo coronary artery lesions with DCB treatment. METHODS: We retrospectively enrolled 328 de novo coronary artery lesions in 328 patients who had undergone PCI with a DCB. All lesions had been treated without a stent, and both pre- and post-PCI OCT had been carried out. Patients were divided into two groups, with or without TLF, which was defined as a composite of culprit lesion-related cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularisation, and the associated factors of TLF were assessed. RESULTS: At the median follow-up period of 460 days, TLF events occurred in 31 patients (9.5%) and were associated with patients requiring haemodialysis (HD; 29.0% vs 10.8%), with a severely calcified lesion (median maximum calcium arc 215° vs 104°), and with the absence of OCT medial dissection (16.1% vs 60.9%) as opposed to those without TLF events. In Cox multivariable logistic regression analysis, HD (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.26, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.00-5.11; p=0.049), maximum calcium arc (per 90°, HR: 1.34, 95% CI: 1.05-1.72; p=0.02), and the absence of post-PCI medial dissection on OCT (HR: 8.24, 95% CI: 3.15-21.6; p<0.001) were independently associated with TLF. CONCLUSIONS: In de novo coronary artery lesions that received DCB treatment, factors associated with TLF were being on HD, the presence of a severely calcified lesion, and the absence of post-PCI medial dissection.

Real-World Clinical Performance of a Novolimus-Eluting Stent Versus a Sirolimus-Eluting Stent.

INTRODUCTION: The DESyne novolimus-eluting coronary stent (NES) is a new-generation drug-eluting stent (DES) that is widely used, but clinical data are rarely reported for this stent. We compared the safety and effectiveness of the DESyne NES and the Orsiro bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS: This was a retrospective, single-center, observational study. Between July 2017 and December 2022, patients who presented with chronic or acute coronary syndrome undergoing PCI with DESyne NES or Orsiro SES were consecutively enrolled in the present study. The primary endpoint, major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), was a composite of cardiovascular death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target-lesion revascularization. RESULTS: A total of 776 patients (age 68.8 ± 12.2; 75.9% male) undergoing PCI were included. Overall, 231 patients with 313 lesions received NES and 545 patients with 846 lesions received SES. During a follow-up duration of 784 ± 522 days, the primary endpoint occurred in 10 patients (4.3%) in the NES group and in 36 patients (6.6%) in the SES group. After multivariate adjustment, the risk of MACE did not significantly differ between groups (NES vs. SES, hazard ratio 0.74, 95% CI, 0.35-1.55, p = 0.425). The event rate of individual components of the primary endpoint was comparable between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Favorable and similar clinical outcomes were observed in patients undergoing PCI with either NES or SES in a medium-term follow-up duration. Future studies with adequately powered clinical endpoints are required for further evaluation.

Coronary Artery Aneurysms and Acute Coronary Syndrome: An Interventionalist's Dilemma.

We report three cases of coronary artery aneurysm (CAA) in adults who presented with acute coronary syndrome. Two of these patients did not have traditional coronary artery disease risk factors. Management of CAA poses a significant challenge to interventionalists. We discuss the etiologic mechanisms, risk factors, pathophysiology, and diagnosis using angiography, intravascular ultrasound, and coronary computed tomography. We also highlight management options, including medical therapy and catheter-based interventions such as stenting, coil embolization, stent-assisted coil embolization, and surgical exclusion.

Temporal Trends in the Outcomes of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Zotarolimus Eluting Stents Versus Everolimus Eluting Stents: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

INTRODUCTION: Long-term follow-up results of various trials comparing Zotarolimus eluting stents (ZES) with Everolimus eluting stents (EES) have been published recently. Additionally, over the last decade, there have been new trials comparing the ZES with various commercially available EES. We aim to conduct an updated meta-analysis in light of new evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to provide comprehensive evidence regarding the temporal trends in the clinical outcomes. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase. RCTs comparing ZES with EES for short (<2 years), intermediate (2-3 years), and long-term follow-ups (3-5 years) were included. Relative risk was used to pool the dichotomous outcomes using the random effects model employing the inverse variance method. All statistical analysis was conducted using Revman 5.4. RESULTS: A total of 18 studies reporting data at different follow-ups for nine trials (n = 14319) were included. At short-term follow-up (<2 years), there were no significant differences between the two types of stents (all-cause death, cardiac death, Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), target vessel myocardial infarction, definite or probable stent thrombosis or safety outcomes (target vessel revascularization, target lesion revascularization, target vessel failure, target lesion failure). At intermediate follow-up (2-3 years), EES was superior to ZES for reducing target lesion revascularization (RR = 1.28, 95% CI = 1.05-1.58, p < 0.05). At long-term follow-up (3-5 years), there were no significant differences between the two groups for any of the pooled outcomes (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: ZES and EES have similar safety and efficacy at short, intermediate, and long-term follow-ups.

Systematic Review on Role of Drug Eluting Stent (DES) Versus Drug-Coated Balloon (DCB) in Small Vessel Coronary Artery Disease.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review aims to explain the current advancements in the treatment modalities for small vessel coronary artery disease (SVCAD) and de novo lesions post-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), focusing on drug-coated stents (DES) and drug-coated balloons (DCB). Its goal is to address the lack of standards in the management of these lesions and to assess the potential of DCB as a preferential treatment strategy over DES in the long term. RECENT FINDINGS: Technological advancements have improved drug-eluting stents (DES) and drug-coated balloons (DCB) which offer a more promising avenue for managing SVCAD. According to new data, DCBs, initially recognized for their efficacy in preventing restenosis within three to five years of stent placement, may offer superior outcomes compared to DES in certain clinical scenarios. This review shows that DCBs have a favorable therapeutic profile in the treatment of SVCAD, and they could be considered as an alternative to DES. Although the initial data is compelling, definitive conclusions cannot be met without further large-scale, long-term clinical trials. The implication of these findings suggests a shift in the future of SVCAD management and requires additional research to substantiate the long-term benefits of DCB use in SVCAD. Should ongoing and future studies corroborate the current evidence, DCB could emerge as the standard of care for SVCAD, significantly influencing clinical practices and future research.

A systematic review and bioinformatic study on clinical, paraclinical, and genetic factors predisposing to stent restenosis following percutaneous coronary intervention.

BACKGROUND: Stent restenosis is a relatively common phenomenon among patients with coronary heart disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). It seems that a set of clinical, laboratory, and even genetic factors make people susceptible to such a phenomenon and in fact, this is multi-factorial. We aimed to first determine the underlying clinical and laboratory risk factors for the occurrence of stent re-stenosis after PCI based on a systematic review study, and after that, through a bioinformatics study, to evaluate the related genes and microRNAs with the occurrence of stent re-stenosis. MAIN TEXT: In the first step, the manuscript databases including Medline, Web of Knowledge, Google Scholar, Scopus, and Cochrane were deeply searched by the two blinded investigators for all eligible studies based on the considered keywords to introduce clinical and laboratory determinants of stent re-stenosis. In the bioinformatic phase, and following a review of the literature to identify genes and microRNAs involved in restenosis, the interaction of each gene with other genes associated with stent re-stenosis was determined by GeneMANIA network analysis and Cytoscape software. Overall, 67 articles (including 40,789 patients) on clinical and biochemical predictors for stent restenosis and 25 articles on genetic determinants of this event were eligible for the final analysis. The predictors for this event were categorized into four subgroups patient-based parameters including traditional cardiovascular risk profiles, stent-based parameters including type and diametric characteristics of the stents used, coronary lesion-based parameters including several two target lesions and coronary involvement severity and laboratory-based parameters particularly related to activation of inflammatory processes. In the bioinformatic phase, we uncovered 42 genes that have been described to be involved in such a phenomenon considering a special position for genes encoding inflammatory cytokines. Also, 12 microRNAs have been pointed to be involved in targeting genes involved in stent re-stenosis. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of stent re-stenosis will be the result of a complex interaction of clinical risk factors, laboratory factors mostly related to the activation of inflammatory processes, and a complex network of gene-to-gene interactions.

Clinical outcomes with thin versus thick strut polymer-free biolimus-coated stents at 3 years.

BACKGROUND: For high bleeding-risk patients (HBR) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), the LEADERS FREE (LF) and LEADERS FREE II (LF II) trials established the safety and efficacy of a stainless steel polymer-free biolimus-coated stent (SS-BCS) with 30 days of dual antiplatelet treatment (DAPT). The LEADERS FREE III (LF III) trial investigated clinical outcomes after PCI with the next-generation cobalt-chromium thin-strut polymer-free biolimus-coated stent (CoCr-BCS) in HBR patients. AIMS: To report the final 3-year results of the LF III trial and compare them to LF II. METHODS: LF III was a prospective, multicentre, open-label single-arm study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the CoCr-BCS stent. The primary safety endpoint was the composite of cardiac death (CD), myocardial infarction(MI) or definite/probable stent thrombosis (ST). The primary efficacy endpoint was clinically driven target lesion revascularisation (cd-TLR). We performed a propensity-matched comparison to the 3-year outcomes of LF II. RESULTS: After 3 years, CD/MI/ST had occurred in 57 patients (15%, 95% CI 11.8% to 19%) and cd-TLR in 23 (6.2%, 95% CI 4.1% to 9.2%) patients. In a propensity-matched comparison of patients treated with the CoCr-BCS versus the SS-BCS, there were similar rates of CD (6.6% vs 7.8%, p=0.50), MI (7.1% vs 8.3%, p=0.47) and definite/probable ST (1.1% vs 2%, HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.93, p=0.35). The rates of cd-TLR were 5.3% with CoCr-BCS versus 9.8% with SS-BCS (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.96, p=0.03). CONCLUSION: LF III confirms the long-term safety and efficacy of the CoCr-BCS in HBR patients treated with 1 month of DAPT. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02843633, NCT03118895.

Durable-polymer versus biodegradable-polymer drug-eluting stents in acute coronary syndromes: three-year outcomes of the HOST REDUCE POLYTECH RCT Trial.

BACKGROUND: Long-term follow-up is essential to evaluate the impact of polymer degradation in drug-eluting stents (DES). AIMS: We aimed to compare durable-polymer DES (DP-DES) and biodegradable-polymer DES (BP-DES) during a 3-year follow-up to evaluate the entire period of polymer resolution (before, during, and after degradation). METHODS: The HOST REDUCE POLYTECH RCT Trial was a randomised clinical trial enrolling patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and comparing the efficacy and safety of DP-DES and BP-DES. The primary outcome was a patient-oriented composite outcome (POCO), and the key secondary outcome was a device-oriented composite outcome (DOCO). RESULTS: A total of 3,413 ACS patients were randomised to either the DP-DES (1,713 patients) or BP-DES (1,700 patients) group. During the 3-year follow-up, the risk of the POCO was similar between the DP-DES and BP-DES groups (14.8% vs 15.4%, hazard ratio [HR] 0.96, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.80-1.14; p=0.613). However, the risk of the DOCO was lower in the DP-DES group (6.0% vs 8.0%, HR 0.73, 95% CI: 0.57-0.95; p=0.020). In a landmark analysis, the lower risk of the DOCO for the DP-DES group was evident during the transition from the early to the late period after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (from 8 to 16 months post-PCI; 1.8% vs 3.3%, HR 0.54, 95% CI: 0.34-0.84; p=0.007), which was mainly driven by a risk reduction of target lesion revascularisation. CONCLUSIONS: In ACS patients, DP-DES showed similar results to BP-DES regarding the POCO up to 3 years. For the DOCO, DP-DES were superior to BP-DES; this was due to the higher event rate during the period of polymer degradation.

Coronary Artery Obstruction After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: Past, Present, and Future.

Coronary obstruction (CO) is a rare but critical complication of transcatheter aortic valve implantation. It is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. This comprehensive review elucidates the evolving landscape of CO risk assessment and management strategies in the contemporary era of transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Drawing upon recent advances in computed tomography angiography, we delve into the nuanced evaluation of anatomic parameters crucial for predicting CO risk. Furthermore, this review explores the utility of interventional and surgical techniques, including chimney stenting and leaflet modification systems, in mitigating CO complications. In summary, this review serves as a practical guide for clinicians navigating the complexities of CO prevention and management in the evolving landscape of transcatheter aortic valve implantation, with the goal of optimizing patient outcomes and ensuring procedural success.

QFR for the Revascularization of Nonculprit Vessels in MI Patients: Insights From the FIRE Trial.

BACKGROUND: The role of quantitative flow ratio (QFR) in the treatment of nonculprit vessels of patients with myocardial infarction (MI) is a topic of ongoing discussion. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to investigate the predictive capability of QFR for adverse events and its noninferiority compared to wire-based functional assessment in nonculprit vessels of MI patients. METHODS: The FIRE (Functional Assessment in Elderly MI Patients With Multivessel Disease) trial randomized 1,445 older MI patients to culprit-only (n = 725) or physiology-guided complete revascularization (n = 720). In the culprit-only arm, angiographic projections of nonculprit vessels were prospectively collected, centrally reviewed for QFR computation, and associated with endpoints. In the complete revascularization arm, endpoints were compared between nonculprit vessels investigated with QFR or wire-based functional assessment. The primary endpoint was the vessel-oriented composite endpoint (VOCE) at 1 year. RESULTS: QFR was measured on 903 nonculprit vessels from 685 patients in the culprit-only arm. Overall, 366 (40.5%) nonculprit vessels showed a QFR value ≤0.80, with a significantly higher incidence of VOCEs (22.1% vs 7.1%; P < 0.001). QFR ≤0.80 emerged as an independent predictor of VOCEs (HR: 2.79; 95% CI: 1.64-4.75). In the complete arm, QFR was used in 320 (35.2%) nonculprit vessels to guide revascularization. When compared with propensity-matched nonculprit vessels in which treatment was guided by wire-based functional assessment, no significant difference was observed (HR: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.28-1.15) in VOCEs. CONCLUSIONS: This prespecified subanalysis of the FIRE trial provides evidence supporting the safety and efficacy of QFR-guided interventions for the treatment of nonculprit vessels in MI patients. (Functional Assessment in Elderly MI Patients With Multivessel Disease [FIRE]; NCT03772743).

Biolimus-coated versus paclitaxel-coated balloons for coronary in-stent restenosis (BIO ASCEND ISR): a randomised, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of in-stent restenosis (ISR) after drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation remains challenging in current clinical practice. AIMS: The study was conducted to investigate a novel biolimus-coated balloon (BCB) for the treatment of coronary DES-ISR compared with the best-investigated paclitaxel-coated balloon (PCB). METHODS: This was a prospective, multicentre, randomised, non-inferiority trial comparing a novel BCB with a clinically proven PCB for coronary DES-ISR. The primary endpoint was in-segment late lumen loss (LLL) at 9 months assessed by an independent core laboratory. Baseline and follow-up optical coherence tomography were performed in a prespecified subgroup of patients. RESULTS: A total of 280 patients at 17 centres were randomised to treatment with a BCB (n=140) versus a PCB (n=140). At 9 months, LLL in the BCB group was 0.23±0.37 mm compared to 0.25±0.35 mm in the PCB group; the mean difference between the groups was -0.02 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.12 to 0.07) mm; p-value for non-inferiority<0.0001. Similar clinical outcomes were also observed for both groups at 12 months. In the optical coherence tomography substudy, the neointimal area at 9 months was 2.32±1.04 mm2 in the BCB group compared to 2.37±0.93 mm2 in the PCB group; the mean difference between the groups was -0.09 (95% CI: -0.94 to 0.76) mm2; p=non-significant. CONCLUSIONS: This head-to-head comparison of a novel BCB shows similar angiographic outcomes in the treatment of coronary DES-ISR compared with a clinically proven PCB. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04733443).

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.