Using Coronary Artery Calcium Score as Diagnostic Tool in Symptomatic Chronic Coronary Syndrome Patients in a Real-Life Setting.

Background: The coronary artery calcium (CAC) score can be used to increase (CAC score > 0) or decrease (CAC score = 0) the likelihood of coronary artery disease (CAD). We compared the CAC score with the pre-test probability (PTP) for CAD (low, intermediate, and high). Furthermore, we compared the CAC score with exercise electrocardiography (ECG) and compared both tests with coronary angiography. Methods and Results: We retrospectively identified patients with angina and/or dyspnea for whom CAC score was used to increase or decrease the likelihood of CAD. Of 882 patients, majority had low (45%) or intermediate (44%) PTP. Patients with higher PTP had significantly higher CAC scores (Cramer's V = 0.29, p < 0.0001). Most patients (57%) had a CAC score of zero, especially those with low (73%) and intermediate (49%) PTP. However, 20% of patients with high PTP had CAC score of zero. Higher CAC scores were observed in patients with abnormal exercise ECG, but association was weak and not significant (Cramer's V = 0.13, p = 0.08). Moreover, more than 40% of patients with an abnormal exercise ECG had CAC score of zero. Higher CAC scores were associated with more severe abnormalities on coronary angiography (Cramer's V = 0.43, p < 0.0001), whereas there was no association between results of exercise ECG and coronary angiography (Cramer's V = 0.11, p = 0.91). Conclusion: CAC score can be used in addition to PTP to increase or decrease the likelihood of CAD, and it might be more useful than exercise ECG in the diagnostic work-up of chest pain.

Less bleeding by omitting aspirin in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome patients: Rationale and design of the LEGACY study.

BACKGROUND: Early aspirin withdrawal, also known as P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy, following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) can reduce bleeding without a trade-off in efficacy. Still the average daily bleeding risk is highest during the first months and it remains unclear if aspirin can be omitted immediately following PCI. METHODS: The LEGACY study is an open-label, multicenter randomized controlled trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of immediate P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy versus dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for 12 months in 3,090 patients. Patients are randomized immediately following successful PCI for NSTE-ACS to 75-100 mg aspirin once daily versus no aspirin. The primary hypothesis is that immediately omitting aspirin is superior to DAPT with respect to major or minor bleeding defined as Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding, while maintaining noninferiority for the composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction and stroke compared to DAPT. CONCLUSIONS: The LEGACY study is the first randomized study that is specifically designed to evaluate the impact of immediately omitting aspirin, and thus treating patients with P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy, as compared to DAPT for 12 months on bleeding and ischemic events within 12 months following PCI for NSTE-ACS.

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.

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.

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.

The relationship of pre-procedural Dmax based sizing to lesion level outcomes in Absorb BVS and Xience EES treated patients in the AIDA trial.

Due to expansion limits of the Absorb bioresorbable scaffold a meticulous implantation with correct sizing is required. We sought to investigate the clinical outcomes based on the sizing of the device related to the maximal lumen diameter measured by quantitative coronary angiography in Absorb BVS and Xience EES treated lesions in the AIDA trial. Sizing of Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) and Xience everolimus eluting stent (EES) was graded according to the definitions of device non-oversize and device oversize on pre-procedural angiography. Lesion-oriented outcomes (LOCE) (device thrombosis, TLR and TVMI) that occurred during 2 years follow-up were related to device non-oversized or oversized status. In the Absorb BVS group, LOCE occurred in 48 (7.4%) lesions in the oversized group and in 32 (8.2%) lesions in the non-oversized group (HR 0.91; 95% CI 0.58-1.42; p = 0.681), whereas TLR occurred in 34 (5.3%) lesions and in 23 lesions (5.9%), respectively (HR 0.89; 95% CI 0.52-1.51; p = 0.666). Definite scaffold thrombosis occurred in 11 (1.7%) device oversized treated lesions against 16 (4.1%) device non-oversized treated lesions (HR 0.41; 95% CI 0.19-0.89; p = 0.020). There were no differences in event rates between oversized and non-oversized groups in lesions treated with Xience EES. There was no significant difference in LOCE between oversized and non-oversized treated Absorb BVS and Xience EES treated lesions. Non-oversized Absorb BVS implantation was associated with a higher risk of scaffold thrombosis at complete 2 years follow-up. The majority of very late scaffold thrombosis occurred in properly sized devices.

Paclitaxel-eluting balloon versus everolimus-eluting stent in patients with diabetes mellitus and in-stent restenosis: Insights from the randomized DARE trial.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the relative performance of treatment with a paclitaxel-eluting balloon (PEB) compared with an everolimus-eluting stent (EES) for in-stent restenosis (ISR) in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM). BACKGROUND: ISR remains a challenge in contemporary clinical practice, particularly in patients with DM. METHODS: In the multicenter randomized DARE trial, patients with BMS or DES ISR were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to treatment with a PEB or an EES. Patients underwent angiographic follow-up after 6 months. For the purpose of this analysis, the relative performance of PEB versus EES in diabetic patients was investigated. RESULTS: Of 278 patients enrolled in DARE, 88 (32%) had DM, of whom 46 were randomized to EES and 42 to PEB treatment. Of patients with DM, 48 (55%) had DES-ISR. Angiographic follow-up was available in 30 patients (72%) in the PEB group and 36 patients (78%) in the DES group. There were no differences in terms of 6-months minimal lumen diameter in diabetic patients treated with EES (1.46 ± 0.66 mm) versus PEB (1.78 ± 0.58 mm, P = 0.15). Adverse events at one year follow-up were similar in both groups, with Major Adverse Events (MAE, death, target vessel MI, or TVR) occurring in 17.4% in the EES group versus 11.9% in the PEB group, P = 0.44. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ISR and DM, use of a PEB resulted in similar 6-months in-segment minimal lumen diameter and comparable rates of MAE. In-segment late loss at 6 months was significantly lower in the PEB arm. Although larger trials in DM patients with ISR are necessary, PEB is a promising treatment option obviating the need for additional stent implantation.

Nur77 protects against adverse cardiac remodelling by limiting neuropeptide Y signalling in the sympathoadrenal-cardiac axis.

Aims: Cardiac remodelling and heart failure are promoted by persistent sympathetic activity. We recently reported that nuclear receptor Nur77 may protect against sympathetic agonist-induced cardiac remodelling in mice. The sympathetic co-transmitter neuropeptide Y (NPY) is co-released with catecholamines and is a known cardiac modulator and predictor of heart failure mortality. Recently, transcriptome analyses revealed NPY as a putative target of Nur77. In this study, we assess whether Nur77 modulates adverse cardiac remodelling via NPY signalling. Methods and results: Nur77 represses NPY expression in the PC12 adrenal chromaffin cell line. Accordingly, NPY levels are higher in adrenal gland, plasma, and heart from Nur77-KO compared to wild-type mice. Conditioned medium from Nur77-silenced chromaffin cells and serum from Nur77-KO mice induce marked hypertrophy in cultured neonatal rat cardiomyocytes, which is inhibited by the NPY type 1 receptor (NPY1R) antagonist BIBO3304. In cardiomyocytes from Nur77-KO mice, intracellular Ca2+ is increased partially via the NPY1R. This is independent from elevated circulating NPY since cardiomyocyte-specific Nur77-deficient mice (CM-KO) do not have elevated circulating NPY, but do exhibit BIBO3304-sensitive, increased cardiomyocyte intracellular Ca2+. In vivo, this translates to NPY1R antagonism attenuating cardiac calcineurin activity and isoproterenol-induced cardiomyocyte hypertrophy and fibrosis in full-body Nur77-KO mice, but not in CM-KO mice. Conclusions: The cardioprotective action of Nur77 can be ascribed to both inhibition of circulating NPY levels and to cardiomyocyte-specific modulation of NPY-NPY1R signalling. These results reveal the underlying mechanism of Nur77 as a promising modifier gene in heart failure.

Complete two-year follow-up with formal non-inferiority testing on primary outcomes of the AIDA trial comparing the Absorb bioresorbable scaffold with the XIENCE drug-eluting metallic stent in routine PCI.

AIMS: The aim of this report of the AIDA trial is to provide full two-year outcomes for the primary endpoint of target vessel failure (TVF) and an update on device thrombosis. METHODS AND RESULTS: AIDA was a single-blind, multicentre, investigator-initiated, non-inferiority, randomised (1:1) clinical trial. At complete two-year follow-up, the primary endpoint of TVF had occurred in 100 patients in the Absorb BVS arm versus 90 patients in the XIENCE EES arm (HR 1.12, 95% CI: 0.94-1.49; psuperiority=0.436). Estimated two-year Kaplan-Meier event rates of TVF were 11.0% and 9.9%, respectively (95% CI: -0.9%-3.0%; pnon-inferiority=0.003). Definite or probable device thrombosis at two years occurred in 30 patients in the Absorb BVS arm and in eight patients in the XIENCE EES arm. Kaplan-Meier estimates of device thrombosis were 3.3% in the Absorb BVS arm and 0.9% in the XIENCE EES arm (HR 5.22, 95% CI: 2.00-13.59; p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: AIDA formally met its criterion for non-inferiority of Absorb BVS versus XIENCE EES in terms of the combined endpoint of TVF. The Absorb BVS, however, was associated with higher rates of scaffold thrombosis and target vessel myocardial infarction at complete two-year follow-up.

A Randomized Comparison of Paclitaxel-Eluting Balloon Versus Everolimus-Eluting Stent for the Treatment of Any In-Stent Restenosis: The DARE Trial.

OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to evaluate the relative performance of a drug-eluting balloon (DEB) and a drug-eluting stent (DES) in patients with any (bare-metal or drug-eluting stent) in-stent restenosis (ISR). BACKGROUND: The treatment of ISR remains challenging in contemporary clinical practice. METHODS: In a multicenter randomized noninferiority trial, patients with any ISR were randomly allocated in a 1:1 fashion to treatment with a DEB (SeQuent Please paclitaxel-eluting balloon, B. Braun Melsungen, Melsungen, Germany), or a DES (XIENCE everolimus-eluting stent, Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, California). The primary endpoint was noninferiority in terms of in-segment minimal lumen diameter (MLD) at 6-month angiographic follow-up. Secondary endpoints included angiographic parameters at 6 months and clinical follow-up up to 12 months. RESULTS: A total of 278 patients, of whom 56% had DES-ISR, were randomized at 8 sites to treatment with DEB (n = 141) or DES (n = 137). As compared with DEB, DES was associated with larger MLD and lower % stenosis immediately post-procedure (1.84 ± 0.46 vs. 1.72 ± 0.35; p = 0.018; and 26 ± 10% vs. 30 ± 10%; p = 0.03). Angiographic follow up was completed at 196 ± 53 days in 79% of patients. With respect to the primary endpoint of in-segment MLD at 6 months, DEB was noninferior to DES (DEB 1.71 ± 0.51 mm vs. DES 1.74 ± 0.61 mm; p for noninferiority <0.0001). Target vessel revascularization at 12-month follow-up was similar in both groups (DES 7.1% vs. DEB 8.8%; p = 0.65). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ISR, treatment with DEB was noninferior compared with DES in terms of 6-month MLD. There were no differences in clinical endpoints, including target vessel revascularization up to 12 months. Therefore, use of a DEB is an attractive treatment option for in-stent restenosis, withholding the need for additional stent implantation.

Scaffold thrombosis following implantation of the ABSORB BVS in routine clinical practice: Insight into possible mechanisms from optical coherence tomography.

OBJECTIVES: To identify potential underlying mechanisms of early and (very) late scaffold thrombosis (ScT) by optical coherence tomography (OCT), in a frame-by-frame analysis. BACKGROUND: The absorb scaffold is associated with an increased risk of ScT compared with metallic stents. Several potential causes of bioresorbable ScT have been identified, however the precise etiology still remains unclear. METHODS: Between February 2013 and February 2016, 13 patients presenting with definite ScT underwent OCT imaging. After guidewire passage or balloon inflations, OCT images were acquired. Pullbacks were assessed offline at each 1 mm longitudinal interval within the treated segment and the 5 mm segments adjacent to both edges. Primary cause of ScT was assessed by reviewing medical records, baseline angiographic films, and OCT pullback and angiographic films at time of ScT. RESULTS: 13 patients, with 14 thrombotic lesions presented either with early ScT (i.e., ≤30 days) or very (late) (i.e., >30 days). Analysis demonstrated a significantly smaller in-scaffold maximal lumen diameter in the early cases (2.75 ± 0.85 mm vs. 3.00 ± 0.46 mm; P = 0.033) and a nonsignificant smaller minimal scaffold diameter (2.44 ± 0.62 mm vs. 2.58 ± 0.37 mm P = 0.097). Per-strut analysis demonstrated significantly more malapposed scaffold struts in (very) late cases (6% versus 0.6%, P < 0.001). Assessment of the predominate cause showed underexpansion as the dominant factor in the early cases, while malapposition was predominantly seen in the (very)late cases. CONCLUSIONS: OCT performed in patients presenting with Absorb ScT demonstrated that malapposition of scaffold struts was more prominent in patients presenting with (very) late ScT, while underexpansion was more frequent in the early cases.

A sirolimus-eluting bioabsorbable polymer-coated stent (MiStent) versus an everolimus-eluting durable polymer stent (Xience) after percutaneous coronary intervention (DESSOLVE III): a randomised, single-blind, multicentre, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: MiStent is a drug-eluting stent with a fully absorbable polymer coating containing and embedding a microcrystalline form of sirolimus into the vessel wall. It was developed to overcome the limitation of current durable polymer drug-eluting stents eluting amorphous sirolimus. The clinical effect of MiStent sirolimus-eluting stent compared with a durable polymer drug-eluting stents has not been investigated in a large randomised trial in an all-comer population. METHODS: We did a randomised, single-blind, multicentre, phase 3 study (DESSOLVE III) at 20 hospitals in Germany, France, Netherlands, and Poland. Eligible participants were any patients aged at least 18 years who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention in a lesion and had a reference vessel diameter of 2·50-3·75 mm. We randomly assigned patients (1:1) to implantation of either a sirolimus-eluting bioresorbable polymer stent (MiStent) or an everolimus-eluting durable polymer stent (Xience). Randomisation was done by local investigators via web-based software with random blocks according to centre. The primary endpoint was a non-inferiority comparison of a device-oriented composite endpoint (DOCE)-cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically indicated target lesion revascularisation-between the groups at 12 months after the procedure assessed by intention-to-treat. A margin of 4·0% was defined for non-inferiority of the MiStent group compared with the Xience group. All participants were included in the safety analyses. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02385279. FINDINGS: Between March 20, and Dec 3, 2015, we randomly assigned 1398 patients with 2030 lesions; 703 patients with 1037 lesions were assigned to MiStent, of whom 697 received the index procedure, and 695 patients with 993 lesions were asssigned to Xience, of whom 690 received the index procedure. At 12 months, the primary endpoint had occurred in 40 patients (5·8%) in the sirolimus-eluting stent group and in 45 patients (6·5%) in the everolimus-eluting stent group (absolute difference -0·8% [95% CI -3·3 to 1·8], pnon-inferiority=0·0001). Procedural complications occurred in 12 patients (1·7%) in the sirolimus-eluting stent group and ten patients (1·4%) in the everolimus-eluting stent group; no clinical adverse events could be attributed to these dislodgements through a minimum of 12 months of follow-up. The rate of stent thrombosis, a safety indicator, did not differ between groups and was low in both treatment groups. INTERPRETATION: The sirolimus-eluting bioabsorbable polymer stent was non-inferior to the everolimus-eluting durable polymer stent for a device-oriented composite clinical endpoint at 12 months in an all-comer population. MiStent seems a reasonable alternative to other stents in clinical practice. FUNDING: The European Cardiovascular Research Institute, Micell Technologies (Durham, NC, USA), and Stentys (Paris, France).

Bioresorbable Scaffolds versus Metallic Stents in Routine PCI.

BACKGROUND: Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds were developed to overcome the shortcomings of drug-eluting stents in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We performed an investigator-initiated, randomized trial to compare an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold with an everolimus-eluting metallic stent in the context of routine clinical practice. METHODS: We randomly assigned 1845 patients undergoing PCI to receive either a bioresorbable vascular scaffold (924 patients) or a metallic stent (921 patients). The primary end point was target-vessel failure (a composite of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or target-vessel revascularization). The data and safety monitoring board recommended early reporting of the study results because of safety concerns. This report provides descriptive information on end-point events. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 707 days. Target-vessel failure occurred in 105 patients in the scaffold group and in 94 patients in the stent group (2-year cumulative event rates, 11.7% and 10.7%, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85 to 1.48; P=0.43); event rates were based on Kaplan-Meier estimates in time-to-event analyses. Cardiac death occurred in 18 patients in the scaffold group and in 23 patients in the stent group (2-year cumulative event rates, 2.0% and 2.7%, respectively), target-vessel myocardial infarction occurred in 48 patients in the scaffold group and in 30 patients in the stent group (2-year cumulative event rates, 5.5% and 3.2%), and target-vessel revascularization occurred in 76 patients in the scaffold group and in 65 patients in the stent group (2-year cumulative event rates, 8.7% and 7.5%). Definite or probable device thrombosis occurred in 31 patients in the scaffold group as compared with 8 patients in the stent group (2-year cumulative event rates, 3.5% vs. 0.9%; hazard ratio, 3.87; 95% CI, 1.78 to 8.42; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this preliminary report of a trial involving patients undergoing PCI, there was no significant difference in the rate of target-vessel failure between the patients who received a bioresorbable scaffold and the patients who received a metallic stent. The bioresorbable scaffold was associated with a higher incidence of device thrombosis than the metallic stent through 2 years of follow-up. (Funded by Abbott Vascular; AIDA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01858077 .).

Orphan nuclear receptor Nur77 affects cardiomyocyte calcium homeostasis and adverse cardiac remodelling.

Distinct stressors may induce heart failure. As compensation, ß-adrenergic stimulation enhances myocardial contractility by elevating cardiomyocyte intracellular Ca(2+) ([Ca(2+)]i). However, chronic ß-adrenergic stimulation promotes adverse cardiac remodelling. Cardiac expression of nuclear receptor Nur77 is enhanced by ß-adrenergic stimulation, but its role in cardiac remodelling is still unclear. We show high and rapid Nur77 upregulation in cardiomyocytes stimulated with ß-adrenergic agonist isoproterenol. Nur77 knockdown in culture resulted in hypertrophic cardiomyocytes. Ventricular cardiomyocytes from Nur77-deficient (Nur77-KO) mice exhibited elevated diastolic and systolic [Ca(2+)]i and prolonged action potentials compared to wild type (WT). In vivo, these differences resulted in larger cardiomyocytes, increased expression of hypertrophic genes, and more cardiac fibrosis in Nur77-KO mice upon chronic isoproterenol stimulation. In line with the observed elevated [Ca(2+)]i, Ca(2+)-activated phosphatase calcineurin was more active in Nur77-KO mice compared to WT. In contrast, after cardiac pressure overload by aortic constriction, Nur77-KO mice exhibited attenuated remodelling compared to WT. Concluding, Nur77-deficiency results in significantly altered cardiac Ca(2+) homeostasis and distinct remodelling outcome depending on the type of insult. Detailed knowledge on the role of Nur77 in maintaining cardiomyocyte Ca(2+) homeostasis and the dual role Nur77 plays in cardiac remodelling will aid in developing personalized therapies against heart failure.

Initial experience and clinical evaluation of the Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) in real-world practice: the AMC Single Centre Real World PCI Registry.

AIMS: To report procedural and midterm clinical outcomes after the use of the second-generation Absorb everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold (Absorb BVS) in a real-world percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) registry. METHODS AND RESULTS: All patients assigned to treatment with the Absorb BVS in the Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, between August 2012 and August 2013 were included in a prospective registry. A total of 135 patients were included in the study, including 53 (39%) acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients (13% ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction [STEMI]). In total 159 lesions were treated, including 102 (62%) with a type B2 or C classification. Pre- and post-procedural quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) analyses showed an acute gain of 1.37±0.53 mm. An angiographic success rate was achieved in 152 (96%) of the lesions. Six-month follow-up was available in 97% of the patients. Six-month cumulative target vessel failure (composite of all-cause mortality, any myocardial infarction [MI] and target vessel revascularisation [TVR]) rate was 8.5%, including a 3.0% MI, 3.0% definite scaffold thrombosis, 6.3% target lesion revascularisation, and an 8.5% TVR rate. CONCLUSIONS: The use of the Absorb BVS in a cohort reflecting daily clinical practice is feasible and associated with good procedural safety and angiographic success rate. In addition, six-month follow-up is associated with acceptable clinical outcomes.

First report on long-term clinical results after treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions with the Tryton dedicated bifurcation stent.

BACKGROUND: To improve clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary interventions of coronary bifurcation lesions, the Tryton Side Branch Stent™ (Tryton Medical, Durham) was developed. Registry studies evaluating the Tryton stent has shown promisingclinical results and the stent is currently compared with the provisional single stent strategy in a randomized trial. However, clinical results beyond one year are lacking, and therefore, we investigated the one- and two-year outcomes after Tryton stent placement in a single-center registry study. METHODS AND RESULTS: All patients in our center in whom Tryton placement was attempted between October 2010 and December 2011 were included. Clinical outcomes were defined as cardiac death, any myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularization (TVR), target lesion revascularization (TLR), stent thrombosis (ST), and target vessel failure (TVF; composite of cardiac death, MI, and TVR). Event rates were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. We included 91 patients. Almost half (42%) of the patients included had acute coronary syndrome (ACS) as indication for PCI (12% unstable angina, 14% NSTEMI, and 16% STEMI). Median follow-up duration was 713 days (IQR 617-840). TVF rates were 14.5% (one year) and 20.3% (two year). Two-year cardiac death, MI, TVR, TLR and ST rates were 4.4%, 10.2%, 12.7%, 9.2%, and 2.2%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In this single-center registry, use of the Tryton stent was associated with acceptable clinical outcomes at two-year follow-up.

Amsterdam Investigator-initiateD Absorb strategy all-comers trial (AIDA trial): a clinical evaluation comparing the efficacy and performance of ABSORB everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold strategy vs the XIENCE family (XIENCE PRIME or XIENCE Xpedition) everolimus-eluting coronary stent strategy in the treatment of coronary lesions in consecutive all-comers: rationale and study design.

BACKGROUND: The Absorb everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold (AbsorbBVS) is a completely resorbable device engineered to overcome the limitations of permanent metallic stents, providing temporary scaffolding and antiproliferative drug delivery for the treatment of obstructive coronary artery disease. METHODS: The objective of the AIDA trial is to evaluate the efficacy and performance in an contemporary all-comer population of the AbsorbBVS strategy vs the XIENCE family everolimus-eluting metallic coronary stent system in the treatment of coronary lesions. The AIDA trial is a prospective, randomized (1:1), active-control, single-blinded, all-comer, noninferiority trial. A total of 2,690 subjects will be enrolled with broad inclusion and limited exclusion criteria according to the "Instructions for Use" of the AbsorbBVS strategy. The study population includes both simple and complex lesions, in patients with stable and acute coronary syndrome. The follow-up continues for 5years. The primary end point of the trial is target vessel failure, defined as the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization, at 2years. This study is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov with number NCT01858077. CONCLUSION: The AIDA trial will provide the first randomized direct comparison between the everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold and the everolimus-eluting metallic stent in contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention practice.