[Exposure Therapy with the Help of a Wearable Defibrillator Device used in the Treatment of Severe Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder and Congenital LQTS - An Example for Interdisciplinary Treatment]. / Expositionsbehandlung mithilfe einer Defibrillatorweste bei schwerer Zwangsstörung und angeborenem Long-QT-Syndrom.

We report on a case of a young female suffering from both obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and a severe underlying cardiac disease. Due to the somatic comorbidity, treatment according to guidelines with exposure and reaction prevention was not initially conducted, due to potentially fatal risks to the patient. However, through collaboration with a cardiology clinic, we were able to find an innovative solution which allowed for the continuation of the exposure therapy. This case report demonstrates a successful interdisciplinary collaboration and is intended to sensitize the reader to the need for checking for somatic contraindications before conducting exposure therapy.

Vascular complications after percutaneous mitral valve repair and venous access closure using suture or closure device.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the impact of different access-site closure strategies, suture or closure device (Proglide, Abbott Vascular), on vascular and bleeding complications after percutaneous mitral valve repair (MitraClip, Abbott Vascular). BACKGROUND: Considering the high-risk profile in patients receiving percutaneous mitral valve repair, complications related to the large 24 Fr access sheath and its relation to the closure technique have not been evaluated so far. METHODS AND RESULTS: Between 2009 and 2015, 277 consecutive high-risk patients with severe mitral valve regurgitation (MR) underwent percutaneous mitral valve repair at our institution using Z-suture (n = 150) or closure device (n = 127) to close the access-site. Duplex sonography was performed in all patients. The primary endpoint was access-site related complications according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC) criteria. Secondary outcomes were the incidence of bleeding complications and mortality. Access-site related VARC2 major and minor complications were comparable after closure with Z-suture or closure device (2,7% vs 3.1%, P = 0.81 and 15,3% vs 15.7%, P = 0.92). Three patients (2%) in the suture and four patients (3.1%) in the closure device group experienced unplanned endovascular intervention at the access site. Access-site related major bleeding was observed in 4 (2.7%) suture and 4 (3.1%) closure device treated patients (P = 0.81). No access site related mortality occurred. CONCLUSION: Both Z-suture and closure device use after percutaneous mitral valve repair are feasible and safe. However, there is no benefit of one strategy over the other according to VARC2 major and minor complications.

Predictors for long-term survival after transcatheter edge-to-edge mitral valve repair.

OBJECTIVES: To determine predictors for long-term outcome in high-risk patients undergoing transcatheter edge-to-edge mitral valve repair (TMVR) for severe mitral regurgitation (MR). BACKGROUND: There is no data on predictors of long-term outcome in high-risk real-world patients. METHODS: From August 2009 to April 2011, 126 high-risk patients deemed inoperable were treated with TMVR in two high-volume university centers. RESULTS: MR could be successfully reduced to grade ≤2 in 92.1% of patients (116/126 patients). Long-term clinical follow-up up to 5 years (95.2% follow-up rate) revealed a mortality rate of 35.7% (45/126 patients). Repeat mitral valve treatment (surgery or intervention) was needed in 19 patients (15.1%). Long-term clinical improvement was demonstrated with 69% of patients being in NYHA class ≤II. In a multivariable Cox regression analysis, the post-procedural grade of MR (hazard ratio [HR] 1.55 per grade, P = 0.035), the left ventricular ejection fraction (HR 0.58 for difference between 75th and 25th percentile, P = 0.031) and the glomerular filtration rate (HR 0.33 for 75th vs 25th percentile, P < 0.001) were independent predictors for long-term mortality. Patients with primary MR and a post-procedural MR grade ≤1 had the most favorable long-term outcome. CONCLUSIONS: This study determines predictors of long-term clinical outcome after TMVR and demonstrates that the grade of residual MR determines long-term survival. Our data suggest that it might be of benefit reducing residual MR to the lowest possible MR grade using TMVR-especially in selected high-risk patients with primary MR who are not considered as candidates for surgical MVR.

Long-Term Outcomes After MitraClip Implantation According to the Presence or Absence of EVEREST Inclusion Criteria.

Numerous patients are treated with the MitraClip, although they do not fulfill the stringent inclusion criteria of the Endovascular Valve Edge-to-Edge Repair Study (EVEREST) trials. The outcome of those patients is not well known. Therefore, we compared the long-term outcome after MitraClip treatment between patients who matched (group 1) and did not match (group 2) the EVEREST criteria. One hundred thirty-four consecutive patients were treated from September 2009 to July 2012: 59 patients (44%) in group 1 versus 75 patients (56%) in group 2. Investigated end points were acute procedural success (for group 1 vs 2: 97% vs 95%; p = 0.694), all-cause mortality (28% vs 27%; p = 0.656), reintervention (RI) rate (11% vs 37%; p = 0.010), and improvement in mitral regurgitation (MR) (-1.3 ± 1 vs -1.5 ± 1, p = 0.221) and in New York Heart Association functional class (-0.7 ± 1 vs -0.9 ± 0.8, p = 0.253) during the follow-up of 33 months (27.9 to 38.3). The morphologic extent of a flail leaflet was an independent predictor for RI. In conclusion, although the overall outcome was comparable between both groups, recurrent symptomatic MR with need for RI was higher in group 2, mainly because of complex valve pathologies: especially flail width >15 mm and gap ≥10 mm. Improvements in the interventional strategy are warranted for reducing the need for RI in patients with primary MR.

Acute and Midterm Outcome After MitraClip Therapy in Patients With Severe Mitral Regurgitation and Left Ventricular Dysfunction.

The clinical outcome of patients with severe primary and secondary mitral regurgitation (MR) and heart failure or significantly reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) who underwent percutaneous mitral valve repair (pMVR) is yet not well known. This study compares midterm outcome of patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction (EF ≤30%) versus patients with slightly or moderately reduced or normal LVEF (EF >30%) after pMVR. One hundred thirty-six consecutive patients were enrolled: 42 patients displayed severe left ventricular dysfunction, group 1 (logistic EuroSCORE I 27.7 ± 21.8%; secondary MR in 37 patients), and 94 patients displayed slightly or moderately reduced or normal LVEF, group 2 (logistic EuroSCORE I 17 ± 18.2%; secondary MR in 21 patients). The primary efficacy endpoint was death of any cause, repeat mitral valve intervention, and/or New York Heart Association class ≥III, which was reached in 31% of patients in group 1 versus 40% in group 2 (p = 0.719) at a median follow-up of 371 days. MR, graded by transthoracic echocardiography, was reduced in both groups (p <0.001) and New York Heart Association class improved in each group (p <0.001), with no differences between groups (p >0.05). In conclusion, at midterm follow-up, the pMVR provided significant clinical benefits with comparable results achieved both in patients with significantly reduced and in patients with moderately reduced to normal LVEF. Thus, pMVR represents a feasible and effective treatment in high-risk patients who otherwise have limited therapeutic options and no safe option to reduce MR.

Comparison of vascular closure devices vs manual compression after femoral artery puncture: the ISAR-CLOSURE randomized clinical trial.

IMPORTANCE: The role of vascular closure devices (VCD) for the achievement of hemostasis in patients undergoing transfemoral coronary angiography remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes with the use of 2 hemostasis strategies after diagnostic coronary angiography performed via transfemoral access-a VCD-based strategy with 2 types of devices, an intravascular device and an extravascular device, vs standard manual compression. The primary hypothesis to be tested was that femoral hemostasis achieved through VCD is noninferior to manual compression in terms of vascular access-site complications. A secondary objective was the comparison of the 2 types of VCD. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized, large-scale, multicenter, open-label clinical trial. We enrolled 4524 patients undergoing coronary angiography with a 6 French sheath via the common femoral artery from April 2011 through May 2014 in 4 centers in Germany. Last 30-day follow-up was performed in July 2014. INTERVENTIONS: After angiography of the access site, patients were randomized to hemostasis with an intravascular VCD, extravascular VCD, or manual compression in a 1:1:1 ratio. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Primary end point: the composite of access site-related vascular complications at 30 days after randomization with a 2% noninferiority margin. Secondary end points: time to hemostasis, repeat manual compression, and VCD failure. An α-level of .025 was chosen for primary and secondary comparisons. RESULTS: Of the 4524 enrolled patients, 3015 were randomly assigned to a VCD group (1509 received intravascular VCD and 1506 received extravascular VCD) and 1509 patients were randomly assigned to the manual compression group. Before hospital discharge, duplex sonography of the access site was performed in 4231 (94%) patients. The primary end point was observed in 208 patients (6.9%) assigned to receive a VCD and 119 patients (7.9%) assigned to manual compression (difference, -1.0% [1-sided 97.5% CI, 0.7%]; P for noninferiority<.001). Time to hemostasis was significantly shorter in patients with VCD (1 minute [interquartile range {IQR}, 0.5-2.0]), vs manual compression (10 minutes [IQR, 10-15]; P < .001). Time to hemostasis was significantly shorter among patients with intravascular VCD (0.5 minute [IQR, 0.2-1.0]), vs extravascular VCD (2.0 minutes [IQR, 1.0-2.0]; P <.001) and closure device failure was also significantly lower among those with intravascular vs extravascular VCD (80 patients [5.3%], vs 184 patients [12.2%]; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In patients undergoing transfemoral coronary angiography, VCDs were noninferior to manual compression in terms of vascular access-site complications and reduced time to hemostasis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01389375.

Prognostic value of bleeding after percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with diabetes.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to assess the impact of bleeding after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) on the outcome of patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS AND RESULTS: This study included 4,329 diabetic patients who underwent PCI. Bleeding was assessed using the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium criteria. The primary outcome was one-year mortality. Bleeding events occurred in 474 patients (10.9%). Access-site and non-access-site bleeds occurred in 274 patients (58%) and 200 patients (42%), respectively. Within the first year after PCI there were 198 deaths: 45 deaths (9.6%) among patients with bleeding and 153 deaths (4.0%) among patients without bleeding (adjusted hazard ratio=2.04 [95% confidence interval 1.38-3.00], p<0.001). There were 25 deaths (12.7%) among patients with non-access-site bleeding and 20 deaths (7.4%) among patients with access-site bleeding (odds ratio [OR]=3.45 [2.20-5.41], p<0.001 for non-access-site bleeding vs. no bleeding and OR=1.90 [1.17-3.01], p=0.008 for access-site bleeding vs. no bleeding). Bleeding improved the discriminatory power of the multivariable model for mortality prediction (p=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with diabetes undergoing PCI, occurrence of bleeding within the first 30 days after PCI was associated with a significant increase in the risk of one-year mortality.

Randomized comparison of biolimus-eluting stents with biodegradable polymer versus everolimus-eluting stents with permanent polymer coatings assessed by optical coherence tomography.

We sought to compare the healing patterns of biolimus-eluting stents with biodegradable polymer (BP-BES, Nobori) versus everolimus-eluting stents with permanent polymer (PP-EES, Xience) using intravascular optical coherence tomography (OCT). A total of 34 patients undergoing treatment of de novo coronary lesions were randomly assigned to receive BP-BES (n = 15) or PP-EES (n = 19). Stent tissue coverage and apposition as well as the incidence of peri-strut low intensity area (PLIA) were assessed by OCT at 6-8 months. Generalized linear mixed models were used to account for clustered data. OCT imaging was available for 17 lesions with 2,805 struts in the BP-BES group and 22 lesions with 3,890 struts in the PP-EES group. BP-BES as compared to PP-EES showed similar rates of uncovered struts (479 vs. 588, odds ratio (OR) 1.54 (95 % CI 0.63-3.79), P = 0.34) and malapposed struts (46 vs. 32 struts, OR 1.64 [95 % CI 0.21-12.5], P = 0.64). Three lesions with BP-BES (17.6 %) versus 5 lesions with PP-EES (22.7 %) had >30 % uncovered struts (P = 0.78). The proportion of patients with PLIA was similar in both groups (BP-BES 41.2 % vs. PP-EES 36.4 %, OR 1.11 [95 % CI 0.43-2.87], P = 0.83). New generation BP-BES as compared to PP-EES showed similar stent coverage and apposition as assessed by OCT at 6-8 months. In addition, PLIA-possible markers of delayed arterial healing-were observed with similar frequency in both groups.

Percutaneous edge-to-edge repair of the mitral valve in patients with degenerative versus functional mitral regurgitation.

OBJECTIVES: To prospectively assess the outcome of percutaneous edge-to-edge repair in patients with degenerative versus functional mitral regurgitation (MR). BACKGROUND: The optimal patient population eligible for percutaneous edge-to-edge repair has yet to be defined. METHODS: We analyzed 119 patients treated by percutaneous edge-to-edge repair for symptomatic MR, 72 patients with degenerative and 47 patients with functional MR. The primary endpoints were defined as procedural success (MR grade reduction ≥1 grade) as well as a composite endpoint defined as freedom from MR 3+ or 4+, mitral valve reintervention and death 12 months after clip implantation. In patients with successful clip placement we further analyzed MR grade, New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class, distance in the 6 min walking test and left ventricular volumes 12 months after clip implantation. RESULTS: The primary success rate of all intended clipping procedures was 83.3% for degenerative and 89.4% for functional MR (P = 0.42). Regarding the composite endpoint we observed an event free survival of 59.7% in patients treated for degenerative MR and 63.8% in patients treated for functional MR (P = 0.73). We observed a highly significant reduction in MR grade as well as improvement in NYHA functional status in both groups 12 months after clip implantation. However, there was a more pronounced MR grade reduction in patients treated for degenerative MR compared with patients treated for functional MR. CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous edge-to-edge repair of the mitral valve is feasible and comparably effective in patients with degenerative and functional MR.

Collagen plug vascular closure devices and reduced risk of bleeding with bivalirudin versus heparin plus abciximab in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for non st-segment elevation myocardial infarction.

INTRODUCTION: In ISAR-REACT-4 (abciximab and heparin vs. bivalirudin for non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction [NSTEMI]), bivalirudin reduced the risk of bleeding after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared with unfractionated heparin plus abciximab (UFH + abciximab). Vascular closure devices (VCDs) may also prevent bleeding complications, and thus attenuate the benefit of bivalirudin. This analysis examined whether there exists an interaction on bleeding between VCDs and bivalirudin versus UFH + abciximab after PCI. METHODS: Patients with NSTEMI were randomly assigned to either receive UFH + abciximab or bivalirudin for PCI. The use of a VCD after femoral access was left to the operator's discretion. The effect of randomized treatment in patients who received a VCD was compared to that in patients with manual compression of the femoral access site. The primary end-point of this analysis was the 30-day incidence of ISAR-REACT-4 major bleeding. RESULTS: A total of 1,711 patients were enrolled in this analysis. Among the 365 (21.3%) patients receiving a VCD, 188 (51.5%) were treated with UFH + abciximab and 177 (48.5%) with bivalirudin. ISAR- REACT-4 major bleeding was higher with UFH + abciximab than with bivalirudin, independent of whether a VCD was used (4.8% vs. 2.3% with VCD and 4.6% vs. 2.7% without VCD, Pint = 0.76). There were also no interactions between randomized treatment and VCDs with respect to any of the ischemic end-points or net clinical outcome (Pint > 0.56). CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing PCI for NSTEMI, the reduction of major bleeding by bivalirudin compared with UFH + abciximab was not affected whether a VCD was used.

Zotarolimus- versus everolimus-eluting stents for unprotected left main coronary artery disease.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare the safety and efficacy of the zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) and the everolimus-eluting stent (EES) for treatment of unprotected left main coronary artery (uLMCA) disease. BACKGROUND: The second-generation ZES and EES have reduced the risk of restenosis in large patient cohorts. However, their comparative performance in uLMCA lesions is not known. METHODS: In this study, patients with symptomatic coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for uLMCA lesions were randomly assigned to receive either a ZES (n = 324) or an EES (n = 326). The primary endpoint was the combined incidence of death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization at 1 year. Secondary endpoints were definite or probable stent thrombosis at 1 year and angiographic restenosis based on analysis of the left main coronary artery area at follow-up angiography. RESULTS: At 1 year, the cumulative incidence of the primary endpoint was 17.5% in the ZES group and 14.3% in the EES group (relative risk: 1.26; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.85 to 1.85; p = 0.25). Three patients in the ZES group (0.9%) and 2 patients in the EES group (0.6%) experienced definite or probable stent thrombosis (p > 0.99). All-cause mortality at 1 year was equal in the 2 groups (5.6%; relative risk: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.52 to 1.93; p = 0.98). Angiographic restenosis occurred in 21.5% of patients in the ZES group and 16.8% in the EES group (relative risk: 1.28; 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.92; p = 0.24). CONCLUSIONS: Within the statistical limitations of the present study, treatment of uLMCA lesions with a ZES or an EES provided comparable clinical and angiographic outcomes at 1-year follow-up.

Second-versus first-generation "Limus"-eluting stents in diabetic patients with coronary artery disease: a randomized comparison in setting of ISAR-TEST-4 trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with diabetes mellitus remain at higher risk for adverse events following percutaneous coronary intervention and the identification of the optimum drug eluting stents (DES) in these patients is of high clinical relevance. We compared effectiveness of everolimus-eluting stents (EES; Xience) versus sirolimus-eluting stents (SES; Cypher) in patients with diabetes mellitus enrolled in the Intracoronary Stenting and Angiographic Results: Test Efficacy of 3 Limus-Eluting Stents (ISAR-TEST-4) trial. METHODS: In the setting of the ISAR-TEST-4 trial, 1304 patients with broad inclusion criteria were randomized to treatment with EES or SES. The focus of the present analysis is on a cohort of 377 patients with diabetes mellitus assigned to receive EES (n = 184) or SES (n = 193). The primary endpoint was the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI) related to the target vessel, or target lesion revascularization (TLR) at 3-year follow-up. Secondary endpoints were parameters of angiographic and clinical restenosis (in-stent late lumen loss, binary restenosis, and TLR), all-cause mortality and definite/probable stent thrombosis. RESULTS: EES was comparable to SES concerning the incidence of the primary endpoint (21% vs. 24%, respectively; relative risk = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.57-1.34; P = 0.53). Concerning the secondary endpoint, TLR at 3 years with EES versus SES stents was not statistically different (14.7% vs. 16.6%, respectively; relative risk = 0.85; 95% CI, 0.51-1.43; P = 0.55). In terms of angiographic outcomes patients treated with EES as compared to SES had significantly lower late lumen loss (0.22 ± 0.46 mm vs. 0.44 ± 0.66 mm, respectively; P < 0.001) and binary restenosis (8.4% vs. 17%, respectively; P = 0.02) at 6- to 8-month angiographic follow-up. EES was comparable to SES concerning the incidence of all-cause death (10% vs. 16%, respectively; relative risk = 0.66; 95% CI, 0.37-1.18; P = 0.16) and stent thrombosis (1.1% vs. 3.1%, respectively; P = 0.19). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with diabetes mellitus enrolled in a real-world randomized control trial, EES is comparable to SES in terms of clinical efficacy and safety out to 3 years; angiographic markers of antirestenotic efficacy favored EES.

Stents liberadores de rapamicina sin polímero frente a stents liberadores de paclitaxel con polímero: un análisis de datos de pacientes procedentes de ensayos aleatorizados / Polymer-free sirolimus-eluting versus polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stents: an individual patient data analysis of randomized trials

Introducción y objetivos. La eficacia angiográfica y clínica de los stents liberadores de rapamicina sin polímero frente a los liberadores de paclitaxel con polímero sigue siendo motivo de debate. En nuestro estudio se compararon las medidas de eficacia angiográficas y clínicas de los stents liberadores de rapamicina sin polímero frente a los liberadores de paclitaxel con polímero. Métodos. Se combinaron los datos de pacientes procedentes del estudio clínico aleatorizado ISAR-TEST (prueba de equivalencia entre dos stents farmacoactivos respecto al implante de stent intracoronario y reestenosis angiográfica) y el estudio clínico LIPSIA Yukon (comparación aleatorizada de stents farmacoactivos liberadores de rapamicina sin polímero frente a liberadores de paclitaxel con polímero en pacientes con diabetes mellitus). El criterio de valoración angiográfico (primario) fue la pérdida luminal tardía en el stent entre los 6 y los 9 meses. Los criterios de valoración clínicos (secundarios) fueron: infarto de miocardio o muerte, muerte cardiaca o infarto de miocardio, revascularización de la lesión tratada e infarto de miocardio. Resultados. El estudio incluyó a un total de 686 pacientes (stents liberadores de rapamicina sin polímero [n=345] frente a stents liberadores de paclitaxel con polímero [n=341]) y 751lesiones (stents liberadores de rapamicina sin polímero [n=383] frente a stents liberadores de paclitaxel con polímero [n=368]). La angiografía de control (606 lesiones [80,6%]) mostró una pérdida luminal tardía en el stent comparable entre los dos tipos de stents estudiados (0,53 ± 0,59mm en los stents sin polímero frente a 0,46 ± 0,57mm en stents con polímero; p=0,15). La mediana de seguimiento fue de 34,8 meses. Los stents liberadores de rapamicina sin polímero y los liberadores de paclitaxel con polímero se asociaron con similares riesgos de muerte o infarto de miocardio (riesgo relativo =1,17; intervalo de confianza del 95%, 0,49-2,80; p=0,71); muerte cardiaca o infarto de miocardio (riesgo relativo =1,17; intervalo de confianza del 95%, 0,72-1,89; p=0,50); revascularización de la lesión que hay que tratar (riesgo relativo =0,98; intervalo de confianza del 95%, 0,65-1,47; p=0,93) e infarto de miocardio (riesgo relativo =1,79; intervalo de confianza del 95%, 0,85 3,76; p=0,12). Conclusiones. En este análisis combinado, los valores de eficacia angiográfica y clínica fueron similares para los stents liberadores de rapamicina sin polímero y los liberadores de paclitaxel con polímero (AU)

Introduction and objectives. The angiographic and clinical efficacy of polymer-free sirolimus-eluting stents vs polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stents remain a matter of debate. We sought to investigate angiographic and clinical measures of efficacy of polymer-free sirolimus-eluting stents vs polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stents. Methods. Patient data from the randomized intracoronary stenting and angiographic restenosis-test equivalence between the 2 drug-eluting stents (ISAR-TEST) clinical trial and the LIPSIA Yukon clinical trial (randomized comparison of a polymer-free sirolimus-eluting stent vs a polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stent in patients with diabetes mellitus) were pooled. The angiographic (primary) endpoint was in-stent late lumen loss at 6 months to 9 months. The clinical (secondary) endpoints were death or myocardial infarction, cardiac death or myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization, and myocardial infarction. Results. A total of 686 patients (polymer-free sirolimus-eluting stents, n=345 vs polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stents, n=341) and 751 lesions (polymer-free sirolimus-eluting stents, n=383 vs polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stents, n=368) were included in the study. Control angiography (606 lesions, 80.6%) showed comparable in-stent late lumen loss for polymer-free sirolimus-eluting stents vs polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stents (0.53 [0.59] mm vs 0.46 [0.57] mm; P=.15). Median follow-up was 34.8 months. Polymer-free sirolimus-eluting stents and polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stents were associated with comparable risk of death or myocardial infarction (relative risk=1.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.49-2.80; P=.71), cardiac death or myocardial infarction (relative risk=1.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-1.89; P=.50), target lesion revascularization (relative risk=0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.65-1.47; P=.93), and myocardial infarction (relative risk=1.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.85-3.76; P=.12). Conclusions. In this pooled analysis, polymer-free sirolimus-eluting stents were comparable to polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stents with respect to both angiographic and clinical efficacy (AU)

Differential relative efficacy between drug-eluting stents in patients with bare metal and drug-eluting stent restenosis; evidence in support of drug resistance: insights from the ISAR-DESIRE and ISAR-DESIRE 2 trials.

AIMS: In drug-eluting stent (DES) restenosis, the contribution of drug hyporesponsiveness is poorly defined. We sought to evaluate if, in the setting of treatment for in-stent restenosis, the relative efficacy of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) and of paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) depends on the underlying substrate in which the stents are implanted, i.e., on whether the restenosis occurs within bare metal stents or within SES. METHODS AND RESULTS: We pooled data from the ISAR-DESIRE and ISAR-DESIRE 2 randomised trials and analysed outcomes in SES-treated and PES-treated patients. In all, 650 patients were included. Angiographic follow-up was available for 87% of patients. In SES-treated patients, both late loss (LL) and percentage diameter stenosis (%DS) were lower in patients treated for bare metal stent restenosis compared with SES restenosis (0.21±0.59 mm versus 0.41±0.66 mm, p=0.007; 27.6±19.4% versus 34.0±20.9%, p=0.015, respectively). In PES-treated patients, LL and %DS were similar in patients treated for bare metal stent restenosis compared with SES restenosis (0.48±0.59 mm versus 0.39±0.71, p=0.47; 33.5±22.2% versus 32.7±18.6%, p=0.75, respectively). Similarly, in terms of overall clinical efficacy, in SES-treated patients clinical outcomes were better in patients with bare metal stent restenosis compared with SES restenosis while in PES-treated patients outcomes were similar in both groups. At multivariate analyses the use of SES to treat restenosis within SES was predictive of both higher LL and %DS. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy of sirolimus-eluting but not paclitaxel-eluting stents is significantly reduced when used for treatment of SES restenosis as compared to bare metal stent restenosis. The lower antirestenotic efficacy following SES implantation in patients with SES restenosis may support a role for drug resistance in restenosis within these stents.

Sex-related effectiveness of bivalirudin versus abciximab and heparin in non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: Female sex independently predicts bleeding risk after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Bivalirudin is safer than abciximab plus heparin in patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). Thus, a greater benefit of bivalirudin in women would be expected. METHODS: We performed a sex-based analysis of the patients with NSTEMI (n = 1,721, 399 women) enrolled in the ISAR-REACT 4 trial and randomized to receive bivalirudin or abciximab plus heparin. Main outcome was a 30-day composite of death, large recurrent myocardial infarction, urgent target vessel revascularization, or major bleeding. Secondary outcome was 1-year composite of death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization. RESULTS: No difference in the main outcome was observed in groups with bivalirudin or abciximab plus heparin: 12.6% versus 15.5% (hazard ratio [HR] 0.81, 95% CI 0.48-1.37) among women and 10.6% versus 9.5% (HR 1.12, 95% CI 0.77-1.64) among men. Major bleeding occurred in 4.5% in the bivalirudin group versus 7.5% in the abciximab plus heparin group (HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.26-1.39) among women and 2.0% versus 3.8% (HR 0.52, 0.27-1.02) among men. At 1 year, the secondary outcome was observed in 24.1% in the bivalirudin group versus 28.7% in the abciximab plus heparin group among women, HR of 0.80 (95% CI 0.55-1.17), and in 20.6% and 19.0%, respectively, HR of 1.10 (95% CI 0.86-1.40) among men. CONCLUSION: Despite a higher peri-PCI bleeding risk in women, bivalirudin is as effective as and safer than abciximab plus heparin in women and men with NSTEMI undergoing PCI.

Three-dimensional transoesophageal echocardiography for the assessment of clip attachment to the leaflets in percutaneous edge-to-edge repair of the mitral valve.

AIMS: Single leaflet clip attachment (SLA) is a prevalent complication in percutaneous edge-to-edge repair of the mitral valve, leading to the recurrence of significant mitral regurgitation. The objective of this retrospective analysis was to evaluate a novel 3-D transoesophageal echocardiographic method for the assessment of clip attachment to the mitral leaflets. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analysed a total of 87 patients treated for symptomatic mitral regurgitation. In 47 patients, clip attachment to the leaflets was assessed by conventional 2-D transoesophageal echocardiography supported by biplane TEE images (biplane TEE group). In 40 patients, clip attachment to the leaflets was assessed by the intraprocedural 3-D volume method in addition to the conventional method (volumetric TEE group). The primary endpoint was defined as clip complications consisting of SLA and clip displacement at any time after clip implantation. Clip complications occurred in nine patients (19.1%) in the biplane TEE group and in two patients (5%) in the volumetric TEE group (p=0.06). Regarding the grade of mitral regurgitation, in the follow-up period we observed a more pronounced deterioration in the biplane TEE group than in the volumetric TEE group. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that the additional use of 3-D volumetric transoesophageal echocardiography for the assessment of clip attachment to the mitral leaflets may contribute to a reduced rate of subsequent clip complications.

Polymer-free sirolimus-eluting versus polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stents: an individual patient data analysis of randomized trials.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: The angiographic and clinical efficacy of polymer-free sirolimus-eluting stents vs polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stents remain a matter of debate. We sought to investigate angiographic and clinical measures of efficacy of polymer-free sirolimus-eluting stents vs polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stents. METHODS: Patient data from the randomized intracoronary stenting and angiographic restenosis-test equivalence between the 2 drug-eluting stents (ISAR-TEST) clinical trial and the LIPSIA Yukon clinical trial (randomized comparison of a polymer-free sirolimus-eluting stent vs a polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stent in patients with diabetes mellitus) were pooled. The angiographic (primary) endpoint was in-stent late lumen loss at 6 months to 9 months. The clinical (secondary) endpoints were death or myocardial infarction, cardiac death or myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization, and myocardial infarction. RESULTS: A total of 686 patients (polymer-free sirolimus-eluting stents, n=345 vs polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stents, n=341) and 751 lesions (polymer-free sirolimus-eluting stents, n=383 vs polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stents, n=368) were included in the study. Control angiography (606 lesions, 80.6%) showed comparable in-stent late lumen loss for polymer-free sirolimus-eluting stents vs polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stents (0.53 [0.59] mm vs 0.46 [0.57] mm; P=.15). Median follow-up was 34.8 months. Polymer-free sirolimus-eluting stents and polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stents were associated with comparable risk of death or myocardial infarction (relative risk=1.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.49-2.80; P=.71), cardiac death or myocardial infarction (relative risk=1.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-1.89; P=.50), target lesion revascularization (relative risk=0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.65-1.47; P=.93), and myocardial infarction (relative risk=1.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.85-3.76; P=.12). CONCLUSIONS: In this pooled analysis, polymer-free sirolimus-eluting stents were comparable to polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stents with respect to both angiographic and clinical efficacy.

Paclitaxel-eluting balloons, paclitaxel-eluting stents, and balloon angioplasty in patients with restenosis after implantation of a drug-eluting stent (ISAR-DESIRE 3): a randomised, open-label trial.

BACKGROUND: The best way to manage restenosis in patients who have previously received a drug-eluting stent is unknown. We investigated the efficacy of paclitaxel-eluting balloons (PEB), paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES), and balloon angioplasty in these patients. METHODS: In this randomised, open-label trial, we enrolled patients older than 18 years with restenosis of at least 50% after implantation of any limus-eluting stent at three centres in Germany between Aug 3, 2009, and Oct 27, 2011. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1; stratified according to centre) to receive PEB, PES, or balloon angioplasty alone by means of sealed, opaque envelopes containing a computer-generated sequence. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment allocation, but events and angiograms were assessed by individuals who were masked. The primary endpoint was diameter stenosis at follow-up angiography at 6-8 months. Primary analysis was done by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00987324. FINDINGS: We enrolled 402 patients, of whom 137 (34%) were assigned to PEB, 131 (33%) to PES, and 134 (33%) to balloon angioplasty. Follow-up angiography at 6-8 months was available for 338 (84%) patients. PEB was non-inferior to PES in terms of diameter stenosis (38·0% [SD 21·5] vs 37·4% [21·8]; difference 0·6%, one-sided 95% CI 4·9%; p(non-inferiority)=0·007; non-inferiority margin of 7%). Findings were consistent in per-protocol analysis (p(non-inferiority)=0·011). PEB and PES were superior to balloon angioplasty alone (54·1% [25·0]; p(superiority)<0·0001 for both comparisons). Frequency of death, myocardial infarction, or target lesion thrombosis did not differ between groups. INTERPRETATION: By obviating the need for additional stent implantation, PEB could be a useful treatment for patients with restenosis after implantation of a drug-eluting stent. FUNDING: Deutsches Herzzentrum.

Five-year clinical outcomes of a polymer-free sirolimus-eluting stent versus a permanent polymer paclitaxel-eluting stent: final results of the intracoronary stenting and angiographic restenosis - test equivalence between two drug-eluting stents (ISAR-TEST) trial.

BACKGROUND: Limited evidence exists regarding the long-term performance of polymer-free (PF) drug-eluting stents (DES) in comparison to permanent polymer DES. This study investigated the 5-year efficacy and safety of a PF sirolimus-eluting stent (PF-SES) versus a permanent polymer paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) in the setting of the Intracoronary Stenting and Angiographic Restenosis-Test Equivalence Between Two Drug-Eluting Stents (ISAR-TEST) randomized trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 450 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention were randomized to receive either PF-SES (Yukon, Translumina; n = 225) or PES (Taxus, Boston Scientific; n = 225). Clinical follow-up was performed to 5 years after enrollment. The endpoints were major adverse cardiac events (MACE), target lesion revascularization (TLR), the composite of death or any myocardial infarction (MI) and stent thrombosis (ST). The incidence of MACE at 5 years was 27.3% (57 patients) in the PF-SES group and 31.7% (65 patients) in the PES group [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.87 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) = 0.61-1.24]; P = 0.40]. The combined incidence of death or MI was 16.6% (34 patients) in the PF-SES group and 20.0% (39 patients) in the PES group (HR = 0.86 [95% CI = 0.54-1.36]; P = 0.52). The incidence of TLR was 16.5% (34 patients) in the PF-SES group and 16.4% (33 patients) in the PES group (HR = 1.03 [95% CI = 0.64-1.66]; P = 0.89). ST occurred in 0.5% (one patient) in the PF-SES group and 1.6% (three patients) in the PES group (HR = 0.33 [95% CI = 0.03-3.14]; P = 0.32). CONCLUSION: Overall there was no significant difference in clinical outcomes between PF-SES and PES to 5 years. Extended follow-up supports the durability of efficacy and safety of PF-SES.

Association of coronary atherosclerotic burden with clinical presentation and prognosis in patients with stable and unstable coronary artery disease.

BACKGROUND: The impact of coronary atherosclerotic burden on prognosis and presentation of patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) is unknown. We investigated the association of coronary atherosclerotic burden with clinical outcome and presentation as unstable angina in patients with CAD. METHODS: This study included 10,647 patients with stable (n = 8,149) and unstable (n = 2,498) CAD who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Coronary atherosclerotic burden was assessed by Gensini score. The primary outcome analysis was 1-year mortality. RESULTS: Patients were divided into groups according to quartiles of Gensini score: <13 (first quartile; n = 2,650 patients), 13 to <25 (second quartile; n = 2,611 patients), 25 to <53 (third quartile; n = 2,721 patients) and ≥ 53 (fourth quartile; n = 2,665 patients). There were 295 deaths during follow-up: 41 deaths in the first quartile, 42 deaths in the second quartile, 83 deaths in the third quartile and 129 deaths in the fourth quartile of Gensini score (Kaplan-Meier estimates of 1-year mortality 1.6, 1.7, 3.1 and 5.0 %, respectively; adjusted hazards ratio [HR] = 1.08, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.02-1.14, P = 0.007 for each 20-point increase in Gensini score). Gensini score was an independent correlate of presentation as unstable angina (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 1.07, 95 % CI 1.05-1.10, P < 0.001, for each 20-point increase in the score). Coronary stenoses with ≥ 75 % of lumen obstruction mediated almost all the increased risk related to the atherosclerotic burden for presentation as unstable CAD (adjusted OR = 1.08, 95 % CI 1.05-1.12, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In patients with CAD, coronary atherosclerotic burden is independently associated with increased risk of 1-year mortality and presentation as unstable angina.