Bifurcation PCI with a hybrid strategy with drug- eluting balloons versus a stepwise provisional two- stent strategy: Rationale and design of the hybrid DEB study.

The optimal treatment strategy for coronary bifurcation lesions by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is complex and remains a subject of debate. Current guidelines advise a stepwise provisional approach with optional two-stent strategy. However, a two-stent strategy, both upfront and stepwise provisional, is technically demanding. Therefore, there is increasing interest in the use of drug-eluting balloons (DEB) in bifurcation lesions, mainly after a provisional approach with unsatisfactory result of the side branch. Some small pilot studies already showed that the use of DEB in bifurcation lesions is safe and feasible. However, a randomized comparison of this hybrid DEB strategy with a two-stent strategy is currently lacking. TRIAL DESIGN: The Hybrid DEB study is a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial investigating noninferiority of a hybrid DEB approach, using a combination of a drug-eluting stent (DES) in the main vessel and DEB in the side branch, compared to stepwise provisional two-stent strategy in patients with true bifurcation lesions. A total of 500 patients with de novo true coronary bifurcation lesions, treated with a stepwise provisional approach and an unsatisfactory result of the side branch after main vessel stenting (≥ 70% stenosis and/or < thrombolysis in myocardial infarction III flow), will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either treatment with a DEB or with a DES in the side branch. The primary endpoint is a composite endpoint of the occurrence of all-cause death, periprocedural or spontaneous myocardial infarction and/or target vessel revascularization at the anticipated median 2-year follow-up. CONCLUSION: The Hybrid DEB study will compare in a multicenter, randomized fashion a hybrid DEB approach with a stepwise provisional two-stent strategy in patients with true bifurcation lesions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov no. NCT05731687.

Drug-eluting or bare-metal stents for percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: New-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) have mostly been investigated in head-to-head non-inferiority trials against early-generation DES and have typically shown similar efficacy and superior safety. How the safety profile of new-generation DES compares with that of bare-metal stents (BMS) is less clear. METHODS: We did an individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials to compare outcomes after implantation of new-generation DES or BMS among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. The primary outcome was the composite of cardiac death or myocardial infarction. Data were pooled in a one-stage random-effects meta-analysis and examined at maximum follow-up and a 1-year landmark. Risk estimates are reported as hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs. This study is registered in PROSPERO, number CRD42017060520. FINDINGS: We obtained individual data for 26 616 patients in 20 randomised trials. Mean follow-up was 3·2 (SD 1·8) years. The risk of the primary outcome was reduced in DES recipients compared with BMS recipients (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·78-0·90, p<0·001) owing to a reduced risk of myocardial infarction (0·79, 0·71-0·88, p<0·001) and a possible slight but non-significant cardiac mortality benefit (0·89, 0·78-1·01, p=0·075). All-cause death was unaffected (HR with DES 0·96, 95% CI 0·88-1·05, p=0·358), but risk was lowered for definite stent thrombosis (0·63, 0·50-0·80, p<0·001) and target-vessel revascularisation (0·55, 0·50-0·60, p<0·001). We saw a time-dependent treatment effect, with DES being associated with lower risk of the primary outcome than BMS up to 1 year after placement. While the effect was maintained in the longer term, there was no further divergence from BMS after 1 year. INTERPRETATION: The performance of new-generation DES in the first year after implantation means that BMS should no longer be considered the gold standard for safety. Further development of DES technology should target improvements in clinical outcomes beyond 1 year. FUNDING: Bern University Hospital.

Clinical outcomes of deferred revascularisation using fractional flow reserve in patients with and without diabetes mellitus.

OBJECTIVE: Deferred revascularisation based upon fractional flow reserve (FFR >0.80) is associated with a low incidence of target lesion failure (TLF). Whether deferred revascularisation is also as safe in diabetes mellitus (DM) patients is unknown. METHODS: All DM patients and the next consecutive Non-DM patients who underwent a FFR-assessment between 1/01/2010 and 31/12/2013 were included, and followed until 1/07/2015. Patients with lesions FFR >0.80 were analysed according to the presence vs. absence of DM, while patients who underwent index revascularisation in FFR-assessed or other lesions were excluded. The primary endpoint was the incidence of TLF; a composite of target lesion revascularisation (TLR) and target vessel myocardial infarction (TVMI). RESULTS: A total of 250 patients (122 DM, 128 non-DM) who underwent deferred revascularisation of all lesions (FFR >0.80) were compared. At a mean follow up of 39.8 ± 16.3 months, DM patients compared to non-DM had a higher TLF rate, 18.1 vs 7.5 %, logrank p ≤ 0.01, Cox regression-adjusted HR 3.65 (95 % CI 1.40-9.53, p < 0.01), which was largely driven by a higher incidence of TLR (17.2 vs. 7.5 %, HR 3.52, 95 % CI 1.34-9.30, p = 0.01), whilst a non-significant but numerically higher incidence of TVMI (6.1 vs. 2.0 %, HR 3.34, 95 % CI 0.64-17.30, p = 0.15) was observed. CONCLUSIONS: This study, the largest to directly compare the clinical outcomes of FFR-guided deferred revascularisation in patients with and without DM, shows that DM patients are associated with a significantly higher TLF rate. Whether intravascular imaging, additional invasive haemodynamics or stringent risk factor modification may impact on this higher TLF rate remains unknown.

Early or late intervention in patients with transient ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome: Subgroup analysis of the ELISA-3 trial.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate incidence and patient characteristics of transient ST-segment elevation (TSTE) ACS and to compare outcome of early versus late invasive treatment. BACKGROUND: Optimal timing of treatment in TSTE-ACS patients is not outlined in current guidelines and no prospective randomized trials have been done so far. METHODS: Post hoc subgroup analysis of patients with TSTE randomized in the ELISA 3 trial. This study compared early (<12 h) versus late (>48 h) angiography and revascularization in 542 patients with high-risk NSTE-ACS. Primary endpoint was incidence of death, reinfarction, or recurrent ischemia at 30 days follow-up. RESULTS: TSTE was present in 129 patients (24.2%) and associated with male gender, smoking and younger age. The primary endpoint occurred in 8.9% of patients with and 13.0% of patients without TSTE (RR = 0.681, P = 0.214). Incidence of death or MI after 2 year follow-up was 5.7 and 14.6% respectively (RR = 0.384, P = 0.008). Within the group of patients with TSTE, incidence of the primary endpoint was 5.8% in the early and 12.7% in the late treatment group (RR = 0.455, P = 0.213), driven by reduction in recurrent ischemia. Enzymatic infarct size, bleeding and incidence of death or recurrent MI at 2 years follow-up was comparable between the treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: In high-risk patients with NSTE-ACS, TSTE is frequently seen. Similar to findings in patients with high-risk NSTE-ACS, immediate angiography and revascularization in these patients is feasible but not superior to later treatment. Prospective randomized trials are needed to provide more evidence in the optimal timing of treatment in patients with TSTE-ACS. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Deferral vs. performance of percutaneous coronary intervention of functionally non-significant coronary stenosis: 15-year follow-up of the DEFER trial.

AIMS: Stenting an angiographically intermediate but functionally non-significant stenosis is controversial. Nevertheless, it has been questioned if deferral of a functionally non-significant lesion on the basis of fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurement, is safe, especially on the long term. Five-year follow-up of the DEFER trial showed that outcome after deferral of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of an intermediate coronary stenosis based on FFR ≥ 0.75 is excellent and was not improved by stenting. The aim of this study was to investigate the validity of this position on the very long term. METHODS AND RESULTS: In 325 patients scheduled for PCI of an intermediate stenosis, FFR was measured just before the planned intervention. If FFR was ≥0.75, patients were randomly assigned to deferral (Defer group; n = 91) or performance (Perform group; n = 90) of PCI. If FFR was <0.75, PCI was performed as planned (Reference group; n = 144). Clinical follow-up was 15 years. There were no differences in baseline clinical characteristics between the randomized groups. Complete 15-year follow-up was obtained in 92% of patients. After 15 years of follow-up, the rate of death was not different between the three groups: 33.0% in the Defer group, 31.1% in the Perform group, and 36.1% in the Reference group (Defer vs. Perform, RR 1.06, 95% CI: 0.69-1.62, P = 0.79). The rate of myocardial infarction was significantly lower in the Defer group (2.2%) compared with the Perform group (10.0%), RR 0.22, 95% CI: 0.05-0.99, P = 0.03. CONCLUSION: Deferral of PCI of a functionally non-significant stenosis is associated with a favourable very long-term follow-up without signs of late 'catch-up' phenomenon.

Everolimus induces rapid plasma glucose normalization in insulinoma patients by effects on tumor as well as normal tissues.

BACKGROUND: Mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor everolimus administered to four insulinoma patients rapidly controlled hypoglycemia (Kulke et al., N Engl J Med 2009;360:195-197). We wanted to identify the kinetics of everolimus effects on controlling hypoglycemia and understand underlying mechanisms. METHODS: Three consecutive patients with a metastasized symptomatic insulinoma were started on 100 µg of octreotide subcutaneously three times daily. Because of persisting hypoglycemias, treatment with daily 10 mg of oral everolimus was initiated. Serial plasma glucose levels and serum insulin levels were measured. Computer tomography (CT) scans were performed before and after 2 and 5 months of treatment. [¹8F]fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography (¹8F-FDG-PET) scans, to visualize glucose metabolism, were made before and after 2 weeks, 5 weeks, and 5 months of treatment. The ¹8F-FDG uptake was quantified as the maximum standardized uptake value. RESULTS: All patients achieved control of hypoglycemia on everolimus within 14 days. Insulin levels were 2.5- to 6.3-fold elevated before start of treatment and declined 14%-64% after 4 weeks of treatment. CT scans showed stable disease at 2 months in all patients, with progressive disease after 5 months in one. Before treatment, both the tumor lesions and the muscles and myocardium showed high ¹8F-FDG uptake. Everolimus reduced tumor and muscle ¹8F-FDG uptake after 2 weeks by 26% ± 14% and 19% ± 41%, and after 5 months by 31% ± 13% and 27% ± 41%. CONCLUSIONS: Everolimus normalizes plasma glucose levels in metastatic insulinoma within 14 days, coinciding with a lower glucose uptake in tumor and muscles and declining (pro)insulin levels. This effect on tumor as well as normal tissues explains the rapid controlling of hypoglycemia.

Drug-Eluting or Bare-Metal Stents for Left Anterior Descending or Left Main Coronary Artery Revascularization.

Background New-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) reduce target-vessel revascularization compared with bare-metal stents (BMS), and recent data suggest that DES have the potential to decrease the risk of myocardial infarction and cardiovascular mortality. We evaluated the treatment effect of DES versus BMS according to the target artery (left anterior descending [LAD] and/or left main [LM] versus other territories [no-LAD/LM]). Methods and Results The Coronary Stent Trialist (CST) Collaboration gathered individual patient data of randomized trials of DES versus BMS for the treatment of coronary artery disease. The primary outcome was the composite of cardiac death or myocardial infarction. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs were derived from a 1-stage individual patient data meta-analysis. We included 26 024 patients across 19 trials: 13 650 (52.4%) in the LAD/LM and 12 373 (47.6%) in the no-LAD/LM group. At 6-year follow-up, there was strong evidence that the treatment effect of DES versus BMS depended on the target vessel (P-interaction=0.024). Compared with BMS, DES reduced the risk of cardiac death or myocardial infarction to a greater extent in the LAD/LM (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.68-0.85) than in the no-LAD/LM territories (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.83-1.05). This benefit was driven by a lower risk of cardiac death (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.70-0.98) and myocardial infarction (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.65-0.85) in patients with LAD/LM disease randomized to DES. An interaction (P=0.004) was also found for all-cause mortality with patients with LAD/LM disease deriving benefit from DES (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.76-0.97). Conclusions As compared with BMS, new-generation DES were associated with sustained reduction in the composite of cardiac death or myocardial infarction if used for the treatment of LAD or left main coronary stenoses. Registration URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO; Unique identifier: CRD42017060520.

Beta-blocker effect on ST-segment: a prespecified analysis of the EARLY-BAMI randomised trial.

OBJECTIVE: The effect of early intravenous (IV) beta-blockers (BBs) administration in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) on ST-segment deviation is unknown. We undertook a prespecified secondary analysis of the Early Beta-blocker Administration before primary PCI in patients with ST-elevation Myocardial Infarction (EARLY-BAMI) trial to investigate the effect of early IV BB on ST-segment deviation. METHODS: The EARLY-BAMI trial randomised patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) to IV metoprolol (2×5 mg bolus) or matched placebo before pPCI. The prespecified outcome, evaluated by an independent core laboratory blinded to study treatment, was the residual ST-segment deviation 1 hour after pPCI (ie, the percentage of patients with >3 mm cumulative ST deviation at 1 hour after pPCI). RESULTS: An ECG for the evaluation of residual ST-segment deviation 1 hour after pPCI was available in 442 out of 683 randomised patients. The BB group had a lower heart rate after pPCI compared with placebo (71.2±13.2 vs 74.3±13.6, p=0.016); however, no differences were noted in the percentages of patients with >3 mm cumulative ST deviation at 1 hour after pPCI (58.6% vs 54.1%, p=0.38, in BB vs placebo, respectively) neither a significant difference was found for the percentages of patients in each of the four prespecified groups (normalised ST-segment; 1-3 mm; 4-6 mm;>6 mm residual ST-deviation). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with STEMI, who were being transported for primary PCI, early IV BB administration did not significantly affect ST-segment deviation after pPCI compared with placebo. The neutral result of early IV BB administration on an early marker of pharmacological effect is consistent with the absence of subsequent improvement of clinical outcomes.

Comparison of Outcomes and Intervention Among Patients With Non-ST-Segment Elevation Acute Myocardial Infarction of Those With a Left Circumflex Versus Those With a Non-Left Circumflex-Related Coronary Artery (From the ELISA-3 Trial).

Previous studies found that patients with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) due to occlusion of the left circumflex (LC) coronary artery often present without ST-elevation, leading to a delay in diagnosis and revascularization, a larger infarct size, and a worse prognosis. In this subgroup analysis of the ELISA-3 study (early or late intervention in high-risk non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes [NSTE-ACS]) incidence, characteristics and prognosis of LC-related NSTE-ACS was investigated, and the outcome of early versus late invasive strategy was compared. In 383 of 542 patients the culprit vessel could be identified, with the LC artery in 112 (29%) of them. Patients with LC-related ACS had more often single vessel disease and underwent percutaneous coronary intervention more and CABG less frequently. The primary end point of the combined incidences of death, myocardial infarction, and recurrent ischemia at 30-day follow-up occurred in 9.0% of LC versus 16.5% of non-LC-related ACS (p = 0.057). Enzymatic infarct size and incidence of bleeding were comparable. Of patients with LC-related ACS, 62 were assigned to an early and 50 to a late invasive treatment with a median time from admission to angiography of 5.5 and 65.7 hours, respectively. The primary end point occurred in 9.7% and 8.0%, respectively (p = 1.00) with comparable enzymatic infarct size and bleeding. In conclusion, no significant differences in outcome were found between patients with an LC- and a non-LC-related NSTE-ACS. In LC-related NSTE-ACS, angiography within 12 hours of admission is feasible but not superior to angiography after more than 48 hours.

Two-year outcome after early or late Intervention in non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: To compare long-term outcome of an early to a delayed invasive strategy in high-risk patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS). METHODS: This prospective, multicentre trial included patients with NSTE-ACS and at least two out of three of the following high-risk criteria: (1) evidence of extensive myocardial ischaemia on ECG, (2) elevated biomarkers for myocardial necrosis and (3) age above 65 years. Patients were randomised to either an early (angiography and revascularisation if appropriate <12 hours) or a delayed invasive strategy (>48 hours after randomisation). Endpoint for this prespecified long-term follow-up was the composite incidence of death or reinfarction after 2 years. Data collection was performed by telephone contact with the patients, their relatives or general practitioner and by review of hospital records. RESULTS: Endpoint status after 2-year follow-up was collected in 521 of 542 initially enrolled patients. Incidence of death or reinfarction was 11.8% in the early and 13.1% in the delayed treatment group (relative risk (RR)=0.90, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.42). No significant differences were found in occurrence of the individual components of the primary endpoint: death 6.1% vs 8.9%, RR 0.69 (95% CI 0.37 to 1.27), reinfarction 6.5% vs 5.4%, RR 1.20 (95% CI 0.60 to 2.38). Post-hoc subgroup analysis showed statistical significant interaction between age and treatment strategy on outcome (p=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: After 2 years follow-up, no difference in incidence of death or reinfarction was seen between early to late invasive strategy. These findings are in line with results of other studies with longer follow-up. Older patients seem to benefit more from early invasive treatment.

Randomised comparison of drug-eluting versus bare-metal stenting in patients with non-ST elevation myocardial infarction.

OBJECTIVE: The superiority of drug-eluting stents (DES) over bare-metal stents (BMS) in patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is well studied; however, randomised data in patients with non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) are lacking. The objective of this study was to investigate whether stenting with everolimus-eluting stents (EES) safely reduces restenosis in patients with NSTEMI as compared to BMS. METHODS: ELISA-3 patients were asked to participate in the angiographic substudy and were randomised to DE (Xience V) or BM (Vision) stenting (ELISA-3 group). The primary end point was minimal luminal diameter (MLD) at 9-month follow-up angiography. In addition, 296 patients with NSTEMI who were excluded or did not want to participate in the ELISA-3 trial (RELI group) were randomised to DE or BM stenting and underwent clinical follow-up only (major adverse cardiac events (MACE), stent thrombosis (ST)). A pooled analysis was performed to assess an effect on clinical outcome. RESULTS: 178 of 540 ELISA-3 patients participated in the angiographic substudy. MLD at 9 months angiography was 2.37±0.63 mm (DES) versus 1.84±0.62 mm (BMS), p<0.001. Binary restenosis occurred in 1.9% in the DES group versus 16.7% in the BMS group (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.84, p=0.007). In the pooled analysis, the incidence of MACE, target vessel revascularisation and ST at 2 years follow-up in the DES versus BMS group was 12.5% versus 16.0% (p=0.28), 4.0% versus 10.4% (p=0.009) and 1.3% versus 3.0% (p=0.34), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with NSTEMI, use of EES is safe and decreases both angiographic and clinical restenosis as compared to BMS http://www.isrctn.com/search?q=39230163. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: 39230163; Post-results.

Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided Deferred Versus Complete Revascularization in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus.

To assess the safety and efficacy of deferred versus complete revascularization using a fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided strategy in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM), we analyzed all DM patients who underwent FFR-guided revascularization from January 1, 2010, to December 12, 2013. Patients were divided into 2 groups: those with ≥1 remaining FFR-negative (>0.80) medically treated lesions [FFR(-)MT] and those with only FFR-positive lesions (≤0.80) who underwent complete revascularization [FFR(+)CR] and were followed until July 1, 2015. The primary end point was the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), a composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion (FFR assessed) revascularization, and rehospitalization for acute coronary syndrome. A total of 294 patients, 205 (69.7%) versus 89 (30.3%) in FFR(-)MT and FFR(+)CR, respectively, were analyzed. At a mean follow-up of 32.6 ± 18.1 months, FFR(-)MT was associated with higher MACE rate 44.0% versus 26.6% (log-rank p = 0.02, Cox regression-adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 2.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.21 to 3.33, p <0.01), and driven by both safety and efficacy end points: death/MI (HR 2.02, 95% CI 1.06 to 3.86, p = 0.03), rehospitalization for acute coronary syndrome (HR 2.06, 95% CI 1.03 to 4.10, p = 0.04), and target lesion revascularization (HR 3.38, 95% CI 1.19 to 9.64, p = 0.02). Previous MI was a strong effect modifier within the FFR(-)MT group (HR 1.98, 95% CI 1.26 to 3.13, p <0.01), whereas this was not the case in the FFR(+)CR group (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.62, p = 0.37). Significant interaction for MACE was present between FFR groups and previous MI (p = 0.03). In conclusion, in patients with DM, particularly those with previous MI, deferred revascularization is associated with poor medium-term outcomes. Combining FFR with imaging techniques may be required to guide our treatment strategy in these patients with high-risk, fast-progressing atherosclerosis.

Drug-Eluting or Bare-Metal Stents for Left Anterior Descending or Left Main Coronary Artery Revascularization

BACKGROUND: New-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) reduce target-vessel revascularization compared with bare-metal stents (BMS), and recent data suggest that DES have the potential to decrease the risk of myocardial infarction and cardiovascular mortality. We evaluated the treatment effect of DES versus BMS according to the target artery (left anterior descending [LAD] and/or left main [LM] versus other territories [no-LAD/LM]). METHODS AND RESULTS: The Coronary Stent Trialist (CST) Collaboration gathered individual patient data of randomized trials of DES versus BMS for the treatment of coronary artery disease. The primary outcome was the composite of cardiac death or myocardial infarction. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs were derived from a 1-stage individual patient data meta-analysis. We included 26 024 patients across 19 trials: 13 650 (52.4%) in the LAD/LM and 12 373 (47.6%) in the no-LAD/LM group. At 6-year follow-up, there was strong evidence that the treatment effect of DES versus BMS depended on the target vessel (P interaction=0.024). Compared with BMS, DES reduced the risk of cardiac death or myocardial infarction to a greater extent in the LAD/LM (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.68­0.85) than in the no-LAD/LM territories (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.83­1.05). This benefit was driven by a lower risk of cardiac death (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.70­0.98) and myocardial infarction (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.65­0.85) in patients with LAD/LM disease randomized to DES. An interaction (P=0.004) was also found for all-cause mortality with patients with LAD/LM disease deriving benefit from DES (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.76­0.97). CONCLUSIONS: As compared with BMS, new-generation DES were associated with sustained reduction in the composite of cardiac death or myocardial infarction if used for the treatment of LAD or left main coronary stenoses.

Early Intravenous Beta-Blockers in Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Before Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

BACKGROUND: The impact of intravenous (IV) beta-blockers before primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) on infarct size and clinical outcomes is not well established. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to conduct the first double-blind, placebo-controlled international multicenter study testing the effect of early IV beta-blockers before PPCI in a general ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) population. METHODS: STEMI patients presenting <12 h from symptom onset in Killip class I to II without atrioventricular block were randomized 1:1 to IV metoprolol (2 × 5-mg bolus) or matched placebo before PPCI. Primary endpoint was myocardial infarct size as assessed by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) at 30 days. Secondary endpoints were enzymatic infarct size and incidence of ventricular arrhythmias. Safety endpoints included symptomatic bradycardia, symptomatic hypotension, and cardiogenic shock. RESULTS: A total of 683 patients (mean age 62 ± 12 years; 75% male) were randomized to metoprolol (n = 336) or placebo (n = 346). CMR was performed in 342 patients (54.8%). Infarct size (percent of left ventricle [LV]) by CMR did not differ between the metoprolol (15.3 ± 11.0%) and placebo groups (14.9 ± 11.5%; p = 0.616). Peak and area under the creatine kinase curve did not differ between both groups. LV ejection fraction by CMR was 51.0 ± 10.9% in the metoprolol group and 51.6 ± 10.8% in the placebo group (p = 0.68). The incidence of malignant arrhythmias was 3.6% in the metoprolol group versus 6.9% in placebo (p = 0.050). The incidence of adverse events was not different between groups. CONCLUSIONS: In a nonrestricted STEMI population, early intravenous metoprolol before PPCI was not associated with a reduction in infarct size. Metoprolol reduced the incidence of malignant arrhythmias in the acute phase and was not associated with an increase in adverse events. (Early-Beta blocker Administration before reperfusion primary PCI in patients with ST-elevation Myocardial Infarction [EARLY-BAMI]; EudraCT no: 2010-023394-19).

[Pulmonary oedema in pregnancy: myocardial infarction as a possible cause]. / Longoedeem tijdens de zwangerschap: een myocardinfarct als oorzaak.

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary oedema in pregnancy may have various causes. A systematic approach to a pregnant woman with pulmonary oedema is important. Acute myocardial infarction should be considered during the differential diagnosis. CASE DESCRIPTION: A 30-year-old primigravida, who had been admitted with pre-eclampsia, complained of increasing shortness of breath at 28 weeks and 5 days gestation. She had pulmonary oedema, which was considered to be consistent with pre-eclampsia. A caesarean section was performed at 28 weeks and 6 days gestation because of increasing oxygen dependency. Following the caesarean section the patient was transferred to the ICU because of imminent respiratory failure, and a semi-acute anterior infarction was diagnosed by means of an ECG (estimated ejection fraction: 30%). The patient was discharged in a reasonable condition 8 days after the caesarean section. CONCLUSION: Differential diagnosis of pulmonary oedema during pregnancy is wide. Consultation with a cardiologist is recommended if a possible cardiac cause is suspected. Determination of troponin levels, ECG and an electrocardiogram should be the first diagnostic tools of choice in a pregnant patient.

Direct drug-eluting stenting to reduce stent restenosis: a randomized comparison of direct stent implantation to conventional stenting with pre-dilation or provisional stenting in elective PCI patients.

OBJECTIVES: The aim was to investigate whether a strategy of direct drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation without pre-dilation is associated with a reduced incidence of restenosis compared with CS with pre-dilation or provisional stenting (PS). BACKGROUND: Previous studies were performed comparing direct stenting (DS) with conventional stenting (CS) after pre-dilation; however, none of these in the DES era. Therefore, the STRESSED (direct Stenting To reduce REStenosis in Stent Era with Drug elution) study was designed and carried out. METHODS: A total of 600 patients with angina pectoris or recent myocardial infarction were randomized to a DS, CS, or PS strategy. The primary endpoint was the mean minimal lumen diameter at 9-month follow-up angiography. Secondary endpoints were clinical procedural success defined as angiographic success without in-hospital major adverse cardiac events (MACE), and MACE at 9-month and 2-year follow-up. RESULTS: Stent implantation in the DS group was 98%, 99% in the CS group, and 77% in the PS group. Percutaneous coronary intervention success was 99% in all groups. The minimal lumen diameter at 9-month follow-up was 2.12 ± 0.58 mm (DS), 2.17 ± 0.67 mm (CS), and 1.99 ± 0.69 mm (PS), p = 0.556 for comparison of DS with CS, p = 0.073 for comparison of DS with PS. The absolute difference was -0.05 (DS to CS), 95% confidence interval: -0.19 to -0.09, p = 0.48 and 0.13 (DS to PS), confidence interval: -0.02 to -0.27, p = 0.087. Restenosis was found in 3.4% (DS), 6.7% (CS), and 11.5% (PS), p = 0.025. At 9-month and 2-year follow-up, MACE occurred in 6.8% and 11.5% (DS), 4.6% and 10.3% (CS), and 7.6% and 13.8% (PS) (p = 0.439 and 0.536), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Direct DES implantation compared with conventional DES implantation did not reduce restenosis. Provisional stenting, however, was associated with a higher rate of restenosis. This did not translate into a difference in the rate of MACE. (STRESSED study: direct Stenting To reduce REStenosis in Stent Era with Drug elution; ISRCTN41213536).

Drug-eluting or bare-metal stents for percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials

Background New-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) have mostly been investigated in head-to-head non-inferiority trials against early-generation DES and have typically shown similar efficacy and superior safety. How the safety profile of new-generation DES compares with that of bare-metal stents (BMS) is less clear.Methods We did an individual patient data meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials to compare outcomes after implantation of new-generation DES or BMS among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. The primary outcome was the composite of cardiac death or myocardial infarction. Data were pooled in a one-stage random-effects meta-analysis and examined at maximum follow-up and a 1-year landmark. Risk estimates are reported as hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs. This study is registered in PROSPERO, number CRD42017060520.Findings We obtained individual data for 26 616 patients in 20 randomized trials. Mean follow-up was 3·2 (SD 1·8) years. The risk of the primary outcome was reduced in DES recipients compared with BMS recipients (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·78­0·90, p<0·001) owing to a reduced risk of myocardial infarction (0·79, 0·71­0·88, p<0·001) and a possible slight but non-significant cardiac mortality benefit (0·89, 0·78­1·01, p=0·075). All-cause death was unaffected (HR with DES 0·96, 95% CI 0·88­1·05, p=0·358), but risk was lowered for definite stent thrombosis (0·63, 0·50­0·80, p<0·001) and target-vessel revascularization (0·55, 0·50­0·60, p<0·001). We saw a time-dependent treatment effect, with DES being associated with lower risk of the primary outcome than BMS up to 1 year after placement. While the effect was maintained in the longer term, there was no further divergence from BMS after 1 year. Interpretation The performance of new-generation DES in the first year after implantation means that BMS should no longer be considered the gold standard for safety. Further development of DES technology should target improvements in clinical outcomes beyond 1 year. (AU)