Outcomes of the Novel Supreme Drug-Eluting Stent in Complex Coronary Lesions: A PIONEER III Substudy.

Background: The Supreme healing-targeted drug-eluting stent (DES) is designed to promote endothelial healing to reduce stent-related adverse events. This may be particularly relevant among complex lesions that have a higher rate of adverse events. We sought to compare 1-year outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention in complex lesions between the Supreme DES and contemporary durable-polymer, everolimus-eluting stents (DP-EES). Methods: PIONEER III was a multicenter, prospective, single-blind clinical trial, randomizing 1629 patients with either an acute or chronic coronary syndrome in a 2:1 ratio to the Supreme DES or DP-EES. Complex lesions (American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association type B2/C) were found in 1137 patients. Outcomes were also compared for specific parameters of lesion complexity: severe calcification, long length (>20 â€‹mm), and severe tortuosity. The primary end point was target lesion failure at 1 â€‹year. Results: At 1 â€‹year, there was no difference in target lesion failure between the Supreme DES and DP-EES: (5.7% vs 5.6%; hazard ratio 1.00, 95% confidence interval 0.59-1.68, P = .99). Similarly, there were no differences in the secondary end points of lesion success (99.7% vs 99.4%, P = .41), device success (97.0% vs 98.5%, P = .14), target vessel failure (6.5% vs 7.4%, P = .50), major adverse cardiac events (7.8% vs 8.5%, P = .64), or stent thrombosis (0.7% vs 1.1%, P = .48). A trend was observed toward a higher rate of target lesion revascularization with the Supreme DES (2.5% vs 0.9%, P = .06). Conclusions: This study suggests that the Supreme DES is as effective and safe at 1 â€‹year compared with the standard DP-EES across a broad spectrum of lesion complexity.

Pressure wire compared to microcatheter sensing for coronary fractional flow reserve: the PERFORM study.

AIMS: Among technologies used to assess FFR, a monorail, sensor-tipped micro pressure catheter (PC) may be advantageous for delivery and re-assessment. We sought to determine whether the larger cross-sectional area of the PC influences FFR measurements compared to the pressure wire. METHODS AND RESULTS: PERFORM was a single-centre, prospective study designed to determine the precision and accuracy of the PC compared with the pressure wire (PW) for measurement of FFR. Eligible patients had native coronary artery target lesions with visually estimated diameter stenosis of 40-90%. The independently adjudicated primary endpoint was the difference in hyperaemic PW-determined minimal FFR with and without the PC distal to the stenosis. Seventy-four patients (95 lesions) were prospectively analysed between December 2015 and December 2016. Median hyperaemic FFR was 0.84 (IQR 0.78, 0.89) with the PW and 0.79 (IQR 0.73, 0.85) with the PC distal to the stenosis (p<0.001). Such differences led to clinical discordance, whereby the PC decreased the hyperaemic PW-determined FFR from >0.80 to ≤0.80 in 17 of 95 measurements (19%). Median resting Pd/Pa was lower following introduction of the PC compared with the PW alone (0.93 [IQR 0.90, 0.97] versus 0.90 [IQR 0.86, 0.95], p<0.001). Median pressure drift was not different between the PW and the PC (0.01 [IQR -0.01, 0.05] versus 0.01 [IQR 0.00, 0.02], p=0.38). CONCLUSIONS: Introduction of the PC reduced both hyperaemic FFR and resting Pd/Pa compared with the PW alone, leading to re-classifying physiological significance to below the clinical threshold in one out of five assessments.