Amphilimus- vs. zotarolimus-eluting stents in patients with diabetes mellitus and coronary artery disease: the SUGAR trial.

AIM: Patients with diabetes mellitus are at high risk of adverse events after percutaneous revascularization, with no differences in outcomes between most contemporary drug-eluting stents. The Cre8 EVO stent releases a formulation of sirolimus with an amphiphilic carrier from laser-dug wells, and has shown clinical benefits in diabetes. We aimed to compare Cre8 EVO stents to Resolute Onyx stents (a contemporary polymer-based zotarolimus-eluting stent) in patients with diabetes. METHODS AND RESULTS: We did an investigator-initiated, randomized, controlled, assessor-blinded trial at 23 sites in Spain. Eligible patients had diabetes and required percutaneous coronary intervention. A total of 1175 patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive Cre8 EVO or Resolute Onyx stents. The primary endpoint was target-lesion failure, defined as a composite of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically indicated target-lesion revascularization at 1-year follow-up. The trial had a non-inferiority design with a 4% margin for the primary endpoint. A superiority analysis was planned if non-inferiority was confirmed. There were 106 primary events, 42 (7.2%) in the Cre8 EVO group and 64 (10.9%) in the Resolute Onyx group [hazard ratio (HR): 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.44-0.96; Pnon-inferiority < 0.001; Psuperiority = 0.030]. Among the secondary endpoints, Cre8 EVO stents had significantly lower rate than Resolute Onyx stents of target-vessel failure (7.5% vs. 11.1%, HR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.46-0.99; P = 0.042). Probable or definite stent thrombosis and all-cause death were not significantly different between groups. CONCLUSION: In patients with diabetes, Cre8 EVO stents were non-inferior to Resolute Onyx stents with regard to target-lesion failure composite outcome. An exploratory analysis for superiority at 1 year suggests that the Cre8 EVO stents might be superior to Resolute Onyx stents with regard to the same outcome. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03321032.

Long-term outcomes after deferral of revascularization of in-stent restenosis using fractional flow reserve.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the outcomes of deferred coronary revascularization in patients with non-significant in-stent restenosis (ISR) by physiological assessment. BACKGROUND: The pathophysiology and natural history of ISR is markedly different from de-novo stenoses. There is a paucity of data on the safety of deferral of revascularization of ISR using physiological assessment. METHODS: In this single centre study, using a propensity-score matched analysis, we compared the long-term clinical outcomes of patients with ISR and de-novo disease deferred based on intracoronary physiology. Matching was on a 1:2 basis of ISR to de-novo stenosis. The primary end point was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) a composite of all-cause mortality, target lesion revascularization or target vessel myocardial infarction at 36 months. RESULTS: Matched cohorts of 56 ISR and 112 de-novo stenoses were analyzed. The median percentage stenosis was 50% in both groups (p = 0.403). Deferral was based on fractional flow reserve (FFR). The mean FFR was 0.86 across both groups (p = 0.942). At 36-months, freedom from MACE was similar between groups; 86.2% versus 92.8% log rank p=0.180 for ISR and de-novo lesions, respectively. Neither were there differences in the individual components of MACE. CONCLUSIONS: Deferral of coronary revascularization in patients with ISR based on its functional impact is associated to similar long-term safety as in de-novo coronary stenosis.

Vascular Injury After Stenting　- Insights of Systemic Mechanisms of Vascular Repair.

BACKGROUND: The role of circulating progenitor cells (CPC) in vascular repair following everolimus-eluting stent (EES) implantation is largely unknown. The aim of the study was to investigate the relationship between temporal variation in CPC levels following EES implantation and the degree of peri-procedural vascular damage, and stent healing, as measured by optical coherence tomography (OCT).Methods and Results: CPC populations (CD133+/KDR+/CD45low) included patients with stable coronary artery disease undergoing stent implantation, and were evaluated using a flow cytometry technique both at baseline and at 1 week. OCT evaluation was performed immediately post-implantation to quantify the stent-related injury and at a 9-month follow up to assess the mid-term vascular response. Twenty patients (mean age 66±9 years; 80% male) with EES-treated stenoses (n=24) were included in this study. Vascular injury score was associated with the 1-week increase of CD133+/KDR+/CD45low (ß 0.28 [95% CI 0.15; 0.41]; P<0.001) and with maximum neointimal thickness at a 9-month follow up (ß 0.008 [95% CI 0.0004; 0.002]; P=0.04). Inverse relationships between numbers of uncoated and apposed struts for the 9-month and the 1-week delta values of CD133+/KDR+/CD45low (ß -12.53 [95% CI -22.17; -2.90]; P=0.011), were also found. CONCLUSIONS: The extent of vessel wall injury influences early changes in the levels of CPC and had an effect on mid-term vascular healing after EES implantation. Early CPC mobilisation was associated with mid-term strut coverage.

Chronic Oral Anticoagulation Therapy and Prognosis of Patients Admitted to Hospital for COVID-19: Insights from the HOPE COVID-19 Registry.

Background: Most evidence regarding anticoagulation and COVID-19 refers to the hospitalization setting, but the role of oral anticoagulation (OAC) before hospital admission has not been well explored. We compared clinical outcomes and short-term prognosis between patients with and without prior OAC therapy who were hospitalized for COVID-19. Methods: Analysis of the whole cohort of the HOPE COVID-19 Registry which included patients discharged (deceased or alive) after hospital admission for COVID-19 in 9 countries. All-cause mortality was the primary endpoint. Study outcomes were compared after adjusting variables using propensity score matching (PSM) analyses. Results: 7698 patients were suitable for the present analysis (675 (8.8%) on OAC at admission: 427 (5.6%) on VKAs and 248 (3.2%) on DOACs). After PSM, 1276 patients were analyzed (638 with OAC; 638 without OAC), without significant differences regarding the risk of thromboembolic events (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.59-2.08). The risk of clinically relevant bleeding (OR 3.04, 95% CI 1.92-4.83), as well as the risk of mortality (HR 1.22, 95% CI 1.01-1.47; log-rank p value = 0.041), was significantly increased in previous OAC users. Amongst patients on prior OAC only, there were no differences in the risk of clinically relevant bleeding, thromboembolic events, or mortality when comparing previous VKA or DOAC users, after PSM. Conclusion: Hospitalized COVID-19 patients on prior OAC therapy had a higher risk of mortality and worse clinical outcomes compared to patients without prior OAC therapy, even after adjusting for comorbidities using a PSM. There were no differences in clinical outcomes in patients previously taking VKAs or DOACs. This trial is registered with NCT04334291/EUPAS34399.

Renin-angiotensin system inhibitors effect before and during hospitalization in COVID-19 outcomes: Final analysis of the international HOPE COVID-19 (Health Outcome Predictive Evaluation for COVID-19) registry.

BACKGROUND: The use of Renin-Angiotensin system inhibitors (RASi) in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been questioned because both share a target receptor site. METHODS: HOPE-COVID-19 (NCT04334291) is an international investigator-initiated registry. Patients are eligible when discharged after an in-hospital stay with COVID-19, dead or alive. Here, we analyze the impact of previous and continued in-hospital treatment with RASi in all-cause mortality and the development of in-stay complications. RESULTS: We included 6503 patients, over 18 years, from Spain and Italy with data on their RASi status. Of those, 36.8% were receiving any RASi before admission. RASi patients were older, more frequently male, with more comorbidities and frailer. Their probability of death and ICU admission was higher. However, after adjustment, these differences disappeared. Regarding RASi in-hospital use, those who continued the treatment were younger, with balanced comorbidities but with less severe COVID19. Raw mortality and secondary events were less frequent in RASi. After adjustment, patients receiving RASi still presented significantly better outcomes, with less mortality, ICU admissions, respiratory insufficiency, need for mechanical ventilation or prone, sepsis, SIRS and renal failure (p<0.05 for all). However, we did not find differences regarding the hospital use of RASi and the development of heart failure. CONCLUSION: RASi historic use, at admission, is not related to an adjusted worse prognosis in hospitalized COVID-19 patients, although it points out a high-risk population. In this setting, the in-hospital prescription of RASi is associated with improved survival and fewer short-term complications.

Clinical profile and prognosis in patients on oral anticoagulation before admission for COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) shows high morbidity and mortality, particularly in patients with concomitant cardiovascular diseases. Some of these patients are under oral anticoagulation (OAC) at admission, but to date, there are no data on the clinical profile, prognosis and risk factors of such patients during hospitalization for COVID-19. DESIGN: Subanalysis of the international 'real-world' HOPE COVID-19 registry. All patients with prior OAC at hospital admission for COVID-19 were suitable for the study. All-cause mortality was the primary endpoint. RESULTS: From 1002 patients included, 110 (60.9% male, median age of 81.5 [IQR 75-87] years, median Short-Form Charlson Comorbidity Index [CCI] of 1 [IQR 1-3]) were on OAC at admission, mainly for atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolism. After propensity score matching, 67.9% of these patients died during hospitalization, which translated into a significantly higher mortality risk compared to patients without prior OAC (HR 1.53, 95% CI 1.08-2.16). After multivariate Cox regression analysis, respiratory insufficiency during hospitalization (HR 6.02, 95% CI 2.18-16.62), systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) during hospitalization (HR 2.29, 95% CI 1.34-3.91) and the Short-Form CCI (HR 1.24, 95% CI 1.03-1.49) were the main risk factors for mortality in patients on prior OAC. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to patients without prior OAC, COVID-19 patients on OAC therapy at hospital admission showed lower survival and higher mortality risk. In these patients on OAC therapy, the prevalence of several comorbidities is high. Respiratory insufficiency and SIRS during hospitalization, as well as higher comorbidity, pointed out those anticoagulated patients with increased mortality risk.

COVID-19 and the impact of arterial hypertension-An analysis of the international HOPE COVID-19 Registry (Italy-Spain-Germany).

BACKGROUND: A systematic analysis of concomitant arterial hypertension in COVID-19 patients and the impact of angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) have not been studied in a large multicentre cohort yet. We conducted a subanalysis from the international HOPE Registry (https://hopeprojectmd.com, NCT04334291) comparing COVID-19 in presence and absence of arterial hypertension. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Out of 5837 COVID-19 patients, 2850 (48.8%) patients had the diagnosis arterial hypertension. 1978/2813 (70.3%) patients were already treated with ACEI or ARBs. The clinical outcome of the present subanalysis included all-cause mortality over 40 days of follow-up. RESULTS: Patients with arterial hypertension suffered significantly more from different complications including respiratory insufficiency (60.8% vs 39.5%), heart failure (9.9% vs 3.1%), acute kidney injury (25.3% vs 7.3%), pneumonia (90.6% vs 86%), sepsis (14.7% vs 7.5%), and bleeding events (3.6% vs 1.6%). The mortality rate was 29.6% in patients with concomitant arterial hypertension and 11.3% without arterial hypertension (P < .001). Invasive and non-invasive respiratory supports were significantly more required in presence of arterial hypertension as compared without it. In the multivariate cox regression analysis, while age≥65, benzodiazepine, antidepressant at admission, elevated LDH or creatinine, respiratory insufficiency and sepsis might be a positive independent predictors of mortality, antiviral drugs, interferon treatment, ACEI or ARBs at discharge or oral anticoagulation at discharge might be an independent negative predictor of the mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The mortality rate and in-hospital complications might be increased in COVID-19 patients with a concomitant history of arterial hypertension. The history of ACEI or ARBs treatments does not seem to impact the outcome of these patients.

Percutaneous mitral valve repair with MitraClip device in hemodynamically unstable patients: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Very few data exist on percutaneous mitral valve repair (PMVr) in unstable patients with concomitant moderate-severe mitral regurgitation (MR). The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate baseline characteristics, management and clinical outcomes of critically ill patients undergoing PMVr with MitraClip. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of the published data on MitraClip from its first use in 2003 to December 2020. Studies referring to critically ill patients in cardiogenic shock or acute refractory pulmonary edema were included. A total of 40 publications including 254 patients with significant MR (Grade 4 in 91%) were included. RESULTS: Mean age was 70 ± 12 years with mean Euroscore II and STS of 21 ± 13 and 20.5 ± 16, respectively. Clinical presentation was with cardiogenic shock and acute myocardial infarction in 72.8 and 60.0% of patients, respectively. Device success was achieved in 238 (93.7%) patients with a significant reduction in MR (Grade ≤ 2 in 91.8%, p < .001). The median weaning time from the procedure, to discontinuation of mechanical circulatory or respiratory support, was 2 days (IQR 1-4), with an in-hospital mortality and non-fatal complication rate of 12.6 and 9.1%, respectively. Kaplan-Meier curves estimated an overall mortality rate of 39.1% at 12-month follow-up, with persistent reduction in MR severity for survivors (Grade ≤ 2 in 81.3%) and one case of mitral valve reintervention. CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous mitral valve repair with MitraClip device is a technically feasible and potentially viable management option in high-risk patients with cardiogenic shock or refractory pulmonary edema and concomitant moderate-severe MR. Prospective trials are required to confirm these findings, and definitively determine the value of MitraClip in hemodynamically unstable patients.

Thin Strut CoCr Biodegradable Polymer Biolimus A9-Eluting Stents versus Thicker Strut Stainless Steel Biodegradable Polymer Biolimus A9-Eluting Stents: Two-Year Clinical Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: While thinner struts are associated with improved clinical outcomes in bare-metal stents (BMS), reducing strut thickness may affect drug delivery from drug-eluting stents (DES) and there are limited data comparing otherwise similar thin and thick strut DES. We assessed 2-year outcomes of patients treated with a thin strut (84-88um) cobalt-chromium, biodegradable polymer, Biolimus A9-eluting stent (CoCr-BP-BES) and compared these to patients treated with a stainless steel, biodegradable polymer, Biolimus A9-eluting stent (SS-BP-BES). METHODS: In total, 1257 patients were studied: 400 patients from 12 centres receiving ≥1 CoCr-BP-BES in the prospective Biomatrix Alpha registry underwent prespecified comparison with 857 patients who received ≥1 Biomatrix Flex SS-BP-BES in the LEADERS study (historical control). The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACE)-cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), or clinically driven target vessel revascularization (cd-TVR). Propensity analysis was used to adjust for differences in baseline variables and a landmark analysis at day-3 to account for differences in periprocedural MI definitions. RESULTS: MACE at 2 years occurred in 6.65% CoCr-BP-BES versus 13.23% SS-BP-BES groups (unadjusted HR 0.48 [0.31-0.73]; P=0.0005). Following propensity analysis, 2-year adjusted MACE rates were 7.4% versus 13.3% (HR 0.53 [0.35-0.79]; P=0.004). Definite or probable stent thrombosis, adjudicated using identical criteria in both studies, occurred less frequently with CoCr-BP-BES (1.12% vs. 3.22%; adjusted HR 0.32 [0.11-0.9]; P=0.034). In day-3 landmark analysis, the difference in 2-year MACE was no longer significant but there was a lower patient-orientated composite endpoint (11.7% vs. 18.4%; HR 0.6 [0.43-0.83]; P=0.006) and a trend to lower target vessel failure (5.8% vs. 9.1%; HR 0.63 [0.4-1.00]; P=0.078). CONCLUSION: At 2-year follow-up, propensity-adjusted analysis showed the thin strut (84-88um) Biomatrix Alpha CoCr-BP-BES was associated with improved clinical outcomes compared with the thicker strut (114-120um) Biomatrix Flex SS-BP-BES.

Clinical profile and predictors of in-hospital mortality among older patients hospitalised for COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is characterized by poor outcomes and mortality, particularly in older patients. METHODS: post hoc analysis of the international, multicentre, 'real-world' HOPE COVID-19 registry. All patients aged ≥65 years hospitalised for COVID-19 were selected. Epidemiological, clinical, analytical and outcome data were obtained. A comparative study between two age subgroups, 65-74 and ≥75 years, was performed. The primary endpoint was all cause in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: about, 1,520 patients aged ≥65 years (60.3% male, median age of 76 [IQR 71-83] years) were included. Comorbidities such as hypertension (69.2%), dyslipidaemia (48.6%), cardiovascular diseases (any chronic heart disease in 38.4% and cerebrovascular disease in 12.5%), and chronic lung disease (25.3%) were prevalent, and 49.6% were on ACEI/ARBs. Patients aged 75 years and older suffered more in-hospital complications (respiratory failure, heart failure, renal failure, sepsis) and a significantly higher mortality (18.4 vs. 48.2%, P < 0.001), but fewer admissions to intensive care units (11.2 vs. 4.8%). In the overall cohort, multivariable analysis demonstrated age ≥75 (OR 3.54), chronic kidney disease (OR 3.36), dementia (OR 8.06), peripheral oxygen saturation at admission <92% (OR 5.85), severe lymphopenia (<500/mm3) (OR 3.36) and qSOFA (Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Score) >1 (OR 8.31) to be independent predictors of mortality. CONCLUSION: patients aged ≥65 years hospitalised for COVID-19 had high rates of in-hospital complications and mortality, especially among patients 75 years or older. Age ≥75 years, dementia, peripheral oxygen saturation <92%, severe lymphopenia and qSOFA scale >1 were independent predictors of mortality in this population.