Five-Year Outcomes after PCI or CABG for Left Main Coronary Disease.

BACKGROUND: Long-term outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with contemporary drug-eluting stents, as compared with coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG), in patients with left main coronary artery disease are not clearly established. METHODS: We randomly assigned 1905 patients with left main coronary artery disease of low or intermediate anatomical complexity (according to assessment at the participating centers) to undergo either PCI with fluoropolymer-based cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents (PCI group, 948 patients) or CABG (CABG group, 957 patients). The primary outcome was a composite of death, stroke, or myocardial infarction. RESULTS: At 5 years, a primary outcome event had occurred in 22.0% of the patients in the PCI group and in 19.2% of the patients in the CABG group (difference, 2.8 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.9 to 6.5; P = 0.13). Death from any cause occurred more frequently in the PCI group than in the CABG group (in 13.0% vs. 9.9%; difference, 3.1 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.2 to 6.1). In the PCI and CABG groups, the incidences of definite cardiovascular death (5.0% and 4.5%, respectively; difference, 0.5 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.4 to 2.5) and myocardial infarction (10.6% and 9.1%; difference, 1.4 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.3 to 4.2) were not significantly different. All cerebrovascular events were less frequent after PCI than after CABG (3.3% vs. 5.2%; difference, -1.9 percentage points; 95% CI, -3.8 to 0), although the incidence of stroke was not significantly different between the two groups (2.9% and 3.7%; difference, -0.8 percentage points; 95% CI, -2.4 to 0.9). Ischemia-driven revascularization was more frequent after PCI than after CABG (16.9% vs. 10.0%; difference, 6.9 percentage points; 95% CI, 3.7 to 10.0). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with left main coronary artery disease of low or intermediate anatomical complexity, there was no significant difference between PCI and CABG with respect to the rate of the composite outcome of death, stroke, or myocardial infarction at 5 years. (Funded by Abbott Vascular; EXCEL ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01205776.).

Antithrombotic regimens for percutaneous coronary intervention of the left main coronary artery: The EXCEL trial.

OBJECTIVES: We compared the effect of bivalirudin or heparin and use or nonuse of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPI) on the outcome of left main coronary artery (LMCA) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the randomized EXCEL trial. BACKGROUND: The optimal antithrombotic regimen to support PCI of the LMCA remains controversial because of low representation of this subset in clinical trials. METHODS: The PCI cohort (n = 928) in EXCEL was divided according to bivalirudin versus heparin antithrombin treatment and compared for the primary composite endpoint of death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke at 30 days and 5 years. RESULTS: Bivalirudin was used in 319 patients (34.4%). The composite endpoint at 30 days occurred in 7.2% versus 3.8% bivalirudin and heparin patients, respectively, p = .02; at 5 years, the composite endpoint occurred in 26.3% versus 19.9% bivalirudin and heparin patients, respectively, p = .02. Major bleeding was more frequent in bivalirudin patients (4.1% versus 1.3%, p = .008). There were no differences in stent thrombosis between the groups. Bivalirudin use was an independent predictor of the 30-day composite endpoint (OR 2.88, 95% CI 1.28-6.48, p = .01) but not of the 5-year composite endpoint (OR 1.30, 95% CI 0.84-2.02, p = .23). GPI use was infrequent (n = 67, 7.2%) and was not associated with adverse outcomes. CONCLUSION: Among patients undergoing LMCA PCI in the EXCEL trial, procedural use of bivalirudin was associated with greater rates of periprocedural MI and the 30-day composite endpoint without reducing bleeding complications. Five-year outcomes were similar. GPIs were used infrequently and were not associated with clinical outcomes.

Impact of large periprocedural myocardial infarction on mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting for left main disease: an analysis from the EXCEL trial.

AIMS: The prognostic implications of periprocedural myocardial infarction (PMI) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) remain controversial. We examined the 3-year rates of mortality among patients with and without PMI undergoing left main coronary artery intervention randomized to PCI with everolimus-eluting stents vs. CABG in the large-scale, multicentre, prospective, randomized EXCEL trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: By protocol, PMI was defined using an identical threshold for PCI and CABG [creatinine kinase-MB (CK-MB) elevation >10× the upper reference limit (URL) within 72 h post-procedure, or >5× URL with new Q-waves, angiographic vessel occlusion, or loss of myocardium on imaging]. Cox proportional hazards modelling was performed controlling for age, sex, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, left ventricular ejection fraction, SYNTAX score, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). A total of 1858 patients were treated as assigned by randomization. Periprocedural MI occurred in 34/935 (3.6%) of patients in the PCI group and 56/923 (6.1%) of patients in the CABG group [odds ratio 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40-0.93; P = 0.02]. Periprocedural MI was associated with SYNTAX score, COPD, cross-clamp duration and total procedure duration, and not using antegrade cardioplegia. By multivariable analysis, PMI was associated with cardiovascular death and all-cause death at 3 years [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 2.63, 95% CI 1.19-5.81; P = 0.02 and adjusted HR 2.28, 95% CI 1.22-4.29; P = 0.01, respectively]. The effect of PMI was consistent for PCI and CABG for cardiovascular death (Pinteraction = 0.56) and all-cause death (Pinteraction = 0.59). Peak post-procedure CK-MB ≥10× URL strongly predicted mortality, whereas lesser degrees of myonecrosis were not associated with prognosis. CONCLUSION: In the EXCEL trial, PMI was more common after CABG than PCI, and was strongly associated with increased 3-year mortality after controlling for potential confounders. Only extensive myonecrosis (CK-MB ≥10× URL) was prognostically important.

Three-Year Outcomes With the Absorb Bioresorbable Scaffold: Individual-Patient-Data Meta-Analysis From the ABSORB Randomized Trials.

BACKGROUND: The Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) completely resorbs within 3 years after coronary artery implantation. The safety and effectiveness of BVS through this critical 3-year period have not been characterized. METHODS: We performed an individual-patient-data pooled meta-analysis of the 4 randomized ABSORB trials in which 3389 patients with coronary artery disease were randomly assigned to everolimus-eluting Absorb BVS (n=2164) or cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents (n=1225). The primary efficacy outcome measure was target lesion failure (cardiac mortality, target vessel myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization), and the primary safety outcome measure was device thrombosis. RESULTS: BVS compared with cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents resulted in higher 3-year rates of target lesion failure (11.7% versus 8.1%; risk ratio [RR], 1.38; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.10-1.73; P=0.006), driven by greater target vessel myocardial infarction (7.8% versus 4.2%; RR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.26-2.35; P=0.0006) and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (6.6% versus 4.4%; RR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.05-1.98; P=0.02), with comparable cardiac mortality (1.1% versus 1.1%; RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.47-1.88; P=0.85). Device thrombosis rates through 3 years were also higher with BVS (2.4% versus 0.6%; RR, 3.71; 95% CI, 1.70-8.11; P=0.001). Between 1 and 3 years, target lesion failure rates (6.1% versus 3.9%; P=0.02) and device thrombosis rates (1.1% versus 0.0%; P<0.0001) were higher with BVS than cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents. CONCLUSIONS: In the present individual-patient-data pooled meta-analysis of the ABSORB trials, BVS was associated with increased rates of target lesion failure and device thrombosis between 1 and 3 years and cumulatively through 3 years of follow-up compared with everolimus-eluting stents. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifiers: NCT01751906, NCT01844284, NCT01923740, and NCT01425281.

Everolimus-Eluting Stents or Bypass Surgery for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease.

BACKGROUND: Patients with obstructive left main coronary artery disease are usually treated with coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG). Randomized trials have suggested that drug-eluting stents may be an acceptable alternative to CABG in selected patients with left main coronary disease. METHODS: We randomly assigned 1905 eligible patients with left main coronary artery disease of low or intermediate anatomical complexity to undergo either percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with fluoropolymer-based cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents (PCI group, 948 patients) or CABG (CABG group, 957 patients). Anatomic complexity was assessed at the sites and defined by a Synergy between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) score of 32 or lower (the SYNTAX score reflects a comprehensive angiographic assessment of the coronary vasculature, with 0 as the lowest score and higher scores [no upper limit] indicating more complex coronary anatomy). The primary end point was the rate of a composite of death from any cause, stroke, or myocardial infarction at 3 years, and the trial was powered for noninferiority testing of the primary end point (noninferiority margin, 4.2 percentage points). Major secondary end points included the rate of a composite of death from any cause, stroke, or myocardial infarction at 30 days and the rate of a composite of death, stroke, myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven revascularization at 3 years. Event rates were based on Kaplan-Meier estimates in time-to-first-event analyses. RESULTS: At 3 years, a primary end-point event had occurred in 15.4% of the patients in the PCI group and in 14.7% of the patients in the CABG group (difference, 0.7 percentage points; upper 97.5% confidence limit, 4.0 percentage points; P=0.02 for noninferiority; hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.79 to 1.26; P=0.98 for superiority). The secondary end-point event of death, stroke, or myocardial infarction at 30 days occurred in 4.9% of the patients in the PCI group and in 7.9% in the CABG group (P<0.001 for noninferiority, P=0.008 for superiority). The secondary end-point event of death, stroke, myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven revascularization at 3 years occurred in 23.1% of the patients in the PCI group and in 19.1% in the CABG group (P=0.01 for noninferiority, P=0.10 for superiority). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with left main coronary artery disease and low or intermediate SYNTAX scores by site assessment, PCI with everolimus-eluting stents was noninferior to CABG with respect to the rate of the composite end point of death, stroke, or myocardial infarction at 3 years. (Funded by Abbott Vascular; EXCEL ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01205776 .).

Long-term forecasting and comparison of mortality in the Evaluation of the Xience Everolimus Eluting Stent vs. Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization (EXCEL) trial: prospective validation of the SYNTAX Score II.

AIMS: To prospectively validate the SYNTAX Score II and forecast the outcomes of the randomized Evaluation of the Xience Everolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization (EXCEL) Trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: Evaluation of the Xience Everolimus Eluting Stent vs. Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization is a prospective, randomized multicenter trial designed to establish the efficacy and safety of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with the everolimus-eluting stent compared with coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery in subjects with unprotected left-main coronary artery (ULMCA) disease and low-intermediate anatomical SYNTAX scores (<33). After completion of patient recruitment in EXCEL, the SYNTAX Score II was prospectively applied to predict 4-year mortality in the CABG and PCI arms. The 95% prediction intervals (PIs) for mortality were computed using simulation with bootstrap resampling (10 000 times). For the entire study cohort, the 4-year predicted mortalities were 8.5 and 10.5% in the PCI and CABG arms, respectively [odds ratios (OR) 0.79; 95% PI 0.43-1.50). In subjects with low (≤22) anatomical SYNTAX scores, the predicted OR was 0.69 (95% PI 0.34-1.45); in intermediate anatomical SYNTAX scores (23-32), the predicted OR was 0.93 (95% PI 0.53-1.62). Based on 4-year mortality predictions in EXCEL, clinical characteristics shifted long-term mortality predictions either in favour of PCI (older age, male gender and COPD) or CABG (younger age, lower creatinine clearance, female gender, reduced left ventricular ejection fraction). CONCLUSION: The SYNTAX Score II indicates at least an equipoise for long-term mortality between CABG and PCI in subjects with ULMCA disease up to an intermediate anatomical complexity. Both anatomical and clinical characteristics had a clear impact on long-term mortality predictions and decision making between CABG and PCI.

Comparison of everolimus-eluting and sirolimus-eluting coronary stents: 1-year outcomes from the Randomized Evaluation of Sirolimus-eluting Versus Everolimus-eluting stent Trial (RESET).

BACKGROUND: Several recent randomized trials comparing everolimus-eluting stent (EES) and sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) reported similar outcomes. However, only 1 trial was powered for a clinical end point, and no trial was powered for evaluating target-lesion revascularization. METHODS AND RESULTS: Randomized Evaluation of Sirolimus-eluting versus Everolimus-eluting stent Trial is a prospective multicenter randomized open-label trial comparing EES with SES in Japan. The trial was powered for evaluating noninferiority of EES relative to SES in terms of target-lesion revascularization. From February and July 2010, 3197 patients were randomly assigned to receive either EES (1597 patients) or SES (1600 patients). At 1 year, the primary efficacy end point of target-lesion revascularization occurred in 65 patients (4.3%) in the EES group and in 76 patients (5.0%) in the SES group, demonstrating noninferiority of EES to SES (P(noninferiority)<0.0001, and P(superiority)=0.34). Cumulative incidence of definite stent thrombosis was low and similar between the 2 groups (0.32% versus 0.38%, P=0.77). An angiographic substudy enrolling 571 patients (EES, 285 patients and SES, 286 patients) demonstrated noninferiority of EES relative to SES regarding the primary angiographic end point of in-segment late loss (0.06±0.37 mm versus 0.02±0.46 mm, P(noninferiority)<0.0001, and P(superiority)=0.24) at 278±63 days after index stent implantation. CONCLUSIONS: One-year clinical and angiographic outcome after EES implantation was noninferior to and not different from that after SES implantation in a stable coronary artery disease population with relatively less complex coronary anatomy. One-year clinical outcome after both EES and SES use was excellent with a low rate of target-lesion revascularization and a very low rate of stent thrombosis. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01035450.

Everolimus-eluting versus paclitaxel-eluting stents in coronary artery disease.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have established the superiority of coronary everolimus-eluting stents over paclitaxel-eluting stents with respect to angiographic findings. However, these trials were not powered for superiority in clinical end points. METHODS: We randomly assigned 3687 patients at 66 U.S. sites to receive everolimus-eluting stents or paclitaxel-eluting stents without routine follow-up angiography. The primary end point was the 1-year composite rate of target-lesion failure (defined as cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization). RESULTS: Everolimus-eluting stents were superior to paclitaxel-eluting stents with respect to the primary end point of target-lesion failure (4.2% vs. 6.8%; relative risk, 0.62; 95% confidence interval, 0.46 to 0.82; P=0.001). Everolimus-eluting stents were also superior with respect to the major secondary end point of the 1-year rate of ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization (P=0.001) and were noninferior with respect to the major secondary end point of the 1-year composite rate of cardiac death or target-vessel myocardial infarction (P<0.001 for noninferiority; P=0.09 for superiority). The 1-year rates of myocardial infarction and stent thrombosis were also lower with everolimus-eluting stents than with paclitaxel-eluting stents (1.9% vs. 3.1%, P=0.02 for myocardial infarction; 0.17% vs. 0.85%, P=0.004 for stent thrombosis). Target-lesion failure was consistently reduced with everolimus-eluting stents as compared with paclitaxel-eluting stents in 12 prespecified subgroups, except in the subgroup of patients with diabetes (6.4% vs. 6.9%, P=0.80). CONCLUSIONS: Everolimus-eluting stents, as compared with paclitaxel-eluting stents, resulted in reduced rates of target-lesion failure at 1 year, results that were consistent in all patients except those with diabetes, in whom the results were nonsignificantly different. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00307047.)

Everolimus-eluting stents in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: final 3-year results of the Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Subjects With de Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions trial.

OBJECTIVES: We compared the outcomes of patients treated with everolimus-eluting stents (EES) versus paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) at 3 years from the large-scale randomized SPIRIT IV trial. BACKGROUND: SPIRIT IV is the largest randomized trial comparing the outcomes of EES and PES. The present report represents the final long-term follow-up analysis from this study. METHODS: A total of 3,687 patients were randomized 2:1 to EES or PES, stratified by presence of diabetes mellitus and lesion characteristics. Prespecified subgroups were compared for interaction with stent allocation. The primary end point was target lesion failure (TLF) (the composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction [MI], or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization). RESULTS: At 3 years, TLF occurred in 9.2% versus 11.7% of EES- and PES-treated patients (hazard ratio [HR] 0.78 [0.63-0.97], P = .02). The incidence of death or MI was 5.9% versus 9.1%, respectively (HR 0.67 [0.52-0.85], P = .001), and there was a 64% reduction in stent thrombosis (Academic Research Consortium definite or probable definition) with EES (0.59% vs 1.60%, HR 0.36 [0.18-0.72], P = .003). The difference in target lesion revascularization at 3 years did not reach statistical significance (6.2% vs 7.8%, respectively, HR 0.78 [0.60-1.01], P = .06). There was no significant interaction between treatment allocation and any of the subgroups, including diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: When compared with PES, EES provides durable and significant reduction in TLF, especially due to its enhanced safety profile, with lower rates of death or MI and stent thrombosis up to 3 years.

An evidence-based review of the impact of periprocedural myocardial infarction in carotid revascularization.

Landmark trials comparing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) with medical therapy in patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic atherosclerotic stenosis of extracranial carotid arteries have favored carotid revascularization. Carotid artery stenting (CAS) has emerged as a minimally invasive option for revascularization of carotid artery stenoses and has been shown to be noninferior to CEA, regardless of patient symptom status. Debate continues regarding the importance of periprocedural myocardial infarction (PMI) as an endpoint in carotid revascularization trials. Recent randomized comparisons of CEA and CAS pre-specify PMI as an endpoint. Understanding PMI in CEA and CAS, the need for routine biomarker assessment surrounding both revascularization strategies, the effect of PMI on long-term morbidity and mortality, and the groups most at risk for PMI are of critical importance when choosing a carotid revascularization strategy for symptomatic and asymptomatic patients, since decreasing the incidence of PMI will make revascularization safer. This review examines available data regarding the relevance of PMI in vascular and carotid-specific outcomes.

Clinical outcomes in real-world patients with acute myocardial infarction receiving XIENCE V® everolimus-eluting stents: one-year results from the XIENCE V USA study.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this analysis was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of XIENCE V in acute myocardial infarction (AMI). BACKGROUND: The XIENCE V(®) Everolimus-eluting coronary stent was superior to the TAXUS(®) paclitaxel-eluting stent in angiographic and clinical outcomes in the SPIRIT II, III, and IV randomized controlled trials, but patients with AMI were excluded. METHODS: XIENCE V USA is a large, prospective, multicenter, real-world single-arm postmarket surveillance trial. Consecutive patients undergoing PCI with XIENCE V were enrolled. For this analysis, clinical outcomes in 673 patients presenting with AMI (STEMI, n = 125) were as compared to patients without AMI (n = 3528) at 1 year. RESULTS: At 1 year, ARC-defined stent thrombosis (ST) rates were 1.08% in AMI vs. 0.85% in the non-AMI group (P = 0.4987). The late ST (30 days-1 year) rates were 0.31% vs. 0.47% (AMI vs. non-AMI, P = 0.7551). Rates of target lesion revascularization (TLR) were 4.1% vs. 4.6% (P = 0.6104), and rates of target lesion failure (TLF) were 9.1% vs. 8.5%, (P = 0.5964). With the historical WHO definition of MI, 1 year TLF rates were 7.0% vs. 6.7% (P = 0.8001). Improvements in quality of life, angina frequency, angina stability, and physical limitations occurred at 6 months (each P < 0.0001) and were sustained at 1 year in both groups. There were no significant differences in clinical outcomes between STEMI and non-STEMI patients. CONCLUSIONS: At 1 year, AMI patients treated with XIENCE V had low rates of ST, TLR, and TLF, similar to non-AMI patients. Marked improvements in patients' health status in this subgroup were also demonstrated.

Long-term outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention for in-stent restenosis among Medicare beneficiaries.

BACKGROUND: In-stent restenosis (ISR) is highly prevalent and leads to repeat revascularisation. Long-term implications of ISR are poorly understood. AIMS: This study aimed to evaluate the long-term outcomes of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ISR. METHODS: National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI records for individuals aged ≥65 years undergoing PCI from July 2009 to December 2014 were linked to Medicare claims. Baseline characteristics and long-term rates of death, myocardial infarction (MI), repeat revascularisation including target vessel revascularisation (TVR), and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) were compared between ISR PCI versus de novo lesion PCI. RESULTS: Of 653,304 individuals, 10.2% underwent ISR PCI and 89.8% underwent de novo lesion PCI. The median duration of follow-up was 825 days (quartile 1: 352 days-quartile 3: 1,379 days). The frequency of MACCE (55.6% vs 45.0%; p<0.001), all-cause mortality (27.8% vs 25.5%; p<0.001), MI (19.0% vs 12.3%; p<0.001), repeat revascularisation (31.9% vs 18.6%; p<0.001), TVR (22.4% vs 8.0%; p<0.001), and stroke (8.8% vs 8.3%; p=0.005) was higher after ISR PCI. After multivariable adjustment, ISR PCI remained associated with worse long-term outcomes than after de novo lesion PCI (hazard ratio [HR] for MACCE 1.24 [95% CI: 1.22, 1.26], mortality 1.07 [95% CI: 1.05, 1.09], MI 1.44 [95% CI: 1.40, 1.48], repeat revascularisation 1.55 [95% CI: 1.51, 1.59], and TVR 2.50 [95% CI: 2.42, 2.58]). CONCLUSIONS: ISR PCI was common and was associated with a significantly higher risk of recurrent long-term major ischaemic events compared to patients undergoing de novo lesion PCI. There remains a need for new strategies to minimise ISR.

Outcomes of Vascular Closure Device Use After Transfemoral Coronary Intervention: Insights From the EXCEL Trial.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the safety and efficacy of using vascular closure devices (VCDs) in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for left main coronary artery disease (LM-CAD). BACKGROUND: VCDs provide rapid hemostasis for patients undergoing PCI with transfemoral access (TFA); however, the safety and efficacy of VCDs continues to be debated. METHODS: We analyzed data from the EXCEL trial in patients with LM-CAD in whom PCI was performed via TFA with vs without VCD. The primary endpoint was a composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke. Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 2-5 bleeding at 30 days was also assessed. Propensity-score matching analysis was used. RESULTS: Among 694 patients with LM-CAD undergoing TFA-PCI, 423 (61.0%) received VCDs (collagen plug, 320 [75.7%]; suture mediated, 55 [13.0%]; others, 48 [11.3%]). Patients with and without VCD use had similar 30-day rates of BARC type 2-5 bleeding (5.0% vs 6.7%, respectively; P=.30) and BARC type 3-5 bleeding (2.1% vs 3.7%, respectively; P=.20). There were no significant differences in the rates of death, MI, or stroke in patients with and without VCD use at 30 days (4.7% vs 4.1%, respectively; P=.74) or at 5 years (20.3% vs 24.2%, respectively; P=.16). These results were similar after adjustment. CONCLUSION: In the EXCEL trial, LM-CAD PCI via TFA using VCD was associated with similar 30-day rates of bleeding and comparable early and late major adverse cardiovascular events compared with manual compression.

Procedural characteristics and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for left main trifurcation disease: the EXCEL trial.

AIMS: Limited data exist regarding procedural and clinical outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with trifurcation disease of the distal left main (LM) coronary artery. We therefore aimed to examine the procedural methods and early and late outcomes among patients undergoing distal LM trifurcation versus bifurcation PCI in the EXCEL trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with distal LM bifurcation disease randomised to PCI with everolimus-eluting stents in the EXCEL trial were categorised into those with and without trifurcation involvement. Angiographic and procedural characteristics in addition to clinical events up to five-year follow-up after PCI were compared. Among 605 patients with site-reported distal LM disease, 61 patients (10.1%) were identified with trifurcation anatomy. The five-year primary composite endpoint of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke occurred in 16.6% of patients with trifurcation disease compared with 22.5% of patients with distal bifurcation disease only (p=0.32). Ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularisation rates were also similar (11.9% vs 12.0%, p=0.94). No significant differences in definite or probable stent thrombosis were observed between treatment groups (1.7% vs 2.3%, p=0.76). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the greater inherent complexity, procedural and long-term clinical outcomes following PCI of distal LM trifurcations with everolimus-eluting stents in a modest-sized cohort from the EXCEL trial were similar compared with treatment of distal LM bifurcation disease without trifurcations. These findings support PCI as a treatment strategy for selected patients with distal LM trifurcation disease. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01205776.

Implications of Alternative Definitions of Peri-Procedural Myocardial Infarction After Coronary Revascularization.

BACKGROUND: Varying definitions of procedural myocardial infarction (PMI) are in widespread use. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine the rates and clinical relevance of PMI using different definitions in patients with left main coronary artery disease randomized to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery in the EXCEL (Evaluation of XIENCE versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization) trial. METHODS: The pre-specified protocol definition of PMI (PMIProt) required a large elevation of creatine kinase-MB (CK-MB), with identical threshold for both procedures. The Third Universal Definition of MI (types 4a and 5) (PMIUD) required lesser biomarker elevations but with supporting evidence of myocardial ischemia, different after PCI and CABG. For the PMIUD, troponins were used preferentially (available in 49.5% of patients), CK-MB otherwise. The multivariable relationship between each PMI type and 5-year mortality was determined. RESULTS: PMIProt occurred in 34 of 935 (3.6%) patients after PCI and 56 of 923 (6.1%) patients after CABG (difference -2.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -4.4% to -0.5%; p = 0.015). The corresponding rates of PMIUD were 37 (4.0%) and 20 (2.2%), respectively (difference 1.8%; 95% CI: 0.2% to 3.4%; p = 0.025). Both PMIProt and PMIUD were associated with 5-year cardiovascular mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 2.18 [95% CI: 1.13 to 4.23] and 2.87 [95% CI: 1.44 to 5.73], respectively). PMIProt was associated with a consistent hazard of cardiovascular mortality after both PCI and CABG (pinteraction = 0.86). Conversely, PMIUD was strongly associated with cardiovascular mortality after CABG (adjusted HR: 11.94; 95% CI: 4.84 to 29.47) but not after PCI (adjusted HR: 1.14; 95% CI: 0.35 to 3.67) (pinteraction = 0.004). Results were similar for all-cause mortality and with varying PMIUD biomarker definitions. Only large biomarker elevations (CK-MB ≥10× upper reference limit and troponin ≥70× upper reference limit) were associated with mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The rates of PMI after PCI and CABG vary greatly with different definitions. In the EXCEL trial, the pre-specified PMIProt was associated with similar hazard after PCI and CABG, whereas PMIUD was strongly associated with mortality after CABG but not after PCI. (EXCEL Clinical Trial [EXCEL]; NCT01205776).

Mortality After Repeat Revascularization Following PCI or CABG for Left Main Disease: The EXCEL Trial.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate the incidence and impact on mortality of repeat revascularization after index percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD). BACKGROUND: The impact on mortality of the need of repeat revascularization following PCI or CABG in patients with unprotected LMCAD is unknown. METHODS: All patients with LMCAD and site-assessed low or intermediate SYNTAX (Synergy Between PCI With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery) scores randomized to PCI (n = 948) or CABG (n = 957) in the EXCEL (Evaluation of XIENCE Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization) trial were included. Repeat revascularization events were adjudicated by an independent clinical events committee. The effect of repeat revascularization on mortality through 3-year follow-up was examined in time-varying Cox regression models. RESULTS: During 3-year follow-up, there were 346 repeat revascularization procedures among 185 patients. PCI was associated with higher rates of any repeat revascularization (12.9% vs. 7.6%; hazard ratio: 1.73; 95% confidence interval: 1.28 to 2.33; p = 0.0003). Need for repeat revascularization was independently associated with increased risk for 3-year all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio: 2.05; 95% confidence interval: 1.13 to 3.70; p = 0.02) and cardiovascular mortality (adjusted hazard ratio: 4.22; 95% confidence interval: 2.10 to 8.48; p < 0.0001) consistently after both PCI and CABG (pint = 0.85 for both endpoints). Although target vessel revascularization and target lesion revascularization were both associated with an increased risk for mortality, target vessel non-target lesion revascularization and non-target vessel revascularization were not. CONCLUSIONS: In the EXCEL trial, repeat revascularization during follow-up was performed less frequently after CABG than PCI and was associated with increased mortality after both procedures. Reducing the need for repeat revascularization may further improve long-term survival after percutaneous or surgical treatment of LMCAD. (EXCEL Clinical Trial; NCT01205776).

SPIRIT IV trial design: a large-scale randomized comparison of everolimus-eluting stents and paclitaxel-eluting stents in patients with coronary artery disease.

BACKGROUND: In the 300-patient SPIRIT II and 1002-patient SPIRIT III randomized trials, the everolimus-eluting stent (EES) compared to the paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) resulted in reduced angiographic late loss (a primary end point in both trials), noninferior rates of 9-month target vessel failure (a primary end point in SPIRIT III), and reduced rates of target lesion revascularization and major adverse cardiac events (secondary end points). However, neither trial was powered for superiority for clinical end points, and the routine performance of angiographic follow-up may have artificially exaggerated the absolute benefits of EES. The relative efficacy of these 2 stents in patients with diabetes mellitus also remains controversial. We therefore designed a large-scale randomized trial without angiographic follow-up to further assess the differences between these 2 stent platforms. STUDY DESIGN: SPIRIT IV is an ongoing prospective, active-controlled, single-blinded, multicenter clinical trial in which 3690 patients with native coronary artery disease have been randomized 2:1 to EES versus PES. Patients with up to 3 de novo native coronary artery lesions (maximum 2 lesions per epicardial vessel) with length or=2.5 to

Bypass Surgery or Stenting for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease in Patients With Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: The randomized EXCEL (Evaluation of XIENCE versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization) trial reported a similar rate of the 3-year composite primary endpoint of death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke in patients with left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD) and site-assessed low or intermediate SYNTAX scores treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Whether these results are consistent in high-risk patients with diabetes, who have fared relatively better with CABG in most prior trials, is unknown. OBJECTIVES: In this pre-specified subgroup analysis from the EXCEL trial, the authors sought to examine the effect of diabetes in patients with LMCAD treated with PCI versus CABG. METHODS: Patients (N = 1,905) with LMCAD and site-assessed low or intermediate CAD complexity (SYNTAX scores ≤32) were randomized 1:1 to PCI with everolimus-eluting stents versus CABG, stratified by the presence of diabetes. The primary endpoint was the rate of a composite of all-cause death, stroke, or MI at 3 years. Outcomes were examined in patients with (n = 554) and without (n = 1,350) diabetes. RESULTS: The 3-year composite primary endpoint was significantly higher in diabetic compared with nondiabetic patients (20.0% vs. 12.9%; p < 0.001). The rate of the 3-year primary endpoint was similar after treatment with PCI and CABG in diabetic patients (20.7% vs. 19.3%, respectively; hazard ratio: 1.03; 95% confidence interval: 0.71 to 1.50; p = 0.87) and nondiabetic patients (12.9% vs. 12.9%, respectively; hazard ratio: 0.98; 95% confidence interval: 0.73 to 1.32; p = 0.89). All-cause death at 3 years occurred in 13.6% of PCI and 9.0% of CABG patients (p = 0.046), although no significant interaction was present between diabetes status and treatment for all-cause death (p = 0.22) or other endpoints, including the 3-year primary endpoint (p = 0.82) or the major secondary endpoints of death, MI, or stroke at 30 days (p = 0.61) or death, MI, stroke, or ischemia-driven revascularization at 3 years (p = 0.65). CONCLUSIONS: In the EXCEL trial, the relative 30-day and 3-year outcomes of PCI with everolimus-eluting stents versus CABG were consistent in diabetic and nondiabetic patients with LMCAD and site-assessed low or intermediate SYNTAX scores.(Evaluation of XIENCE versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization [EXCEL]; NCT01205776).