Immediate versus staged complete revascularisation in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome and multivessel coronary disease (BIOVASC): a prospective, open-label, non-inferiority, randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: In patients with acute coronary syndrome and multivessel coronary disease, complete revascularisation by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is associated with improved clinical outcomes. We aimed to investigate whether PCI for non-culprit lesions should be attempted during the index procedure or staged. METHODS: This prospective, open-label, non-inferiority, randomised trial was done at 29 hospitals across Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands, and Spain. We included patients aged 18-85 years presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction or non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome and multivessel (ie, two or more coronary arteries with a diameter of 2·5 mm or more and ≥70% stenosis based on visual estimation or positive coronary physiology testing) coronary artery disease with a clearly identifiable culprit lesion. A web-based randomisation module was used to randomly assign patients (1:1), with a random block size of four to eight, stratified by study centre, to undergo immediate complete revascularisation (PCI of the culprit lesion first, followed by other non-culprit lesions deemed to be clinically significant by the operator during the index procedure) or staged complete revascularisation (PCI of only the culprit lesion during the index procedure and PCI of all non-culprit lesions deemed to be clinically significant by the operator within 6 weeks after the index procedure). The primary outcome was the composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, any unplanned ischaemia-driven revascularisation, or cerebrovascular events at 1 year after the index procedure. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and unplanned ischaemia-driven revascularisation at 1 year after the index procedure. Primary and secondary outcomes were assessed in all randomly assigned patients by intention to treat. Non-inferiority of immediate to staged complete revascularisation was considered to be met if the upper boundary of the 95% CI of the hazard ratio (HR) for the primary outcome did not exceed 1·39. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03621501. FINDINGS: Between June 26, 2018, and Oct 21, 2021, 764 patients (median age 65·7 years [IQR 57·2-72·9] and 598 [78·3%] males) were randomly assigned to the immediate complete revascularisation group and 761 patients (median age 65·3 years [58·6-72·9] and 589 [77·4%] males) were randomly assigned to the staged complete revascularisation group, and were included in the intention-to-treat population. The primary outcome at 1 year occurred in 57 (7·6%) of 764 patients in the immediate complete revascularisation group and in 71 (9·4%) of 761 patients in the staged complete revascularisation group (HR 0·78, 95% CI 0·55-1·11, pnon-inferiority=0·0011). There was no difference in all-cause death between the immediate and staged complete revascularisation groups (14 [1·9%] vs nine [1·2%]; HR 1·56, 95% CI 0·68-3·61, p=0·30). Myocardial infarction occurred in 14 (1·9%) patients in the immediate complete revascularisation group and in 34 (4·5%) patients in the staged complete revascularisation group (HR 0·41, 95% CI 0·22-0·76, p=0·0045). More unplanned ischaemia-driven revascularisations were performed in the staged complete revascularisation group than in the immediate complete revascularisation group (50 [6·7%] patients vs 31 [4·2%] patients; HR 0·61, 95% CI 0·39-0·95, p=0·030). INTERPRETATION: In patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome and multivessel disease, immediate complete revascularisation was non-inferior to staged complete revascularisation for the primary composite outcome and was associated with a reduction in myocardial infarction and unplanned ischaemia-driven revascularisation. FUNDING: Erasmus University Medical Center and Biotronik.

Recurrent Myocardial Infarction After Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Multivessel Coronary Disease Is Primarily Related to Stent Failure: Post-Hoc Analysis of the PASSION Trial.

OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to investigate the risk of events related to non-culprit lesions after primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with multivessel coronary disease (MVD). BACKGROUND: In patients undergoing primary PCI for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) who are diagnosed with MVD, the optimal treatment strategy is currently under debate. Although observational data exposed an increased risk of multivessel PCI in the acute phase of STEMI, 2 recently published randomized controlled trials showed a reduction of death or recurrent myocardial infarction (MI) after preventive PCI of non-culprit lesions when compared with culprit-lesion PCI only. METHODS: We performed a post-hoc analysis of 279 patients with MVD included in the Paclitaxel-Eluting Stent versus Conventional Stent in Myocardial Infarction with ST-Segment Elevation (PASSION) trial. We analyzed the incidence and cause of recurrent MI. Recurrent MI due to stent failure was assumed in the event of definite or probable stent thrombosis. RESULTS: After 5 years, 14 patients (5.7%) with MVD had a recurrent MI versus 17 (5.4%) patients with 1-vessel disease (HR 1.06, 95%CI 0.52-2.15, P = 0.87). The majority of events was attributable to stent failure, while of the remaining 6 events, only 1 was proven to originate from a lesion that was judged significant at enrolment. CONCLUSIONS: In this post-hoc analysis of the PASSION trial, recurrent MI in patients with MVD was mainly related to stent failure rather than a new event originating from a significant stenosis in a non-culprit coronary artery.

Paclitaxel-eluting versus bare metal stents in primary PCI: a pooled patient-level meta-analysis of randomized trials.

Concerns have emerged regarding a higher risk of stent thrombosis after drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation, especially in the setting of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis based on individual patient data to evaluate long-term safety and effectiveness of paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) as compared to bare metal stents (BMS) in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for STEMI. We examined all completed randomized trials on PES for STEMI. Individual patient data were obtained from six trials. We performed survival analyses with the use of Cox-regression analysis stratified according to trial. Kaplan-Meier survival curves are presented with event rates reported as estimated probabilities. A subsequent landmark analysis was performed for patients who were event-free at 1-year follow-up in order to define outcome in terms of early (≤1 year) and late (>1 year) events. A total of six trials were finally included in the meta-analysis with 4435 patients, 2875 (64.8 %) assigned to PES and 1560 (35.2 %) to BMS. No significant differences in baseline characteristics were observed between the two groups. However, a significantly higher percentage of patients in the DES group were on dual antiplatelet therapy during 3-year follow-up, as compared to BMS. At long-term follow-up (1,095 [1,090-1,155] days), no significant difference between PES and BMS was observed in mortality (9.2 vs 11.9 %, respectively, HR [95 % CI] = 0.84 [0.67, 1.06], p = 0.15, pheterogeneity = 0.59), reinfarction (8.8 vs 7 %, respectively; HR [95 % CI] = 1.10 [0.84, 1.44], p = 0.51, pheterogeneity = 0.32), stent thrombosis (6.7 vs 4.0 % respectively, HR [95 % CI] = 1.13 [0.82, 1.55], p = 0.45, pheterogeneity = 0.99) and TVR (11.9 vs 20.0 %; HR [95 % CI] = 0.64 [0.54, 0.77], p < 0.0001, pheterogeneity = 0.25). Landmark analysis showed that PES was associated with a significantly higher rate of very late reinfarction (>1 year) (5.6 vs 3.9 %, HR [95 % CI] = 1.61 [1.05-2.47], p = 0.03, pheterogeneity = 0.51], very late ST (2.9 vs 1.1 %, HR [95 % CI] = 1.88 [1.00-3.54], p = 0.05, pheterogeneity = 0.94]. The present pooled patient-level meta-analysis demonstrates that among STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI, PES compared to BMS is associated with a significant reduction in TVR at long-term follow-up. Although there were no differences in cumulative mortality, reinfarction or stent thrombosis, the incidence of very late reinfarction and stent thrombosis was increased with PES.

Timing of Complete Multivessel Revascularization in Patients Presenting With Non-ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Complete revascularization of the culprit and all significant nonculprit lesions in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) and multivessel disease (MVD) reduces major adverse cardiac events, but optimal timing of revascularization remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to compare immediate complete revascularization (ICR) and staged complete revascularization (SCR) in patients presenting with NSTE-ACS and MVD. METHODS: This prespecified substudy of the BIOVASC (Percutaneous Complete Revascularization Strategies Using Sirolimus Eluting Biodegradable Polymer Coated Stents in Patients Presenting With Acute Coronary Syndrome and Multivessel Disease) trial included patients with NSTE-ACS and MVD. Risk differences of the primary composite outcome of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization (UIDR), or cerebrovascular events and its individual components were compared between ICR and SCR at 1 year. RESULTS: The BIOVASC trial enrolled 1,525 patients; 917 patients presented with NSTE-ACS, of whom 459 were allocated to ICR and 458 to SCR. Incidences of the primary composite outcome were similar in the 2 groups (7.9% vs 10.1%; risk difference 2.2%; 95% CI: -1.5 to 6.0; P = 0.15). ICR was associated with a significant reduction of MIs (2.0% vs 5.3%; risk difference 3.3%; 95% CI: 0.9 to 5.7; P = 0.006), which was maintained after exclusion of procedure-related MIs occurring during the index or staged procedure (2.0% vs 4.4%; risk difference 2.4%; 95% CI: 0.1 to 4.7; P = 0.032). UIDRs were also reduced in the ICR group (4.2% vs 7.8%; risk difference 3.5%; 95% CI: 0.4 to 6.6; P = 0.018). CONCLUSIONS: ICR is safe in patients with NSTE-ACS and MVD and was associated with a reduction in MIs and UIDRs at 1 year.

Lack of long-term clinical benefit of thrombus aspiration during primary percutaneous coronary intervention with paclitaxel-eluting stents or bare-metal stents: post-hoc analysis of the PASSION-trial.

BACKGROUND: Although current clinical guidelines recommend the use of thrombus aspiration (TA) during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI), previous studies evaluating TA demonstrated contradictory results. The aim of this study was to evaluate long-term clinical outcome after TA in adjunct to PPCI for acute ST-segment myocardial infarction (STEMI), as compared with conventional treatment, with the use of paclitaxel-eluting stents or bare-metal stents. METHODS: We analyzed data of the PASSION trial, in which 619 patients with STEMI were randomly assigned to a paclitaxel-eluting stent or a bare-metal stent. TA was performed in 311 patients (50.2%). Clinical endpoints at 2 years were compared between patients who received TA during PPCI with patients who underwent conventional PPCI. The primary outcome of interest was a composite of cardiac death, recurrent myocardial infarction (MI), or target-lesion revascularization (TLR). A propensity score model was made to account for baseline differences that could have affected the probability of performing TA. RESULTS: Complete follow-up was available for 598 patients (96.6%). The cumulative incidence of the combined outcome measure of cardiac death, recurrent MI, or TLR was 40 (13.0%) in the TA group and 41 (13.5%) in the conventional PPCI group (HR 0.96; 95% CI 0.62-1.47; P = 0.84). Also after adjusting for propensity score, no significant difference in event rate was observed between both treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this post-hoc analysis of the PASSION trial, TA in adjunct to PPCI did not affect rates of major adverse cardiac events at 2 years follow-up, as compared with conventional PPCI.

Primary percutaneous coronary intervention by magnetic navigation compared with conventional wire technique.

Aims Comparison of magnetic guidewire navigation in percutaneous coronary intervention (MPCI) vs. conventional percutaneous coronary intervention (CPCI) for the treatment of acute myocardial infarction. Methods and results We compared 65 sequential patients (mean age 61 ± 15 years) undergoing primary MPCI with those of 405 patients undergoing CPCI (mean age 61 ± 13 years). The major endpoint was contrast media use. Technical success and procedural outcomes were evaluated. Clinical demographics and angiographic characteristics of the two groups were similar, except for fewer patients with previous coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and hypertension in the CPCI group and fewer patients with diabetes in the MPCI group. The technical success rate was high in both the MPCI and CPCI groups (95.4 vs. 98%). There was significantly less contrast media usage in the MPCI compared with the CPCI group, median reduction of contrast media of 30 mL with an OR = 0.41 (0.21-0.81). Fluoroscopy times were significantly reduced for MPCI compared with CPCI, median reduction of 7.2 min with an OR = 0.42 (0.20-0.79). Conclusion This comparison indicates the feasibility and non-inferiority of magnetic navigation in performing primary PCI and suggests the possibility of reductions in contrast media use and fluoroscopy time compared with CPCI.

Extremity Dysfunction After Large-Bore Radial and Femoral Arterial Access.

Background The use of large-bore (LB) arterial access and guiding catheters has been advocated for complex percutaneous coronary intervention. However, the impact of LB transradial access (TRA) and transfemoral access (TFA) on extremity dysfunction is currently unknown. Methods and Results The predefined substudy of the COLOR (Complex Large-Bore Radial PCI) trial aimed to assess upper and lower-extremity dysfunction after LB radial and femoral access. Upper-extremity function was assessed in LB TRA-treated patients by the Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire and lower-extremity function in LB TFA-treated patients by the Lower Extremity Functional Scale questionnaire. Extremity pain and effect of access site complications and risk factors on extremity dysfunction was also analyzed. There were 343 patients who completed analyzable questionnaires. Overall, upper and lower-extremity function did not decrease over time when LB TRA and TFA were used for complex percutaneous coronary intervention, as represented by the median Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score (6.8 at baseline and 2.1 at follow-up, higher is worse) and Lower Extremity Functional Scale score (56 at baseline and 58 at follow-up, lower is worse). Clinically relevant extremity dysfunction occurred in 6% after TRA and 9% after TFA. A trend for more pronounced upper-limb dysfunction was present in female patients after LB TRA (P=0.05). Lower-extremity pain at discharge was significantly higher in patients with femoral access site complications (P=0.02). Conclusions Following LB TRA and TFA, self-reported upper and lower-limb function did not decrease over time in the majority of patients. Clinically relevant limb dysfunction occurs in a small minority of patients regardless of radial or femoral access. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03846752.

A randomized comparison of manual versus mechanical thrombus removal in primary percutaneous coronary intervention in the treatment of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (TREAT-MI).

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and long-term clinical outcome of manual thrombus aspiration with the Export catheter (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN) versus mechanical thrombus cutting/aspiration with the X-sizer system (eV3, White Bear Lake, MN) in primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). BACKGROUND: In PPCI for acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), markers of myocardial reperfusion are improved with adjunctive thrombectomy. Previous studies of different devices showed a variability in performance, suitability, and short-term clinical outcome. In current literature, no direct comparison is available. METHODS: We prospectively randomized 201 patients admitted for PPCI for STEMI to either the Export catheter or the X-sizer prior to stent deployment. Technical success in advancing to and across the lesion, improvement of flow, reduction of thrombus, and the effect on ST-segment resolution were examined. The primary endpoint of the follow-up study was the combined endpoint of cardiac death, recurrent myocardial infarction (MI), or target-vessel revascularization (TVR) at 3 years. RESULTS: Although the Export catheter was more successfully deployed, other procedural parameters were similar with a trend toward better ST-segment resolution (56.6% vs. 44%; P = 0.06) as compared to the X-sizer system. The occurrence of the primary clinical endpoint at 3 years was 22.2% and 18.6%, respectively (HR 1.20; 95% CI 0.65-2.22; P = 0.35). CONCLUSION: Despite shorter procedural times, better lesion crossing, and fewer complications, both surrogate endpoints as well as 3-year clinical follow-up were similar with the use of the Export catheter as compared to the X-sizer system.

Randomized Comparison Between Radial and Femoral Large-Bore Access for Complex Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate whether transradial (TR) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is superior to transfemoral (TF) PCI in complex coronary lesions with large-bore guiding catheters with respect to clinically relevant access site-related bleeding or vascular complications. BACKGROUND: The femoral artery is currently the most applied access site for PCI of complex coronary lesions, especially when large-bore guiding catheters are required. With downsizing of TR equipment, TR PCI may be increasingly applied in these patients and might be a safer alternative compared with the TF approach. METHODS: An international prospective multicenter trial was conducted, randomizing 388 patients with planned PCI for complex coronary lesions, including chronic total occlusion, left main, heavy calcification, or complex bifurcation, to either 7-F TR access (TRA) or 7-F TF access (TFA). The primary endpoint was defined as access site-related clinically significant bleeding or vascular complications requiring intervention at discharge. The secondary endpoint was procedural success. RESULTS: The primary endpoint event rate was 3.6% for TRA and 19.1% for TFA (p < 0.001). The crossover rate from radial to femoral access was 3.6% and from femoral to radial access was 2.6% (p = 0.558). The procedural success rate was 89.2% for TFA and 86.0% for TRA (p = 0.285). There was no difference between TFA and TRA with regard to procedural duration, contrast volume, or radiation dose. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing PCI of complex coronary lesions with large-bore access, radial compared with femoral access is associated with a significant reduction in clinically relevant access-site bleeding or vascular complications, without affecting procedural success. (Complex Large-Bore Radial Percutaneous Coronary Intervention [PCI] Trial [Color]; NCT03846752).

Complex Large-Bore Radial percutaneous coronary intervention: rationale of the COLOR trial study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The radial artery has become the standard access site for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in stable coronary artery disease and acute coronary syndrome, because of less access site related bleeding complications. Patients with complex coronary lesions are under-represented in randomised trials comparing radial with femoral access with regard to safety and efficacy. The femoral artery is currently the most applied access site in patients with complex coronary lesions, especially when large bore guiding catheters are required. With slender technology, transradial PCI may be increasingly applied in patients with complex coronary lesions when large bore guiding catheters are mandatory and might be a safer alternative as compared with the transfemoral approach. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A total of 388 patients undergoing complex PCI will be randomised to radial 7 French access with Terumo Glidesheath Slender (Terumo, Japan) or femoral 7 French access as comparator. The primary outcome is the incidence of the composite end point of clinically relevant access site related bleeding and/or vascular complications requiring intervention. Procedural success and major adverse cardiovascular events up to 1 month will also be compared between both groups. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for the study was granted by the local Ethics Committee at each recruiting center ('Medisch Ethische Toetsing Commissie Isala Zwolle', 'Commissie voor medische ethiek ZNA', 'Comité Medische Ethiek Ziekenhuis Oost-Limburg', 'Comité d'éthique CHU-Charleroi-ISPPC', 'Commission cantonale d'éthique de la recherche CCER-Republique et Canton de Geneve', 'Ethik Kommission de Ärztekammer Nordrhein' and 'Riverside Research Ethics Committee'). The trial outcomes will be published in peer-reviewed journals of the concerned literature. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03846752.

Paclitaxel-eluting versus uncoated stents in primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

BACKGROUND: Drug-eluting coronary-artery stents have been shown to decrease restenosis and therefore the likelihood that additional procedures will be required after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We evaluated the use of a drug-eluting stent in patients undergoing PCI for acute myocardial infarction with ST-segment elevation. METHODS: We randomly assigned 619 patients presenting with an acute myocardial infarction with ST-segment elevation to receive either a paclitaxel-eluting stent or an uncoated stent. The primary end point was a composite of death from cardiac causes, recurrent myocardial infarction, or target-lesion revascularization at 1 year. RESULTS: Baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics in both groups were well matched. There was a trend toward a lower rate of serious adverse events in the paclitaxel-stent group than in the uncoated-stent group (8.8% vs. 12.8%; adjusted relative risk, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.37 to 1.07; P=0.09). A nonsignificant trend was also detected in favor of the paclitaxel-stent group, as compared with the uncoated-stent group, in the rate of death from cardiac causes or recurrent myocardial infarction (5.5% vs. 7.2%, P=0.40) and in the rate of target-lesion revascularization (5.3% vs. 7.8%, P=0.23). The incidence of stent thrombosis during 1 year of follow-up was the same in both groups (1.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Although the use of paclitaxel-eluting stents in acute myocardial infarction with ST-segment elevation reduced the incidence of serious adverse cardiac events at 1 year by 4.0 percentage points, as compared with uncoated stents, the difference was not statistically significant. (Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN65027270 [controlled-trials.com].).

Outcomes associated with drug-eluting and bare-metal stents: a collaborative network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Whether the two drug-eluting stents approved by the US Food and Drug Administration-a sirolimus-eluting stent and a paclitaxel-eluting stent-are associated with increased risks of death, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis compared with bare-metal stents is uncertain. Our aim was to compare the safety and effectiveness of these stents. METHODS: We searched relevant sources from inception to March, 2007, and contacted investigators and manufacturers to identify randomised controlled trials in patients with coronary artery disease that compared drug-eluting with bare-metal stents, or that compared sirolimus-eluting stents head-to-head with paclitaxel-eluting stents. Safety outcomes included mortality, myocardial infarction, and definite stent thrombosis; the effectiveness outcome was target lesion revascularisation. We included 38 trials (18,023 patients) with a follow-up of up to 4 years. Trialists and manufacturers provided additional data on clinical outcomes for 29 trials. We did a network meta-analysis with a mixed-treatment comparison method to combine direct within-trial comparisons between stents with indirect evidence from other trials while maintaining randomisation. FINDINGS: Mortality was similar in the three groups: hazard ratios (HR) were 1.00 (95% credibility interval 0.82-1.25) for sirolimus-eluting versus bare-metal stents, 1.03 (0.84-1.22) for paclitaxel-eluting versus bare-metal stents, and 0.96 (0.83-1.24) for sirolimus-eluting versus paclitaxel-eluting stents. Sirolimus-eluting stents were associated with the lowest risk of myocardial infarction (HR 0.81, 95% credibility interval 0.66-0.97, p=0.030 vs bare-metal stents; 0.83, 0.71-1.00, p=0.045 vs paclitaxel-eluting stents). There were no significant differences in the risk of definite stent thrombosis (0 days to 4 years). However, the risk of late definite stent thrombosis (>30 days) was increased with paclitaxel-eluting stents (HR 2.11, 95% credibility interval 1.19-4.23, p=0.017 vs bare-metal stents; 1.85, 1.02-3.85, p=0.041 vs sirolimus-eluting stents). The reduction in target lesion revascularisation seen with drug-eluting stents compared with bare-metal stents was more pronounced with sirolimus-eluting stents than with paclitaxel-eluting stents (0.70, 0.56-0.84; p=0.0021). INTERPRETATION: The risks of mortality associated with drug-eluting and bare-metal stents are similar. Sirolimus-eluting stents seem to be clinically better than bare-metal and paclitaxel-eluting stents.

Reperfusion injury in humans: a review of clinical trials on reperfusion injury inhibitory strategies.

The principal therapy in patients with myocardial infarction to limit infarct size is myocardial reperfusion by mechanical or pharmacological intervention. Reperfusion has been proposed to cause myocardial injury beyond that caused by the preceding ischaemia, termed "reperfusion injury" (RI). While the precise mechanism of RI is still incompletely understood, a large number of clinical studies have been performed over the past decade targeting some of the postulated mechanisms of RI. These clinical studies were based on experimental data demonstrating significant myocardial salvage. Nevertheless, clinical benefits were absent or very limited. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of the various strategies that inhibit RI and to discuss potential mechanisms that may contribute to the discrepancy between the promising pre-clinical data and the rather disappointing results obtained from prospective clinical trials. There are numerous differences between the experimental models and clinical studies, including the fact that experimental studies typically use abrupt occlusion and reperfusion protocols in animals with previously healthy myocardium that apparently do not predict the therapeutic efficacy of novel cardioprotective agents in a clinical setting with pre-existing progressive coronary disease, intermittent coronary occlusion, and relatively late reperfusion. However, discrepancies also exist between experimental studies. Future experimental studies of reperfusion injury should use models that mimic the clinical situation more closely. Furthermore, future large clinical trials should only be performed in cases where the drug under investigation proved to reduce RI in a series of well-designed (possibly multicenter) experimental studies and in clinical trials with predefined subgroups.

Safety and feasibility of a PAclitaxel-eluting balloon angioplasty in Primary Percutaneous coronary intervention in Amsterdam (PAPPA): one-year clinical outcome of a pilot study.

AIMS: In primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI), stenting has been shown to reduce the need for repeat target lesion revascularisation (TLR) compared to balloon angioplasty alone, but did not result in a reduction of recurrent myocardial infarction (MI) or cardiac death. Meanwhile, stent-related adverse events such as stent thrombosis continue to be of concern. Our aim was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of drug- coated balloon (DCB) angioplasty without stenting in PPCI. METHODS AND RESULTS: One hundred patients presenting with ST-elevation MI were prospectively enrolled in this pilot study. They underwent PPCI with DCB angioplasty; additional stenting was allowed only in case of type C to F coronary dissection or residual stenosis >50%. All patients were treated with i.v. bivalirudin. The primary endpoint was the composite of cardiac death, recurrent MI and TLR. A total of 59 patients received treatment with DCB angioplasty alone, whereas additional stenting was required in 41 patients. One-year clinical follow-up was completed in 98 patients. A total of five major adverse cardiac events were reported (5%). Cardiac death was seen in two patients, while three patients underwent TLR. CONCLUSIONS: This first study of a DCB angioplasty-only strategy in the setting of PPCI showed good one-year clinical results.

Drug-eluting stents in patients with anterior STEMI undergoing primary angioplasty: a substudy of the DESERT cooperation.

BACKGROUND: Several concerns have emerged on the higher risk of in-stent thrombosis after drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation, especially in the setting of STEMI patients. Few data have even been reported in high-risk patients, such as those with anterior MI. Therefore this represents the aim of the current study. METHODS: The literature was scanned by formal searches of electronic databases (MEDLINE and CENTRAL). We examined all completed randomized trials of DES for STEMI. The following key words were used for study selection: randomized trial, myocardial infarction, reperfusion, primary angioplasty, stenting, DES, sirolimus-eluting stent (SES), Cypher, paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES), Taxus. No language restrictions were enforced. RESULTS: Individual patient's data were obtained from 11 out of 13 trials, including a total of 2,782 patients with anterior MI [1,739 or 62.5% randomized to DES and 1,043 or 37.5% randomized to bare-metal stent (BMS)]. At long-term follow-up, no significant benefit was observed with DES as compared to BMS in terms of mortality [9.8 vs 10.9%, HR (95% CI) = 0.81 (0.61, 1.07), p = 0.13, p heterogeneity = 0.18], reinfarction [8.8 vs 6.4%, respectively; HR (95% CI) = 1.14 (0.80, 1.61), p = 0.47, p heterogeneity = 0.82], and stent thrombosis [5.6 vs 5%, OR (95% CI) = 0.88 (0.59, 1.30), p = 0.51, p heterogeneity = 0.65], whereas DES was associated with a significant reduction in terms of target-vessel revascularization (TVR) [13.7 vs 23.4%; OR (95% CI) = 0.56 (0.46, 0.69), p < 0.0001, p het = 0.81] that was observed at both early (within 1 year) [7 vs 14.7%, HR (95% CI) = 0.56 (0.46, 0.69), p < 0.0001, p het = 0.81] and late (>1 year) follow-up [7.2 vs 9%, HR (95% CI) = 0.67 (0.47, 0.96), p = 0.03, p het = 0.96]. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that among patients with anterior STEMI undergoing primary angioplasty, SES and PES, as compared to BMS, are associated with a significant reduction in TVR at long-term follow-up. No concerns were found with the use of first-generation DES in terms of mortality.

Impact of hypertension on clinical outcome in STEMI patients undergoing primary angioplasty with BMS or DES: insights from the DESERT cooperation.

BACKGROUND: Hypertension is a well known risk factor for atherosclerosis. However, data on the prognostic impact of hypertension in patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) are inconsistent and mainly related to studies performed in the thrombolytic era, with very few data in patients undergoing primary angioplasty. Therefore, the aim of the current study was to evaluate the impact hypertension on clinical outcome in STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI with BMS or DES. METHODS: Our population is represented by 6298 STEMI patients undergoing primary angioplasty included in the DESERT database from 11 randomized trials comparing DES vs BMS for STEMI. RESULTS: Hypertension was observed in 2764 patients (43.9%), and associated with ageing (p<0.0001), female gender (p<0.001), diabetes (p<0.0001), hypercholesterolemia (p<0.0001), previous MI (p=0.002), previous revascularization (p=0.002), longer time-to-treatment (p<0.001), preprocedural TIMI 3 flow, and with a lower prevalence of smoking (41% vs 53.9%, p<0.001) and anterior MI (42% vs 45.9%, p=0.002). Hypertension was associated with impaired postprocedural TIMI 0-2 flow (Adjusted OR [95% CI]=1.22 [1.01-1.47], p=0.034). At a follow-up of 1,201 ± 440 days, hypertension was associated with higher mortality (adjusted HR [95% CI]=1.24 [1.01-1.54], p=0.048), reinfarction (adjusted HR [95% CI]=1.31 [1.03-1.66], p=0.027), stent thrombosis (adjusted HR [95% CI]=1.29 [0.98-1.71], p=0.068) and TVR (adjusted HR [95% CI]=1.22 [1.04-1.44], p=0.013). CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that among STEMI patients undergoing primary angioplasty with DES or BMS, hypertension is independently associated with impaired epicardial reperfusion, mortality, reinfarction and TVR, and a trend in higher ST.

Meta-analysis comparing efficacy and safety of first generation drug-eluting stents to bare-metal stents in patients with diabetes mellitus undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

Several concerns have emerged regarding the higher risk for stent thrombosis (ST) after drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation, especially in the setting of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Few data have been reported so far in patients with diabetes mellitus, which is associated with high rates of target vessel revascularization after bare-metal stent (BMS) implantation but also higher rates of ST after DES implantation. Therefore, the aim of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of individual patients' data to evaluate the long-term safety and effectiveness of DES compared with BMS in patients with diabetes who undergo primary percutaneous coronary intervention for STEMI. Published reports were scanned by formal searches of electronic databases (MEDLINE and CENTRAL). All completed randomized trials of DES for STEMI were examined. No language restrictions were enforced. Individual patients' data were obtained from 11 of 13 trials, including a total of 972 patients with diabetes (616 [63.4%] randomized to DES and 356 [36.6%] to BMS). At long-term follow-up (median 1,095 days, interquartile range 1,087 to 1,460), DES significantly reduced the occurrence of target vessel revascularization (hazard ratio 0.42, 95% confidence interval 0.29 to 0.59, p <0.0001), without any significant difference in terms of mortality, late reinfarction, and ST (>1 year) with DES. In conclusion, this meta-analysis, based on individual patients' data from 11 randomized trials, showed that among patients with diabetes with STEMIs who undergo primary percutaneous coronary intervention, sirolimus-eluting stents and paclitaxel-eluting stents, compared with BMS, are associated with a significant reduction in target vessel revascularization at long-term follow-up, without any apparent concern in terms of mortality, despite the trend toward higher rates of reinfarction and ST.

Impact of diabetes on long-term outcome after primary angioplasty: insights from the DESERT cooperation.

OBJECTIVE: Diabetes has been shown to be associated with worse survival and repeat target vessel revascularization (TVR) after primary angioplasty. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the impact of diabetes on long-term outcome in patients undergoing primary angioplasty treated with bare metal stents (BMS) and drug-eluting stents (DES). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Our population is represented by 6,298 ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients undergoing primary angioplasty included in the DESERT database from 11 randomized trials comparing DES with BMS. RESULTS: Diabetes was observed in 972 patients (15.4%) who were older (P < 0.001), more likely to be female (P < 0.001), with higher prevalence of hypertension (P < 0.001), hypercholesterolemia (P < 0.001), and longer ischemia time (P < 0.001), and without any difference in angiographic and procedural characteristics. At long-term follow-up (1,201 ± 441 days), diabetes was associated with higher rates of death (19.1% vs. 7.4%; P < 0.0001), reinfarction (10.4% vs. 7.5%; P < 0.001), stent thrombosis (7.6% vs. 4.8%; P = 0.002) with similar temporal distribution--acute, subacute, late, and very late--between diabetic and control patients, and TVR (18.6% vs. 15.1%; P = 0.006). These results were confirmed in patients receiving BMS or DES, except for TVR, there being no difference observed between diabetic and nondiabetic patients treated with DES. The impact of diabetes on outcome was confirmed after correction for baseline confounding factors (mortality, P < 0.001; repeat myocardial infarction, P = 0.006; stent thrombosis, P = 0.007; TVR, P = 0.027). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that among STEMI patients undergoing primary angioplasty, diabetes is associated with worse long-term mortality, reinfarction, and stent thrombosis in patients receiving DES and BMS. DES implantation, however, does mitigate the known deleterious effect of diabetes on TVR after BMS.

Impact of age on long-term outcome after primary angioplasty with bare-metal or drug-eluting stent (from the DESERT cooperation).

Despite mechanical reperfusion, elderly patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) still experience unsatisfactory outcomes. Drug-eluting stents (DES) have significantly reduced target-vessel revascularization (TVR), but concerns have emerged about the higher risk of late stent thrombosis, which may be more pronounced in elderly patients. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of age on outcome in patients with STEMI who underwent primary angioplasty with bare-metal stents (BMS) or DES. Our population comprised 6,298 patients who underwent primary angioplasty and stent implantation included in the Drug-Eluting Stent in Primary Angioplasty (DESERT) Cooperation database. Age was significantly associated with female gender (p <0.001), diabetes (p <0.001), hypertension (p <0.001), previous myocardial infarction (MI; p <0.001), ischemia time (p <0.001), and anterior MI (p <0.001) but inversely related to smoking (p <0.001). Elderly patients most often had infarct-related artery located in the descending artery (p = 0.014) and impaired postprocedural thrombolysis in myocardial infarction flow (p <0.001). Elderly patients were less often on clopidogrel at follow-up. At long-term follow-up, age was associated with a higher rate of death (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval] = 2.17 [1.97 to 2.39], p <0.0001), whereas no impact was observed on reinfarction (p = 0.36), stent thrombosis (p = 0.84), and TVR (p = 0.54). These results were confirmed in patients receiving both BMS and DES. The impact of age on mortality was confirmed after correction for baseline confounding factors (gender, diabetes hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, smoking, ischemia time, anterior MI, infarct-related artery location, and postprocedural thrombolysis in myocardial infarction 3 flow; adjusted hazard ratio [95% confidence interval] = 2.13 [1.78 to 2.56], p <0.001). In conclusion, this study shows that in patients with STEMI who underwent primary angioplasty, age is independently associated with higher mortality, observed with both BMS and DES, whereas no impact was observed on the rate of reinfarction, stent thrombosis, and TVR.