Zotarolimus-eluting durable-polymer-coated stent versus a biolimus-eluting biodegradable-polymer-coated stent in unselected patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (SORT OUT VI): a randomised non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: New-generation drug-eluting coronary stents have reduced the risk of coronary events, especially in patients with complex disease or lesions. To what extent different stent platforms, polymers, and antiproliferative drugs affect outcomes, however, is unclear. We investigated the safety and efficacy of a third-generation stent by comparing a highly biocompatible durable-polymer-coated zotarolimus-eluting stent with a biodegradable-polymer-coated biolimus-eluting stent. METHODS: This open-label, randomised, multicentre, non-inferiority trial was done at three sites across western Denmark. All patients who presented with stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes and at least one coronary artery lesion (more than 50% stenosis) from March, 2011, to August, 2012, were assessed for eligibility. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either the durable-polymer zotarolimus-eluting stent or the biodegradable-polymer biolimus-eluting stent. The primary endpoint was a composite of safety (cardiac death and myocardial infarction not clearly attributable to a non-target lesion) and efficacy (target-lesion revascularisation) at 12 months, analysed by intention to treat. The trial was powered to assess non-inferiority of durable-polymer zotarolimus-eluting stent compared with the biodegradable-polymer biolimus-eluting stent with a predetermined non-inferiority margin of 0·025. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01956448. FINDINGS: Of 7103 screened, 1502 patients with 1883 lesions were assigned to receive the durable-polymer zotarolimus-eluting stent and 1497 patients with 1791 lesions to receive the biodegradable-polymer biolimus-eluting stent. 79 (5·3%) and 75 (5·0%) patients, respectively, met the primary endpoint (absolute risk difference 0·0025, upper limit of one-sided 95% CI 0·016%; p=0·004). The individual components of the primary endpoint did not differ significantly between stent types at 12 months. INTERPRETATION: The durable-polymer-coated zotarolimus-eluting stent was non-inferior to the biodegradable-polymer-coated biolimus-eluting stent in unselected patients. FUNDING: Medtronic Cardiovascular and Biosensors Interventional Technologies.

Differential clinical outcomes after 1 year versus 5 years in a randomised comparison of zotarolimus-eluting and sirolimus-eluting coronary stents (the SORT OUT III study): a multicentre, open-label, randomised superiority trial.

BACKGROUND: In head-to-head comparisons of coronary drug-eluting stents, the primary endpoint is traditionally assessed after 9-12 months. However, the optimum timepoint for this assessment remains unclear. In this study, we assessed clinical outcomes at up to 5 years' follow-up in patients who received two different types of drug-eluting stents. METHODS: We undertook this multicentre, open-label, randomised superiority trial at five percutaneous coronary intervention centres in Denmark. We randomly allocated 2332 eligible adult patients (≥18 years of age) with an indication for drug-eluting stent implantation to the zotarolimus-eluting Endeavor Sprint stent (Medtronic, Santa Rosa, CA, USA) or the sirolimus-eluting Cypher Select Plus stent (Cordis, Johnson & Johnson, Warren, NJ, USA). Randomisation of participants was achieved by computer-generated block randomisation and a telephone allocation service. The primary endpoint of the SORT OUT III study was a composite of major adverse cardiac events-cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularisation-at 9 months' follow-up. In this study, endpoints included the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events and definite stent thrombosis at follow-up times of up to 5 years. Analysis was by intention to treat. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00660478. FINDINGS: We randomly allocated 1162 patients to receive the zotarolimus-eluting stent and 1170 to the sirolimus-eluting stent. At 5-year follow-up, rates of major adverse cardiac events were similar in patients treated with both types of stents (zotarolimus-eluting stents 197/1162 [17.0%] vs sirolimus-eluting stents 182/1170 [15.6%]; odds ratio [OR] 1.10, 95% CI 0.88-1.37; p=0.40). This finding was indicative of the directly contrasting results for rates of major adverse cardiac events at 1-year follow up (zotarolimus 93/1162 [8.0%] vs sirolimus 46/1170 [3.9%]; OR 2.13, 95% CI 1.48-3.07; p<0.0001) compared with those at follow-up between 1 and 5 years (104 [9.0%] vs 136 [11.6%]; OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.59-1.02; p=0.071). At 1-year follow-up, definite stent thrombosis was more frequent after implantation of the zotarolimus-eluting stent (13/1162 [1.1%]) than the sirolimus-eluting stent (4/1170 [0.3%]; OR 3.34, 95% CI 1.08-10.3; p=0.036), whereas the opposite finding was recorded for between 1 and 5 years' follow-up (zotarolimus-eluting stent 1/1162 [0.1%] vs sirolimus-eluting stent 21/1170 [1.8%], OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.01-0.36; p=0.003). 26 of 88 (30%) target lesion revascularisations in the zotarolimus-eluting stent group occurred between 1 and 5 years' follow-up, whereas 54 of 70 (77%) of those in the sirolimus-eluting stent group occurred during this follow-up period. INTERPRETATION: The superiority of sirolimus-eluting stents compared with zotarolimus-eluting stents at 1-year follow-up was lost after 5 years. The traditional 1-year primary endpoint assessment therefore might be insufficient to predict 5-year clinical outcomes in patients treated with coronary drug-eluting stent implantation. FUNDING: Cordis and Medtronic.

Randomized comparison of a sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent with a biolimus-eluting Nobori stent in patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention: Rationale and study design of the Scandinavian Organization for Randomized Trials with Clinical Outcome VII trial.

BACKGROUND: Third-generation coronary drug-eluting stents (DES) with biodegradable polymers have been designed to improve safety and efficacy. We designed a large scale registry-based randomized clinical trial to compare 2 third-generation DES: a thin strut, cobalt-chromium DES with silicon carbide-coating releasing sirolimus from a biodegradable polymer (O-SES, Orsiro; Biotronik, Bülach, Switzerland) with the stainless steel biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting Nobori stents (N-BES, Nobori; Terumo, Tokyo, Japan) in an all-comer patient population. DESIGN: The multicenter SORT OUT VII trial (NCT01879358) randomly assigned 2,530 patients to treatment with biodegradable polymer O-SES or biodegradable polymer N-BES at 3 sites in Western Denmark. Patients were eligible, if they were ≥18 years old; had chronic stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes; and ≥1 coronary lesion with >50% diameter stenosis, requiring treatment with a DES. The primary end point target lesion failure is a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (not related to other than index lesion), or target lesion revascularization within 12 months. Clinically, driven event detection based on Danish registries will be used. An event rate of 6.5% is assumed in each stent group. With a sample size of 1,157 patients in each treatment arm, a 2-group large-sample normal approximation test of proportions with a 1-sided 5% significance level will have 90% power to detect noninferiority of the O-SES compared with the N-BES with a predetermined noninferiority margin of 3.0%. CONCLUSION: The SORT OUT VII trial will determine whether the biodegradable polymers O-SES is noninferior to the N-BES with respect to driven event.

Influence of multivessel disease with or without additional revascularization on mortality in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: In patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), timely reperfusion with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is the preferred treatment. In primary PCI patients with multivessel disease, it is unclear whether culprit vessel PCI only is the preferred treatment. We compared mortality among (1) STEMI patients with single-vessel disease and those with multivessel disease and (2) multivessel disease patients with and without additional revascularization of nonculprit lesions within 2 months after the index PCI. METHODS: From January 2002 to June 2009, all patients presenting with STEMI and treated with primary PCI were identified from the Western Denmark Heart Registry, which covers a population of 3.0 million. The hazard ratio (HR) for death was estimated using a Cox regression model, controlling for potential confounding. RESULTS: The study cohort consisted of 8,822 patients: 4,770 (54.1%) had single-vessel disease and 4,052 (45.9%) had multivessel disease. Overall, 1-year cumulative mortality was 7.6%, and 7-year cumulative mortality was 24.0%. Multivessel disease was associated with higher 7-year mortality (adjusted HR 1.45 [95% CI 1.30-1.62], P < .001). Among patients with multivessel disease, lack of additional revascularization beyond the culprit lesion was associated with higher 7-year mortality (adjusted HR 1.50 [95% CI 1.25-1.80], P < .001). In patients with multivessel disease who underwent additional revascularization, 7-year mortality (adjusted HR 1.01 [95% CI 0.84-1.22], P = .89) was similar compared to patients with single-vessel disease. CONCLUSION: In STEMI patients, multivessel disease was associated with a higher mortality compared to single-vessel disease. In multivessel disease patients, additional revascularization was associated with a higher survival compared with culprit vessel PCI only.

A 10-month angiographic and 4-year clinical outcome of everolimus-eluting versus sirolimus-eluting coronary stents in patients with diabetes mellitus (the DiabeDES IV randomized angiography trial).

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare angiographic and clinical outcomes after the implantation of everolimus-eluting (EES) and sirolimus-eluting (SES) stents in patients with diabetes. BACKGROUND: There are limited data on long-term outcome after EES vs SES implantation in diabetic patients. METHODS: We randomized 213 patients with diabetes and coronary artery disease to EES (n = 108) or SES (n = 105) implantation. Angiographic follow-up was performed 10 months after the index procedure and all patients were followed clinically for 4 years. The primary endpoint was angiographic in-stent late luminal loss at 10-month follow-up. Secondary endpoints included angiographic restenosis rate, the need for target lesion revascularization (TLR) and major adverse cardiac events (MACE; defined as cardiac death, myocardial infarction, definite stent thrombosis, or TLR) at 4-year follow-up. RESULTS: At 10-month angiographic follow-up, in-stent late lumen loss was 0.20 ± 0.53 mm and 0.11 ± 0.49 mm (P = 0.28), and angiographic restenosis rate was 3.8% and 5.2% (P = 0.72) in the EES and SES groups, respectively. At 4-year clinical follow-up, MACE had occurred in 22 (20.4%) patients in the EES group and 25 (23.8%) patients in SES group (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.47-1.49; P = 0.55), with TLR performed in 6 (5.6%) and 10 (9.5%) patients in the two groups (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.21-1-58; P = 0.28). CONCLUSION: EES and SES had comparable 10-month angiographic and 4-year clinical outcomes in patients with diabetes mellitus and coronary artery disease.

Biolimus-eluting biodegradable polymer-coated stent versus durable polymer-coated sirolimus-eluting stent in unselected patients receiving percutaneous coronary intervention (SORT OUT V): a randomised non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Third-generation biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents might reduce the risk of stent thrombosis compared with first-generation permanent polymer drug-eluting stents. We aimed to further investigate the effects of a biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stent compared with a durable polymer-coated sirolimus-eluting stent in a population-based setting. METHODS: This randomised, multicentre, all-comer, non-inferiority trial was undertaken at three sites across western Denmark. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with chronic stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes, and at least one coronary artery lesion (>50% diameter stenosis). We randomly assigned patients (1:1) using an independently managed computer-generated allocation sequence to receive either a biolimus-eluting biodegradable polymer stent (Nobori, Terumo, Tokyo, Japan) or a sirolimus-eluting permanent polymer stent (Cypher Select Plus, Cordis, Johnson & Johnson, Warren, NJ, USA). The primary endpoint was a composite of safety (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, definite stent thrombosis) and efficacy (target vessel revascularisation) at 9 months, analysed by intention to treat (non-inferiority margin of 0·02). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01254981. FINDINGS: From July, 2009, to January, 2011, we assigned 1229 patients (1532 lesions) to receive the biolimus-eluting stent and 1239 (1555 lesions) to receive the sirolimus-eluting stent. One patient was lost to follow-up because of emigration. Intention-to-treat analysis showed that 50 (4·1%) patients who were assigned the biolimus-eluting stent and 39 (3·1%) who were assigned the sirolimus-eluting stent met the primary endpoint (risk difference 0·9% [upper limit of one-sided 95% CI 2·1%]; p(non-inferiority)=0·06). Significantly more patients in the biolimus-eluting stent group had definite stent thrombosis at 12 months than did those in the sirolimus-eluting stent group (9 [0·7%] vs 2 [0·2%], risk difference 0·6% [95% CI 0·0-1·1]; p=0·034). Per-protocol analysis showed that 45 (3·8%) of 1193 patients who received a biolimus-eluting stent and 39 (3·2%) of 1208 who received a sirolimus-eluting stent met the primary endpoint (risk difference 0·5% [upper limit of one-sided 95% CI 1·8%]; p(non-inferiority)=0·03). INTERPRETATION: At 1 year follow-up, the biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting Nobori stent did not improve clinical results compared with a first-generation sirolimus-eluting stent. We will need to obtain long-term data before we can make recommendations for the role of this biolimus-eluting stent in routine clinical practice. FUNDING: Terumo and Cordis (Johnson & Johnson).

Intimal hyperplasia and vascular remodeling after everolimus-eluting and sirolimus-eluting stent implantation in diabetic patients: the randomized Diabetes and Drug-Eluting Stent (DiabeDES) IV Intravascular Ultrasound trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of the everolimus-eluting Xience™/Promus™ stent (EES) and the sirolimus-eluting Cypher™ stent (SES) on intimal hyperplasia (IH) in diabetic patients. BACKGROUND: Patients with diabetes mellitus have increased risk of in-stent restenosis after coronary stent implantation due to intimal hyperplasia (IH). METHODS: In a sub study of the Randomized Comparison of Everolimus-Eluting and Sirolimus-Eluting Stents in Patients Treated with Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (SORT OUT IV trial), serial intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) 10-month follow-up data were available in 88 patients, including 48 EES and 40 SES treated patients. IVUS endpoints included IH volume, in-stent % volume obstruction and changes in external elastic membrane (EEM) volume. RESULTS: Compared with the SES group, IH volume was increased in the EES group [median (interquartile range): 2.8 mm(3) (0.0-12.6) vs. 0.0 mm(3) (0.0-1.1), P = 0.001]. In-stent % volume obstruction was increased in EES compared to SES [median (interquartile range): 1.6% (0.0-8.2) vs. 0.0% (0.0-1.0), P = 0.001]. Peri-stent external elastic membrane (EEM) volume: (post procedure vs. follow-up EES [300 mm(3) (219-491) vs. 307 mm(3) (223-482), P = 0.73] and SES [316 mm(3) (235-399) vs. 323 mm(3) (246-404), P = 0.05]) and peri-stent plaque volume: EES [163 mm(3) (103-273) vs. 184 mm(3) (115-291), P = 0.18] and SES [186 mm(3) (139-248) vs. 175 mm(3) (153-243), P = 0.26]) were unchanged in both groups. In the proximal reference segment a significant increase in plaque area was seen in the EES group only, without vascular remodeling. CONCLUSION: In diabetic patients, EES stent implantation was associated with increased IH volume obstruction without involvement of vascular remodeling.

Long-term outcome following percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents compared with bare-metal stents in saphenous vein graft lesions: from Western Denmark Heart Registry.

OBJECTIVES: We used the Western Denmark Heart Registry to assess one-year and long-term all-cause mortality and stent failure following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES) or bare-metal stents (BMS). BACKGROUND: The use of DES compared with BMS during PCI has reduced the risk of restenosis in native coronary artery lesions. In saphenous vein grafts (SVG) the outcome after DES compared with BMS is insufficiently described. METHODS: From January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2010 all patients with PCI of SVG lesions were identified among 3.0 million inhabitants. Stent failure was defined as clinically driven target lesion revascularization, graft occlusion without intervention, or stent thrombosis. RESULTS: The study cohort consisted of 529 patients with 755 SVG lesions (348 DES patients with 510 lesions and 181 BMS patients with 245 lesions). Mean age did not differ between patients with DES-treated lesions compared to patients with BMS-treated lesions (67.5 ± 9.1 years vs. 67.6 ± 9.3 years; P = 0.85). The median follow-up time was 3.0 years (25th-75th percentile: 1.4-5.1 years). One-year (n = 27 (8.2%) vs. n = 12 (6.7%), log rank P = 0.60) and 3-year cumulative mortality (n = 31 (18.8%) vs. n = 59 (21.8%), log rank P = 0.64) did not differ significantly between DES- and BMS-treated patients. One-year cumulative stent failure was seen in 39 (6.6%) DES-treated lesions vs. 24 (10.8%) BMS-treated lesions (P = 0.088), and 3-year cumulative stent failure in 48 (15.4%) vs. 34 (18.8%) lesions (P = 0.25), respectively. CONCLUSION: In SVG lesions, DES showed no long-term benefit compared to BMS in rates of all-cause mortality or stent failure.

Intracoronary injection of CD34-cells in chronic ischemic heart failure: 7 years follow-up of the DanCell study.

OBJECTIVES: Seven years ago, the DanCell study was carried out to test the hypothesis of improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) following repeated intracoronary injections of autologous bone marrow-derived stem cells (BMSCs) in patients suffering from chronic ischemic heart failure. In this post hoc analysis, the long-term effect of therapy is assessed. METHODS: 32 patients [mean age 61 (SD ± 9), 81% males] with systolic dysfunction (LVEF 33 ± 9%) received two repeated intracoronary infusions (4 months apart) of autologous BMSCs (1,533 ± 765 × 10(6) BMSCs including 23 ± 11 × 10(6) CD34(+) cells and 14 ± 7 × 10(6) CD133(+) cells). Patients were followed for 7 years and deaths were recorded. RESULTS: During follow-up, 10 patients died (31%). In univariate regression analysis, the total number of BMSCs, CD34(+) cell count and CD133(+) cell count did not significantly correlate with survival (hazard ratio: 0.999, 95% CI: 0.998-1.000, p = 0.24; hazard ratio: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.88-1.01, p = 0.10, and hazard ratio: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.87-1.07, p = 0.47, respectively). After adjustment for baseline variables in multivariate regression analysis, the CD34(+) cell count was significantly associated with survival (hazard ratio: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.82-1.00, p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Intracoronary injections of a high number of CD34(+) cells may have a beneficial effect on chronic ischemic heart failure in terms of long-term survival.

Impact of renal insufficiency on mortality in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

BACKGROUND: Chronic kidney disease is associated with increased risk of mortality. We examined the impact of moderate and severe renal insufficiency (RI) on short- and long-term mortality among unselected patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS: From January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2010 all patients with STEMI treated with primary PCI were identified. The hazard ratio (HR) for death was estimated using a Cox regression model, controlling for potential confounders. RI was defined as creatinine clearance (CrCl) < 60 mL/min (moderate RI: CrCl ≤30 < 60 mL/min and severe RI: CrCl < 30 mL/min). RESULTS: The study cohort consisted of 4,116 patients of whom 898 (21.8%) had RI and 3,218 (78.2%) had a CrCl ≥ 60 mL/min. Compared to patients without RI, patients with RI were older, more often female and more likely to have diabetes mellitus, hypertension and to present with a higher Killip class.Among patients with a preserved kidney function and patients with RI, 30-day all-cause mortality was 3.5% vs. 20.9% (log-rank p < 0.001); 1-year all-cause mortality was 5.7% vs. 29.4% (log-rank p < 0.001); 5-year all-cause mortality was 13.4% vs. 47.4% (log-rank p < 0.001). Moderate and severe RI were associated with higher 1-year mortality compared to patients with a preserved renal function (CrCl ≤30 < 60 mL/min: adjusted HR 2.71 [95% CI 2.09-3.51], p < 0.001), and (CrCl < 30 mL/min: adjusted HR 7.09 [4.82-10.44], p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In unselected STEMI patients treated with primary PCI, moderate and severe RI were associated with increased risk of mortality.

Clopidogrel discontinuation within the first year after coronary drug-eluting stent implantation: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: The impact of adherence to the recommended duration of dual antiplatelet therapy after first generation drug-eluting stent implantation is difficult to assess in real-world settings and limited data are available. METHODS: We followed 4,154 patients treated with coronary drug-eluting stents in Western Denmark for 1 year and obtained data on redeemed clopidogrel prescriptions and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE, i.e., cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis) from medical databases. RESULTS: Discontinuation of clopidogrel within the first 3 months after stent implantation was associated with a significantly increased rate of MACE at 1-year follow-up (hazard ratio (HR) 2.06; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.08-3.93). Discontinuation 3-6 months (HR 1.29; 95% CI: 0.70-2.41) and 6-12 months (HR 1.29; 95% CI: 0.54-3.07) after stent implantation were associated with smaller, not statistically significant, increases in MACE rates. Among patients who discontinued clopidogrel, MACE rates were highest within the first 2 months after discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS: Discontinuation of clopidogrel was associated with an increased rate of MACE among patients treated with drug-eluting stents. The increase was statistically significant within the first 3 months after drug-eluting stent implantation but not after 3 to 12 months.

Similar five-year outcome with paclitaxel- and sirolimus-eluting coronary stents.

OBJECTIVE: Millions of patients were treated with the sirolimus-eluting Cypher™ and the paclitaxel-eluting Taxus™ coronary stents with potential late-occurring increase in event rates. Therefore, the long-term outcome follow-up is of major clinical interest. DESIGN: In total, 2.098 unselected patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), non-STEMI, stable or unstable angina pectoris were randomized to receive Cypher™ (n = 1.065) or Taxus™ (n = 1.033) stents and were followed for 5 years. RESULTS: The primary end-point; the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction and target vessel revascularization (major adverse cardiac event, MACE), occurred in 467 patients (22.3%); Cypher™ n = 222 (20.8%), Taxus™ n = 245 (23.7%), ns. Definite and probable stent thrombosis occurred in 107 patients (5.1%); Cypher™ n = 51 (4.8%), Taxus™ n = 56 (5.4%), ns. No statistically significant differences were found in the elements of the primary end-point or in other secondary end-points between the two stent groups. After one year, the annual rates of stent thrombosis and MACE remained constant. CONCLUSIONS: During 5-year follow-up, the Cypher™ and the Taxus™ coronary stents had similar clinical outcome with no signs of increasing rates of adverse events over time.

Randomized comparison of everolimus-eluting and sirolimus-eluting stents in patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention: the Scandinavian Organization for Randomized Trials with Clinical Outcome IV (SORT OUT IV).

BACKGROUND: Among drug-eluting stents released to date, the sirolimus-eluting stent has demonstrated the least amount of late lumen loss, but its efficacy and safety have not been compared head-to-head with the next-generation everolimus-eluting stent. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Scandinavian Organization for Randomized Trials with Clinical Outcome IV (SORT OUT IV) trial was a randomized multicenter, single-blind, all-comer, 2-arm, noninferiority trial comparing the everolimus-eluting stent with the sirolimus-eluting stent in patients with coronary artery disease. The primary end point was a composite of safety (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, definite stent thrombosis) and efficacy (target vessel revascularization) parameters. The noninferiority criterion was a risk difference of 0.015. Intention-to-treat analyses were done at 9- and 18-month follow-ups. A total of 1390 patients were assigned to receive the everolimus-eluting stent and 1384 patients to the sirolimus-eluting stent. At the 9-month follow-up, 68 patients (4.9%) treated with the everolimus-eluting stent compared with 72 patients (5.2%) treated with the sirolimus-eluting stent experienced the primary end point (hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.67-1.31; P for noninferiority=0.01). At the 18-month follow-up, this differential remained: 99 patients (7.2%) treated with the everolimus-eluting stent versus 105 (7.6%) treated with the sirolimus-eluting stent (hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.71-1.23). At the 9-month follow-up, the rate of definite stent thrombosis was higher in the sirolimus-eluting group (2 patients [0.1%] versus 9 patients [0.7%]; hazard ratio, 0.22; 95% confidence interval, 0.05-1.02). At the 18-month follow-up, this difference was sustained (3 patients [0.2%] versus 12 patients [0.9%]; hazard ratio, 0.25; 95% confidence interval, 0.07-0.88). CONCLUSION: The everolimus-eluting stent was found to be noninferior to the sirolimus-eluting stent. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00552877.

Outcome and safety of same-day-discharge percutaneous coronary interventions with femoral access: a single-center experience.

BACKGROUND: Ongoing development in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) techniques and closing devices facilitates same-day-discharge in patients undergoing uncomplicated PCI procedures. We examined the safety and outcome in low-risk patients discharged the same day as PCI with femoral access was performed. METHODS: From January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010, the outcomes of same-day discharge in 355 (19.6%) of in total 1,809 patients undergoing PCI were analyzed. Composite end point included major adverse cardiac or cerebral events and/or bleeding/vascular complications within 24 hours and 30 days. Major adverse cardiac and cerebral events were defined as cardiac death, myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary artery bypass grafting, or repeat PCI. RESULTS: The mean age of the study population was 64.5 years (40.0-93.0 years), 17.3% of the patients were ≥75 years old. The indication for PCI was: stable angina pectoris (n = 277, 78.0%) and unstable angina pectoris/non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (n = 78, 22.0%). In all patients femoral access was used, and the puncture site was closed with the closing-device AngioSeal. No major adverse cardiac and cerebral events were seen within 24 hours or 30 days except in 1 patient who had target lesion revascularization done as PCI 4 days post-procedure. Three patients had bleeding/vascular complications; 2 patients were re-admitted within 24 hours due to access-site hematomas, which were treated with manual compression and bed-rest regimes. One patient developed a pseudoaneurysm within 12 hours post-procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Same-day-discharge after uncomplicated PCI using femoral access is safe when patients are properly selected. The strategy may improve and benefit health costs in the future.

Hybrid CT angiography and quantitative 15O-water PET for assessment of coronary artery disease: comparison with quantitative coronary angiography.

PURPOSE: CT angiography (CTA) can rule out significant stenoses with a very high reliability, whereas its ability to confirm significant stenoses is suboptimal. In contrast, measurements of myocardial blood flow (MBF) provide information on the haemodynamic consequences of stenoses. Therefore, a combination of the two might improve diagnostic accuracy. We conducted a head-to-head comparison of CTA, measurement of MBF by (15)O-water PET, and hybrid PET/CTA for the detection of significant coronary artery stenoses. METHODS: The study group comprised 44 outpatients scheduled for invasive coronary angiography (ICA) with an intermediate pretest likelihood of coronary artery disease. The patients underwent 64-slice CTA and baseline and hyperaemic PET before ICA with quantitative coronary angiography analysis. RESULTS: On a per-patient basis, the negative predictive values (NPV; 95% confidence intervals in parentheses) were 88 % (64 - 97%) for CTA, 90% (71 - 97%) for PET and 92% (74 - 98%) for PET/CTA, and the positive predictive values (PPV) were 71% (53 - 85%) for CTA, 87% (68 - 95%) for PET and 100% (84 - 100%) for PET/CTA. Similarly, on a per-vessel basis the NPVs (which were generally high) were 97% (94 - 100%) for CTA, 95 % (90 - 99%) for PET and 97% (95 - 100%) for PET/CTA, and the PPVs (which were lower, but higher with PET/CTA) were 53% (39 - 66%) for CTA, 53 % (40 - 66%) for PET and 85 % (73 - 97%) for PET/CTA. In six patients, CTA analysis was hampered by the presence of severe calcifications. However, with the addition of the PET data, all six patients were correctly categorized. CONCLUSION: Cardiac quantitative hybrid PET/CTA imaging has better diagnostic accuracy than CTA alone and PET alone. CTA has a suboptimal PPV, suggesting that hybrid PET/CTA imaging should be used to assess the significance of coronary stenoses diagnosed by CTA.

Incidence of definite stent thrombosis or in-stent restenosis after drug-eluting stent implantation for treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis: from Western Denmark Heart Registry.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data on the optimal management of in-stent restenosis after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with bare metal stent (BMS) or drug-eluting stent (DES) implantations. We assessed the clinical presentation, the incidence, and prognosis of definite stent thrombosis or restenosis after DES implantation for treatment of restenosis. METHODS: From January 2002 to June 2005, all consecutive patients with restenosis < 12 months after index PCI with DES or BMS implantation, were identified in the population-based Western Denmark Heart Registry. Patients were followed until 24 months after their first restenosis. RESULTS: A total of 589 lesions were treated for clinically driven restenosis with target lesion revascularization (TLR) within 12 months after the index PCI. Among those, 302 lesions were treated with DES (BMS-restenosis n = 244 and DES-restenosis n = 58). Admission were due to stable angina pectoris (n = 249 (82.4%)), unstable angina pectoris (n = 34 (11.3%)), or non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (n = 19 (6.3%)). The clinical indication was not different between patients with BMS restenosis compared to DES restenosis. In the BMS restenosis group, older age, longer lesion, longer stent length, and a higher number of stents used was observed compared to the DES restenosis group. After a first restenosis, clinically driven re-TLR was seen in 26 (8.6%) patients within the following 24 months, stent thrombosis (median duration 155 days, interquartile range (IQR) 9-627 days) was seen in 3 lesions (1.0%), and secondary restenosis (median duration 168 days, IQR 88-266 days) was seen in 23 (7.6%) [DES restenosis group 6.9% vs. BMS restenosis group 7.8%, P = 0.818] lesions. CONCLUSION: The clinical presentation did not differ between BMS or DES and most patients present with stable angina pectoris. Risk of stent thrombosis or restenosis was not increased in patients with DES restenosis compared to patients with BMS restenosis treated with DES.

Outcomes after primary percutaneous coronary intervention in octogenarians and nonagenarians with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: from the Western Denmark heart registry.

BACKGROUND: Elderly patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) constitute a particular risk group in relation to primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). OBJECTIVE: We examined the proportion of octogenarians and nonagenarians undergoing PPCI in Western Denmark, and their short- and long-term mortality rates. METHODS: From 2002 to 2009 all consecutive patients ≥ 80 years with STEMI treated with PPCI were identified in the population based Western Denmark Heart Registry. Cox regression analysis was used to compute hazard ratios, controlling for potential confounding. RESULTS: A total of 1,322 elderly (1,213 octogenarians and 109 nonagenarians), corresponding to 11.6% of the total PPCI treated STEMI population were treated with PPCI between 2002 and 2009. The annual proportion of octogenarians referred for PPCI increased from n = 52 (6.2%) in 2002 to n = 172 (11.8%) in 2009 (P < 0.01), while it remained unchanged in nonagenarians: n = 6 (0.6%) in 2002 to n = 13 (0.8%) in 2009 (P = ns). For octogenarians and nonagenarians, 30-day mortality was 17.2% versus 25.8% (log-rank P = 0.028), 1-year mortality was 27.6% versus 32.5% (log-rank P = 0.18) and 5-year mortality 53.6% versus 57.3% (log-rank P = 0.087), respectively. Adjusted 30-day hazard ratio (HR) = 1.59 (95% confidence interval = CI: 1.07-2.36), 1-year HR = 1.34 (CI: 0.95-1.90), and 5-year mortality HR = 1.39 (CI: 1.04-1.85) was higher in nonagenarians compared with octogenarians. CONCLUSION: The annual proportion of octogenarians with STEMI treated with PPCI doubled from 2002 to 2009, while the proportion of nonagenarians remained unchanged. Although nonagenarians had the highest short- and long-term mortality, we found the outcome acceptable with a 5-year survival of more than 40% in both groups.

Randomized comparison of final kissing balloon dilatation versus no final kissing balloon dilatation in patients with coronary bifurcation lesions treated with main vessel stenting: the Nordic-Baltic Bifurcation Study III.

BACKGROUND: It is unknown whether the preferred 1-stent bifurcation stenting approach with stenting of the main vessel (MV) and optional side branch stenting using drug-eluting stents should be finalized by a kissing balloon dilatation (FKBD). Therefore, we compared strategies of MV stenting with and without FKBD. METHODS AND RESULTS: We randomized 477 patients with a bifurcation lesion to FKBD (n=238) or no FKBD (n=239) after MV stenting. The primary end point was major adverse cardiac events: cardiac death, non-procedure-related index lesion myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization, or stent thrombosis within 6 months. The 6-month major adverse cardiac event rates were 2.1% and 2.5% (P=1.00) in the FKBD and no-FKBD groups, respectively. Procedure and fluoroscopy times were longer and more contrast media was needed in the FKBD group than in the no-FKBD group. Three hundred twenty-six patients had a quantitative coronary assessment. At 8 months, the rate of binary (re)stenosis in the entire bifurcation lesion (MV and side branch) was 11.0% versus 17.3% (P=0.11), in the MV was 3.1% versus 2.5% (P=0.68), and in the side branch was 7.9% versus 15.4% (P=0.039) in the FKBD versus no-FKBD groups, respectively. In patients with true bifurcation lesions, the side branch restenosis rate was 7.6% versus 20.0% (P=0.024) in the FKBD and no-FKBD groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: MV stenting strategies with and without FKBD were associated with similar clinical outcomes. FKBD reduced angiographic side branch (re)stenosis, especially in patients with true bifurcation lesions. The simple no-FKBD procedures resulted in reduced use of contrast media and shorter procedure and fluoroscopy times. Long-term data on stent thrombosis are needed. Clinical Trial Registration- URL: http://clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00914199.

Zotarolimus-eluting vs. sirolimus-eluting coronary stents in patients with and without acute coronary syndromes: a SORT OUT III substudy.

OBJECTIVES: To compare clinical outcomes among patients with acute coronary syndrome treated with zotarolimus-eluting and sirolimus-eluting stents in the SORT OUT III trial. BACKGROUND: Currently, only limited data allow direct comparison of clinical outcomes among patients with acute coronary syndrome treated with a second-generation drug-eluting stent (DES) eluting zotarolimus vs. a first-generation DES eluting sirolimus. METHODS: Patients with acute coronary syndrome (n=1052) were randomized to treatment with zotarolimus-eluting (n=506) or sirolimus-eluting (n=546) stents and followed for 18 months. The primary composite endpoint, major adverse cardiac events (MACE), was defined as a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction or target vessel revascularization. RESULTS: Zotarolimus-eluting stent treatment compared to sirolimus-eluting stent treatment was associated with increased rates of MACE (8·7% vs. 5·0%; hazard ratio (HR), 1·78; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1·10-2·88; P=0·02) and TVR (6·8% vs. 3·9%; HR, 1·77; 95% CI, 1·03-3·04; P=0·04), while all-cause death, cardiac death, myocardial infarction and definite stent thrombosis did not differ significantly. In the same trial, stable angina pectoris patients (n=1206) were randomized to zotarolimus-eluting (n=614) and sirolimus-eluting (n=592) stents with similar results. CONCLUSIONS: With and without acute coronary syndromes, patients treated with the sirolimus-eluting stent had better clinical outcomes than those treated with the zotarolimus-eluting stent.

Clinical outcomes after treatment of multiple lesions with zotarolimus-eluting versus sirolimus-eluting coronary stents (a SORT OUT III substudy).

BACKGROUND: Data on clinical outcomes among patients treated with the zotarolimus-eluting Endeavor™ stent versus the sirolimus-eluting Cypher™ stent favor the sirolimus-eluting stent. However, a separate comparison of clinical outcome among patients treated for multiple lesions with these stents is lacking. We performed this comparison within the SORT OUT III trial data set. METHODS: Among 2332 patients randomized in SORT OUT III, 695 were treated for multiple lesions with zotarolimus-eluting (n = 350) or sirolimus-eluting (n = 345) stents and followed for 18 months. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE); composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization (TVR); was the primary endpoint. RESULTS: Zotarolimus-eluting compared to sirolimus-eluting stent treatment was associated with increased MACE rate (13.2% vs. 2.6%; hazard ratio 5.29 with 95% confidence interval: 2.59-10.8). All secondary endpoints; all cause death, cardiac death, myocardial infarction, TVR, target lesion revascularization, in-stent restenosis, and definite stent thrombosis; were observed more frequently among zotarolimus-eluting stent treated patients. For all endpoints, hazard ratios were 1.6 to 4.6 times higher than in the overall results of the SORT OUT III trial. CONCLUSIONS: We observed better clinical outcomes among patients treated for multiple lesions with the sirolimus-eluting stent compared to those treated with the zotarolimus-eluting stent.