Search

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text., Background: The optimal duration of antiplatelet therapy (APT) in patients at high bleeding risk with or without oral anticoagulation (OAC) after coronary stenting remains unclear. Methods: In the investigator-initiated, randomize, open-label MASTER DAPT trial (Management of High Bleeding Risk Patients Post Bioresorbable Polymer Coated Stent Implantation With an Abbreviated Versus Standard DAPT Regimen), 4579 patients at high bleeding risk were randomized after 1-month dual APT to abbreviated or nonabbreviated APT strategies. Randomization was stratified by concomitant OAC indication. In this subgroup analysis, we report outcomes of populations with or without an OAC indication. In the population with an OAC indication, patients changed immediately to single APT for 5 months (abbreviated regimen) or continued ≥2 months of dual APT and single APT thereafter (nonabbreviated regimen). Patients without an OAC indication changed to single APT for 11 months (abbreviated regimen) or continued ≥5 months of dual APT and single APT thereafter (nonabbreviated regimen). Coprimary outcomes at 335 days after randomization were net adverse clinical outcomes (composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 3 or 5 bleeding events); major adverse cardiac and cerebral events (all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and stroke); and type 2, 3, or 5 Bleeding Academic Research Consortium bleeding. Results: Net adverse clinical outcomes or major adverse cardiac and cerebral events did not differ with abbreviated versus nonabbreviated APT regimens in patients with OAC indication (n=1666; hazard ratio [HR], 0.83 [95% CI, 0.60–1.15]; and HR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.60–1.30], respectively) or without OAC indication (n=2913; HR, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.77–1.33]; or HR, 1.06 [95% CI, 0.79–1.44]; Pinteraction=0.35 and 0.45, respectively). Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 2, 3, or 5 bleeding did not significantly differ in patients with OAC indication (HR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.62–1.12]) but was lower with abbreviated APT in patients without OAC indication (HR, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.41–0.74]; Pinteraction=0.057). The difference in bleeding in patients without OAC indication was driven mainly by a reduction in Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 2 bleedings (HR, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.33–0.69]; Pinteraction=0.021). Conclusions: Rates of net adverse clinical outcomes and major adverse cardiac and cerebral events did not differ with abbreviated APT in patients with high bleeding risk with or without an OAC indication and resulted in lower bleeding rates in patients without an OAC indication. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03023020.

Background— Randomized trials that studied clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with bare metal stenting versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) are underpowered to properly assess safety end points like death, stroke, and myocardial infarction. Pooling data from randomized controlled trials increases the statistical power and allows better assessment of the treatment effect in high-risk subgroups. Methods and Results— We performed a pooled analysis of 3051 patients in 4 randomized trials evaluating the relative safety and efficacy of PCI with stenting and CABG at 5 years for the treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease. The primary end point was the composite end point of death, stroke, or myocardial infarction. The secondary end point was the occurrence of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular accidents, death, stroke, myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization. We tested for heterogeneities in treatment effect in patient subgroups. At 5 years, the cumulative incidence of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke was similar in patients randomized to PCI with stenting versus CABG (16.7% versus 16.9%, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.04, 95% confidence interval, 0.86 to 1.27; P =0.69). Repeat revascularization, however, occurred significantly more frequently after PCI than CABG (29.0% versus 7.9%, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.18 to 0.29; P P Conclusions— In this pooled analysis of 4 randomized trials, PCI with stenting was associated with a long-term safety profile similar to that of CABG. However, as a result of persistently lower repeat revascularization rates in the CABG patients, overall major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event rates were significantly lower in the CABG group at 5 years.

Background Early loss of minimal luminal diameter (MLD) after successful percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) is associated with a higher incidence of late restenosis. Methods and Results Sixty-six patients (66 lesions) with >0.3 mm MLD loss at 24-hour on-line quantitative coronary angiography were randomized into two groups: 1, Gianturco-Roubin stent (n=33) and 2, Control, who received medical therapy only (n=33). All lesions were suitable for stenting. Baseline demographic, clinical, and angiographic characteristics were similar in the two groups. Restenosis (≥50% stenosis) for the overall group occurred in 32 of 66 patients (48.4%) at 3.6±1-month follow-up angiography. Restenosis was significantly greater in group 2 than in group 1 (75.7% versus 21.2%, P P P Conclusions In patients with successful PTCA but reduced luminal diameter demonstrated by repeat angiography at 24 hours, the Gianturco-Roubin stent appears to reduce angiographic restenosis at follow-up.

Background— The impact on survival of routine use of abciximab as adjunctive treatment to routine infarct artery stenting for acute myocardial infarction is not defined. We sought to determine the effect of abciximab on 1-year survival and other major adverse cardiac events of patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing routine infarct artery stenting. Methods and Results— The Abciximab and Carbostent Evaluation (ACE) Trial is an unblinded, randomized, controlled trial that compared abciximab with placebo in patients undergoing routine infarct artery stent implantation for acute myocardial infarction. At 1 year, the survival rate was 95±2% in the abciximab group and 88±2% in the stent-alone group ( P =0.017). The reinfarction rate was 1% in the abciximab group and 6.0% in the stent-alone group, whereas there were no differences between groups in target vessel revascularization rate (16.5% in the abciximab group, 17.5% in the stent-alone group). Conclusions— Abciximab as adjunctive treatment to routine infarct artery stenting for acute myocardial infarction resulted in improved 1-year survival and lower reinfarction rates.