Search

Background: Limited data are available on the relative performances between different types of drug-eluting stents (DES) for obstructive left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD).Objectives: This study sought to compare effectiveness and safety profiles of various second-generation DES for LMCAD in real-world clinical practice.Methods: Among 4,470 patients in 3, multicenter, prospective registries (IRIS-DES [Interventional Cardiology Research Incorporation Society-Drug-Eluting Stents] registry, the IRIS-MAIN [Interventional Cardiology Research Incorporation Society-Left MAIN Revascularization] registry, and the PRECOMBAT [PREmier of Randomized COMparison of Bypass Surgery versus AngioplasTy Using Drug-Eluting Stent in Patients with Left Main Coronary Artery Disease] study) treated between July 2007 and July 2015, the authors identified 2,692 patients with significant LMCAD who received second-generation DES; 1,254 with cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents (CoCr-EES), 232 with biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stents (BP-BES), 616 with platinum-chromium EES (PtCr-EES), and 590 with Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stent (Re-ZES). The primary outcome was target-vessel failure.Results: The observed 3-year rates of target-vessel failure were not significantly different for the different types of DES (16.7% for the CoCr-EES, 13.2% for the BP-BES, 18.7% for the PtCr-EES, and 14.7% for the Re-ZES; p = 0.15). In multiple treatment propensity score analysis, the adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for target-vessel failure were similar in between-group comparisons of the different DES, except for the PtCr-EES versus the BP-BES (reference; HR: 1.60; 95% confidence interval: 1.01 to 2.54; p = 0.046). There were no significant differences in risk of composite of all-cause death, any myocardial infarction, or any revascularization and its individual components according to the different types of DES. Although the 3-year incidence of stent thrombosis was considerably low (≤1.0%) for all types of DES, between-group differences were observed, generally favoring the EES platforms.Conclusions: In this pooled analysis of 3 prospective registries involving unrestricted use of various second-generation DES for LMCAD, we found no significant between-group differences in 3-year risk of target-vessel failure, except for a higher risk of primary outcome with PtCr-EES compared to BP-BES. (Evaluation of the First, Second, and New Drug-Eluting Stents in Routine Clinical Practice [IRIS-DES]; NCT01186133). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In patients with a myocardial infarction (MI) 1 to 3 years earlier, treatment with ticagrelor + low-dose aspirin (ASA) reduces the risk of cardiovascular (CV) death, MI, or stroke compared with low-dose aspirin alone, but at an increased risk of major bleeding.Objectives: The authors evaluated cost-effectiveness of ticagrelor + low-dose ASA in patients with prior MI within the prior 3 years.Methods: The authors performed a prospective economic substudy alongside the PEGASUS-TIMI 54 (Prevention of Cardiovascular Events in Patients With Prior Heart Attack Using Ticagrelor Compared to Placebo on a Background of Aspirin-Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction 54) trial, which randomized 21,162 patients to ASA alone, ticagrelor 60 mg twice daily + low-dose ASA, or ticagrelor 90 mg twice daily + low-dose ASA. Medical resource use data were collected over a median 33-month follow-up. Costs were assessed from the U.S. health care system perspective. In-trial data relating to survival, utility, and costs were combined with lifetime projections to evaluate lifetime cost-effectiveness of the Food and Drug Administration-approved lower-dose ticagrelor regimen (60 mg twice daily).Results: Hospitalization costs were similar for ticagrelor 60 mg and placebo ($2,262 vs. $2,333; 95% confidence interval for difference -$303 to $163; p = 0.54); after inclusion of a daily ticagrelor 60 mg cost of $10.52, total costs were higher for ticagrelor ($10,016 vs. $2,333; 95% CI: $7,441 to $7,930; p < 0.001). In-trial quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were similar (2.28 vs. 2.27; p = 0.34). Over a lifetime horizon, ticagrelor was associated with QALY gains of 0.078 and incremental costs of $7,435, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $94,917/QALY gained. Several high-risk groups had more favorable ICERs, including patients with >1 prior MI, multivessel disease, diabetes, renal dysfunction (all with ICERs $50,000 to $70,000/QALY gained), patients age <75 years (ICER = $44,779/QALY gained), and patients with peripheral artery disease (ICER = $13,427/QALY gained).Conclusions: For patients with a history of MI >1 year previously, long-term treatment with ticagrelor 60 mg + low-dose ASA yields a cost-effectiveness ratio suggesting intermediate value based on current guidelines. Ticagrelor appears to provide higher value for patients in several recognized high-risk subgroups. (Prevention of Cardiovascular Events [e.g., Death From Heart or Vascular Disease, Heart Attack, or Stroke] in Patients With Prior Heart Attack Using Ticagrelor Compared to Placebo on a Background of Aspirin [PEGASUS]; NCT01225562). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Lipid-rich plaque (LRP) is thought to be a precursor to cardiac events. However, its clinical significance in coronary arteries has never been systematically investigated.Objectives: This study investigated the prevalence and clinical significance of LRP in the nonculprit region of the target vessel in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).Methods: The study included 1,474 patients from 20 sites across 6 countries undergoing PCI, who had optical coherence tomography (OCT) imaging of the target vessel. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) were defined as a composite of cardiac death, acute myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven revascularization. Patients were followed for up to 4 years (median of 2 years).Results: Lipid-rich plaque was detected in nonculprit regions of the target vessel in 33.6% of patients. The cumulative rate of nonculprit lesion-related MACE (NC-MACE) over 48 months in patients with LRP was higher than in those without LRP (7.2% vs. 2.6%, respectively; p = 0.033). Acute coronary syndrome at index presentation (risk ratio: 2.538; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.246 to 5.173; p = 0.010), interruption of statin use ≥1 year (risk ratio: 4.517; 95% CI: 1.923 to 10.610; p = 0.001), and LRP in nonculprit regions (risk ratio: 2.061; 95% CI: 1.050 to 4.044; p = 0.036) were independently associated with increased NC-MACE. Optical coherence tomography findings revealed that LRP in patients with NC-MACE had longer lipid lengths (p < 0.001), wider maximal lipid arcs (p = 0.023), and smaller minimal lumen areas (p = 0.003) than LRPs in patients without MACE.Conclusions: Presence of LRP in the nonculprit regions of the target vessel by OCT predicts increased risk for future NC-MACE, which is primarily driven by revascularization for recurrent ischemia. Lipid-rich plaque with longer lipid length, wider lipid arc, and higher degree of stenosis identified patients at higher risk of future cardiac events. (The Massachusetts General Hospital Optical Coherence Tomography Registry; NCT01110538). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Whether cyclosporine A (CsA) has beneficial effects in reperfused myocardial infarction (MI) is debated.Objectives: This study investigated whether CsA improved ST-segment resolution in a randomized, multicenter phase II study.Methods: The authors randomly assigned 410 patients from 31 cardiac care units, age 63 ± 12 years, with large ST-segment elevation MI within 6 h of symptom onset, Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) flow grade 0 to 1 in the infarct-related artery, and committed to primary percutaneous coronary intervention, to 2.5 mg/kg intravenous CsA (n = 207) or control (n = 203) groups. The primary endpoint was incidence of ≥70% ST-segment resolution 60 min after TIMI flow grade 3. Secondary endpoints included high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) on day 4, left ventricular (LV) remodeling, and clinical events at 6-month follow-up.Results: Time from symptom onset to first antegrade flow was 180 ± 67 min; a median of 5 electrocardiography leads showed ST-segment deviation (quartile [Q]1 to Q3: 4 to 6); 49.8% of MIs were anterior. ST-segment resolution ≥70% was found in 52.0% of CsA patients and 49.0% of controls (p = 0.55). Median hs-cTnT on day 4 was 2,160 (Q1 to Q3: 1,087 to 3,274) ng/l in CsA and 2,068 (1,117 to 3,690) ng/l in controls (p = 0.85). The 2 groups did not differ in LV ejection fraction on day 4 and at 6 months. Infarct site did not influence CsA efficacy. There were no acute allergic reactions or nonsignificant excesses of 6-month mortality (5.7% CsA vs. 3.2% controls, p = 0.17) or cardiogenic shock (2.4% CsA vs. 1.5% controls, p = 0.33).Conclusions: In the CYCLE (CYCLosporinE A in Reperfused Acute Myocardial Infarction) trial, a single intravenous CsA bolus just before primary percutaneous coronary intervention had no effect on ST-segment resolution or hs-cTnT, and did not improve clinical outcomes or LV remodeling up to 6 months. (CYCLosporinE A in Reperfused Acute Myocardial Infarction [CYCLE]; NCT01650662; EudraCT number 2011-002876-18). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Complete revascularization may improve outcomes compared with an infarct-related artery (IRA)-only strategy in patients being treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) who have multivessel disease presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). However, there is concern that non-IRA PCI may cause additional non-IRA myocardial infarction (MI).Objectives: This study sought to determine whether in-hospital complete revascularization was associated with increased total infarct size compared with an IRA-only strategy.Methods: This multicenter prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded endpoint clinical trial evaluated STEMI patients with multivessel disease having PPCI within 12 h of symptom onset. Patients were randomized to either IRA-only PCI or complete in-hospital revascularization. Contrast-enhanced cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) was performed following PPCI (median day 3) and stress CMR at 9 months. The pre-specified primary endpoint was infarct size on pre-discharge CMR. The study had 80% power to detect a 4% difference in infarct size with 100 patients per group.Results: Of the 296 patients in the main trial, 205 participated in the CMR substudy, and 203 patients (98 complete revascularization and 105 IRA-only) completed the pre-discharge CMR. The groups were well-matched. Total infarct size (median, interquartile range) was similar to IRA-only revascularization: 13.5% (6.2% to 21.9%) versus complete revascularization, 12.6% (7.2% to 22.6%) of left ventricular mass, p = 0.57 (95% confidence interval for difference in geometric means 0.82 to 1.41). The complete revascularization group had an increase in non-IRA MI on the pre-discharge CMR (22 of 98 vs. 11 of 105, p = 0.02). There was no difference in total infarct size or ischemic burden between treatment groups at follow-up CMR.Conclusions: Multivessel PCI in the setting of STEMI leads to a small increase in CMR-detected non-IRA MI, but total infarct size was not significantly different from an IRA-only revascularization strategy. (Complete Versus Lesion-Only Primary PCI Pilot Study [CvLPRIT]; ISRCTN70913605). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]