Search

ObjectivesThis trial examined the relative clinical efficacy, angiographic outcomes, and safety of zotarolimus-eluting coronary stents (ZES) with a phosphorylcholine polymer versus sirolimus-eluting stents (SES).BackgroundWhether a cobalt-based alloy stent coated with the novel antiproliferative agent, zotarolimus, and a phosphorylcholine polymer may provide similar angiographic and clinical benefit compared with SES is undetermined.MethodsA prospective, multicenter, 3:1 randomized trial was conducted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ZES (n = 323) relative to SES (n = 113) in 436 patients undergoing elective percutaneous revascularization of de novo native coronary lesions with reference vessel diameters between 2.5 mm and 3.5 mm and lesion length ≥14 mm and ≤27 mm. The primary end point was 8-month angiographic in-segment late lumen loss.ResultsAngiographic in-segment late lumen loss was significantly higher among patients treated with ZES compared with SES (0.34 ± 0.44 mm vs. 0.13 ± 0.32 mm, respectively; p < 0.001). In-hospital major adverse cardiac events were significantly lower among patients treated with ZES (0.6% vs. 3.5%, p = 0.04). In-segment binary angiographic restenosis was also higher in the ZES cohort (11.7% vs. 4.3%, p = 0.04). Total (clinically and non-clinically driven) target lesion revascularization rates at 9 months were 9.8% and 3.5% for the ZES and SES groups, respectively (p = 0.04). However, neither clinically driven target lesion revascularization (6.3% zotarolimus vs. 3.5% sirolimus, p = 0.34) nor target vessel failure (12.0% zotarolimus vs. 11.5% sirolimus, p = 1.0) differed significantly.ConclusionsCompared with SES, treatment with a phosphorylcholine polymer-based ZES is associated with significantly higher late lumen loss and binary restenosis at 8-month angiographic follow-up.(The Endeavor III CR; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct/show/NCT00265668?order=1?)

BackgroundAfter percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for non–ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), treatment with a P2Y12 antagonist with aspirin is recommended for 1 year.ObjectivesThe oral P2Y12 antagonists ticagrelor and prasugrel have higher recommendations than clopidogrel, but it is unknown if administration before the start of PCI is beneficial.MethodsIn the randomized, double-blind ACCOAST (A Comparison of prasugrel at the time of percutaneous Coronary intervention Or as pre-treatment At the time of diagnosis in patients with non–ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction) trial, 4,033 patients were diagnosed with NSTEMI and 68.7% underwent PCI; 1,394 received pre-treatment with prasugrel (30-mg loading dose), and 1,376 received placebo. At the time of PCI, patients who received pre-treatment with prasugrel received an additional 30-mg dose of prasugrel, and those who received placebo received a 60-mg loading dose of prasugrel. Primary efficacy was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, urgent revascularization, or glycoprotein IIb/IIIa bailout through 7 days from randomization. Investigators captured the presence of thrombus on initial angiography and during PCI.ResultsThe incidence of the primary endpoint through 7 days from randomization in the pre-treatment group versus the no pre-treatment group was 13.1% versus 13.1% (p = 0.93). Pre-treatment with prasugrel was not associated with decreases in any ischemic event, including total mortality. Patients with thrombus on angiography had a 3-fold higher incidence of the primary endpoint than patients without thrombus. There was no impact of pre-treatment with prasugrel on the presence of thrombus before PCI or on occurrence of stent thrombosis after PCI. There was a 3-fold increase in all non–coronary artery bypass graft Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) major bleeding and a 6-fold increase in non–coronary artery bypass graft life-threatening bleeding with pre-treatment with prasugrel; the same trends persisted in patients who had radial or femoral access even with use of a closure device.ConclusionsThese findings support deferring treatment with prasugrel until a decision is made about revascularization in patients with NSTEMI undergoing angiography within 48 h of admission. (A Comparison of prasugrel at the time of percutaneous Coronary intervention Or as pre-treatment At the time of diagnosis in patients with non—ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction [ACCOAST]; NCT01015287)

ObjectivesThe objective of this study was to characterize the bleeding, transfusion, and other outcomes of patients related to the timing of prasugrel or clopidogrel withdrawal before coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).BackgroundThere is little evidence to guide clinical decision making regarding the use of prasugrel in patients who may need urgent or emergency CABG. Experience with performing CABG in the presence of clopidogrel has raised concern about perioperative bleeding complications that are unresolved.MethodsA subset of the TRITON–TIMI 38 study (Trial to Assess Improvement in Therapeutic Outcomes by Optimizing Platelet Inhibition with Prasugrel–Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction 38), in which patients with acute coronary syndrome were randomized to treatment with aspirin and either clopidogrel or prasugrel, underwent isolated CABG (N = 346). A supplemental case report form was designed and administered, and the data combined with the existing TRITON–TIMI 38 database. Baseline imbalances were corrected for using elements of the European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation and The Society of Thoracic Surgeons predictive algorithm.ResultsA significantly higher mean 12-h chest tube blood loss (655 ± 580 ml vs. 503 ± 378 ml; p = 0.050) was observed with prasugrel compared with clopidogrel, without significant differences in red blood cell transfusion (2.1 U vs. 1.7 U; p = 0.442) or the total donor exposure (4.4 U vs. 3.0 U; p = 0.463). All-cause mortality was significantly reduced with prasugrel (2.31%) compared with 8.67% with clopidogrel (adjusted odds ratio: 0.26; p = 0.025).ConclusionsDespite an increase in observed bleeding, platelet transfusion, and surgical re-exploration for bleeding, prasugrel was associated with a lower rate of death after CABG compared with clopidogrel. (A Comparison of Prasugrel [CS-747] and Clopidogrel in Acute Coronary Syndrome Subjects Who Are to Undergo Percutaneous Coronary Intervention; NCT00097591)