Search

Background: Although kidney insufficiency has been shown to be associated with increased risk of myocardial injury, benefit of coronary angiography (CAG) and revascularization remains uncertain, with implications on management strategies and outcomes. We aimed to compare rates of CAG and revascularization and subsequent risk of cardiovascular and kidney outcomes in hospitalized patients with myocardial injury and kidney dysfunction., Methods: Retrospective cohort study encompassing hospitalized patients with myocardial injury i.e. elevated troponin I or T and an eGFR ≤60 ml/min/1.73 m 2 identified between 2011 and 2021 in Danish national registers. 30-day odds for CAG were computed across granular eGFR-categories based on multiple logistic regression. Standardized one-year risks of cardiovascular and kidney outcomes including mortality were determined based on hazards obtained in multiple Cox regression., Results: A total of 52,798 patients with myocardial injury were identified. CAG was performed in 14.3 % (n = 7549). 30-day odds ratios for CAG were 0.64 [0.60-0.68], 0.38 [0.34-0.42], 0.18 [0.14-0.22], and 0.35 [0.30-0.40] in patients with eGFR 31-45 ml/min/1.73 m 2 , eGFR 15-30 ml/min/1.73 m 2 for eGFR<15 ml/min/1.73 m 2 and chronic dialysis, respectively (eGFR 46-60 ml/min/1.73 m 2 as reference). Median follow-up was 4.1 years. One-year mortality risk differences associated with CAG and revascularization (no CAG as reference) were -7.8 [-7.0; -8.7] and -9.1 [-8.4; -9.9] for eGFR 46-60 ml/min/1.73 m 2 ; -7.0 [-5.7;-8-3] and -8.0 [-6.6; -9.5] for eGFR 31-45 ml/min/1.73 m 2 ; -5.4 [-3.0; -7.2] and -5.2 [-2.2; -8.3] for eGFR 15-30 ml/min/1.73 m 2 ; -8.8 [-3.1; -13.7] and -5.4 [3.1; -13.4] for eGFR<15 ml/min/1.73 m 2 ; and -4.9 [-0.1; -9.7] and -4.2 [1.5; -9.2] for chronic dialysis, respectively., Conclusion: Probability of CAG following myocardial injury declined with progressive kidney dysfunction. Overall, CAG was associated with lower mortality irrespective of kidney function and subsequent revascularization., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest None., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Artificial intelligence, computational simulations, and extended reality, among other 21st century computational technologies, are changing the health care system. To collectively highlight the most recent advances and benefits of artificial intelligence, computational simulations, and extended reality in cardiovascular therapies, we coined the abbreviation AISER. The review particularly focuses on the following applications of AISER: 1) preprocedural planning and clinical decision making; 2) virtual clinical trials, and cardiovascular device research, development, and regulatory approval; and 3) education and training of interventional health care professionals and medical technology innovators. We also discuss the obstacles and constraints associated with the application of AISER technologies, as well as the proposed solutions. Interventional health care professionals, computer scientists, biomedical engineers, experts in bioinformatics and visualization, the device industry, ethics committees, and regulatory agencies are expected to streamline the use of AISER technologies in cardiovascular interventions and medicine in general., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Supported by the National Institute of Health (R01 HL144690) and Dr Vincent Miscia Cardiovascular Research Fund. Dr Burzotta has received speaker honoraria from Medtronic, Abbott, and Abiomed. Dr Iaizzo is a consultant for Medtronic; and has received a research grant from Medtronic. Dr Bicek is an employee of Boston Scientific. Dr Fontana is an employee of Medtronic. Dr West is an employee and shareholder of Abbott. Dr Mortier is a cofounder of FEops. Dr Jaffer has received sponsored research from Canon, Siemens, Shockwave, Teleflex, and Mercator; is a consultant for Boston Scientific, Abbott Vascular, Siemens, Asahi Intecc, IMDS, Biotronik, Magenta Medical, and Philips; has equity interest in Intravascular Imaging Incorporated; and DurVena Inc Massachusetts General Hospital has a patent licensing arrangement with Canon, Terumo, and Spectrawave, and Dr Jaffer has the right to receive royalties. Dr Mena-Hurtado is a consultant for Abbott, COOK, Cardinal Health, Medtronic, and Optum Labs. Dr Abbott has received research funding from MicroPort and Boston Scientific; is on the advisory boards of Philips and Medtronic; and is a consultant for Abbott, and Recor. Dr Desai works under contract with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to develop and maintain performance measures used for public reporting and pay for performance programs. He reports research grants and consulting for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cytokinetics, Merck, Novartis, SCPharmaceuticals, and Vifor. Dr Brilakis has received consulting/speaker honoraria from Abbott Vascular, American Heart Association (associate editor Circulation), Amgen, Asahi Intecc, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Cardiovascular Innovations Foundation (board of directors), ControlRad, CSI, Elsevier, GE Healthcare, IMDS, InfraRedx, Medicure, Medtronic, Opsens, Siemens, and Teleflex; has received research support from Boston Scientific and GE Healthcare; is an owner of Hippocrates LLC; and is a shareholder of MHI Ventures, Cleerly Health, and Stallion Medical. Dr Bhatt is on the advisory boards of Boehringer Ingelheim, Cardax, CellProthera, Cereno Scientific, Elsevier Practice Update Cardiology, Janssen, Level Ex, Medscape Cardiology, MyoKardia, NirvaMed, Novo Nordisk, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Regado Biosciences, and Stasys; is on the Board of Directors of Bristol Myers Squibb, Boston VA Research Institute, Society of Cardiovascular Patient Care, and TobeSoft; is the inaugural chair of the American Heart Association Quality Oversight Committee; is on data monitoring committees for Baim Institute for Clinical Research (formerly Harvard Clinical Research Institute, for the PORTICO trial, funded by St. Jude Medical, now Abbott), Boston Scientific (Chair, PEITHO trial), Cleveland Clinic (including for the ExCEED trial, funded by Edwards Lifesciences), Contego Medical (Chair, PERFORMANCE 2), Duke Clinical Research Institute, Mayo Clinic, Mount Sinai School of Medicine (for the ENVISAGE trial, funded by Daiichi Sankyo), Novartis, and Population Health Research Institute; has received honoraria from American College of Cardiology (senior associate editor, Clinical Trials and News, ACC.org; Chair, ACC Accreditation Oversight Committee), Arnold and Porter law firm (work related to Sanofi/Bristol Myers Squibb clopidogrel litigation), Baim Institute for Clinical Research (formerly Harvard Clinical Research Institute. RE-DUAL PCI clinical trial steering committee funded by Boehringer Ingelheim. AEGIS-II executive committee funded by CSL Behring), Belvoir Publications (editor in chief, Harvard Heart Letter), Canadian Medical and Surgical Knowledge Translation Research Group (clinical trial steering committees), Cowen and Company, Duke Clinical Research Institute (clinical trial steering committees, including for the PRONOUNCE trial, funded by Ferring Pharmaceuticals), HMP Global (editor in chief, Journal of Invasive Cardiology), Journal of the American College of Cardiology (guest editor and associate editor), K2P (cochair, interdisciplinary curriculum), Level Ex, Medtelligence/ReachMD (CME steering committees), MJH Life Sciences, Piper Sandler, Population Health Research Institute (for the COMPASS operations committee, publications committee, steering committee, and USA national coleader, funded by Bayer), Slack Publications (chief medical editor, Cardiology Today’s Intervention), Society of Cardiovascular Patient Care (secretary/treasurer), WebMD (CME steering committees), Clinical Cardiology (deputy editor), NCDR-ACTION Registry Steering Committee (chair), and VA CART Research and Publications Committee (chair); has received research funding: Abbott, Afimmune, Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardax, CellProthera, Cereno Scientific, Chiesi, CSL Behring, Eisai, Ethicon, Faraday Pharmaceuticals, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Forest Laboratories, Fractyl, Garmin, HLS Therapeutics, Idorsia, Ironwood, Ischemix, Janssen, Javelin, Lexicon, Lilly, Medtronic, MyoKardia, NirvaMed, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Owkin, Pfizer, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Regeneron, Reid Hoffman Foundation, Roche, Sanofi, Stasys, Synaptic, The Medicines Company, and 89Bio; has received royalties from Elsevier (editor, Cardiovascular Intervention: A Companion to Braunwald’s Heart Disease); is a site coinvestigator for Abbott, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, CSI, St. Jude Medical (now Abbott), Philips, and Svelte; is a trustee for American College of Cardiology; and has performed unfunded research for FlowCo, Merck, and Takeda. Dr Chatzizisis has received speaker honoraria, advisory board fees, and research grants from Boston Scientific; advisory board fees and research grants from Medtronic Inc.; issued U.S. patent (No. 11,026,749) and international patent pending (application No. PCT/US2020/057304) for the invention entitled “Computational simulation platform for the planning of interventional procedures”; Co-founder of ComKardia Inc. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Coronary artery bifurcation lesions are frequently encountered in cardiac catheterization laboratories and are associated with more complex procedures and worse clinical outcomes than nonbifurcation lesions. Therefore, anatomical and physiological assessment of bifurcation lesions before, during, and after percutaneous coronary intervention is of paramount clinical importance. Physiological assessment can help interventionalists appreciate the hemodynamic significance of coronary artery disease and guide ischemia-directed revascularization. However, it is important to understand that the physiological approach for bifurcation disease is more important than simply using physiological indexes for its assessment. This joint consensus document by the Korean, Japanese, and European bifurcation clubs presents the concept of a physiological approach for coronary bifurcation lesions, as well as current knowledge, practical tips, pitfalls, and future directions of applying physiological indexes in bifurcation percutaneous coronary intervention. This document aims to guide interventionalists in performing appropriate physiology-based assessments and treatment decisions for coronary bifurcation lesions., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Pan has received minor lecture fees from Abbott and Philips. Dr Banning has received institutional funding of a fellowship from Boston Scientific; and has received speaker fees from Boston Scientific, Abbott, Medtronic, Philips/Volcano, and Miracor. Dr Johnson has received consultancy and speaker fees from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, and Terumo; and has received institutional funding for fellowships from Boston Scientific and Terumo. Dr Lefèvre has received speaker and proctorship fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Terumo, and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Chatzizisis has received speaker honoraria, advisory board fees, and research grant support from Boston Scientific; and has received advisory board fees and research grant support from Medtronic. Dr Lassen has received speaker fees from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Abbott, and Biosensors. Dr Stankovic has received speaker fees from Medtronic, Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Terumo. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2022 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The purpose of a bioresorbable scaffold (BRS) is to provide radial support during coronary healing. In this study, coronary artery healing after optical coherence tomography (OCT)- versus angiography-guided magnesium BRS (MBRS) implantation in patients with non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) is compared., Methods: 75 patients were randomized 1:1 to OCT- or angiography-guided implantation of a MBRS with protocolled pre- and post-dilation. In the OCT-guided group, prespecified criteria indicating additional intervention were (1) scaffold under-expansion, (2) strut malapposition, (3) edge dissection, and (4) residual stenosis at distal or proximal reference segments. The primary endpoint was OCT-derived healing stage at 6 months., Results: At 6 months, there was no difference in average healing stage between OCT- and angiography-guided intervention (4.6 [interquartile range (IQR): 4.5-4.7] versus 4.5 [IQR: 4.3-4.7]; p = 0.54). The MBRSs were completely resolved in 77.0% [IQR: 68.5-85.5] versus 76.5% [IQR: 67.9-85.5]; (p = 0.97). Minimal lumen area (MLA) was reduced at 6 months in both the OCT- (32.3%; p < 0.01) and the angiography-guided group (21.3%; p < 0.01), however OCT-guided implantation was associated with a greater reduction of total lumen volume (-27.1 ± 32.5 mm 3 versus -5.0 ± 32.9 mm 3 ; p < 0.01) and MLA (-2.3 ± 1.6 mm 2 vs. -1.4 ± 1.4 mm 2 ; p = 0.02)., Conclusions: In NSTEMI patients, OCT-guidance with protocolled pre- and post-dilation of MBRS implantation showed similar healing pattern at 6 months compared to angiography-guidance alone., Clinical Trial Registration: The Coronary Artery Healing Process after Optical Coherence Tomography Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with Magmaris Bioresorbable Scaffold in Patients with Non-ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: (HONEST) trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03016624., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest AM has received research grant from Abbott Vascular and Boston Scientific. Consultant for Boston Scientific and Philips. JFL has received speakers fee from Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Abbott Vascular, Biosensors, Therumo, and St. Jude Medical. LOJ has received research grants to her institution from Biotronik, Biosensors and Terumo and honoraria from Biotronik. COF, LA, MN, MH, KNH, JE, OA, KTV, ABJ, and HSH declare that they have no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures The funding and CoreValve Evolut TAVR products for this work were provided through a research contract with Medtronic. Dr. Sanchez is employed by Medtronic. Dr. Burzotta received speaker fees from Abbott, Medtronic, and Abiomed. Dr. Iaizzo has a research contract with Medtronic and serves as an educational consultant. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose.

Background: Remote ischaemic conditioning with transient ischaemia and reperfusion applied to the arm has been shown to reduce myocardial infarct size in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). We investigated whether remote ischaemic conditioning could reduce the incidence of cardiac death and hospitalisation for heart failure at 12 months., Methods: We did an international investigator-initiated, prospective, single-blind, randomised controlled trial (CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI) at 33 centres across the UK, Denmark, Spain, and Serbia. Patients (age >18 years) with suspected STEMI and who were eligible for PPCI were randomly allocated (1:1, stratified by centre with a permuted block method) to receive standard treatment (including a sham simulated remote ischaemic conditioning intervention at UK sites only) or remote ischaemic conditioning treatment (intermittent ischaemia and reperfusion applied to the arm through four cycles of 5-min inflation and 5-min deflation of an automated cuff device) before PPCI. Investigators responsible for data collection and outcome assessment were masked to treatment allocation. The primary combined endpoint was cardiac death or hospitalisation for heart failure at 12 months in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02342522) and is completed., Findings: Between Nov 6, 2013, and March 31, 2018, 5401 patients were randomly allocated to either the control group (n=2701) or the remote ischaemic conditioning group (n=2700). After exclusion of patients upon hospital arrival or loss to follow-up, 2569 patients in the control group and 2546 in the intervention group were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. At 12 months post-PPCI, the Kaplan-Meier-estimated frequencies of cardiac death or hospitalisation for heart failure (the primary endpoint) were 220 (8·6%) patients in the control group and 239 (9·4%) in the remote ischaemic conditioning group (hazard ratio 1·10 [95% CI 0·91-1·32], p=0·32 for intervention versus control). No important unexpected adverse events or side effects of remote ischaemic conditioning were observed., Interpretation: Remote ischaemic conditioning does not improve clinical outcomes (cardiac death or hospitalisation for heart failure) at 12 months in patients with STEMI undergoing PPCI., Funding: British Heart Foundation, University College London Hospitals/University College London Biomedical Research Centre, Danish Innovation Foundation, Novo Nordisk Foundation, TrygFonden., (Copyright © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Aims: To assess the impact of sampling bias due to reported as well as unreported exclusion of the target population in a multi-center randomized controlled trial (RCT) of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI)., Methods and Results: We compared clinical characteristics and mortality between participants in the DANAMI-3 trial to contemporary non-participants with STEMI using unselected registries. A total of 179 DANAMI-3 participants (8%) and 617 contemporary non-participants (22%) had died (Log-Rank: P < 0.001) after a median follow-up of 1333 days (range: 1-2021 days). In an unadjusted Cox regression model all groups of non-participants had a higher hazard ratio to predict mortality compared to participants: eligible excluded (n = 144) (hazard ratio: 3.41 (95% CI: (2.69-4.32)), ineligible excluded (n = 472) (hazard ratio: 3.42 (95% CI: (2.44-4.80), eligible non-screened (n = 154) (hazard ratio: 3.37 (95% CI: (2.36-4.82)), ineligible non-screened (n = 154) (hazard ratio: 6.48 (95% CI: (4.77-8.80)., Conclusion: Sampling bias had occurred due to both reported and unreported exclusion of eligible patients and the difference in mortality between participants and non-participants could not be explained only by the trial exclusion criteria. Thus, screening logs may not be suited to address the risks of sampling bias., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare the thin-strut biodegradable-polymer everolimus-eluting platinum-chromium stent (EES) with the biodegradable-polymer biolimus-eluting stainless-steel stent (BES)., Background: Currently available drug-eluting coronary stents have been refined to reduce the risk for coronary events following implantation., Methods: This randomized, multicenter, all-comers, noninferiority trial was undertaken at 3 sites in western Denmark. Patients with clinical indications for percutaneous coronary intervention were eligible for inclusion. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either EES or BES. The primary endpoint, target lesion failure, was a composite of safety (cardiac death and myocardial infarction not clearly attributable to a nontarget lesion) and efficacy (target lesion revascularization) at 12 months, analyzed using intention-to-treat principles. The trial was powered to assess target lesion failure noninferiority of the EES compared with the BES with a predetermined noninferiority margin of 3%., Results: A total of 1,385 patients were assigned to treatment with EES and 1,369 patients to treatment with BES. The analysis showed that 55 patients (4.0%) assigned to the EES and 60 (4.4%) assigned to the BES met the primary endpoint (absolute risk difference 0.4%; upper limit of 1-sided 95% confidence interval: 1.7%; p < 0.001)., Conclusions: At 1-year follow-up, the EES was found to be noninferior to the BES with respect to target lesion failure. (Everolimus-eluting SYNERGY Stent Versus Biolimus-Eluting Biomatrix NeoFlex Stent-SORT-OUT VIII; NCT02093845)., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: ATLANTIC was a randomized study comparing pre- and in-hospital treatment with a ticagrelor loading dose (LD) in ongoing ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). We sought to compare patient characteristics and clinical outcomes in France with other countries participating in ATLANTIC., Methods: The population comprised 1862 patients, 660 (35.4%) from France and 1202 from 12 other countries. The main endpoints were reperfusion (≥70% ST-segment elevation resolution) and TIMI flow grade 3 before (co-primary endpoints) and after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Other endpoints included a composite ischaemic endpoint (death/myocardial infarction/stroke/urgent revascularization/definite stent thrombosis) and bleeding events at 30days., Results: In France, median times from first LD to angiography and between first and second LDs were 49 and 35min, respectively, and were similar to other countries. French patients were younger (mean 58.7 vs 61.9years, p<0.0001) and characterized by a higher rate of radial access (89.9% vs 54.8%, p<0.0001), more frequent use of pre-hospital glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa inhibitors (14.1% vs 3.1%, p<0.0001) and intravenous enoxaparin (57.3% vs 10.1%, p<0.0001). In France, as in other countries, the co-primary endpoints did not differ between the two randomization groups. The composite ischaemic endpoint was numerically lower in France (3.3% vs 5.1%, p=0.07), with a lower mortality (1.4% vs 3.3%, p=0.01). PLATO major bleeding was numerically less frequent in France (1.8% vs 3.2%, p=0.07)., Conclusions: The French population appears to have better outcomes than the rest of the study population, and seems related to differences in demographics and management characteristics., Trial Registry: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01347580)., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The aim of this landmark exploratory analysis, ATLANTIC-H(24), was to evaluate the effects of pre-hospital ticagrelor during the first 24 h after primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the ATLANTIC (Administration of Ticagrelor in the cath Lab or in the Ambulance for New ST elevation myocardial infarction to open the Coronary artery) study., Background: The ATLANTIC trial in patients with ongoing ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction showed that pre-hospital ticagrelor was safe but did not improve pre-PCI coronary reperfusion compared with in-hospital ticagrelor. We hypothesized that the effect of pre-hospital ticagrelor may not have manifested until after PCI due to the rapid transfer time (31 min)., Methods: The ATLANTIC-H(24) analysis included 1,629 patients who underwent PCI, evaluating platelet reactivity, Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction flow grade 3, ≥ 70% ST-segment elevation resolution, and clinical endpoints over the first 24 h., Results: Following PCI, largest between-group differences in platelet reactivity occurred at 1 to 6 h; coronary reperfusion rates numerically favored pre-hospital ticagrelor, and the degree of ST-segment elevation resolution was significantly greater in the pre-hospital group (median, 75.0% vs. 71.4%; p = 0.049). At 24 h, the composite ischemic endpoint was lower with pre-hospital ticagrelor (10.4% vs. 13.7%; p = 0.039), as were individual endpoints of definite stent thrombosis (p = 0.0078) and myocardial infarction (p = 0.031). All endpoints except death (1.1% vs. 0.2%; p = 0.048) favored pre-hospital ticagrelor, with no differences in bleeding events., Conclusions: The effects of pre-hospital ticagrelor became apparent after PCI, with numerical differences in platelet reactivity and immediate post-PCI reperfusion, associated with reductions in ischemic endpoints, over the first 24 h, whereas there was a small excess of mortality. (Administration of Ticagrelor in the cath Lab or in the Ambulance for New ST elevation myocardial infarction to open the Coronary artery [ATLANTIC, NCT01347580])., (Copyright © 2016 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Intracoronary imaging provides accurate lesion delineation and precise measurements for sizing and positioning of coronary stents. During percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), it may be challenging to identify corresponding segments between intracoronary imaging and angiography. Computer based online co-registration may aid the target segment identification., Methods: The DOCTOR fusion study was a prospective, single arm, observational study including patients admitted for elective PCI. Optical coherence tomography (OCT) was acquired pre-stent implantation for sizing of stents. The operator subsequently indicated on the angiogram the target area as identified by OCT. Computer based co-registration was performed on-line immediately after pre-stent acquisition to assess feasibility. The cumulated numerical difference between operator based, and computer based co-registration was assessed as the "Operator Registration Error". The operator implanted the stent blind to the co-registrated angiogram. The difference between the co-registered stent border positions and the actual stent deployment border positions was the "Geographic Miss Distance"., Results: Twenty-two patients were included in the study. Two patients were excluded due to missing pre or post-OCT acquisitions. Online co-registration pre-stenting was successful in all analyzed cases. The mean "Operator Registration Error" was 5.4±3.5mm. The mean "Geographic Miss Distance" was 5.4±2.6mm. Without access to the computer-based co-registration, segments of the target lesion indicated on OCT were left uncovered by stent in 14 patients (70%)., Conclusion: Computer based online co-registration of OCT and angiography is feasible. Frequent inaccuracies in operator based registration indicate that computer aided co-registration may reduce errors in corresponding OCT findings to the angiogram., (Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.)

Objectives: The study sought to compare the risk of late outcome with a focus on very late definite stent thrombosis of the everolimus-eluting stent (EES) with that of the sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) at 3-year follow-up., Background: In the SORT OUT IV (SORT OUT IV Trial), comparing the EES with the SES in patients with coronary artery disease, the EES was noninferior to the SES at 9 months. The SORT OUT IV trial provides long-term head-to-head randomized comparison of the EES with the SES., Methods: We prospectively randomized 2,774 patients in the SORT OUT IV trial. Follow-up through 3 years was complete in 2,771 patients (99.9%). The 3-year pre-specified endpoints were composites of safety and efficacy (major adverse cardiac events [MACE]: cardiac death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, and definite stent thrombosis)., Results: At 3 years, the composite endpoint MACE occurred in 9.8% of the EES group and in 11.1% of the SES group (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.89, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.70 to 1.12). Overall rate of definite stent thrombosis was lower in the EES group (0.2% vs. 1.4%; HR: 0.15, 95% CI: 0.04 to 0.50), which was largely attributable to a lower risk of very late definite stent thrombosis: 0.1% versus 0.8% (HR: 0.09, 95% CI: 0.01 to 0.70)., Conclusions: At 3-year follow-up, the MACE rate did not differ significantly between EES- and SES-treated patients. A significant reduction of overall and very late definite stent thrombosis was found in the EES group. (The SORT OUT IV TRIAL [SORT OUT IV]; NCT00552877)., (Copyright © 2014 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: This prospective multicenter registry used intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) in patients with definite stent thrombosis (ST) to compare rates of incomplete stent apposition (ISA), stent fracture and stent expansion in patients treated with drug-eluting (DES) versus bare metal (BMS) stents. ST is a rare, but potential life threatening event after coronary stent implantation. The etiology seems to be multifactorial., Methods: 124 patients with definite ST were assessed by IVUS during the acute ST event. The study was conducted in 15 high-volume percutaneous coronary intervention -centers in the Nordic-Baltic countries., Results: In early or late ST there were no differences in ISA between DES and BMS. In very late ST, ISA was a more frequent finding in DES than in BMS (52% vs.16%; p=0.005) and the maximum ISA area was larger in DES compared to BMS (1.1 ± 2.3mm(2) vs. 0.1 ± 0.5mm(2); p=0.004). Further, ISA was more prevalent in sirolimus-eluting than in paclitaxel-eluting stents (58% vs. 37%; p=0.02). Stent fractures were found both in DES (16%) and BMS (24%); p=0.28, and not related to time of stent thrombosis occurrence. For stents with nominal diameters ≥ 2.75 mm, 38% of the DES and 22% of the BMS had a minimum stent area of less than 5mm(2); p=0.14., Conclusions: Very late stent thrombosis was more prevalent and associated with more extensive ISA in DES than in BMS treated patients. Stent fracture was a common finding in ST after DES and BMS implantation., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Coronary CT angiography (CTA) is an established noninvasive method for visualization of coronary artery disease. However, coronary CTA lacks physiological information; thus, it does not permit differentiation of ischemia-causing lesions. Recent advances in computational fluid dynamic techniques applied to standard coronary CTA images allow for computation of fractional flow reserve (FFR), a measure of lesion-specific ischemia. The diagnostic performance of computed FFR (FFRCT) compared with invasively measured FFR is not yet fully established., Methods/design: HeartFlowNXT (HeartFlow analysis of coronary blood flow using coronary CT angiography: NeXt sTeps) is a prospective, international, multicenter study designed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of FFRCT for the detection and exclusion of flow-limiting obstructive coronary stenoses, as defined by invasively measured FFR as the reference standard. FFR values ≤ 0.80 will be considered to be ischemia causing. All subjects (N = 270; 10 investigative sites) will undergo coronary CTA (single- or dual-source CT scanners with a minimum of 64 slices) and invasive coronary angiography with FFR. Patients with insufficient quality of coronary CTA will be excluded. Blinded core laboratory interpretation will be performed for FFRCT, invasive coronary angiography, and FFR. Stenosis severity by coronary CTA will be evaluated by the investigative site in addition to a blinded core laboratory interpretation. The primary objective of the study is to determine the diagnostic performance of FFRCT compared with coronary CTA alone to noninvasively determine the presence of hemodynamically significant coronary lesions. The secondary end point comprises assessment of diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of FFRCT., (Copyright © 2013 Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study sought to compare the long-term effects of drug-eluting stent (DES) compared with bare-metal stent (BMS) implantation in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention., Background: The randomized DEDICATION (Drug Elution and Distal Protection in Acute Myocardial Infarction) trial evaluated the outcome after DES compared with BMS implantation in patients with STEMI undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention., Methods: Patients with a high-grade stenosis/occlusion of a native coronary artery presenting with symptoms <12 h and ST-segment elevation were enrolled after giving informed consent. Patients were randomly assigned to receive a DES or a BMS in the infarct-related lesion. Patients were followed for at least 5 years, and clinical endpoints were evaluated from population registries and hospital charts. The main endpoint was the occurrence of the first major adverse cardiac event (MACE), defined as cardiac death, nonfatal recurrent myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization., Results: Complete clinical status was available in 623 patients (99.5%) at 5 years follow-up. The combined MACE rate was insignificantly lower in the DES group (16.9% vs. 23%), mainly driven by a lower need of repeat revascularization (p = 0.07). Whereas the number of deaths from all causes tended to be higher in the DES group (16.3% vs. 12.1%, p = 0.17), cardiac mortality was significantly higher (7.7% vs. 3.2%, p = 0.02). The 5-year stent thrombosis rates were generally low and similar between the DES and the BMS groups. No cardiac deaths occurring within 1 month could be clearly ascribed to stent thrombosis, whereas stent thrombosis was involved in 78% of later-occurring deaths., Conclusions: The 5-year MACE rate was insignificantly different, but the cardiac mortality was higher after DES versus BMS implantation in patients with STEMI. Stent thrombosis was the main cause of late cardiac deaths., (Copyright © 2013 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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)., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study sought to examine the 3-year clinical outcomes in patients treated with the Endeavor (Medtronic, Santa Rosa, California) zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) or the Cypher (Cordis, Johnson & Johnson, Warren, New Jersey) sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) in routine clinical practice., Background: The long-term clinical outcome in patients treated with ZES in comparison with SES is unclear., Methods: The authors randomized 2,332 patients to ZES (n = 1,162) or SES (n = 1,170) implantation. Endpoints included major adverse cardiac events (MACE), a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization; the individual endpoints of MACE; and definite stent thrombosis., Results: At 3-year follow-up, the MACE rate was higher in patients treated with ZES than in patients treated with SES (148 [12.9%] vs. 116 [10.1%]; hazard ratio [HR]: 1.33, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.04 to 1.69; p = 0.022). Target vessel revascularization was more frequent in the ZES group compared with the SES group (103 [9.1%] vs. 76 [6.7%]; HR: 1.40, 95% CI: 1.04 to 1.89; p = 0.025), whereas the occurrence of myocardial infarction (3.8% vs. 3.3%) and cardiac death (2.8% vs. 2.8%) did not differ significantly. Although the rate of definite stent thrombosis was similar at 3-year follow-up (1.1% vs. 1.4%), very late (12 to 36 months) definite stent thrombosis occurred in 0 (0%) patients in the ZES group versus 12 (1.1%) patients in the SES group (p = 0.0005)., Conclusions: Although the 3-year MACE rate is higher in patients treated with ZES versus SES, our data highlight a late safety problem concerning definite stent thrombosis with the use of SES. This finding underscores the importance of long-term follow-up in head-to-head comparisons of drug-eluting stents. (Randomized Clinical Comparison of the Endeavor and the Cypher Coronary Stents in Non-selected Angina Pectoris Patients [SORT OUT III]; NCT00660478)., (Copyright © 2012 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In low-risk patients, the zotarolimus-eluting stent has been shown to reduce rates of restenosis without increasing the risk of stent thrombosis. We compared the efficacy and safety of the zotarolimus-eluting stent versus the sirolimus-eluting stent in patients with coronary artery disease who were receiving routine clinical care with no direct follow-up., Methods: We did a single-blind, all-comer superiority trial in adult patients with chronic stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes, and at least one target lesion. Patients were treated at one of five percutaneous coronary intervention centres between January, 2006, and August, 2007. Computer-generated block randomisation and a telephone allocation service were used to randomly assign patients to receive the zotarolimus-eluting or the sirolimus-eluting stent. Data for follow-up were obtained from national Danish administrative and health-care registries. The primary endpoint was a composite of major adverse cardiac events within 9 months: cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularisation. Intention-to-treat analyses were done at 9-month and 18-month follow-up. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00660478., Findings: 1162 patients (1619 lesions) were assigned to receive the zotarolimus-eluting stent, and 1170 patients (1611 lesions) to receive the sirolimus-eluting stent. 67 patients (72 lesions) had stent failure, and six patients were lost to follow-up. All randomly assigned patients were included in analyses at 9-month follow-up; 2200 patients (94%) had completed 18-month follow-up by the time of our assessment. At 9 months, the primary endpoint had occurred in a higher proportion of patients treated with the zotarolimus-eluting stent than in those treated with the sirolimus-eluting stent (72 [6%] vs 34 [3%]; HR 2.15, 95% CI 1.43-3.23; p=0.0002). At 18-month follow-up, this difference was sustained (113 [10%] vs 53 [5%]; 2.19, 1.58-3.04; p<0.0001). For patients receiving the zotarolimus-eluting stent and those receiving the sirolimus-eluting stent, all cause-mortality was similar at 9-month follow-up (25 [2%] vs 18 [2%]; 1.40, 0.76-2.56; p=0.28), but was significantly different at 18-month follow-up (51 [4%] vs 32 [3%]; 1.61, 1.03-2.50; p=0.035)., Interpretation: The sirolimus-eluting stent is superior to the zotarolimus-eluting stent for patients receiving routine clinical care., Funding: Cordis and Medtronic., (Copyright 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Remote ischaemic preconditioning attenuates cardiac injury at elective surgery and angioplasty. We tested the hypothesis that remote ischaemic conditioning during evolving ST-elevation myocardial infarction, and done before primary percutaneous coronary intervention, increases myocardial salvage., Methods: 333 consecutive adult patients with a suspected first acute myocardial infarction were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio by computerised block randomisation to receive primary percutaneous coronary intervention with (n=166 patients) versus without (n=167) remote conditioning (intermittent arm ischaemia through four cycles of 5-min inflation and 5-min deflation of a blood-pressure cuff). Allocation was concealed with opaque sealed envelopes. Patients received remote conditioning during transport to hospital, and primary percutaneous coronary intervention in hospital. The primary endpoint was myocardial salvage index at 30 days after primary percutaneous coronary intervention, measured by myocardial perfusion imaging as the proportion of the area at risk salvaged by treatment; analysis was per protocol. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00435266., Findings: 82 patients were excluded on arrival at hospital because they did not meet inclusion criteria, 32 were lost to follow-up, and 77 did not complete the follow-up with data for salvage index. Median salvage index was 0.75 (IQR 0.50-0.93, n=73) in the remote conditioning group versus 0.55 (0.35-0.88, n=69) in the control group, with median difference of 0.10 (95% CI 0.01-0.22; p=0.0333); mean salvage index was 0.69 (SD 0.27) versus 0.57 (0.26), with mean difference of 0.12 (95% CI 0.01-0.21; p=0.0333). Major adverse coronary events were death (n=3 per group), reinfarction (n=1 per group), and heart failure (n=3 per group)., Interpretation: Remote ischaemic conditioning before hospital admission increases myocardial salvage, and has a favourable safety profile. Our findings merit a larger trial to establish the effect of remote conditioning on clinical outcomes., Funding: Fondation Leducq., (Copyright 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)