Search

BACKGROUND: Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) has improved clinical outcomes in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction. However, as many as 50% of patients still have suboptimal myocardial reperfusion and experience extensive myocardial necrosis. The PiCSO-AMI-I trial (Pressure-Controlled Intermittent Coronary Sinus Occlusion-Acute Myocardial Infarction-I) evaluated whether PiCSO therapy can further reduce myocardial infarct size (IS) in patients undergoing pPCI. METHODS: Patients with anterior ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction and Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction flow 0-1 were randomized at 16 European centers to PiCSO-assisted pPCI or conventional pPCI. The PiCSO Impulse Catheter (8Fr balloon-tipped catheter) was inserted via femoral venous access after antegrade flow restoration of the culprit vessel and before proceeding with stenting. The primary end point was the difference in IS (expressed as a percentage of left ventricular mass) at 5 days by cardiac magnetic resonance. Secondary end points were the extent of microvascular obstruction and intramyocardial hemorrhage at 5 days and IS at 6 months. RESULTS: Among 145 randomized patients, 72 received PiCSO-assisted pPCI and 73 conventional pPCI. No differences were observed in IS at 5 days (27.2%±12.4% versus 28.3%±11.45%; P =0.59) and 6 months (19.2%±10.1% versus 18.8%±7.7%; P =0.83), nor were differences between PiCSO-treated and control patients noted in terms of the occurrence of microvascular obstruction (67.2% versus 64.6%; P =0.85) or intramyocardial hemorrhage (55.7% versus 60%; P =0.72). The study was prematurely discontinued by the sponsor with no further clinical follow-up beyond 6 months. However, up to 6 months of PiCSO use appeared safe with no device-related adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: In this prematurely discontinued randomized trial, PiCSO therapy as an adjunct to pPCI did not reduce IS when compared with conventional pPCI in patients with anterior ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction. PiCSO use was associated with increased procedural time and contrast but no increase in adverse events up to 6 months. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03625869. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) is a serious condition in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention. We compared the risk of acute CIN and the influence of preventive strategies in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention.A total of 720 patients were randomized in the Prevention of Contrast-induced Nephropathy in Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (CINSTEMI) trial. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to receive hydration with sodium chloride together with 1 of 4 prophylactic regimes (1) N-acetylcysteine (NAC), (2) sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO3) infusion, (3) NAC in combination with NaHCO3, or (4) hydration with sodium chloride infusion alone. Patients in cardiogenic shock were excluded. Acute CIN was defined as an increase in serum creatinine concentration >25% from the baseline value within a 3-day period. Overall, CIN occurred in 141 (21.9%) patients. The prevention treatment with NAC, NaHCO3, or the combined NAC and NaHCO3 did not reduce the rate of CIN significantly compared with hydration with intravenous sodium chloride infusion alone (20.1% versus 20.1% versus 20.8% versus 26.5%; P=NS). However, an increase in serum creatinine >25% from the baseline value to 30 day was significantly lower in patients treated with combined NAC and NaHCO3 (18.7% versus 19.1% versus 9.2% versus 21.3%; P=0.033).Treatment with NAC or NaHCO3 did not reduce the rate of acute CIN significantly. Combined treatment with NAC and NaHCO3 may reduce the risk of renal dysfunction after 30 days.URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01160627. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the trials, NORDIC 1 Bifurcation Study and the British Bifurcation Coronary Study (BBC ONE), comparing a simple provisional T-stent versus a systematic two-stent complex approaches to the treatment of bifurcation lesions. Patients with a bifurcation lesion were randomly assigned either to a simple strategy or complex strategy using sirolimus-eluting stents. The results showed that the simple strategy resulted in reduced procedure duration, fluoroscopy times and risk of periprocedural myocardial infarction.

Background: In patients with increased bleeding risk, the biolimus A9-coated BioFreedom stent, a stainless steel drug-coated stent free from polymer, has shown superiority compared with a bare-metal stent. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the BioFreedom stent is noninferior to a modern ultrathin strut biodegradable polymer cobalt-chromium sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent in an all-comers patient population treated with percutaneous coronary intervention., Methods: The SORT OUT IX trial (Scandinavian Organization for Randomized Trials With Clinical Outcome IX), was a large-scale, registry-based, randomized, multicenter, single-blind, 2-arm, noninferiority trial. The primary end point, major adverse cardiovascular events, was defined as the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction not related to any segment other than the target lesion, or target lesion revascularization within 1 year, analyzed by intention-to-treat. The trial was powered to assess noninferiority for major adverse cardiovascular events of the BioFreedom stent compared with the Orsiro stent with a predetermined noninferiority margin of 0.021., Results: Between December 14, 2015 and April 21, 2017, 3151 patients were assigned to treatment with the BioFreedom stent (1572 patients, 1966 lesions) or to the Orsiro stent (1579 patients, 1985 lesions). Five patients were lost to follow-up because of emigration (99.9% follow-up rate). Mean age was 66.3±10.9, diabetes mellitus was seen in 19.3% of patients, and 53% of the patients had acute coronary syndromes. At 1 year, intention-to-treat analysis showed that 79 (5.0%) patients, who were assigned the BioFreedom stent, and 59 (3.7%), who were assigned the Orsiro stent, met the primary end point (absolute risk difference 1.29% [upper limit of one-sided 95% CI 2.50%]; P noni nferiority =0.14). Significantly more patients in the BioFreedom stent group had target lesion revascularization than those in the Orsiro stent group (55 [3.5%] vs 20 [1.3%], rate ratio 2.77 [95% CI, 1.66-4.62]; P <0.0001)., Conclusions: The biolimus A9-coated BioFreedom polymer-free stent did not meet criteria for noninferiority for major adverse cardiovascular events at 12 months when compared with the ultrathin strut biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent in an all-comers population Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02623140.

Background: Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is a novel diagnostic modality for functional testing of coronary artery stenosis without the use of pressure wires and induction of hyperemia. QFR is based on computation of standard invasive coronary angiographic imaging. The purpose of WIFI II (Wire-Free Functional Imaging II) was to evaluate the feasibility and diagnostic performance of QFR in unselected consecutive patients., Methods and Results: WIFI II was a predefined substudy to the Dan-NICAD study (Danish Study of Non-Invasive Diagnostic Testing in Coronary Artery Disease), referring 362 consecutive patients with suspected coronary artery disease on coronary computed tomographic angiography for diagnostic invasive coronary angiography. Fractional flow reserve (FFR) was measured in all segments with 30% to 90% diameter stenosis. Blinded observers calculated QFR (Medis Medical Imaging bv, The Netherlands) for comparison with FFR. FFR was measured in 292 lesions from 191 patients. Ten (5%) and 9 patients (5%) were excluded because of FFR and angiographic core laboratory criteria, respectively. QFR was successfully computed in 240 out of 255 lesions (94%) with a mean diameter stenosis of 50±12%. Mean difference between FFR and QFR was 0.01±0.08. QFR correctly classified 83% of the lesions using FFR with cutoff at 0.80 as reference standard. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.86 (95% confidence interval, 0.81-0.91) with a sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, and positive predictive value of 77%, 86%, 75%, and 87%, respectively. A QFR-FFR hybrid approach based on the present results enables wire-free and adenosine-free procedures in 68% of cases., Conclusions: Functional lesion evaluation by QFR assessment showed good agreement and diagnostic accuracy compared with FFR. Studies comparing clinical outcome after QFR- and FFR-based diagnostic strategies are required., Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02264717., (© 2018 The Authors.)

Background: Coronary drug-eluting stents with biodegradable polymers have been designed to improve safety and efficacy., Methods and Results: The Scandinavian Organization for Randomized Trials With Clinical Outcome (SORT OUT) VII trial-a large-scale registry-based randomized, multicenter, single-blind, 2-arm, noninferiority trial-compared 2 biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents: the thin-strut cobalt-chromium sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent and the stainless steel biolimus-eluting Nobori stent in an all-comer patient population. The primary end point target lesion failure was a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (not related to other than index lesion), or target lesion revascularization within 1 year, analyzed by intention to treat (noninferiority margin of 3.0%). Clinically driven event detection based on Danish registries was used. A total of 1261 patients were assigned to receive the sirolimus-eluting stent (1590 lesions) and 1264 patients to the biolimus-eluting stent (1588 lesions). At 1 year, the composite end point target lesion failure occurred in 48 patients (3.8%) in the sirolimus-eluting group and in 58 patients (4.6%) in the biolimus-eluting group (absolute risk difference, -0.78% [upper limit of 1-sided 95% confidence interval, 0.61%]; P<0.0001). Rates of definite stent thrombosis occurred in 5 (0.4%) of the sirolimus-eluting group compared with 15 (1.2%) biolimus-eluting stent-treated patients (rate ratio, 0.33; 95% confidence interval, 0.12-0.92; P=0.034), which largely was attributable to a lower risk of subacute definite stent thrombosis: 0.1% versus 0.6% (rate ratio, 0.12; 95% confidence interval, 0.02-1.00; P=0.05)., Conclusions: The thin-strut sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent was noninferior to the biolimus-eluting Nobori stent in unselected patients for target lesion failure at 1 year., Clinical Trial Registration: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01879358., (© 2016 American Heart Association, Inc.)

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.

Background: The use of drug-eluting stents (DESs) versus bare metal stents (BMSs) in primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction is a matter of debate. Therefore, we examined the risk of target lesion revascularization (TLR), stent thrombosis, myocardial infarction, and death after the implantation of DES or BMS in primary PCI patients in Western Denmark., Methods and Results: A total of 3756 consecutive patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction treated with primary PCI and stent implantation, recorded in the Western Denmark Heart Registry from January 2002 through June 2005, were followed up for 2 years. We used Cox regression analysis to control for confounding. The 2-year incidence of definite stent thrombosis was 1.9% in the DES group and 1.1% in the BMS group (adjusted relative risk [RR]=1.53; 95% CI=0.84 to 2.78; P=0.17). Very late definite stent thrombosis (> or =12 months) was seen in 0.4% in the DES group and 0.06% in the BMS group (adjusted RR=6.74; 95% CI=1.23 to 37.00; P=0.03). The 2-year incidence of myocardial infarction was similar in the 2 groups, 5.2% in the DES group versus 6.3% in the BMS group (P=0.28; adjusted RR=1.13; 95% CI=0.81 to 1.59; P=0.47). All-cause 2-year mortality was 7.8% in the DES group and 11.4% in BMS group (P<0.004; adjusted RR=0.79; 95% CI=0.60 to 1.04; P=0.09). The 2-year incidence of target lesion revascularization was 7.2% in the DES group and 8.7% in the BMS group (P=0.09; adjusted RR=0.70; 95% CI=0.52 to 0.92; P=0.012)., Conclusions: In ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients treated with primary PCI, target lesion revascularization was reduced by 30% in patients treated with a DES. The risk of very late definite stent thrombosis was low but increased in patients treated with DES. DES was not associated with increased risk of myocardial infarction or death, when compared with BMS.

Background: Fractional flow reserve predicts cardiac events after coronary stent implantation. The aim of the present study was to assess the 9-month angiographic in-stent restenosis rate in the setting of optimal stenting and a persisting gradient distal to the stent as assessed by a pressure wire pullback recording in the entire length of the artery., Methods and Results: In 98 patients with angina pectoris, 1 de novo coronary lesion was treated with a bare-metal stent. After stent implantation, pressure wire measurements (P(d)=mean hyperemic coronary pressure and P(a)=mean aortic pressure) were performed in the target vessel: (1) P(d)/P(a) as distal to the artery as possible (fractional flow reserve per definition); (2) P(d)/P(a) just distal to the stent; (3) P(d)/P(a) just proximal to the stent; and (4) P(d)/P(a) at the ostium. Residual abnormal P(d)/P(a) was defined as a pressure drop between P(d)/P(a) measured at points 1 and 2. Fractional flow reserve distal to the artery after stenting was significantly lower (0.88+/-0.21 versus 0.97+/-0.05; P<0.001), and angiographic in-stent binary restenosis rate was significantly higher (44.0% versus 8.1%; P<0.001) in vessels with a residual abnormal P(d)/P(a). Residual abnormal P(d)/P(a) (odds ratio, 4.39; 95% confidence interval, 1.10 to 18.16; P=0.034), reference vessel size (odds ratio, 0.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.04 to 0.69; P=0.013), and stent length (odds ratio, 1.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.03 to 1.21; P=0.009) were predictors of angiographic in-stent restenosis after 9 months., Conclusions: A residual abnormal P(d)/P(a) distal to a bare-metal stent was an independent predictor of in-stent restenosis after implantation of a coronary bare-metal stent.

Background: Distal embolization during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST-elevation myocardial infarction may result in reduced myocardial perfusion, infarct extension, and impaired prognosis., Methods and Results: In a prospective randomized trial, we studied the effect of routine thrombectomy in 215 patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction lasting <12 hours undergoing primary PCI. Patients were randomized to thrombectomy pretreatment or standard PCI. The primary end point was myocardial salvage measured by sestamibi SPECT, calculated as the difference between area at risk and final infarct size determined after 30 days (percent). Secondary end points included final infarct size, ST-segment resolution, and troponin T release. Baseline variables, including ST-segment elevation and area at risk, were similar. Salvage was not statistically different in the thrombectomy and control groups (median, 13% [interquartile range, 9% to 21%] and 18% [interquartile range, 7% to 25%]; P=0.12), but 24 patients in the thrombectomy group and 12 patients in the control group did not have an early SPECT scan, mainly because of poor general or cardiac condition (P=0.04). In the thrombectomy group, final infarct size was increased (median, 15%; [interquartile range, 4% to 25%] versus 8% [interquartile range, 2% to 18%]; P=0.004)., Conclusions: Thrombectomy performed as routine therapy in primary PCI for ST-elevation myocardial infarction does not increase myocardial salvage. The study suggests a possible deleterious effect of thrombectomy, resulting in an increased final infarct size, and does not support the use of thrombectomy in unselected primary PCI patients.