Search

Background: Outcome data after extended long-term follow-up of patients with coronary artery disease treated with drug-eluting stents (DES) in randomized clinical trials are scant.Objectives: Performance differences among devices may be expected to emerge over time depending on whether stenting is done with polymer-free or durable polymer DES. This study assessed the 10-year outcomes of patients enrolled in the ISAR-TEST-5 (Test Efficacy of Sirolimus- and Probucol-Eluting Versus Zotarolimus-Eluting Stents) trial.Methods: A total of 3,002 patients were randomized to treatment with either polymer-free sirolimus- and probucol-eluting stents (n = 2,002) or durable polymer zotarolimus-eluting stents (n = 1,000). The primary endpoint was the composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization (a device-oriented composite endpoint [DOCE]). Additional endpoints of interest were the patient-oriented composite endpoint (POCE), including all-cause death, any myocardial infarction, or any revascularization; individual components of the composite endpoints; and definite or probable stent thrombosis.Results: The median age of the patients at randomization was 67.8 years. At 10 years, 63.9% of patients were alive. The rates of DOCE and POCE were high in both groups with no difference in the incidence between polymer-free sirolimus- and probucol-eluting stents and durable polymer zotarolimus-eluting stents (DOCE: 43.8% vs. 43.0%, respectively; hazard ratio: 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.89 to 1.14; p = 0.90; POCE: 66.2% vs. 67.7%, respectively; hazard ratio: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.04; p = 0.22). The rates of the individual components of the composite endpoints were comparable in both groups. The incidence of definite/probable stent thrombosis over 10 years was low and comparable in both groups (1.6% vs. 1.9%; hazard ratio: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.46 to 1.54; p = 0.58).Conclusions: At 10 years, there were no measurable differences in outcomes between patients treated with polymer-free versus durable polymer DES. The incidence of stent thrombosis was low and comparable in both groups. High overall adverse clinical event rates were observed during extended follow-up. (Test Efficacy of Sirolimus- and Probucol-Eluting Versus Zotarolimus-Eluting Stents [ISAR-TEST-5]; NCT00598533). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Whether the access site influences the comparative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor and prasugrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing invasive treatment strategy remains unstudied.Methods: This post-hoc analysis included ACS patients undergoing invasive treatment via radial or femoral access and randomized to either ticagrelor or prasugrel in the ISAR-REACT 5 trial. The primary efficacy endpoint was the composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke, safety endpoint was BARC 3 to 5 bleeding. Outcomes were assessed out to 12 months after randomization.Results: Out of 4018 patients, 3984 underwent invasive treatment via radial or femoral access. 1479 had coronary angiography via radial access (ticagrelor, N = 748; prasugrel, N = 731) and 2505 via femoral access (ticagrelor, N = 1245; prasugrel, N = 1260). There was no interaction between access route and assignment to either ticagrelor or prasugrel regarding the primary efficacy or safety endpoints (P for interaction≥0.616). In the radial group, the primary efficacy endpoint (7.6% versus 5.8%, HR: 1.32 [0.88-1.97], P = 0.151) and the safety endpoint (4.3% versus 3.0%, HR: 1.36, [0.73-1.31], P = 0.300) were not statistically different in patients receiving either ticagrelor or prasugrel. In the femoral group, the primary efficacy endpoint occurred more frequently in patients assigned to ticagrelor as compared to prasugrel (10.3% versus 7.3%, HR: 1.44 [1.10-1.88], P = 0.006) without significant difference in terms of safety endpoint (6.4% versus 5.8%, HR: 1.14, [0.81-1.60], P = 0.470).Conclusions: In patients with ACS undergoing an invasive treatment strategy, the access route does not influence the comparative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor and prasugrel.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT01944800. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Data on the comparative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention are limited. We assessed the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in a head-to-head comparison in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention.Methods: In this prespecified subgroup analysis, we included 1653 patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction randomized to receive ticagrelor or prasugrel in the setting of the ISAR REACT-5 trial (Intracoronary Stenting and Antithrombotic Regimen: Rapid Early Action for Coronary Treatment 5). The primary end point was the incidence of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 1 year after randomization. The secondary end point was the incidence of bleeding defined as BARC (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium) type 3 to 5 bleeding at 1 year after randomization.Results: The primary end point occurred in 83 patients (10.1%) in the ticagrelor group and in 64 patients (7.9%) in the prasugrel group (hazard ratio, 1.31 [95% CI, 0.95-1.82]; P=0.10). One-year incidence of all-cause death (4.9% versus 4.7%; P=0.83), stroke (1.3% versus 1.0%; P=0.46), and definite stent thrombosis (1.8% versus 1.0%; P=0.15) did not differ significantly in patients assigned to ticagrelor or prasugrel. One-year incidence of myocardial infarction (5.3% versus 2.8%; hazard ratio, 1.95 [95% CI, 1.18-3.23]; P=0.010) was higher with ticagrelor than with prasugrel. BARC type 3 to 5 bleeding occurred in 46 patients (6.1%) in the ticagrelor group and in 39 patients (5.1%) in the prasugrel group (hazard ratio, 1.22 [95% CI, 0.80-1.87]; P=0.36).Conclusions: In patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention, there was no significant difference in the primary end point between prasugrel and ticagrelor. Ticagrelor was associated with a significant increase in the risk for recurrent myocardial infarction. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01944800. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Current guidelines recommend intensified platelet inhibition by prasugrel or ticagrelor in patients with unstable angina (UA) or non-ST-segment elevation (NSTE) myocardial infarction (MI).Objectives: This study sought to investigate the benefits and risks of ticagrelor as compared with prasugrel in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS) and planned invasive management.Methods: This post hoc analysis combines the pre-specified subgroups of UA and NSTEMI of the randomized ISAR-REACT 5 trial. It included 1,179 patients assigned to ticagrelor and 1,186 assigned to prasugrel. Ticagrelor was started immediately after randomization and prasugrel after coronary angiography. The primary endpoint was a composite of death, MI, or stroke during 1-year follow-up, and the safety endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium class 3-5.Results: The primary endpoint was reached in 101 (8.7%) patients in the ticagrelor and in 73 (6.3%) patients in the prasugrel group (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.41; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.04 to 1.90). The HR for all-cause death was 1.43 (95% CI: 0.93 to 2.21) and that for MI 1.43 (95% CI: 0.94 to 2.19). The safety endpoint occurred in 49 (5.2%) patients in the ticagrelor and in 41 (4.7%) patients in the prasugrel group (HR: 1.09; 95% CI: 0.72 to 1.65). Landmark analysis revealed persistence of the efficacy advantage with prasugrel after the first month.Conclusions: In patients with NSTE-ACS, we found that prasugrel was superior to ticagrelor in reducing the combined 1-year risk of death, MI, and stroke without increasing the risk of bleeding. Due to the post hoc nature of the analysis, these findings need confirmation by further studies. (Prospective, Randomized Trial of Ticagrelor Versus Prasugrel in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome; NCT01944800). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) demonstrated an increased risk of very late scaffold thrombosis (VLScT) in comparison with conventional drug-eluting stents. However, characterization of VLScT cases remains scant and the role of interim angiographic surveillance in identifying patients at risk of VLScT is unclear. We therefore set out to identify angiographic predictors of VLScT in our present case series.Methods: We analyzed a series of consecutive patients with VLScT presenting to two centers in Munich, Germany. Of interest, all patients had undergone interim planned surveillance angiography. Angiographic films were collected and reviewed and quantitative coronary angiography analysis was done at a core laboratory. Optical coherence tomography (OCT) images at presentation with VLScT were analyzed in patients with available data.Results: Nine patients presented with 10 VLScT events. Mean age was 62.6 years. Surveillance angiography (between 159 and 476 days) were unremarkable in all cases. Time from index intervention to VLScT ranged from 393 to 1494 days. Nine of 10 events occurred after discontinuation of dual antiplatelet therapy. Four patients underwent OCT. The dominant finding at the time of VLScT was scaffold discontinuity.Conclusions: In a series of patients with VLScT after treatment with BRS, routine interim surveillance angiography was available in all patients and failed to identify features predictive of subsequent adverse events. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Atherosclerosis in the superficial femoral artery is common in patients suffering from peripheral artery disease. Paclitaxel-eluting balloon (PEB) angioplasty, stenting, and directional atherectomy (DA) have provided new options for the treatment of superficial femoral artery disease; however, the comparative efficacy of these interventional strategies remains uncertain.Methods: One hundred and fifty-five patients with symptomatic peripheral artery disease due to de novo superficial femoral artery stenotic or occlusive lesions were randomized to treatment with plain balloon angioplasty (BA) followed by PEB angioplasty and stenting (n=48), BA and stenting (n=52), or DA with distal protection and bailout stenting (n=55). The primary end point of the study was percentage diameter stenosis after 6 months measured by angiography. Other end points included target lesion revascularization, thrombosis, ipsilateral amputation, binary restenosis, and all-cause mortality at 6 and 24 months.Results: Baseline and lesion characteristics were comparable in all groups with a mean lesion length of 65.9±46.8 mm and 56% total occlusions. At 6 months angiography, the percent diameter stenosis was significantly lower in patients treated by PEB angioplasty and stenting (34±31%) as compared with BA angioplasty and stenting (56±29%, P=0.009) or DA (55±29%, P=0.007). Similarly, binary restenosis was significantly lower after treatment with PEB and stenting as compared with BA and stenting or DA. Clinical follow-up at 24 months revealed a lower risk for target lesion revascularization after PEB angioplasty and stenting as compared with BA and stenting or DA. We found no difference in terms of target lesion thrombosis and mortality among groups, and no patient underwent amputation.Conclusions: Treatment of de novo superficial femoral artery lesions with PEB angioplasty and stenting is superior to BA angioplasty and stenting or DA in terms of angiographic diameter stenosis at 6 months and target lesion revascularization at 24 months.Clinical Trial Registration: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00986752. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The prognostic value of high-sensitivity troponin T (hs-TnT) elevation after elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with or without raised baseline hs-TnT levels is unclear.Objectives: The goal of this study was to assess whether the prognostic value of post-procedural hs-TnT level after elective PCI depends on the baseline hs-TnT level.Methods: This study included 5,626 patients undergoing elective PCI who had baseline and peak post-procedural hs-TnT measurements available. The primary outcome was 3-year mortality (with risk estimates calculated per SD increase of the log hs-TnT scale).Results: Patients were divided into 4 groups: nonelevated baseline and post-procedural hs-TnT levels (hs-TnT ≤0.014 μg/l; n = 742); nonelevated baseline but elevated post-procedural hs-TnT levels (peak post-procedural hs-TnT >0.014 μg/l; n = 2,721); elevated baseline hs-TnT levels (hs-TnT >0.014 μg/l) with no further rise post-procedure (n = 516); and elevated baseline hs-TnT levels with a further rise post-procedure (n = 1,647). A total of 265 deaths occurred: 6 (1.6%) in patients with nonelevated baseline and post-procedural hs-TnT levels; 54 (3.8%) in patients with nonelevated baseline but elevated post-procedural hs-TnT levels; 50 (16.0%) in patients with elevated baseline hs-TnT levels with no further rise post-procedure; and 155 (18.2%) in patients with elevated baseline hs-TnT levels with a further rise post-procedure (p < 0.001). After adjustment, baseline hs-TnT levels (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.22; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.09 to 1.38; p < 0.001) but not peak post-procedural hs-TnT levels (HR: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.85 to 1.28; p = 0.679) were associated with an increased risk of mortality. Peak post-procedural hs-TnT findings were not associated with mortality in patients with nonelevated (HR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.69 to 1.25; p = 0.653) or elevated (HR: 1.24; 95% CI: 0.91 to 1.69; p = 0.165) baseline hs-TnT levels.Conclusions: In patients with coronary artery disease undergoing elective PCI, an increase in post-procedural hs-TnT level did not offer prognostic information beyond that provided by the baseline level of the biomarker. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]