Search

Background: Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-guided drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation is associated with fewer major adverse cardiovascular events compared with angiography guidance for patients with individual lesion subset. However, the beneficial effect on major adverse cardiovascular event outcome of IVUS guidance over angiography guidance in all-comers who undergo DES implantation still remains understudied., Objectives: This study aimed to determine the benefits of IVUS guidance over angiography guidance during DES implantation in all-comer patients., Methods: A total of 1,448 all-comer patients who required DES implantation were randomly assigned (1:1 ratio) to either an IVUS guidance or angiography guidance group. The primary endpoint was target-vessel failure (TVF) at 12 months, including cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically driven target-vessel revascularization (TVR). The procedure was defined as a success if all IVUS-defined optimal criteria were met., Results: At 12 months follow-up, 60 TVFs (4.2%) occurred, with 21 (2.9%) in the IVUS group and 39 (5.4%) in the angiography group (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.530; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.312 to 0.901; p = 0.019). In the IVUS group, TVF was recorded in 1.6% of patients with successful procedures, compared with 4.4% in patients who failed to achieve all optimal criteria (HR: 0.349; 95% CI: 0.135 to 0.898; p = 0.029). The significant reduction of clinically driven target-lesion revascularization or definite stent thrombosis (HR: 0.407; 95% CI: 0.188 to 0.880; p = 0.018) based on lesion-level analysis by IVUS guidance was not achieved when the patient-level analysis was performed., Conclusions: The present study demonstrates that IVUS-guided DES implantation significantly improved clinical outcome in all-comers, particularly for patients who had an IVUS-defined optimal procedure, compared with angiography guidance. (Intravascular Ultrasound Guided Drug Eluting Stents Implantation in "All-Comers" Coronary Lesions [ULTIMATE]; NCT02215915)., (Copyright © 2018 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Provisional stenting (PS) is the most common technique used to treat distal left main (LM) bifurcation lesions in patients with unprotected LM coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. The double kissing (DK) crush planned 2-stent technique has been shown to improve clinical outcomes in non-LM bifurcations compared with PS, and in LM bifurcations compared with culotte stenting, but has never been compared with PS in LM bifurcation lesions., Objectives: The authors sought to determine whether a planned DK crush 2-stent technique is superior to PS for patients with true distal LM bifurcation lesions., Methods: The authors randomized 482 patients from 26 centers in 5 countries with true distal LM bifurcation lesions (Medina 1,1,1 or 0,1,1) to PS (n = 242) or DK crush stenting (n = 240). The primary endpoint was the 1-year composite rate of target lesion failure (TLF): cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target lesion revascularization. Routine 13-month angiographic follow-up was scheduled after ascertainment of the primary endpoint., Results: TLF within 1 year occurred in 26 patients (10.7%) assigned to PS, and in 12 patients (5.0%) assigned to DK crush (hazard ratio: 0.42; 95% confidence interval: 0.21 to 0.85; p = 0.02). Compared with PS, DK crush also resulted in lower rates of target vessel myocardial infarction I (2.9% vs. 0.4%; p = 0.03) and definite or probable stent thrombosis (3.3% vs. 0.4%; p = 0.02). Clinically driven target lesion revascularization (7.9% vs. 3.8%; p = 0.06) and angiographic restenosis within the LM complex (14.6% vs. 7.1%; p = 0.10) also tended to be less frequent with DK crush compared with PS. There was no significant difference in cardiac death between the groups., Conclusions: In the present multicenter randomized trial, percutaneous coronary intervention of true distal LM bifurcation lesions using a planned DK crush 2-stent strategy resulted in a lower rate of TLF at 1 year than a PS strategy. (Double Kissing and Double Crush Versus Provisional T Stenting Technique for the Treatment of Unprotected Distal Left Main True Bifurcation Lesions: A Randomized, International, Multi-Center Clinical Trial [DKCRUSH-V]; ChiCTR-TRC-11001213)., (Copyright © 2017 American College of Cardiology Foundation. All rights reserved.)

Background: Drug eluting stents (DESs) made with biodegradable polymer have been developed in an attempt to improve clinical outcomes. However, the impact of biodegradable polymers on clinical events and stent thrombosis (ST) remains controversial., Methods: We searched Medline, the Cochrane Library and other internet sources, without language or date restrictions for articles comparing clinical outcomes between biodegradable polymer DES and durable polymer DES. Safety endpoints were ST (definite, definite/probable), mortality, and myocardial infarction (MI). Efficacy endpoints were major adverse cardiac event (MACE) and target lesion revascularization (TLR)., Results: We identified 15 randomized controlled trials (n = 17 068) with a weighted mean follow-up of 20.6 months. There was no statistical difference in the incidence of definite/probable ST between durable polymer- and biodegradable polymer- DES; relative risk (RR) 0.83; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62-1.11; P = 0.22. Biodegradable polymer DES had similar rates of definite ST (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.66-1.33, P = 0.72), mortality (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.82-1.09, P = 0.43), MI (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.92-1.26. P = 0.35), MACE (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.91-1.09, P = 0.85), and TLR (RR, 0.94, 95% CI 0.83-1.06, P = 0.30) compared with durable polymer DES. Based on the stratified analysis of the included trials, the treatment effect on definite ST was different at different follow-up times: ≤ 1 year favoring durable polymer DES and >1 year favoring biodegradable polymer DES., Conclusions: Biodegradable polymer DES has similar safety and efficacy for treating patients with coronary artery disease compared with durable polymer DES. Further data with longer term follow-up are warranted to confirm the potential benefits of biodegradable polymer DES.

Aims: The impact of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guided coronary drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation on clinical outcomes remains controversial. A meta-analysis of the currently available clinical trials investigating IVUS-guided DES implantation was undertaken., Methods and Results: We searched Medline, the Cochrane Library and other internet sources, without language or date restrictions, for published articles comparing clinical outcomes between IVUS-guided and angiography-guided DES implantation. Clinical studies with both adjusted and unadjusted data were included. Eleven studies were identified (one randomised controlled trial and 10 registries) and included in the meta-analysis with a weighted follow-up time of 20.7±11.5 months. Compared with angiography guidance, IVUS-guided DES implantation was associated with a reduced incidence of death (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.48-0.73, p<0.001), major adverse cardiac events (HR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.78-0.96, p=0.008) and stent thrombosis (HR: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.44-0.77, p<0.001). The incidence of myocardial infarction (HR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.63-1.06, p=0.126), target lesion (HR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.73-1.11, p=0.316) and target vessel (HR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.77-1.05, p=0.195) revascularisation was comparable between the angiography and IVUS-guided arms. A repeat meta-analysis of propensity-matched studies only (six studies, n=5,300) yielded broadly similar results in terms of clinical outcomes., Conclusions: IVUS-guided coronary DES implantation is associated with a significant reduction in death, MACE and stent thrombosis compared to angiography guidance. Appropriately powered randomised trials are necessary to confirm the findings from this meta-analysis.

Two hundred forty-six patients with 252 bifurcation lesions were enrolled into a prospective, nonrandomized study to use paclitaxel-eluting or sirolimus-eluting stent for crush stenting in the treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions. Compared with the sirolimus-eluting stent group, the paclitaxel-eluting stent group had significantly higher mean late lumen and binary angiographic restenosis rates. Sirolimus-eluting stent versus paclitaxel-eluting stent recipients had significantly lower in-segment restenosis in the entire main vessel (15.7% vs 3.1%, P = .004), and simultaneous side branch and main vessel restenoses were solely detected in the paclitaxel-eluting stent group (11.9% vs 0%, P = .03). Target-lesion vessel revascularization and cumulative major adverse cardiac events rates were significantly higher in the paclitaxel-eluting versus the sirolimus-eluting stent group (17.99% vs 8.41%, P = .01; 19.4 vs 9.3%, P = .01; 23.6 vs 11.2%, P = .03). In this study with crush stenting, use of sirolimus-eluting stent, compared with paclitaxel-eluting stent, yielded significantly lower late lumen loss, restenosis, and revascularization rates, with comparable safety by 8-month follow-up.