Search

Background: Target lesion failure remains an issue with contemporary drug-eluting stents. Thus, the dual-therapy sirolimus-eluting and CD34+ antibody-coated Combo stent (DTS) was designed to further improve early healing. This study aimed to investigate whether the DTS is noninferior to the sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent (SES) in an all-comers patient population., Methods: The SORT OUT X (Combo Stent Versus Orsiro Stent) trial, was a large-scale, randomized, multicenter, single-blind, 2-arm, noninferiority trial with registry-based follow-up. The primary end point target lesion failure was a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization within 12 months, analyzed using intention-to-treat. The trial was powered for assessing target lesion failure noninferiority of the DTS compared with the SES with a predetermined noninferiority margin of 0.021., Results: A total of 3146 patients were randomized to treatment with the DTS (1578 patients; 2008 lesions) or SES (1568 patients; 1982 lesions). At 12 months, intention-to-treat analysis showed that 100 patients (6.3%) assigned the DTS and 58 patients (3.7%) assigned the SES met the primary end point (absolute risk difference, 2.6% [upper limit of 1-sided 95% CI, 4.1%]; P (noninferiority)=0.76). The SES was superior to the DTS (incidence rate ratios for target lesion failure, 1.74 [95% CI, 1.26-2.41]; P =0.00086). The difference was explained mainly by a higher incidence of target lesion revascularization in the DTS group compared with the SES group (53 [3.4%] vs. 24 [1.5%]; incidence rate ratio, 2.22 [95% CI, 1.37-3.61]; P =0.0012)., Conclusions: The DTS did not confirm noninferiority to the SES for target lesion failure at 12 months in an all-comer population. The SES was superior to the DTS mainly because the DTS was associated with an increased risk of target lesion revascularization. However, rates of death, cardiac death, and myocardial infarction at 12 months did not differ significantly between the 2 stent groups. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03216733.

Diabetes mellitus is associated with a higher risk of target lesion revascularization after percutaneous coronary intervention. We compared clinical outcomes in patients with and without diabetes mellitus, treated with everolimus-eluting stents (EES; Synergy; Boston Scientific, Marlborough, Massachusetts) or biolimus-eluting stents (BES; BioMatrix NeoFlex; Biosensors Interventional Technologies Pte Ltd., Singapore). In total, 2,764 patients were randomized to stent implantation with EES (n = 1,385, diabetes: n = 250) or the BES (n = 1,379, diabetes: n = 262), stratified by gender and diabetes. The primary end point, target lesion failure (TLF), was a composite of cardiac death, target-lesion myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization at 12 months. Secondary end points included individual components of TLF, all-cause death, and stent thrombosis. TLF was 2.1% lower in the EES versus the BES groups in patients with diabetes (3.6% vs 5.7%; rate ratios 0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.27 to 1.41) and similar in patients without diabetes (4.1% vs 4.0%; rate ratios 0.99, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.51). In patients with diabetes, the point estimates of the individual components of TLF also favored the EES but CIs were wide. No interaction between stent type and presence of diabetes was found. The current subgroup analysis found that a thin-strut EES as compared with a thicker strut BES had a numerically lower TLF rate in patients with diabetes, but the subgroup analysis was underpowered for definite conclusions., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: The Combo stent (OrbusNeich, Hoevelaken, the Netherlands) combining an abluminal, bioabsorbable polymer eluting sirolimus with a luminal CD34+ antibody to capture endothelial progenitor cells has been developed to further improve safety and efficacy of coronary interventions. We have designed a large-scale registry-based randomized clinical trial to compare the Combo stent to the Orsiro stent (Biotronik, Bülach, Switzerland) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention., Methods: The SORT OUT X study will randomly assign 3,140 patients to treatment with Combo or Orsiro stents at 3 sites in Western Denmark. Patients are eligible if they are ≥18 years old, have chronic stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes, and have ≥1 coronary lesion with >50% diameter stenosis requiring treatment with a drug-eluting stent. The primary end point target lesion failure is a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (not related to other than index lesion), or target lesion revascularization within 12 months. Clinically driven event detection will be derived from validated Danish registries. An event rate of 4.2% is assumed in each stent group. With a sample size of 1,570 patients in each treatment arm, a 2-group large-sample normal approximation test of proportions with a 1-sided 5% significance level will have 90% power to detect noninferiority of the Combo stent compared with the Orsiro stent with a predetermined noninferiority margin of 2.1%., Conclusion: The SORT OUT X trial will determine whether the dual-therapy Combo stent is noninferior to the Orsiro stent with respect to clinically driven events (ClinicalTrials.govNCT03216733)., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The authors sought to compare the safety and efficacy of the biocompatible durable-polymer zotarolimus-eluting stent with the biodegradable-polymer biolimus-eluting stent in unselected coronary patients., Background: Biodegradable-polymer biolimus-eluting stents are superior to first-generation durable-polymer drug-eluting stents in long-term randomized all-comer trials. Long-term data comparing them to second-generation durable-polymer drug-eluting stents are lacking., Methods: The study was a randomized, multicenter, all-comer, noninferiority trial in patients with chronic stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes and at least 1 coronary artery lesion requiring treatment with a drug-eluting stent. Endpoints included major adverse cardiac events (MACE), a composite of safety (cardiac death and myocardial infarction not clearly attributable to a non-target lesion) and efficacy (target lesion revascularization); the individual endpoints of MACE; all-cause mortality; any myocardial infarction; target vessel revascularization; and definite or probable stent thrombosis at 36 months., Results: From March 2011 to August 2012, 2,999 patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either the zotarolimus-eluting (1,502 patients) or the biolimus-eluting (1,497 patients) stent. At 3-year follow-up, MACE occurred in 128 (8.6%) patients assigned to the durable-polymer zotarolimus-eluting stent and in 144 (9.6%) assigned to the biodegradable-polymer biolimus-eluting stent (p = 0.36). Occurrence of cardiac death (2.7% vs. 3.4%), myocardial infarction not clearly attributable to a non-target lesion (2.7% vs. 2.5%), and target lesion revascularization (5.4% vs. 5.5%) did not differ significantly between the 2 groups. Definite very late stent thrombosis occurred in 6 (0.4%) patients assigned to the durable-polymer zotarolimus-eluting stent and in 10 (0.7%) assigned to the biodegradable-polymer biolimus-eluting stent (p = 0.33)., Conclusions: At 3-year follow-up, the durable-polymer zotarolimus-eluting stent and the biodegradable-polymer biolimus-eluting stent were similar in clinical outcome, with no significant difference in safety and efficacy outcomes, including stent thrombosis., (Copyright © 2017 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Guidelines recommend postponing surgery for at least 6 months after treatment with a drug-eluting stent by percutaneous coronary intervention (DES-PCI)., Objectives: The goal of this study was to evaluate the surgical risk associated with DES-PCI compared with that in nonstented patients without ischemic heart disease (IHD)., Methods: Between 2005 and 2012, a total of 22,590 patients underwent DES-PCI in western Denmark. By record-linking the Western Denmark Heart Registry and the Danish National Patient Register, we evaluated 4,303 DES-PCI-treated patients with a surgical procedure and compared them with a control group of patients without previous IHD undergoing similar surgical procedures (n = 20,232). Events of interest were myocardial infarction (MI), cardiac death, and all-cause mortality within 30 days after surgery., Results: Surgery in DES-PCI-treated patients was associated with an increased risk of MI (1.6% vs. 0.2%; odds ratio [OR]: 4.82; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.25 to 7.16) and cardiac death (1.0% vs. 0.2%; OR: 5.87; 95% CI: 3.60 to 9.58) but not all-cause mortality (3.1% vs. 2.7%; OR: 1.12; 95% CI: 0.91 to 1.38). When stratified for time from PCI to surgery, only surgery within the first month was associated with a significant increased risk of events., Conclusions: Patients requiring surgery within 12 months after DES-PCI had an increased risk of MI and cardiac death compared with patients without IHD. The increased risk was only present within the first month after DES-PCI, suggesting that surgery might be undertaken earlier than currently recommended., (Copyright © 2016 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Despite successful treatment of the culprit artery lesion by primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with stent implantation, thrombotic embolisation occurs in some cases, which impairs the prognosis of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). We aimed to assess the clinical outcomes of deferred stent implantation versus standard PCI in patients with STEMI., Methods: We did this open-label, randomised controlled trial at four primary PCI centres in Denmark. Eligible patients (aged >18 years) had acute onset symptoms lasting 12 h or less, and ST-segment elevation of 0·1 mV or more in at least two or more contiguous electrocardiographic leads or newly developed left bundle branch block. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), via an electronic web-based system with permuted block sizes of two to six, to receive either standard primary PCI with immediate stent implantation or deferred stent implantation 48 h after the index procedure if a stabilised flow could be obtained in the infarct-related artery. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, hospital admission for heart failure, recurrent infarction, and any unplanned revascularisation of the target vessel within 2 years' follow-up. Patients, investigators, and treating clinicians were not masked to treatment allocation. We did analysis by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01435408., Findings: Between March 1, 2011, and Feb 28, 2014, we randomly assigned 1215 patients to receive either standard PCI (n=612) or deferred stent implantation (n=603). Median follow-up time was 42 months (IQR 33-49). Events comprising the primary endpoint occurred in 109 (18%) patients who had standard PCI and in 105 (17%) patients who had deferred stent implantation (hazard ratio 0·99, 95% CI 0·76-1·29; p=0·92). Procedure-related myocardial infarction, bleeding requiring transfusion or surgery, contrast-induced nephopathy, or stroke occurred in 28 (5%) patients in the conventional PCI group versus 27 (4%) patients in the deferred stent implantation group, with no significant differences between groups., Interpretation: In patients with STEMI, routine deferred stent implantation did not reduce the occurrence of death, heart failure, myocardial infarction, or repeat revascularisation compared with conventional PCI. Results from ongoing randomised trials might shed further light on the concept of deferred stenting in this patient population., Funding: Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation, and Danish Council for Strategic Research., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)