Search

Background: Concern exists relating to potential attenuated efficacy of limus-eluting stents in patients with diabetes mellitus. In this respect diabetic patients with sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) failure requiring reintervention may be expected to derive particular benefit from a treatment-switch to paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) implantation. Objective: The aim of the current report was to investigate outcomes of patients with SES restenosis randomized to treatment with SES (same stent strategy) or PES (switch stent strategy) in the pre-specified subgroups of patients with and without diabetes mellitus. Methods: In the setting of ISAR-DESIRE 2 trial, 450 patients with clinically significant SES restenosis were randomly assigned to receive either SES or PES. The primary end point was in-stent late loss at 6–8month follow-up angiography. Secondary endpoints were binary angiographic restenosis (diameter stenosis >50%) and target lesion revascularization (TLR), the composite of death or myocardial infarction (MI) and definite stent thrombosis at 12months. Results: Of 450 patients enrolled, 162 (36.0%) had a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus. In patients with diabetes 86 patients were randomly assigned to SES versus 76 to PES. In patients without diabetes 139 were assigned to SES versus 149 to PES. Late loss was comparable between SES and PES both in patients with diabetes (0.38±0.59mm vs. 0.37±0.59mm; p=0.97) and without (0.41±0.67mm vs. 0.38±0.6mm; p=0.98; pinteraction =0.89). Similarly binary restenosis was comparable between SES and PES in patients with diabetes (19.0% vs. 26.0%; p=0.32) or without (18.9% vs. 17.8%; p=0.98; pinteraction =0.36). TLR, death or MI and definite stent thrombosis were also similar in SES versus PES treatment groups regardless of diabetes status. Conclusions: In cases of SES-restenosis, treatment with either repeat SES or switch to PES was associated with a comparable degree of efficacy, regardless of diabetic status. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Early-generation "sandwich-design" polytetrafluorethylene (PTFE) covered coronary stents (CS) are associated with a high frequency of adverse events. New-generation single layer PTFE-CS offers the potential to enhanced procedural efficacy and improves clinical safety. Data from a dedicated study, concerning outcomes after treatment with single-layer PTFE-CS in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention are scant. This is a retrospective multicenter registry including 30 patients undergoing implantation of 39 single-layer PTFE-CS (BeGraft-coronary Stent Graft System, Bentley InnoMed GmbH, Hechingen, Germany) in native coronary arteries or saphenous bypass grafts, in 3 centers in Europe, between May 2013 and May 2019. Endpoints of interest were procedural success (placement of covered stent), binary-angiographic restenosis (BAR), percent diameter stenosis (% DS) and late-lumen loss at 6–8 months follow-up angiography, rates of target lesion revascularization (TLR), myocardial infarction (MI), stent thrombosis (ST) and mortality at 12 months. 28 patients underwent implantation of 37 CS due to coronary artery perforation 2 patients due to coronary artery aneurysm. Technical success was achieved in all patients (100 %). More than one stent was implanted in 7 patients (25 %) all in the perforation group. Follow-up angiography was available in 23 patients (77 %) showing favorable results: BAR = 21.8 %, %DS = 30.3 ± 27.5; LLL = 0.16 ± 0.81 mm. At 12 months all patients were alive, rates of TLR were low (3 patients, 10.0 %), there was one case of late stent thrombosis (3.3 %) and one MI (3.3 %). In this dedicated study, implantation of a new single layer PTFE-CS for the treatment of native coronary arteries or saphenous vein grafts after perforation or due to aneurysm showed high technical success rates and favorable angiographic and clinical efficacy. Clinical safety outcomes are encouraging, but larger prospective studies are needed to determine long-term safety of this device. • This is a multicenter registry including 30 patients undergoing PCI with implantation of 39 PTFE-CS in native coronary arteries or SVG due to perforation or aneurysm at 3 centers in Europe. • Procedural and postprocedural outcome at index PCI, angiographic FU at 6-8 months and clinical FU out to 12 months was obtained. • We observed high technical success rate (100%) at index PCI and favorable angiographic results in terms of binary angiographic restenosis, late lumen loss, % diameter stenosis and low clinical event rates at 12 months: TLR (10.0%), MI (3.3%) and ST (3.3%). [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: Bioresorbable coronary stents might improve outcomes of patients treated with percutaneous coronary interventions. The everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold is the most studied of these stent platforms; however, its performance versus everolimus-eluting metallic stents remains poorly defined. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds versus everolimus-eluting metallic stents in patients with ischaemic heart disease treated with percutaneous revascularisation.Methods: We searched Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), scientific sessions abstracts, and relevant websites for randomised trials investigating everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds versus everolimus-eluting metallic stents published or posted between Nov 30, 2006, and Oct 12, 2015. The primary efficacy outcome was target lesion revascularisation and the primary safety outcome was definite or probable stent (scaffold) thrombosis. Secondary outcomes were target lesion failure (the composite of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularisation), myocardial infarction, death, and in-device late lumen loss. We derived odds ratios (ORs) and weighted mean differences with 95% CIs, and calculated the risk estimates for the main outcomes according to a random-effects model. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42015026374.Findings: We included six trials, comprising data for 3738 patients randomised to receive percutaneous coronary intervention with either an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold (n=2337) or an everolimus-eluting metallic stent (n=1401). Median follow-up was 12 months (IQR 9-12). Patients treated with bioresorbable vascular scaffolds had a similar risk of target lesion revascularisation (OR 0.97 [95% CI 0.66-1.43]; p=0.87), target lesion failure (1.20 [0.90-1.60]; p=0.21), myocardial infarction (1.36 [0.98-1.89]; p=0.06), and death (0.95 [0.45-2.00]; p=0.89) as those treated with metallic stents. Patients treated with a bioresorbable vascular scaffold had a higher risk of definite or probable stent thrombosis than those treated with a metallic stent (OR 1.99 [95% CI 1.00-3.98]; p=0.05), with the highest risk between 1 and 30 days after implantation (3.11 [1.24-7.82]; p=0.02). Lesions treated with a bioresorbable vascular scaffold had greater in-device late lumen loss than those treated with a metallic stent (weighted mean difference 0.08 [95% CI 0.05-0.12]; p<0.0001).Interpretation: Compared with everolimus-eluting metallic stents, everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds had similar rates of repeat revascularisation at 1 year of follow-up, despite inferior mid-term angiographic performance. However, patients treated with a bioresorbable vascular scaffold had an increased risk of subacute stent thrombosis. Studies with extended follow-up in a larger number of patients are needed to fully assess the long-term advantages of everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds.Funding: None. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: For patients with sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) restenosis requiring reintervention, we compared a strategy of repeat SES (Cypher, Cordis, Miami Lakes, Florida) implantation with paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) (Taxus, Boston Scientific, Natick, Massachusetts) implantation. Background: Despite their high anti-restenotic efficacy, the widespread utilization of SES therapy has led to a significant absolute number of patients presenting with SES treatment failure. The optimal treatment strategy for such patients remains unclear. Methods: The ISAR-DESIRE 2 (Intracoronary Stenting and Angiographic Results: Drug Eluting Stents for In-Stent Restenosis 2) study was a randomized, open-label, active-controlled trial conducted among 450 patients with clinically significant in-SES restenosis at 2 centers in Munich, Germany. After pre-treatment with 600 mg clopidogrel, all patients were randomly assigned to either SES or PES implantation. The primary end point was late lumen loss, based on in-stent analysis, at 6- to 8-month follow-up angiography. Secondary end points were binary angiographic restenosis (diameter stenosis >50%) at 6- to 8-month follow-up, target lesion revascularization, the composite of death or myocardial infarction, and definite stent thrombosis at 12 months. Results: Regarding anti-restenotic efficacy, there were no differences between SES and PES in late loss (0.40 ± 0.65 mm vs. 0.38 ± 0.59 mm; p = 0.85), binary restenosis (19.6% vs. 20.6%; p = 0.69), or target lesion revascularization (16.6% vs. 14.6%; p = 0.52). In terms of safety outcomes, the rates of death/myocardial infarction (6.1% vs. 5.8%; p = 0.86) and stent thrombosis (0.4% vs. 0.4%; p > 0.99) were also similar. Conclusions: In cases of SES restenosis, treatment with either repeat SES or switch to PES was associated with a comparable degree of efficacy and safety. Drug resistance at an individual patient level may play a contributory role to the somewhat higher than expected late loss observed with the SES in the current study. (Intracoronary Stenting and Angiographic Results: Drug-Eluting Stents for In-Stent Restenosis 2 [ISAR-DESIRE 2]; NCT00598715) [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Introduction: The optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation is still a question of debate. Hypothesis: We hypothesized that in patients with DES implantation a 6 month duration is not inferior to a 12 month duration of DAPT with aspirin and clopidogrel in terms of clinical outcomes. Methods: ISAR-SAFE is a randomized, double-blind, multicenter trial comparing 6 versus 12 months of clopidogrel therapy duration in patients with DES implantation. Patients were enrolled at 6 months after DES implantation and randomly assigned to either 6 further months of clopidogrel therapy or placebo. Based on sample size calculations the planned total number of patients was 6,000. A blinded overall analysis showed lower than expected event rates. This along with slow recruitment induced the DSMB to recommend stopping the trial after inclusion of 4,000 patients. A total of 4,005 patients have been enrolled. Primary endpoint is the composite of death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, stroke and major bleeding at 9 months after randomization. Results: Results for clinical endpoints will be available in November 2014. Conclusions: ISAR-SAFE is the largest and the only double-blind, randomized clinical trial assessing the value of shortening DAPT duration from 12 to 6 months in patients with DES implantation. Although the trial was stopped prematurely after inclusion of two thirds of patients it has the potential to provide major insights into the optimal DAPT duration after DES implantation. The trial was supported by the BMBF (FKZ 01KG0901) and Abbott Vascular. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]