Search

In patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and multivessel coronary disease, immediate complete revascularization was noninferior to staged complete revascularization for the primary composite outcome at 1 year. The authors report clinical outcomes at 2 years of follow-up. Patients with ACS and multivessel coronary disease were randomly assigned to immediate complete revascularization or to staged complete revascularization at 29 sites in Europe. The primary outcome was the composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, any unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization, and cerebrovascular event. In total, 764 patients were enrolled and randomly allocated to the immediate complete revascularization arm and 761 to the staged complete revascularization arm. Two-year follow-up was complete for 97.6% of patients. At 2 years, the primary outcome had occurred in 12.5% of patients in the immediate complete revascularization group and 12.4% of patients in the staged complete revascularization group (HR: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.73-1.30; P = 0.88). Myocardial infarction occurred more frequently in the staged complete revascularization group (6.2% vs 3.8%; HR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.37-0.96; P = 0.032). In the immediate complete revascularization and staged complete revascularization groups, the rates of all-cause mortality (3.3% vs 2.0%; HR: 1.67; 95% CI: 0.88-3.16; P = 0.12), any unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization (7.0% vs 7.9%; HR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.60-1.26; P = 0.57), and cerebrovascular event (2.5% vs 1.7%; HR: 1.39; 95% CI: 0.68-2.83; P = 0.37) were not significantly different. In patients with ACS and multivessel disease, there was no significant difference between immediate complete revascularization and staged complete revascularization with respect to the composite outcome of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, any unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization, and cerebrovascular event at 2 years. Immediate complete revascularization was associated with a significant reduction in myocardial infarction, mainly due to fewer early events. (Direct Complete Versus Staged Complete Revascularization in Patients Presenting With Acute Coronary Syndromes and Multivessel Disease [BioVasc]; NCT03621501) [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A study determines whether paclitaxel-eluting stents are superior to uncoated stents in the setting of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in terms of the rate of serious adverse cardiac events at 1 year. Results indicate that although the use of paclitaxel-eluting stents reduces the incidence of serious adverse cardiac events at 1 year as compared with uncoated stents, the difference is not statistically significant.

Abstract: The principal therapy in patients with myocardial infarction to limit infarct size is myocardial reperfusion by mechanical or pharmacological intervention. Reperfusion has been proposed to cause myocardial injury beyond that caused by the preceding ischaemia, termed “reperfusion injury” (RI). While the precise mechanism of RI is still incompletely understood, a large number of clinical studies have been performed over the past decade targeting some of the postulated mechanisms of RI. These clinical studies were based on experimental data demonstrating significant myocardial salvage. Nevertheless, clinical benefits were absent or very limited. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of the various strategies that inhibit RI and to discuss potential mechanisms that may contribute to the discrepancy between the promising pre-clinical data and the rather disappointing results obtained from prospective clinical trials. There are numerous differences between the experimental models and clinical studies, including the fact that experimental studies typically use abrupt occlusion and reperfusion protocols in animals with previously healthy myocardium that apparently do not predict the therapeutic efficacy of novel cardioprotective agents in a clinical setting with pre-existing progressive coronary disease, intermittent coronary occlusion, and relatively late reperfusion. However, discrepancies also exist between experimental studies. Future experimental studies of reperfusion injury should use models that mimic the clinical situation more closely. Furthermore, future large clinical trials should only be performed in cases where the drug under investigation proved to reduce RI in a series of well-designed (possibly multicenter) experimental studies and in clinical trials with predefined subgroups. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: Complete revascularization of the culprit and all significant nonculprit lesions in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) and multivessel disease (MVD) reduces major adverse cardiac events, but optimal timing of revascularization remains unclear., Objectives: This study aims to compare immediate complete revascularization (ICR) and staged complete revascularization (SCR) in patients presenting with NSTE-ACS and MVD., Methods: This prespecified substudy of the BIOVASC (Percutaneous Complete Revascularization Strategies Using Sirolimus Eluting Biodegradable Polymer Coated Stents in Patients Presenting With Acute Coronary Syndrome and Multivessel Disease) trial included patients with NSTE-ACS and MVD. Risk differences of the primary composite outcome of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization (UIDR), or cerebrovascular events and its individual components were compared between ICR and SCR at 1 year., Results: The BIOVASC trial enrolled 1,525 patients; 917 patients presented with NSTE-ACS, of whom 459 were allocated to ICR and 458 to SCR. Incidences of the primary composite outcome were similar in the 2 groups (7.9% vs 10.1%; risk difference 2.2%; 95% CI: -1.5 to 6.0; P = 0.15). ICR was associated with a significant reduction of MIs (2.0% vs 5.3%; risk difference 3.3%; 95% CI: 0.9 to 5.7; P = 0.006), which was maintained after exclusion of procedure-related MIs occurring during the index or staged procedure (2.0% vs 4.4%; risk difference 2.4%; 95% CI: 0.1 to 4.7; P = 0.032). UIDRs were also reduced in the ICR group (4.2% vs 7.8%; risk difference 3.5%; 95% CI: 0.4 to 6.6; P = 0.018)., Conclusions: ICR is safe in patients with NSTE-ACS and MVD and was associated with a reduction in MIs and UIDRs at 1 year., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures The BIOVASC trial was funded by the Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, and Biotronik SE & Co KG, Berlin. Dr Diletti has received institutional research grants from Biotronik, Medtronic, ACIST Medical Systems, and Boston Scientific. Dr den Dekker has received institutional research grants from Biotronik. Dr Van Mieghem has received institutional research grants from Biotronik, Abbott, Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, PulseCath, Abiomed, and Daiichi-Sankyo; speaker fees from Abiomed and Amgen; and a travel grant from JenaValve. Dr Bennett has received institutional grants from Biotronik, Abbott Vascular, and Shockwave Medical. Dr Daemen has received institutional grant/research support from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, ACIST Medical Systems, Medtronic, Microport, Pie Medical, and ReCor Medical; and consultancy and speaker fees from Abbott Vascular, Abiomed, ACIST Medical Systems, Boston Scientific, Cardialysis BV, CardiacBooster, Kaminari Medical, ReCor Medical, PulseCath, Pie Medical, Sanofi, Siemens Healthineers, and Medtronic. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: Comparison of magnetic guidewire navigation in percutaneous coronary intervention (magnetic PCI) across distal and/or complex lesions versus conventional navigation (conventional PCI)., Methods and Results: Forty-seven consecutive patients (age 61 +/- 10 yr) undergoing elective single vessel magnetic PCI for distal and/or complex lesions were matched by age and lesion location with 45 patients undergoing conventional PCI (age 63 +/- 10 yr). Technical success rate was defined as an intraluminal wire position distal to the stenosis. Procedural outcome and costs were evaluated. Baseline demographics and angiographic characteristics of the two groups were similar. The technical success rate did not differ between magnetic and conventional PCI (95.7 vs 97.8%; p = 1.00). Significantly shorter procedural and fluoroscopy time were observed for magnetic compared to conventional PCI (29.9 +/- 17.6 vs 41.1 +/- 21 min, p = 0.007; 7.5 +/- 7.3 vs 16.1 +/- 22.4 min, p = 0.02 respectively). Less contrast was used in the magnetic PCI group (58 ml/patient; P = 0.02). These advantages resulted in a mean estimated saving of 1400 euro per patient (P < 0.001). Advantages of procedural outcome were even more pronounced in the ACC/AHA lesion class C subgroup., Conclusions: Magnetic compared to conventional PCI is an attractive novel technique that proved to be feasible and safe and might be faster in distal and especially complex lesions.

Objective: To compare the effectiveness and safety of three types of stents (sirolimus eluting, paclitaxel eluting, and bare metal) in people with and without diabetes mellitus., Design: Collaborative network meta-analysis., Data Sources: Electronic databases (Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), relevant websites, reference lists, conference abstracts, reviews, book chapters, and proceedings of advisory panels for the US Food and Drug Administration. Manufacturers and trialists provided additional data., Review Methods: Network meta-analysis with a mixed treatment comparison method to combine direct within trial comparisons between stents with indirect evidence from other trials while maintaining randomisation. Overall mortality was the primary safety end point, target lesion revascularisation the effectiveness end point., Results: 35 trials in 3852 people with diabetes and 10,947 people without diabetes contributed to the analyses. Inconsistency of the network was substantial for overall mortality in people with diabetes and seemed to be related to the duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (P value for interaction 0.02). Restricting the analysis to trials with a duration of dual antiplatelet therapy of six months or more, inconsistency was reduced considerably and hazard ratios for overall mortality were near one for all comparisons in people with diabetes: sirolimus eluting stents compared with bare metal stents 0.88 (95% credibility interval 0.55 to 1.30), paclitaxel eluting stents compared with bare metal stents 0.91 (0.60 to 1.38), and sirolimus eluting stents compared with paclitaxel eluting stents 0.95 (0.63 to 1.43). In people without diabetes, hazard ratios were unaffected by the restriction. Both drug eluting stents were associated with a decrease in revascularisation rates compared with bare metal stents in people both with and without diabetes., Conclusion: In trials that specified a duration of dual antiplatelet therapy of six months or more after stent implantation, drug eluting stents seemed safe and effective in people both with and without diabetes.

Aims: This follow-up study was performed to assess the long-term effects of paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) compared with bare-metal stents (BMS) in patients who had undergone a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI)., Methods and Results: The PASSION trial randomly assigned 619 patients with STEMI to receive either a PES or BMS. The composite endpoint for the follow-up study was the occurrence of the combination of cardiac death, recurrent myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularisation (TLR) or stent thrombosis at two years. A trend towards a lower rate of the composite endpoint was observed in the PES compared to the BMS group (hazard ratio [HR] 0.70; 95% C.I. 0.45-1.09). This was driven by a reduced TLR in favour of PES (HR 0.60; 95% C.I. 0.34-1.09). Angiographically proven stent thrombosis at two years did not differ significantly between groups (2.1% in the PES group versus 1.4%; HR 1.48; 95% C.I. 0.42-5.23)., Conclusions: PES implantation for STEMI did not significantly improve clinical outcome at two years after the index event, although there was a trend towards a lower rate of target-lesion revascularisation. The rate of stent thrombosis did not differ significantly between groups.

Background: Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with stent implantation demonstrated to be superior to both PCI with balloon angioplasty and to thrombolysis for acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). The use of glycoprotein (GP) IIb-IIIa blockers in this setting may be beneficial. However, GP IIb-IIIa receptor blocker treatment is frequently accompanied by femoral entry site-related bleeding complications, resulting in additional morbidity and prolonged hospitalization. These complications are minimized by using the transradial approach (TRA)., Methods: This study prospectively explored the feasibility of early discharge (within 4 days) following primary PCI with transradial stent implantation under GP IIb-IIIa blockade with tirofiban in the setting of STEMI. One-hundred patients with STEMI eligible for PCI were included., Results: Of these 100 patients, 62% received treatment according to the protocol, e.g., TRA, successful PCI with stent implantation, full-dose GP IIb/IIIa receptor blocker infusion and early discharge. The PCI was successful in 95%. Early discharge was achieved in 75 patients of the total study population. Major adverse cardiac and cerebral events (MACCE) did not occur in the early discharge group, with a 1-year event-free survival rate of 91%. The combined MACCE rates in the total study population at 1, 6, and 12 months were 8%, 15% and 20%, respectively., Conclusion: Early discharge is feasible following primary PCI with stent implantation via the radial artery under GP IIb-IIIa blockade for STEMI, however a larger study is needed to prove the efficacy of this strategy.