Search

Aims The best interventional strategy for the treatment of drug-eluting stent (DES) in-stent restenosis (ISR) is still unclear and no data from randomized trials beyond 3-year follow-up are available. We aimed to define 10-year comparative efficacy and safety of plain balloon (PB), paclitaxel-coated balloon (PCB), and paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of DES-ISR. Methods and results Clinical follow-up of patients randomly assigned to PB, PCB, and PES in the ISAR-DESIRE 3 trial was extended to 10 years and events were independently adjudicated. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, target lesion thrombosis, or target lesion revascularization. The major secondary safety endpoint was a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or target lesion thrombosis. The major secondary efficacy endpoint was target lesion revascularization. Incidences by the Kaplan–Meier method were compared by the log-rank test. Risk estimation was primarily performed by Cox proportional hazards regression and supplemented by weighted Cox regression accounting for non-proportional hazards and Royston–Parmar flexible parametric regression with a time-varying coefficient. Primary results were further assessed by landmark, lesion-level, per-protocol, and competing risk analyses. A total of 402 patients (500 lesions) with DES-ISR were randomly assigned to PB angioplasty (134 patients, 160 lesions), PCB angioplasty (137 patients, 172 lesions), and PES implantation (131 patients, 168 lesions). Clinical follow-up did not significantly differ among treatments [PB, 9.62 (4.50–10.02) years; PCB, 10.01 (5.72–10.02) years; PES, 9.08 (3.14–10.02) years; P = 0.300]. At 10 years, the primary composite endpoint occurred in 90 patients (72.0%) assigned to PB, 70 patients (55.9%) assigned to PCB, and 72 patients (62.4%) assigned to PES (P < 0.001). The pairwise comparison between PCB and PES resulted in a non-significant difference [multiplicity-adjusted P = 0.610; Grambsch–Therneau P = 0.004; weighted Cox: hazard ratio (HR) 1.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80–1.51; Cox: HR 1.10, 95% CI 0.79–1.52; Royston–Parmar: HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.72–1.60]. The major secondary safety endpoint occurred in 39 patients (34.1%) assigned to PB, 39 patients (34.0%) assigned to PCB, and 42 patients (40.0%) assigned to PES (P = 0.564). Target lesion revascularization occurred in 71 patients (58.0%) assigned to PB, 55 patients (43.9%) assigned to PCB, and 42 patients (38.6%) assigned to PES (P < 0.0001). The pairwise comparison between PES and PCB resulted in a non-significant difference (multiplicity-adjusted P = 0.282; Grambsch–Therneau P = 0.002; weighted Cox: HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.56–1.22; Cox: HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.54–1.21; Royston–Parmar: HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.47–1.20). Lesion-level and per-protocol analyses were consistent. At landmark analyses, an excess of death and cardiac death associated with PES compared with PCB was observed within 5 years after PCI, though 10-year differences did not formally reach the threshold of statistical significance after adjustment for multiplicity. Competing risk regression confirmed a non-significant difference in target lesion revascularization between PCB and PES and showed an increased risk of death associated with PES compared with PCB. Conclusion Ten years after PCI for DES-ISR, the primary and major secondary endpoints between PCB and PES were not significantly different. However, an excess of death and cardiac death within 5 years associated with PES and the results of the competing risk analysis are challenging to interpret and warrant further analysis. PES and PCB significantly reduced target lesion revascularization compared with PB.

Aims Patients with mitral regurgitation (MR) present with considerable heterogeneity in cardiac damage depending on underlying aetiology, disease progression, and comorbidities. This study aims to capture their cardiopulmonary complexity by employing a machine-learning (ML)-based phenotyping approach. Methods and results Data were obtained from 1426 patients undergoing mitral valve transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (MV TEER) for MR. The ML model was developed using 609 patients (derivation cohort) and validated on 817 patients from two external institutions. Phenotyping was based on echocardiographic data, and ML-derived phenotypes were correlated with 5-year outcomes. Unsupervised agglomerative clustering revealed four phenotypes among the derivation cohort: Cluster 1 showed preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF; 56.5 ± 7.79%) and regular left ventricular end-systolic diameter (LVESD; 35.2 ± 7.52 mm); 5-year survival in Cluster 1, hereinafter serving as a reference, was 60.9%. Cluster 2 presented with preserved LVEF (55.7 ± 7.82%) but showed the largest mitral valve effective regurgitant orifice area (0.623 ± 0.360 cm2) and highest systolic pulmonary artery pressures (68.4 ± 16.2 mmHg); 5-year survival ranged at 43.7% (P-value: 0.032). Cluster 3 was characterized by impaired LVEF (31.0 ± 10.4%) and enlarged LVESD (53.2 ± 10.9 mm); 5-year survival was reduced to 38.3% (P-value: Conclusion ML-enabled phenotyping captures the complexity of extra-mitral valve cardiac damage, which does not necessarily occur in a sequential fashion. This novel phenotyping approach can refine risk stratification in patients undergoing MV TEER in the future.

Long-term data concerning the efficacy of different polymer-coating strategies of new-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients with coronary artery calcification (CAC) are scant.We aimed to investigate 10-year outcomes by degree of CAC after new-generation DES implantation with different polymer-coating strategies.We analysed individual patient and lesion characteristics of patients randomised to treatment with polymer-free sirolimus-eluting, biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting and permanent-polymer zotarolimus- or everolimus-eluting stents. Endpoints of interest at 10 years were all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularisation (TLR) and definite or probable stent thrombosis (ST) according to the degree of CAC (no, mild, moderate or severe) and coating strategy (polymer-free vs biodegradable-polymer vs permanent-polymer).A total of 4,953 patients with 6,924 lesions were included. No, mild, moderate or severe CAC was present in 24.5%, 41.8%, 25.8% and 8.0% of patients, respectively. At 10-year follow-up, overall event rates were high, with an incremental increase according to the degree of CAC (all-cause mortality: no 25.3%, mild 32.1%, moderate 41.7%, severe CAC 46.5%; adjusted [adj.] p=0.004; TLR: no 17.4%, mild 16.5%, moderate 19.8%, severe CAC 28.7%; adj. p=0.001; MI: no 4.9%, mild 5.9%, moderate 6.0%, severe CAC 10.5%; adj. p=0.02; and ST: no 1.3%, mild 1.4%, moderate 1.8%, severe CAC 3.6%; adj. p=0.57). In patients with moderate-severe CAC, event rates were comparable, regardless of the DES polymer-coating strategy.At 10 years after PCI with new-generation DES, there was an incremental increase in adverse events by degree of coronary calcification. These detrimental effects do not seem to be impacted by different polymer-coating strategies.

Background The relative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor and prasugrel based dual antiplatelet therapy strategies according to the platelet count (PC) in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) have not been defined. Methods This is a posthoc analysis of the ISAR-REACT 5 trial, in which patients presenting with ACS were randomized to treatment with ticagrelor versus prasugrel. Patients were divided into quartiles according to PC. The primary endpoint was incidence of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, and the safety endpoint was incidence of BARC (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium) type 3 to 5 bleeding at 12 months. Results A total of 3,943 patients with known PC (997 patients in quartile 1 (Q1), 1,003 in quartile 2 (Q2) [205 ± 10.3 × 109/L], 961 patients in quartile 3 (Q3) [241 ± 11.7 × 109/L], and 982 patients in quartile 4 (Q4) [317 ± 68.6 × 109/L]). There was no significant interaction between treatment arm (ticagrelor vs. prasugrel) and PC group with respect to primary endpoint (Q1: 8.8 vs. 6.3%, hazard ratio [HR] =1.41, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.89–2.23; p = 0.148; Q2: 9.9 vs. 5.8%, HR = 1.68, 95% CI: 1.06–2.66; p = 0.027; Q3: 7.8 vs. 5.5%, HR = 1.43, 95% CI: 0.87–2.37; p = 0.159; Q4: 10.1 vs. 10.1%, HR = 1.05, 95% CI: 0.71–1.57; p = 0.799; p for interaction [p int] = 0.482) and with respect to bleeding endpoint (Q1: 5.8 vs. 4.2%, HR = 1.41, 95% CI: 0.76–2.63; p = 0.279; Q2: 6.4 vs. 3.7%, HR = 1.62, 95% CI: 0.85–2.06; p = 0.140; Q3: 4.4 vs. 3.0%, HR = 1.53, 95% CI: 0.73–3.18; p = 0.258; Q4: 5.6 vs. 8.5%, HR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.40–1.14; p = 0.138, p int = 0.102). Conclusions In this analysis, incidences of ischemic and bleeding events at 12 months are comparable across quartiles of platelet count.

Aims The effect of a prasugrel vs. a ticagrelor based strategy on total (including both first and recurrent) ischaemic and bleeding events in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) has not been evaluated. The aim of this analysis was to investigate the treatment effect of a prasugrel vs. a ticagrelor based strategy in patients with ACS undergoing an invasive management strategy when both first and recurrent non-fatal ischaemic and bleeding events are taken into account. Methods and results This is a post-hoc analysis of the ISAR-REACT 5 randomized control trial, including all 4018 patients in the trial. The main clinical endpoints of interest included ischaemic events [myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke] and bleeding events [Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 3 to 5 bleeding]. An additional endpoint of interest was definite/probable stent thrombosis. The effect of the prasugrel vs. ticagrelor based strategies on these endpoints was evaluated on both time-to-first event and total events analyses. Patients in the prasugrel group had a lower risk of MI in comparison to the ticagrelor group on both time-to-first event [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.61; 95% confidence interval 0.44–0.85] and total events [HR = 0.62 (0.45–0.86)] analysis. The risk of BARC type 3 to 5 bleeding was comparable between the prasugrel and ticagrelor groups on both time-to-first event [HR = 0.96 (0.75–1.25)] and total events [HR = 0.99 (0.76–1.31)] analysis. Conclusion A prasugrel based strategy was associated with a reduction in total MI events in comparison to a ticagrelor based strategy in patients with ACS undergoing invasive assessment. Total BARC type 3 to 5 bleeding events were comparable between the two groups. Given the importance of this topic, future studies to confirm these findings would be welcome. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01944800

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: The DECADE cooperation is a pooled analysis of individual patient data from drug-eluting stent (DES) trials with a 10-year follow-up. This analysis reports the risk of definite stent thrombosis (ST) through to 10 years after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients treated with early- and new-generation DES.METHODS: Individual patient data from 5 DES trials with a 10-year follow-up were pooled. The primary endpoint was definite ST up to 10 years after PCI. Patients were divided into 2 groups as per the generation of DES implanted (early and new DES). Individual participant data were analyzed using a 1-stage approach.RESULTS: We included 9700 patients, 6866 in the new DES group and 2834 in the early DES group. Through to 10 years, definite ST occurred in 69 of 6866 patients treated with new DES and in 91 of 2834 patients treated with early DES (1.0% vs 3.5%, adjusted hazard ratio, 0.32; 95%CI, 0.23-0.45). The rate of definite ST was lower in the new DES group than in the early DES group from 1 to 5 years (rate ratio, 0.14; 95%CI, 0.08-0.26) and from 5 to 10 years (rate ratio, 0.23; 95%CI, 0.08-0.61) after PCI.CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of definite ST through to 10 years after PCI with new-generation DES was 1%. New-generation DES are associated with a lower 10-year incidence of definite ST than early-generation DES, particularly beyond 1 year after PCI.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES The DECADE cooperation is a pooled analysis of individual patient data from drug-eluting stent (DES) trials with a 10-year follow-up. This analysis reports the risk of definite stent thrombosis (ST) through to 10 years after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients treated with early- and new-generation DES. METHODS Individual patient data from 5 DES trials with a 10-year follow-up were pooled. The primary endpoint was definite ST up to 10 years after PCI. Patients were divided into 2 groups as per the generation of DES implanted (early and new DES). Individual participant data were analyzed using a 1-stage approach. RESULTS We included 9700 patients, 6866 in the new DES group and 2834 in the early DES group. Through to 10 years, definite ST occurred in 69 of 6866 patients treated with new DES and in 91 of 2834 patients treated with early DES (1.0% vs 3.5%, adjusted hazard ratio, 0.32; 95%CI, 0.23-0.45). The rate of definite ST was lower in the new DES group than in the early DES group from 1 to 5 years (rate ratio, 0.14; 95%CI, 0.08-0.26) and from 5 to 10 years (rate ratio, 0.23; 95%CI, 0.08-0.61) after PCI. CONCLUSIONS The incidence of definite ST through to 10 years after PCI with new-generation DES was 1%. New-generation DES are associated with a lower 10-year incidence of definite ST than early-generation DES, particularly beyond 1 year after PCI.

The comparative efficacy of percutaneous techniques for the preparation of calcified lesions before stenting remains poorly studied.This study sought to compare the performance of up-front rotational atherectomy (RA) or balloon-based techniques before drug-eluting stent implantation in severely calcified coronary lesions as assessed by angiography and optical coherence tomography (OCT).Patient-level data from the PREPARE-CALC (Comparison of Strategies to Prepare Severely Calcified Coronary Lesions) and ISAR-CALC (Comparison of Strategies to Prepare Severely Calcified Coronary Lesions) randomized trials were pooled. The primary endpoint was stent expansion as assessed by OCT imaging. The secondary endpoints included stent eccentricity, stent asymmetry, angiographic acute lumen gain, strategy success and in-hospital occurrence of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization.Among 274 patients originally randomized, 200 participants with available OCT data after lesion preparation with RA (n = 63), a modified balloon (MB, n = 103), or a super high-pressure balloon (n = 34) before stenting were analyzed. The use of RA versus MB or a super high-pressure balloon led to comparable stent expansion (73.2% ± 11.6% vs 70.8% ± 13.6% vs 71.8% ± 12.2%, P = 0.49) and stent asymmetry (P = 0.83). Compared with RA or MB, a super high-pressure balloon was associated with less stent eccentricity (P = 0.03) with a numerically higher acute lumen gain, albeit not significantly different (P = 0.08). Strategy success was more frequent with RA versus MB (P = 0.002) and numerically more frequent with RA versus a super high-pressure balloon (P = 0.06). Clinical outcomes did not differ between groups.In patients with severely calcified lesions undergoing drug-eluting stent implantation, lesion preparation with RA, MB, or a super high-pressure balloon was associated with comparable stent expansion. A super high-pressure balloon is associated with less stent eccentricity, whereas strategy success is more frequent with RA.

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.

The association between alkaline phosphatase (ALP) and mortality in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) and ischemic heart disease (IHD) remains poorly investigated.The study included 1426 patients with DM and IHD who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention. Patients were divided in groups according to tertiles of ALP activity: a group with ALP activity in 1st tertile (ALP activity: 20.8-65.0 U/L; n = 478), a group with ALP activity in 2nd tertile (ALP activity: 65.1-87.0 U/L; n = 473) and a group with ALP activity in 3rd tertile (ALP activity: 87.1-1520 U/L; n = 475). The primary endpoint was 3-year all-cause mortality.At 3 years, all-cause deaths occurred in 182 patients: 50 deaths (12.4%) in patients of 1st tertile, 47 deaths (11.7%) in patients of 2nd tertile and 85 deaths (20.8%) in patients of 3rd tertile of ALP activity (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 1.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02 to 1.42, P = 0.031); cardiac deaths occurred in 110 patients: 28 deaths (7.0%) in patients of 1st tertile, 30 deaths (7.6%) in patients of 2nd tertile and 52 deaths (12.7%) in patients of 3rd tertile of ALP activity (adjusted HR = 1.27 [1.04-1.56], P = 0.021, with both risk estimates calculated for unit increment in the log scale of ALP activity). The C-statistic of the multivariable model with baseline data without and with ALP was 0.787 [0.750-0.818] and 0.804 [0.757-0.851], (P = 0.575) for all-cause mortality and 0.832 [0.798-0.864] and 0.876 [0.833-0.918], (P = 0.115) for cardiac mortality.In patients with DM and IHD, elevated ALP activity was associated with increased risk of 3-year mortality.

Summary: Background: The influence of diabetes mellitus (DM) on recurrent in-stent restenosis (ISR) of femoropopliteal arteries remains understudied. We investigated whether DM has an impact on recurrent restenosis after femoropopliteal stenting in patients included in the dRug-coatEd balloon angioPlasty for femoropopliteAl In-stent Restenosis (REPAIR) cooperation. Patients and methods: The REPAIR cooperation pooled the patient-level data from 3 randomized trials in which patients with ISR of femoropopliteal arteries received either drug-coated balloon (DCB) or plain balloon angioplasty. For this analysis, patients were divided in two groups based on whether they had or had not a DM diagnosis at the time of enrollment. The primary outcome was target lesion revascularization (TLR). The main secondary outcome was recurrent ISR. Other outcomes of interest were death, Rutherford class improvement and ankle-brachial index at follow-up. Results: 256 patients (DM, n=99 vs. non-DM, n=157) with 12-month follow-up were included in the analysis. Compared to non-DM patients, DM patients displayed no difference in terms of TLR [adjusted hazard ratio (95% Confidence intervals): 0.96 (0.55, 1.69), p=0.89] and recurrent ISR [1.04 (0.61, 1.77), p=0.88], whilst mortality was higher [9.38 (1.06, 83.11), p=0.044]. There were no differences between groups with respect to other secondary outcomes. The percutaneous treatment with DCB as compared to plain balloon angioplasty significantly reduced the risk of TLR and recurrent ISR without an excess risk of death irrespective of DM (p for interaction ≥0.70). Conclusions: In patients with femoropopliteal ISR, diabetes has a neutral effect on the risk of recurrence, but increases mortality at 12-month follow-up. DCB as compared to plain balloon angioplasty is associated with superior efficacy without trade-off in safety, regardless of diabetes.

Aims Aim of the present study was to investigate the impact of increasing neointimal inhomogeneity and neoatherosclerosis as well as of treatment modality of in-stent restenosis (ISR) on the occurrence of periprocedural myocardial injury (PMI). Methods and results Patients with normal or stable/falling increased baseline high-sensitivity troponin T (hs-cTnT) undergoing intravascular optical coherence tomography (OCT) and subsequent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of ISR by means of drug-coated balloon (DCB) or drug-eluting stent (DES) were included. Overall, 128 patients were subdivided into low (n = 64) and high (n = 64) inhomogeneity groups, based on the median of distribution of non-homogeneous quadrants. No significant between-group differences were detected in terms of hs-cTnT changes (28.0 [12.0–65.8] vs. 25.5 [9.8–65.0] ng/L; p = 0.355), or the incidence of major PMI (31.2 vs. 31.2%; p = 1.000). Similarly, no differences were observed between DCB- and DES-treated groups in terms of hs-cTn changes (27.0 [10.0–64.0] vs. 28.0 [11.0–73.0] ng/L; p = 0.795), or the incidence of major PMI (28.9 vs. 35.6%; p = 0.566). Additionally, no significant interaction was present between optical neointimal characteristics and treatment modality in terms of changes in hs-cTnT (Pint = 0.432). No significant differences in PMI occurrence were observed between low and high neoatherosclerosis subgroups. Conclusions In patients undergoing PCI for ISR, there was no association between increasing neointimal inhomogeneity, or increasing expression of neoatherosclerotic changes and occurrence of PMI. PMI occurrence was not influenced by the treatment modality (DCB vs. DES) of ISR lesions, a finding that supports the safety of DCB treatment for ISR. Graphical abstract

Aims To define the incidence of events related to the stented vessel (target vessel related events: TVRE) and events related to non-stented vessels (non-target vessel related events: NTVRE) through to 10-year follow-up in patients post-PCI with newer generation drug eluting stents (DES). Methods and results The current study is a post-hoc analysis of patient level data from two randomised controlled trials in Germany. Patients older than 18 years with ischemic symptoms or evidence of myocardial ischemia in the presence of ≥ 50% de novo stenosis located in the native coronary vessels were considered eligible. The endpoints of interest were TVRE (a composite of first target vessel myocardial infarction or target vessel revascularization) and NTVRE (a composite of first non-target vessel MI or non-target vessel revascularization) through to 10 years post PCI. We included 4953 patients in this analysis. Through to 10-years post-PCI, TVRE occurred in 1238 of 4953 patients (cumulative incidence: 25.8%) and NTVRE occurred in 1442 of 4953 patients (cumulative incidence: 30.3%). The majority of TVRE and NTVRE were revascularization events. From 0 to 1 years, the cumulative incidence of TVRE was 15.9% and of NTVRE was 12.3%. From 1 to 10 years, the cumulative incidences of TVRE and NTVRE were 11.2% and 22.4%, respectively. Conclusion At 10-year post-PCI with new generation drug eluting stents, events related to remote vessel disease progression account for a higher proportion of events than events related to the stented vessel. Trial registration ISAR TEST 4 ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00598676. ISAR TEST 5 ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00598533. Graphical abstract

OBJECTIVES We investigated the clinical efficacy of a paclitaxel-coated balloon (PCB) with a novel matrix coating and reduced drug concentration in comparison with a widely used PCB with iopromide excipient. METHODS We prospectively enrolled patients with restenosis in drug-eluting stents. All patients were treated with a novel low-dose PCB with citrate-based excipient (Agent PCB). Angiographic follow-up was scheduled at 6-8 months. Outcomes were compared against those of patients treated with iopromide excipient PCB (SeQuent Please PCB) enrolled in a trial with identical inclusion and exclusion criteria. The primary endpoint was percent diameter stenosis (%DS) at follow-up angiography. The primary hypothesis was that the investigational device would be non-inferior to the control device (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02367495). RESULTS One hundred twenty-five patients with 151 lesions were enrolled. Mean age was 68.1 ± 10.2 years, 40.8% had diabetes mellitus and 80.1% had focal morphology in-stent restenosis. Follow-up angiography data at 6-8 months was available for 102 (81.6%) patients. The Agent PCB was non-inferior to the SeQuent Please PCB in terms of the primary endpoint (38.9 ± 17.5 vs. 38.1 ± 21.5%; p non-inferiority = 0.0056). Late lumen loss was also comparable between the groups (0.35 ± 0.55 vs. 0.37 ± 0.59; p = 0.71). There was no difference between the groups in the incidence of TLR (27.7% vs. 22.1%; p = 0.31), death or myocardial infarction (4.2% vs. 4.4%; p = 0.92) or target lesion thrombosis (1.0% vs. 0.7%; p = 0.93). CONCLUSION In patients with DES restenosis, angioplasty with a novel PCB with citrate-based excipient was non-inferior to PCB with iopromide excipient in terms of angiographic outcome.

Objectives The aim of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of ticagrelor versus prasugrel for patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) according to their estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFRs). Background The outcomes of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in patients with ACS according to eGFR have not been defined. Methods Patients (n = 4,012) were categorized into 3 groups: low eGFR ( Results Patients with low eGFRs had a higher risk for the primary endpoint compared with patients with intermediate eGFRs (adjusted HR: 1.89; 95% CI: 1.46-2.46]) and those with high eGFRs (adjusted HR: 2.33; 95% CI: 1.57-3.46). A risk excess for low eGFR was also observed for bleeding (adjusted HR: 1.55 [95% CI: 1.12-2.13] vs intermediate eGFR; adjusted HR: 1.59 [95% CI: 1.01-2.50] vs high eGFR). However, eGFR did not affect the relative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel. In patients with low eGFR, the primary endpoint occurred in 20.5% with ticagrelor and in 14.7% with prasugrel (HR: 1.47; 95% CI: 1.04-2.08; P = 0.029); there was no significant difference in bleeding. Conclusions These results show that among patients with ACS, reduction of eGFR is associated with increased risk for ischemic and bleeding events but has no significant impact on the relative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel. (Prospective, Randomized Trial of Ticagrelor Versus Prasugrel in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome [ISAR-REACT 5]; NCT01944800 )

Background The efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel according to smoking status in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) are not known. We assessed the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel according to smoking status in patients with ACS undergoing invasive management. Methods This pre-specified analysis of the ISAR-REACT 5 trial included 1349 smokers and 2652 nonsmokers randomized to receive ticagrelor or prasugrel. The primary endpoint was the incidence of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke; the secondary endpoint was the incidence of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 3 to 5 bleeding (both endpoints assessed at 12 months). Results There was no significant treatment arm-by-smoking status interaction regarding the efficacy outcome. The primary endpoint occurred in 47 patients (7.0%) in the ticagrelor group and 41 patients (6.2%) in the prasugrel group in smokers (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76–1.75; P = 0.510) and in 133 patients (10.2%) in the ticagrelor group and 94 patients (7.2%) in the prasugrel group in nonsmokers (HR = 1.44 [1.10–1.87]; P = 0.007; P for interaction = 0.378). The secondary endpoint occurred in 27 patients (4.6%) in the ticagrelor group and 33 patients (5.6%) in the prasugrel group in smokers (HR = 0.81 [0.49–1.35]; P = 0.412) and in 66 patients (6.0%) in the ticagrelor group and 46 patients (4.4%) in the prasugrel group in nonsmokers (HR = 1.38 [0.94–2.01]; P = 0.097). Conclusions In patients with ACS undergoing an invasive management strategy, the smoking status did not significantly interact with the relative treatment effect of ticagrelor vs. prasugrel. Clinical trial registration NCT01944800

Background: The relative efficacy and safety of more potent P2Y 12 inhibitors in patients with acute coronary syndrome and high bleeding risk (HBR) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention remains unclear. We aimed to study the treatment effect of ticagrelor and prasugrel in percutaneous coronary intervention patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome and HBR. Methods: This post hoc analysis of the ISAR-REACT 5 trial (Intracoronary Stenting and Antithrombotic Regimen: Rapid Early Action for Coronary Treatment 5) included patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, randomized to ticagrelor or prasugrel, in whom HBR was defined as per Academic Research Consortium criteria. The primary (efficacy) end point was the composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. The secondary (safety) end point was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 to 5 bleeding. Outcomes were assessed 12 months after randomization. Results: Out of the 3239 patients included in this analysis, 486 fulfilled the criteria for Academic Research Consortium-HBR definition (HBR group; ticagrelor, n=230 and prasugrel, n=256), while 2753 did not (non-HBR group; ticagrelor, n=1375 and prasugrel, n=1378). Compared with the non-HBR group, the HBR group had a higher risk for the primary (hazard ratio [HR]=3.57 [95% CI, 2.79–4.57]; P P P for interaction=0.12) or secondary ( P for interaction=0.80) end points. Conclusions: In patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, HBR status increased both ischemic and bleeding risk without significant impact on the relative efficacy and safety of either ticagrelor or prasugrel. These results warrant confirmation in larger cohorts. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT01944800.

Die perkutane Revaskularisation von chronisch verschlossenen Koronarien stellt seit jeher eine grose Herausforderung fur die interventionelle Kardiologie dar. In den letzten Jahrzenten wurde eine Vielzahl an Anstrengungen unternommen, um die Revaskularisationsstrategien fur chronisch verschlossene Koronarien zu standardisieren. Diese Bestrebungen sind v. a. in dem steigenden Interesse der verschiedenen kardiologischen Fachgesellschaften an dieser Patientengruppe, in der zunehmenden Erfahrung der Interventionalisten und in der fortwahrenden Entwicklung des technischen Instrumentariums und von endovaskularen Unterstutzungstechnologien begrundet. Diese Ubersichtsarbeit beleuchtet die aktuell zur Verfugung stehenden Hilfsmittel sowie Technologien, Techniken und Strategien zur perkutanen Rekanalisation von chronisch verschlossenen Koronarien.

BACKGROUND: The comparative efficacy of balloon-based techniques to prepare severely calcified coronary lesions before stenting remains poorly studied. AIMS: We sought to compare stent expansion following preparation of severely calcified coronary lesions with either a super high-pressure balloon or a scoring balloon. METHODS: In this randomised, open-label trial, patients with severely calcified coronary lesions were enrolled at five centres in Germany and Switzerland. After unsuccessful lesion preparation with a standard non-compliant balloon (0.99). Strategy success (91.9% vs 83.8%; p=0.48) and procedural success (100% vs 89.2%; p=0.12) were numerically more frequent with the super high-pressure balloon versus the scoring balloon. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severely calcified coronary artery lesions, preparation with a super high-pressure balloon versus a scoring balloon was associated with comparable stent expansion on intravascular imaging and a trend towards improved angiographic performance. VISUAL SUMMARY: A ComparIson of Strategies to PrepAre SeveRely CALCified Coronary Lesions: the ISAR-CALC randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Drug-coated balloons (DCB) and drug-eluting stents (DES) represent the currently recommended treatments for in-stent restenosis (ISR). Optical coherence tomography (OCT) allows detailed neointimal characterisation which can guide treatment strategies. AIMS: The aims of this study were first, to assess the relation between neointimal pattern and clinical outcomes following in-stent restenosis (ISR) treatment, and second, to explore a potential interaction between neointimal pattern and treatment modality relative to clinical outcomes. METHODS: Patients undergoing OCT-guided treatment (DCB or DES) of ISR in three European centres were included. Based on the median of distribution of non-homogeneous neointima quadrants, patients were categorised into low and high inhomogeneity groups. RESULTS: A total of 197 patients (low inhomogeneity=100 and high inhomogeneity=97) were included. There were no significant differences in terms of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (p=0.939) or target lesion revascularisation (TLR) (p=0.732) between the two groups. The exploratory analysis showed a significant interaction between neointimal pattern and treatment modality regarding MACE (pint=0.006) and TLR (pint=0.022). DES showed a significant advantage over DCB in the high (MACE: HR 0.26 [0.10-0.65], p=0.004; TLR: HR 0.28 [0.11-0.69], p=0.006), but not in the low inhomogeneity group (MACE: p=0.917; TLR: p=0.797). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ISR treated with DCB or DES, there were no significant differences in terms of MACE or TLR between the low and high inhomogeneity groups. A significant interaction was observed between treatment modality and neointimal pattern with an advantage of DES over DCB in the high and no difference in the low inhomogeneity group. This warrants confirmation from prospective dedicated studies.

Background Very long-term outcomes according to diabetic status of patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with new-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) are scant. Both, the durable polymer zotarolimus-eluting stent (DP-ZES), the first DES to gain FDA-approval for specific use in patients with diabetes mellitus, and the polymer-free sirolimus- and probucol-eluting stent (PF-SES), with a unique design that enables effective drug release without the need of a polymer offer the potential to enhance clinical long-term outcomes especially in patients with diabetes mellitus. Methods We investigate 10-year clinical outcomes of the prespecified subgroups of patients with and without diabetes mellitus, randomly assigned to treatment with PF-SES versus DP-ZES in the ISAR-TEST 5 trial. The primary endpoint of interest was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as the composite of all-cause death, any myocardial infarction or any revascularization. Further endpoints of interest were cardiac death, myocardial infarction related to the target vessel and target lesion revascularization as well as the individual components of the primary composite endpoint and the incidence of definite or probable stent thrombosis at 10 years. Results This analysis includes a total of 3002 patients randomly assigned to PF-SES (n = 2002) or DP-ZES (n = 1000). Prevalence of diabetes mellitus was high and comparable, 575 Patients (28.7%) in PF-SES group and 295 patients (29.5%) in DP-ZES group (P = 0.66). At 10 years 53.5% of patients with diabetes mellitus and 68.5% of patients without diabetes mellitus were alive. Regarding major adverse cardiac events, PF-SES as compared to DP-ZES showed comparable event rates in patients with diabetes mellitus (74.8% vs. 79.6%; hazard ratio 0.86; 95% CI 0.73–1.02; P = 0.08) and in patients without diabetes (PF-SES 62.5% vs. DP-ZES 62.2%; hazard ratio 0.99; 95% CI 0.88–1.11; P = 0.88). Conclusion At 10 years, both new-generation DES show comparable clinical outcome irrespective of diabetic status or polymer strategy. Event rates after PCI in patients with diabetes mellitus are considerable higher than in patients without diabetes mellitus and continue to accrue over time. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00598533, Registered 10 January 2008, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00598533?term=NCT00598533 Graphic abstract Kaplan-Meier estimates of endpoints of interest for patients with vs. without diabetes mellitus treated with PF-SES vs. DP-ZES. Bar graphs: Kaplan-Meier estimates as percentages. PF-SES: polymer-free sirolimus-eluting stent; DP-ZES: durable polymer zotarolimus-eluting stent; DM: diabetes mellitus. Comparison of event rates of individual endpoints in patients with and without diabetes mellitus treated with PF-SES vs. DP-ZES all without statistically significant differences. Comparison of event rates of individual endpoints in overall patients with vs. without diabetes mellitus significantly different (P ≤ 0.01 for all comparisons).

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.

Objectives To assess the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) presenting during off- and on-hours. Background The efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in patients with ACS according to time of hospital presentation remain unknown. Methods This post hoc analysis of the ISAR-REACT 5 trial included 1565 patients with ACS presenting off-hours and 2453 patients presenting on-hours, randomized to ticagrelor or prasugrel. The primary endpoint was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke; the safety endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 3–5 bleeding, both at 12 months. Results The primary endpoint occurred in 80 patients (10.4%) in the ticagrelor group and 57 patients (7.3%) in the prasugrel group in patients presenting off-hours (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.45; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03–2.03; P = 0.033), and 104 patients (8.5%) in the ticagrelor group and 80 patients (6.7%) in the prasugrel group in patients presenting on-hours (HR = 1.29 [0.97–1.73]; P = 0.085), without significant treatment arm-by-presentation time interaction (Pint = 0.62). BARC type 3 to 5 bleeding occurred in 35 patients (5.1%) in the ticagrelor group and 37 patients (5.3%) in the prasugrel group (P = 0.84) in patients presenting off-hours, and 60 patients (5.9%) in the ticagrelor group and 43 patients (4.6%) in the prasugrel group in patients presenting on-hours (P = 0.17). Conclusions In patients with ACS planned to undergo an invasive treatment strategy, time of presentation (off-hours vs. on-hours) does not interact significantly with the relative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor vs. prasugrel. Clinical trial registration. NCT01944800. Graphical abstract

This study aimed to compare 10-year clinical outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) treated with new-generation biodegradable-polymer (BP-DES), polymer-free (PF-DES), and permanent-polymer drug-eluting stents (PPDES).We analyzed 10-year clinical outcomes for 2042 patients with ACS enrolled in the ISAR-TEST 4 and ISAR-TEST 5 randomized controlled trials. Patients were divided into 3 groups: new-generation PP-DES, BP-DES, and PF-DES. Endpoints of interest included a device-oriented composite endpoint (DOCE) and a patient-oriented composite endpoint (POCE) at 10 years.BP-DES as compared with PP-DES demonstrated a lower DOCE frequency, but this did not meet statistical significance (BP-DES vs PP-DES, 35.4% vs 41.5%, respectively; adjusted hazard ratio (HR), 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68-1.00; P=.05). There was a significantly lower POCE frequency in patients treated with BP-DES compared with PP-DES (65.3% vs 69.0%, respectively; HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.75-0.99; P=.04). The relative frequency of the DOCE (41.4% vs 41.5%; HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.83-1.15; P=.76) and the POCE (66.8% vs 69.0%; HR, 0.99; 0.87-1.12; P=.82) were comparable in patients treated with PF-DES and PP-DES.In patients with ACS, BP-DES were associated with a lower relative frequency of a POCE compared with new-generation PP-DES at 10 years. The relative frequencies of both device- and patient-related outcomes were comparable in patients treated with PF-DES and PP-DES at 10 years.

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 )

Resumen Introduccion y objetivos Los resultados de los pacientes con reestenosis de stents farmacoactivos (SFA) son peores que los de pacientes con reestenosis de stents metalicos. No se sabe si esta relacionado o no con la presencia de recubrimiento de polimero. Se compararon los resultados tras la intervencion sobre la reestenosis del stent (RS) de SFA sin polimero y SFA recubiertos de polimero duradero. Metodos Se incluyo a los pacientes del estudio aleatorizado ISAR-TEST 5 sometidos a un nuevo intervencionismo percutaneo por RS durante el seguimiento. Se analizaron los resultados angiograficos a los 6 y a los 8 meses y los eventos clinicos a los 2 anos, y se compararon los 2 grupos en funcion del tipo de stent. Las diferencias entre uno y otro grupo se ajustaron mediante analisis multivariable. Resultados Se incluyo a 326 pacientes con RS: 220 de SFA sin polimero y 106 de SFA con polimero. Se dispuso de angiografia de control del 83,4% de los pacientes. No se observaron diferencias entre los grupos en cuanto a reestenosis binaria recurrente (el 31,7 y el 27,0%; p = 0,38; pajustada = 0,29). A los 2 anos, el objetivo compuesto de muerte, infarto de miocardio o nueva revascularizacion de la lesion diana fue similar en los 2 grupos (el 35,7 frente al 34,0%; HR = 1,04; IC95%, 0,70-1,55; p = 0,83; pajustada = 0,79). Las tasas de nueva revascularizacion de la lesion diana de ambos grupos tambien fueron comparables (el 29,8 y el 31,5%; HR = 0,91; IC95%, 0,60-1,39; p = 0,68; pajustada = 0,62). Conclusiones No se encontraron diferencias entre los pacientes sometidos a reintervencion por RS de SFA en cuanto a eventos clinicos o angiograficos en funcion del tipo de stent, con o sin polimero.

Aims To assess whether the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor vs. prasugrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACSs) are influenced by pre-admission treatment with aspirin and/or clopidogrel. Methods and results Patients (n = 4018) were categorized into two groups: pre-admission aspirin and/or clopidogrel group (n = 1455) and no pre-admission aspirin or clopidogrel group (n = 2563). The primary endpoint was the composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke; the secondary safety endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 3–5 bleeding, both at 1 year. Patients in the pre-admission aspirin and/or clopidogrel group had a higher risk of ischaemic events, but a similar risk of bleeding to patients in the no pre-admission aspirin or clopidogrel group (cumulative incidences 10.5% vs. 6.7%, and 5.7% vs. 5.7%, respectively). The primary endpoint occurred in 81/717 patients assigned to ticagrelor and 69/738 patients assigned to prasugrel in the pre-admission aspirin and/or clopidogrel group [11.5% vs. 9.5%; hazard ratio (HR) = 1.23; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89–1.69], and in 103/1295 patients assigned to ticagrelor and 68/1268 patients assigned to prasugrel in the no pre-admission aspirin or clopidogrel group [8.0% vs. 5.4%; HR = 1.50 (1.10–2.03); Pint = 0.38]. BARC type 3–5 bleeding events did not differ between ticagrelor and prasugrel in patients in the pre-admission aspirin and/or clopidogrel (6.2% vs. 4.5%) or no pre-admission aspirin or clopidogrel (5.3% vs. 5.1%) group (Pint = 0.54). Conclusion In patients with ACS, pre-admission therapy with aspirin and/or clopidogrel has no influence on the relative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor and prasugrel.

BACKGROUND Whether there are differences in the risk profile and treatment effect in patients recruited in a low recruitment center (LRC) versus patients recruited in a high recruitment center (HRC) in a randomized multicenter trial remains unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS This study included 4018 patients with acute coronary syndrome recruited in the ISAR‐REACT 5 (Intracoronary Stenting and Antithrombotic Regimen: Rapid Early Action for Coronary Treatment 5) trial. The primary end point was a composite of all‐cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Overall, 3011 patients (75%) were recruited in the HRCs (7 centers recruiting 258 to 628 patients; median, 413 patients) and 1007 patients (25%) were recruited in the LRCs (16 centers recruiting 5 to 201 patients; median, 52 patients). Patients recruited in the LRCs had more favorable cardiovascular risk profiles than patients recruited in the HRCs. The primary end point occurred in 72 patients in the LRCs and 249 patients in the HRCs (cumulative incidence, 7.3% and 8.4%; P =0.267). All‐cause mortality was lower among patients recruited in the LRCs (n=29) than among patients recruited in the HRCs (n=134; cumulative incidence 2.9% versus 4.5%; P =0.031). There was no significant interaction between the treatment effect of ticagrelor versus prasugrel and patient recruitment category (LRC versus HRC) regarding the primary efficacy end point (LRC: hazard ratio [HR], 1.42 [95% CI, 0.89–2.28]; HRC: HR, 1.33 [95% CI, 1.04−1.72]; P for interaction=0.800). CONCLUSIONS Patients with acute coronary syndrome recruited in a LRC appear to have more favorable cardiovascular risk profiles and lower 1‐year mortality rates compared with patients recruited in a HRC. The recruitment volume did not interact with the treatment effect of ticagrelor versus prasugrel. REGISTRATION URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT01944800.