Search

Newer-generation drug-eluting stents that release zotarolimus or everolimus have been shown to be superior to the first-generation drug-eluting stents. However, data comparing long-term safety and efficacy of zotarolimus-(ZES) and everolimus-eluting stents (EES) are limited. RESOLUTE all-comers (Randomized Comparison of a Zotarolimus-Eluting Stent With an Everolimus-Eluting Stent for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) trial compared these 2 stents and has shown that ZES was noninferior to EES at 12-month for the primary end point of target lesion failure. We report the secondary clinical outcomes at the final 5-year follow-up of this trial. Methods and Results-RESOLUTE all-comer clinical study is a prospective, multicentre, randomized, 2-arm, open-label, noninferiority trial with minimal exclusion criteria. Patients (n=2292) were randomly assigned to treatment with either ZES (n=1140) or EES (n=1152). Patient-oriented composite end point (combination of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and any revascularizations), device-oriented composite end point (combination of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization), and major adverse cardiac events (combination of all-cause death, all myocardial infarction, emergent coronary bypass surgery, or clinically indicated target lesion revascularization) were analyzed at 5-year follow-up. The 2 groups were well-matched at baseline. Fiveyear follow-up data were available for 98% patients. There were no differences in patient-oriented composite end point (ZES 35.3% versus EES 32.0%, P=0.11), device-oriented composite end point (ZES 17.0% versus EES 16.2%, P=0.61), major adverse cardiac events (ZES 21.9% versus EES 21.6%, P=0.88), and definite/probable stent thrombosis (ZES 2.8% versus EES 1.8%, P=0.12). Conclusions-At 5-year follow-up, ZES and EES had similar efficacy and safety in a population of patients who had minimal exclusion criteria.

Objective To investigate the long- Term prognostic implications of coronary calcification in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for obstructive coronary artery disease. Methods Patient-level data from 6296 patients enrolled in seven clinical drug-eluting stents trials were analysed to identify in angiographic images the presence of severe coronary calcification by an independent academic research organisation (Cardialysis, Rotterdam, The Netherlands). Clinical outcomes at 3-years follow-up including all-cause mortality, death-myocardial infarction (MI), and the composite end-point of all-cause death-MI- Any revascularisation were compared between patients with and without severe calcification. Results Severe calcification was detected in 20% of the studied population. Patients with severe lesion calcification were less likely to have undergone complete revascularisation (48% vs 55.6%, p<0.001) and had an increased mortality compared with those without severely calcified arteries (10.8% vs 4.4%, p<0.001). The event rate was also high in patients with severely calcified lesions for the combined end-point death-MI (22.9% vs 10.9%; p<0.001) and death-MI- Any revascularisation (31.8% vs 22.4%; p<0.001). On multivariate Cox regression analysis, including the Syntax score, the presence of severe coronary calcification was an independent predictor of poor prognosis (HR: 1.33 95% CI 1.00 to 1.77, p=0.047 for death; 1.23, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.49, p=0.031 for death-MI, and 1.18, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.39, p=0.042 for death-MI- Any revascularisation), but it was not associated with an increased risk of stent thrombosis. Conclusions Patients with severely calcified lesions have worse clinical outcomes compared to those without severe coronary calcification. Severe coronary calcification appears as an independent predictor of worse prognosis, and should be considered as a marker of advanced atherosclerosis.

Objective We investigated clinical outcomes after treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions with second generation drug eluting stents (DES). Design Post hoc analysis of a randomised, multicentre, non-inferiority trial. Setting Multicentre study. Patients All comers study with minimal exclusion criteria. Interventions Patients were treated with either zotarolimus or everolimus eluting stents. The patient population was divided according to treatment of bifurcation or non-bifurcation lesions and clinical outcomes were compared between groups. Main outcomes measures Clinical outcomes within 2-year follow-up. Results A total of 2265 patients were included in the present analysis. Two-year follow-up data were available in 2223 patients: 1838 patients in the non-bifurcation group and 385 patients in the bifurcation group. At 2-year follow-up the bifurcation and the non-bifurcation lesion groups showed no significant differences in terms of cardiac death (2.3 vs 2.1, p=0.273), target lesion failure (9.7% vs 13.8%, p=0.255), major adverse cardiac events (11.5% vs 15.1%, p=0.305), target lesion revascularisation (4.7% vs 6.0%, p=0.569), and definite or probable ste

Aim s To compare the tissue coverage of a hydrophilic polymer-coated zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) vs. a fluoropolymer-coated everolimus-eluting stent (EES) at 13 months, using optical coherence tomography (OCT) in an 'all-comers population of patients, in order to clarify the mechanism of eventual differences in the biocompatibility and thrombogenicity of the devices. Methods and resultsPatients randomized to angiographic follow-up in the RESOLUTE All Comers trial (NCT00617084) at pre-specified OCT sites underwent OCT follow-up at 13 months. Tissue coverage and apposition were assessed strut by strut, and the results in both treatment groups were compared using multilevel logistic or linear regression, as appropriate, with clustering at three different levels: patient, lesion, and stent. Fifty-eight patients (30 ZES and 28 EES), 72 lesions, 107 stents, and 23 197 struts were analysed. Eight hundred and eighty-seven and 654 uncovered struts (7.4 and 5.8, P 0.378), and 216 and 161 malapposed struts (1.8 and 1.4, P 0.569) were found in the ZES and EES groups, respectively. The mea

Aims: To compare the angiographic and clinical performance of a paclitaxel-eluting stent using reservoirs technology and a bioabsorbable polymer, without surface coating (CoStar), vs. an equivalent bare metal stent (BMS) using an identical metallic platform. Methods and results: Three hundred and three (303) patients (335 lesions) with de novo coronary artery stenosis suitable for elective percutaneous treatment were randomised in an international multicentre single-blind trial to receive the CoStar stent (n=152) or the equivalent BMS (n=151). At eight months, the primary endpoint of in-segment binary restenosis was significantly lower in the CoStar than in the BMS group (17.6 vs. 30.3%, p=0.029). In-stent late loss (0.41 vs. 0.81 mm; p<0.0001) and all the other angiographic secondary endpoints also favoured CoStar. The composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction related to the target vessel and target lesion revascularisation was significantly lower at eight months in the CoStar arm (19.7 vs. 29.1%; hazard ratio 0.54, 95% CI: 0.34-0.87; p=0.010), mainly due to lower incidence of target lesion revascularisation (15.1 vs. 26.5%; 95% CI: hazard ratio 0.45, 95% CI: 0.27-0.76; p=0.002). Conclusions: As compared with a bare metal stent of identical design, the paclitaxel elution from reservoirs results in significantly less binary restenosis, less late loss and lower revascularisation rates at eight months. Therefore, based on these data, the CoStar paclitaxel-eluting stent was found to be effective and safe.

Background: The most recent ESC guidelines for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) recommend the use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPI) in high risk patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS), particularly in diabetics. Little is known about the adherence to these guidelines within Europe. Methods and results: Between May 2005 and April 2008 a total of 47,407 consecutive patients undergoing PCI were prospectively enrolled into the PCI-Registry of the Euro Heart Survey Programme. In the present analysis we examined the use of GPI in 2,922 diabetics who underwent PCI for NSTE-ACS. In this high risk population only 22.2% received a GPI; 8.9% upstream and 13.4% during PCI. The strategy of the individual institution had a major impact on the usage of GPI. In the multiple regression analysis clinical instability and complex lesion characteristics were strong independent determinants for the use of GPI, whereas renal insufficiency was negatively associated with its use. After adjustment for confounding variables no significant differences in hospital mortality could be observed between the cohorts, but a significantly higher rate of non-fatal postprocedural myocardial infarction was observed among patients receiving GPI upstream. Conclusions: Despite the recommendation for its use in the current ESC guidelines, only a minority of the diabetics in Europe undergoing PCI for NSTE-ACS received a GPI. The use of GPI was mainly triggered by high-risk interventional scenarios.

BACKGROUND: New-generation coronary stents that release zotarolimus or everolimus have been shown to reduce the risk of restenosis. However, it is unclear whether there are differences in efficacy and safety between the two types of stents on the basis of prospectively adjudicated end points endorsed by the Food and Drug Administration. METHODS: In this multicenter, noninferiority trial with minimal exclusion criteria, we randomly assigned 2292 patients to undergo treatment with coronary stents releasing either zotarolimus or everolimus. Twenty percent of patients were randomly selected for repeat angiography at 13 months. The primary end point was target-lesion failure, defined as a composite of death from cardiac causes, any myocardial infarction (not clearly attributable to a nontarget vessel), or clinically indicated target-lesion revascularization within 12 months. The secondary angiographic end point was the extent of in-stent stenosis at 13 months. RESULTS: At least one off-label criterion for stent placement was present in 66% of patients. The zotarolimus-eluting stent was noninferior to the everolimus-eluting stent with respect to the primary end point, which occurred in 8.2% and 8.3% of patients, respectively (P<0.001 for noninferiority). There were no significant between-group differences in the rate of death from cardiac causes, any myocardial infarction, or revascularization. The rate of stent thrombosis was 2.3% in the zotarolimus-stent group and 1.5% in the everolimus-stent group (P = 0.17). The zotarolimus-eluting stent was also noninferior regarding the degree (±SD) of in-stent stenosis (21.65±14.42% for zotarolimus vs. 19.76±14.64% for everolimus, P = 0.04 for noninferiority). In-stent late lumen loss was 0.27±0.43 mm in the zotarolimus-stent group versus 0.19±0.40 mm in the everolimusstent group (P = 0.08). There were no significant between-group differences in the rate of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: At 13 months, the new-generation zotarolimus-e

Despite advances in the interventional treatment of coronary disease, diabetics still have double the case fatality rate as nondiabetics. The purpose of this ana