Search

BACKGROUND: Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS)-related events have been reported between 1 and 3 years - the period of active scaffold bioresorption. Data on the performance of the Absorb BVS in daily clinical practice beyond this time point are scarce. AIMS: This report aimed to provide the final five-year clinical follow-up of the Absorb BVS in comparison with the XIENCE everolimus-eluting stent (EES). In addition, we evaluated the effect of prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) administration on events in the scaffold group. METHODS: AIDA was a multicentre, investigator-initiated, non-inferiority trial, in which 1,845 unselected patients with coronary artery disease were randomly assigned to either the Absorb BVS (n=924) or the XIENCE EES (n=921). Target vessel failure (TVF), a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction or target vessel revascularisation, was the primary endpoint. Scaffold thrombosis cases were matched with controls and tested for the effect of prolonged DAPT. RESULTS: Up to five-year follow-up, there was no difference in TVF between the Absorb BVS (17.7%) and the XIENCE EES (16.1%) (hazard ratio [HR] 1.31, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.90-1.41; p=0.302). Definite or probable device thrombosis (DT) occurred in 43 patients (4.8%) in the scaffold group compared to 13 patients (1.5%) in the stent group (HR 3.32, 95% CI: 1.78-6.17; p

Background: In this prespecified AIDA-trial sub-study we investigate the clinical performance of absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) compared to Xience everolimus-eluting stent (EES) in routine percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) at complete 3-year follow-up. Methods and results: All 1,845 randomized patients were subdivided by medical history with DM or without DM. Of the 924 Absorb BVS patients, 171 (18.5%) patients had DM, of which 65 (38.0%) were treated with insulin (iTDM). Of the 921 Xience EES patients, 153 (16.6%) patients had DM, of which 45 (29.4%) were insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (iTDM). Target vessel failure (TVF), composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization, occurred in 18.7% of diabetic patients treated with Absorb patients versus in 18.0% patients treated with Xience EES (p =.840). In nondiabetics the rates of TVF were 12.3% in Absorb BVS versus 11.0% in Xience EES (p =.391). Definite/probable device thrombosis occurred more frequently in Absorb BVS compared to Xience EES in both diabetic and nondiabetic patients (4.8% versus 0.7%; p =.028 and 3.2% vs. 0.5%; p

Background: Accelerated endothelial healing after targeted antiproliferative drug delivery may limit the long-term inflammatory response of drug-eluting stents (DESs). The novel Supreme DES is designed to synchronize early drug delivery within 4 to 6 weeks of implantation, leaving behind a prohealing permanent base layer. Whether the Supreme DES is safe and effective in the short term and can improve long-term clinical outcomes is not known. Methods: In an international, 2:1 randomized, single-blind trial, we compared treatment with Supreme DES to durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP-EES) in patients with acute and chronic coronary syndromes. The primary end point was target lesion failure—a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target lesion revascularization. The trial was designed to demonstrate noninferiority (margin of 3.58%) of the Supreme DES at 12 months compared with DP-EES (URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT03168776). Results: From October 2017 to July 2019, a total of 1629 patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to the Supreme DES (N=1086) or DP-EES (N=543). At 12 months, target lesion failure occurred in 57 of 1057 patients (5.4%) in the Supreme DES group and in 27 of 532 patients (5.1%) in the DP-EES group (absolute risk difference, 0.32% [95% CI, −1.87 to 2.5]; P non inferiority =0.002]. There were no significant differences in rates of device success, clinically driven target lesion revascularization, or stent thrombosis at 12 months, and the safety composite of cardiovascular death and target vessel myocardial infarction was 3.5% versus 4.6% (hazard ratio, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.46–1.25]) with Supreme DES compared with DP-EES, although rates of combined clinically and non–clinically driven target lesion revascularization at 12 months were higher with Supreme DES. Conclusions: Among patients with acute and chronic coronary syndromes undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, the Supreme DES proved to be noninferior to the standard DP-EES. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT03168776.

It has been hypothesized that dedicated optimized Absorb BVS implantation techniques might mitigate the risk of adverse events such as target vessel failure and device thrombosis. In this explorative AIDA trial QCA substudy, we sought to investigate the influence of implantation techniques on lesion-oriented outcomes in both the Absorb BVS and Xience EES arm at complete 3-year follow-up. The current analysis includes 2152 study lesions treated with at least one study device, of which the baseline angiogram was suited for offline QCA analysis, including Dmax analysis. The lesion-oriented composite outcome (LOCE) of this analysis was a composite of definite device thrombosis, target lesion revascularization and target-vessel myocardial infarction. In Absorb BVS, the Lesion-oriented composite endpoint (LOCE) occurred numerically less in correctly QCA sized vessels when compared to incorrectly sized vessels 8.5% (58/696) versus 11.1% (39/358), p = 0.151. In Xience EES, LOCE had occurred more frequently in incorrectly sized devices according to device diameter/RVD matching; 2.2% (4/187) in correctly sized devices versus 7.1% (63/911) in incorrectly sized devices (p = 0.014). In this AIDA trial QCA substudy, rates of LOCE were significantly lower in Xience EES treated lesions in which devices were correctly sized according to the definitions of device diameter/RVD matching.

Background: Females are underrepresented in clinical trials evaluating new stent technologies whilst results may differ between the sexes. Females are known to have smaller, more tortuous coronary arteries and have generally more comorbidities. On the other hand, they may have smaller plaque burden. This subgroup-analysis sought to assess sex-specific outcomes after Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) or XIENCE everolimus-eluting stent (EES) implantation. Methods: The AIDA trial was an investigator-initiated, non-inferiority, all-comers trial, in which 1845 patients were randomly assigned to either Absorb BVS or XIENCE EES. Baseline clinical, angiography and procedural variables, as well as 2-year clinical outcomes were analyzed by sex and device modality. Results: Of the 1845 randomized patients, 475 (25.7%) were females. The 2-year rates of target vessel failure (TVF) with Absorb BVS versus XIENCE EES in females were 6.4% versus 10.6% (HR 0.59; 95% CI: 0.31–1.11; p = 0.10) and in males 12.7% versus 9.7% (HR 1.34; 95% CI: 0.98–1.85; p = 0.07). Males treated with Absorb BVS were at higher risk for TVF compared to females treated with Absorb BVS (HR 2.06; 95% CI 1.21–3.53; p = 0.007). Definite/probable device thrombosis occurred in females with Absorb BVS versus XIENCE EES in 1.6% versus 1.4% (HR 1.15; 95% CI: 0.26–5.12; p = 0.86) and in males 3.9% versus 0.7% (HR 5.55; 95% CI: 2.11–14.35; p < 0.001). A statistical significant interaction between sex and device was present for TVF (p = 0.02), but was not seen for definite/probable device thrombosis (p = 0.08). Conclusions: In this subgroup analysis, Absorb BVS used in routine practice tends to result in better clinical outcomes in females compared to males.

Background: Patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) might represent a specific subgroup, in which bioresorbable scaffold implantation in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), might lead to better outcomes when compared to conventional treatment with metallic drug eluting stents. In this prespecified subgroup analysis of the Amsterdam Investigator-Initiated Absorb Strategy All-Comers (AIDA) trial, we evaluated the clinical outcomes of Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) versus Xience everolimus eluting stent (EES) treated patients presenting either with or without ACS. Methods and results: We classified AIDA patients on the basis of clinical presentation of ACS or of no-ACS. The rate of the 2-year primary endpoint of target vessel failure (TVF) was similar after treatment with Absorb BVS or Xience EES in ACS patients (10.2% versus 9.0% respectively; P = 0.49) and in no-ACS patients (11.7% versus 10.7%, respectively; P = 0.67) Definite or probable device thrombosis occurred more frequently with Absorb BVS compared to Xience EES in ACS patients (4.3% versus 1.7%, respectively, P = 0.03) as well as in no-ACS patients (2.4% versus 0.2%, respectively; P = 0.002). There were no statistically significant interactions between clinical presentation and randomized device modality for TVF (P = 0.80) and for the endpoint of definite or probable device thrombosis (P = 0.17). Conclusion: In the AIDA trial, the 2-year outcomes of PCI with Absorb BVS versus Xience EES were consistent in ACS and no-ACS patients: similar rates for TVF and consistently higher rates of definite or probable stent thrombosis under Absorb BVS versus Xience EES. There were no statistically significant interactions between clinical presentation and randomized device modality.

Background: Current ESC guidelines recommend the use of intra-coronary pressure guidewires for functional assessment of intermediate-grade coronary stenoses. Angiography-derived quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is a novel method of assessing these stenoses, and guiding percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).Methods/Design: The PIONEER IV trial is a prospective, all-comers, multi-center trial, which will randomize 2,540 patients in a 1:1 ratio to PCI guided by angiography-derived physiology or usual care, with unrestricted use in both arms of the Healing-Targeted Supreme sirolimus-eluting stent (HT Supreme). The stent's fast, biologically healthy, and robust endothelial coverage allows for short dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT); hence the antiplatelet regimen of choice is 1-month DAPT, followed by ticagrelor monotherapy. In the angiography-derived physiology guided arm, lesions will be functionally assessed using on-line QFR, with stenting indicated in lesions with a QFR ≤0.80. Post-stenting, QFR will be repeated in the stented vessel(s), with post-dilatation or additional stenting recommended if the QFR0.05. Usual care PCI is performed according to standard clinical practice. The primary endpoint is a non–inferiority comparison of the patient-oriented composite endpoint (POCE) of all-cause death, any stroke, any myocardial infarction, or any clinically, and physiologically driven revascularization with a non–inferiority risk-difference margin of 3.2%, at 1-year post-procedure. Clinical follow-up will be up to 3 years.The PIONEER IV trial aims to demonstrate non–inferiority of QFR-guided PCI to usual care PCI with respect to POCE at 1-year in patients treated with HT Supreme stents and ticagrelor monotherapy.Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.govUnique Identifier: NCT04923191Classifications: Interventional Cardiology

Due to expansion limits of the Absorb bioresorbable scaffold a meticulous implantation with correct sizing is required. We sought to investigate the clinical outcomes based on the sizing of the device related to the maximal lumen diameter measured by quantitative coronary angiography in Absorb BVS and Xience EES treated lesions in the AIDA trial. Sizing of Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) and Xience everolimus eluting stent (EES) was graded according to the definitions of device non-oversize and device oversize on pre-procedural angiography. Lesion-oriented outcomes (LOCE) (device thrombosis, TLR and TVMI) that occurred during 2 years follow-up were related to device non-oversized or oversized status. In the Absorb BVS group, LOCE occurred in 48 (7.4%) lesions in the oversized group and in 32 (8.2%) lesions in the non-oversized group (HR 0.91; 95% CI 0.58–1.42; p = 0.681), whereas TLR occurred in 34 (5.3%) lesions and in 23 lesions (5.9%), respectively (HR 0.89; 95% CI 0.52–1.51; p = 0.666). Definite scaffold thrombosis occurred in 11 (1.7%) device oversized treated lesions against 16 (4.1%) device non-oversized treated lesions (HR 0.41; 95% CI 0.19–0.89; p = 0.020). There were no differences in event rates between oversized and non-oversized groups in lesions treated with Xience EES. There was no significant difference in LOCE between oversized and non-oversized treated Absorb BVS and Xience EES treated lesions. Non-oversized Absorb BVS implantation was associated with a higher risk of scaffold thrombosis at complete 2 years follow-up. The majority of very late scaffold thrombosis occurred in properly sized devices. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s10554-019-01576-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundDespite the advances of potent oral P2Y12inhibitors, their onset of action is delayed, which might have a negative impact on clinical outcome in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Trials conducted in the United States of America have identified cangrelor as a potent and rapid-acting intravenous P2Y12inhibitor, which has the potential of reducing ischemic events in these patients without an increase in the bleeding. As cangrelor is rarely used in The Netherlands, we conducted a nationwide registry to provide an insight into the use of cangrelor in the management of patients with suboptimal platelet inhibition undergoing (primary) PCI (the Dutch Cangrelor Registry).Study designThe Cangrelor Registry is a prospective, observational, multicenter, single-arm registry with cangrelor administered pre-PCI in: (1) P2Y12naive patients with ad-hoc PCI, (2) patients with STEMI/NSTEMI with suboptimal P2Y12inhibition including (3) stable resuscitated/defibrillated patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) due to acute ischemia and (4) STEMI/NSTEMI patients with a high thrombotic burden. Primary endpoint is 48 h Net Adverse Clinical Events (NACE), which is a composite endpoint of all-cause death, recurrent myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularization (TVR), stroke, stent thrombosis (ST) and BARC 2-3-5 bleeding.SummaryThe Dutch Cangrelor Registry will assess the feasibility and safety of cangrelor in patients with suboptimal P2Y12inhibition undergoing (primary) PCI in the setting of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and stable coronary artery disease (CAD) in the Netherlands.

Background and purpose Supraflex is a sirolimus-eluting stent with a biodegradable polymeric coating and 60um ultra-thin struts. In the TALENT study, we found the Supraflex stent was non-inferior to the Xience stent for a device-oriented composite endpoint (DOCE, defined as cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically indicated target lesion revascularisation) at 12 months in an all-comer population. Additionally, per-protocol analysis showed a significantly lower clinically indicated target lesion revascularisation (CI-TLR) in the Supraflex group than in the Xience group. We now present the 2-year follow-up results. Methods The TALENT study was a prospective, randomised, single-blind, multicentre study across 23 centres in Europe. Eligible participants underwent percutaneous coronary intervention in an all-comers fashion in vessels of 2.25–4.5 mm. Patients were randomized (1:1) to implantation of either Supraflex or Xience (NCT02870140). Results Between October 21, 2016 and July 3, 2017, 720 patients with 1046 lesions were randomly assigned to Supraflex, and 715 patients with 1030 lesions to Xience. At 24 months, DOCE had occurred in 49 patients (6.9%) in the Supraflex group and in 56 patients (7.9%) in the Xience group (absolute difference −1.0% [95% CI: −3.7 to 1.7], Plog-rank=0.491). Per-protocol analysis at 24 months showed CI-TLR occurred in 21 and 30 patients in the Supraflex and Xience, respectively (3.3% versus 4.5%, absolute difference −1.2%, [95% CI: −3.3 to 0.9], Plog-rank=0.267). Conclusion In an all-comer population, at 2-year follow-up, the use of Supraflex stent was at least as safe and efficacious as Xience stent. However, the significantly lower rate of CI-TLR shown in patients treated with Supraflex at 1-year was no longer retained in the 2-year results. Whether theoretical advantage of ultra-thin strut drug eluting stents Supraflex can translate into clinical benefit or not will be further elucidated through a total of 3 years of follow-up. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: Private company. Main funding source(s): SMT

Aims Absorb bioresorbable scaffold (BRS) related events were noticed between 1 and 3 years – the approximate time of active scaffold bioresorption. This resulted in the recommendation for 3 year DAPT after Absorb BRS implantation. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the Absorb BRS in comparison with Xience everolimus-eluting stent (EES) at 4 years follow-up in large unselected population. In addition, we aimed to assess the value of prolonged DAPT against scaffold thrombosis. Methods AIDA was an investigator-initiated, non-inferiority, multicenter, randomized, all-comers trial. Target vessel failure (a composite of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction and target-vessel revascularization) and device thrombosis at 4-year follow-up are the primary focus of this analysis. During the trial recommendation for DAPT was changed to up to 3-years post Absorb BVS implantation. Whether this adaption influenced the results after Absorb BVS will be assessed. Results Between August 2013 and December 2015, 1,845 patients were enrolled, of whom 924 were randomized to treatment with Absorb BRS and 921 to Xience EES. The baseline characteristics in the two study arms were well balanced. Of all patients, 18% had diabetes mellitus, more than 50% presented with ACS and the median SYNTAX score was 11. In the Absorb BRS arm, 97% of lesions were predilated and in 74% post-dilatation was performed. Four-year clinical outcomes are currently being adjudicated by an independent clinical event committee. The results will be available at EuroPCR 2020. Conclusions Absorb BRS is associated with higher rates of scaffold thrombosis throughout 3-year of follow-up. The performance of Absorb BRS beyond 3-years, in comparison with the Xience EES, in a large unselected population will be presented. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01858077) Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: Private company. Main funding source(s): Abbott

Background: Numerous randomized clinical trials have demonstrated the superiority of thin-strut biodegradable polymer second-generation drug-eluting stent to the first-generation drug-eluting stent and the noninferiority to the thin-strut second-generation permanent polymer drug-eluting stent. Data on long-term clinical outcomes with a novel ultrathin drug-eluting stent, to date, are limited. Methods: The DESSOLVE III trial (Multicenter Randomized Study of the MiStent Sirolimus Eluting Absorbable Polymer Stent System for Revascularization of Coronary Arteries; n=1398) is a prospective, multicenter, single-blinded, all-comers, randomized controlled trial (NCT02385279), allocating in a 1:1 ratio to either ultrathin-strut biodegradable polymer MiStent sirolimus-eluting stent or to thin-strut permanent polymer Xience everolimus-eluting stent. The primary end point was device-oriented composite end point, defined as the composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically indicated target lesion revascularization. The secondary end point was patient-oriented composite end point, defined as the composite of all-cause mortality, any myocardial infarction, or any revascularization. Results: At 3 years, follow-up data were available in 1381 patients (98.8%). The primary end point of device-oriented composite end point occurred in 10.5% for MiStent sirolimus-eluting stent and in 11.5% for Xience everolimus-eluting stent ( P =0.55). Rates of cardiac death (3.9% versus 3.8%; P =0.88), target vessel myocardial infarction (3.2% versus 2.5%; P =0.43), and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization (5.2% versus 6.5%; P =0.30) did not differ significantly between the 2 devices. The rate of definite or probable stent thrombosis was infrequent and similar between the 2 arms (1.2% versus 1.5%; P =0.64). The 90-day landmark analysis showed no significant difference in device-oriented composite end point between the 2 groups after polymer degradation of MiStent. The risk of patient-oriented composite end point was comparable between the 2 groups (22.7% versus 22.9%; P =0.34). Conclusions: In the DESSOLVE III trial, early safety and efficacy with MiStent sirolimus-eluting bioabsorbable polymer-coated stent are confirmed at a longer term follow-up when compared with Xience everolimus-eluting permanent polymer-coated stent in a large all-comers population. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT02385279.

Purpose Complex high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is challenging and frequently accompanied by haemodynamic instability. Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) can provide cardiopulmonary support in high-risk PCI. However, the outcome is unclear. Methods A two-centre, retrospective study was performed of all patients undergoing high-risk PCI and receiving VA-ECMO for cardiopulmonary support. Results A total of 14 patients (92% male, median age 69 (53–83) years), of whom 50% had previous coronary artery disease in the form of a coronary artery bypass graft (36%) and a PCI (14%) underwent high-risk PCI and received VA-ECMO support. The main target lesion was a left main coronary artery in 78%, a left anterior descending artery in 14%, a right coronary artery in 7%, and 71% underwent multi-vessel PCI in addition to main target vessel PCI. The median SYNTAX score was 27.2 (8–42.5) and in 64% (9/14) there was a chronic total occlusion. Left ventricular function was mildly impaired in 7% (1/14), moderately impaired in 14% (2/14) and severely impaired in 64% (9/14). Cannulation was femoral-femoral in all patients. Median ECMO run was 2.57 h (1–4). Survival was 93% (13/14). One patient died during hospitalisation due to refractory cardiac failure. All other patients survived to discharge. Complications occurred in 14% (2/14), with one patient developing a transient ischaemic attack post-ECMO and one patient developing a thrombus in the femoral vein used for ECMO cannulation. Conclusion VA-ECMO in high-risk PCI is feasible with a good outcome. It can be successfully used for cardiopulmonary support in selected patients.

International audience; BACKGROUND: MiStent is a drug-eluting stent with a fully absorbable polymer coating containing and embedding a microcrystalline form of sirolimus into the vessel wall. It was developed to overcome the limitation of current durable polymer drug-eluting stents eluting amorphous sirolimus. The clinical effect of MiStent sirolimus-eluting stent compared with a durable polymer drug-eluting stents has not been investigated in a large randomised trial in an all-comer population. METHODS: We did a randomised, single-blind, multicentre, phase 3 study (DESSOLVE III) at 20 hospitals in Germany, France, Netherlands, and Poland. Eligible participants were any patients aged at least 18 years who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention in a lesion and had a reference vessel diameter of 2\textperiodcentered50-3\textperiodcentered75 mm. We randomly assigned patients (1:1) to implantation of either a sirolimus-eluting bioresorbable polymer stent (MiStent) or an everolimus-eluting durable polymer stent (Xience). Randomisation was done by local investigators via web-based software with random blocks according to centre. The primary endpoint was a non-inferiority comparison of a device-oriented composite endpoint (DOCE)-cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically indicated target lesion revascularisation-between the groups at 12 months after the procedure assessed by intention-to-treat. A margin of 4\textperiodcentered0% was defined for non-inferiority of the MiStent group compared with the Xience group. All participants were included in the safety analyses. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02385279. FINDINGS: Between March 20, and Dec 3, 2015, we randomly assigned 1398 patients with 2030 lesions; 703 patients with 1037 lesions were assigned to MiStent, of whom 697 received the index procedure, and 695 patients with 993 lesions were asssigned to Xience, of whom 690 received the index procedure. At 12 months, the primary endpoint had occurred in 40 patients (5\textperiodcentered8%) in the sirolimus-eluting stent group and in 45 patients (6\textperiodcentered5%) in the everolimus-eluting stent group (absolute difference -0\textperiodcentered8% [95% CI -3\textperiodcentered3 to 1\textperiodcentered8], pnon-inferiority=0\textperiodcentered0001). Procedural complications occurred in 12 patients (1\textperiodcentered7%) in the sirolimus-eluting stent group and ten patients (1\textperiodcentered4%) in the everolimus-eluting stent group; no clinical adverse events could be attributed to these dislodgements through a minimum of 12 months of follow-up. The rate of stent thrombosis, a safety indicator, did not differ between groups and was low in both treatment groups. INTERPRETATION: The sirolimus-eluting bioabsorbable polymer stent was non-inferior to the everolimus-eluting durable polymer stent for a device-oriented composite clinical endpoint at 12 months in an all-comer population. MiStent seems a reasonable alternative to other stents in clinical practice. FUNDING: The European Cardiovascular Research Institute, Micell Technologies (Durham, NC, USA), and Stentys (Paris, France).

Aims: The aim of this report of the AIDA trial is to provide full two-year outcomes for the primary endpoint of target vessel failure (TVF) and an update on device thrombosis. Methods and results: AIDA was a single-blind, multicentre, investigator-initiated, non-inferiority, randomised (1:1) clinical trial. At complete two-year follow-up, the primary endpoint of TVF had occurred in 100 patients in the Absorb BVS arm versus 90 patients in the XIENCE EES arm (HR 1.12, 95% CI: 0.94-1.49; psuperiority=0.436). Estimated two-year Kaplan-Meier event rates of TVF were 11.0% and 9.9%, respectively (95% CI: -0.9%-3.0%; pnon-inferiority=0.003). Definite or probable device thrombosis at two years occurred in 30 patients in the Absorb BVS arm and in eight patients in the XIENCE EES arm. Kaplan- Meier estimates of device thrombosis were 3.3% in the Absorb BVS arm and 0.9% in the XIENCE EES arm (HR 5.22, 95% CI: 2.00-13.59; p

Background: Patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) who are carrying CYP2C19 loss-of-function alleles derive less benefit from clopidogrel treatment. Despite this, in elderly patients, clopidogrel might be preferred over more potent P2Y12 inhibitors due to a lower bleeding risk. Whether CYP2C19 genotype-guided antiplatelet treatment in the elderly could be of benefit has not been studied specifically.Methods: Patients aged 70 years and older with known CYP2C19*2 and *3 genotype were identified from the POPular Genetics and POPular Age trials. Noncarriers of loss-of-function alleles treated with clopidogrel were compared to patients, irrespective of CYP2C19 genotype, treated with ticagrelor and to clopidogrel treated carriers of loss-of-function alleles. We assessed net clinical benefit (all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke and Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes (PLATO) major bleeding), atherothrombotic outcomes (cardiovascular & nbsp;death, myocardial infarction, stroke) and bleeding outcomes (PLATO major and minor bleeding).Results: A total of 991 patients were assessed. There was no significant difference in net clinical benefit (17.2% vs. 15.1%, adjusted hazard ratio (adjHR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 & ndash;1.44), atherothrombotic outcomes (9.7% vs. 9.2%, adjHR 1.00, 95%CI 0.66 & ndash;1.50), and bleeding outcomes (17.7% vs. 19.8%, adjHR 0.80, 95%CI 0.62 & ndash;1.12) between clopidogrel in noncarriers of loss-of-function alleles and ticagrelor respectively.Conclusion: In ACS patients aged 70 years and older, there was no significant difference in net clinical benefit and atherothrombotic outcomes between noncarriers of a loss-of-function allele treated with clopidogrel and pa-tients treated with ticagrelor. The bleeding rate was numerically; though not statistically significant, lower in pa-tients using clopidogrel.(c) 2021 Published by Elsevier B.V.

It has been hypothesized that dedicated optimized Absorb BVS implantation techniques might mitigate the risk of adverse events such as target vessel failure and device thrombosis. In this explorative AIDA trial QCA substudy, we sought to investigate the influence of implantation techniques on lesion-oriented outcomes in both the Absorb BVS and Xience EES arm at complete 3-year follow-up. The current analysis includes 2152 study lesions treated with at least one study device, of which the baseline angiogram was suited for offline QCA analysis, including Dmax analysis. The lesion-oriented composite outcome (LOCE) of this analysis was a composite of definite device thrombosis, target lesion revascularization and target-vessel myocardial infarction. In Absorb BVS, the Lesion-oriented composite endpoint (LOCE) occurred numerically less in correctly QCA sized vessels when compared to incorrectly sized vessels 8.5% (58/696) versus 11.1% (39/358), p = 0.151. In Xience EES, LOCE had occurred more frequently in incorrectly sized devices according to device diameter/RVD matching; 2.2% (4/187) in correctly sized devices versus 7.1% (63/911) in incorrectly sized devices (p = 0.014). In this AIDA trial QCA substudy, rates of LOCE were significantly lower in Xience EES treated lesions in which devices were correctly sized according to the definitions of device diameter/RVD matching.

Objectives This study sought to investigate the effect of post-dilatation on angiographic and intracoronary imaging parameters in the setting of primary percutaneous coronary intervention comparing the everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold (BRS) with the everolimus-eluting metallic stent (EES). Background Routine post-dilatation of BRS has been suggested to improve post-procedural angiographic and subsequent device-related clinical outcomes. Methods In the ABSORB STEMI TROFI II trial, 191 patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction were randomly assigned to treatment with BRS (n = 95) or EES (n = 96). Minimal lumen area and healing score as assessed by optical coherence tomography at 6 months were compared between BRS- and EES-treated patients stratified according to post-dilatation status. Results Primary percutaneous coronary intervention with post-dilatation was performed in 48 (50.5%) BRS- and 25 (25.5%) EES-treated lesions. There were no differences in baseline characteristics and post-procedural minimal lumen diameter between groups. In the BRS group, lesions with post-dilatation were associated with a trend toward a smaller minimal lumen area at 6 months (5.07 ± 1.68 mm2 vs. 5.72 ± 1.77 mm2; p = 0.09) and significantly larger angiographic late lumen loss (0.28 ± 0.34 mm vs. 0.12 ± 0.25 mm; p = 0.02), whereas no difference was observed in the EES arm (5.46 ± 2.18 mm2 vs. 5.55 ± 1.77 mm2; p = 0.85). The neointimal healing score was low and comparable between groups with and without post-dilation (BRS: 1.55 ± 2.61 vs. 1.92 ± 2.17; p = 0.48; EES: 2.50 ± 3.33 vs. 2.90 ± 4.80; p = 0.72). Conclusions In the setting of selected patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention with BRS or EES, post-dilatation did not translate into larger lumen area or improved arterial healing at follow-up. (ABSORB STEMI: The TROFI II; NCT01986803)

Objectives This analysis investigates the 5-year outcomes of the biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stent (BP-BES) and durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent (DP-EES) in an all-comers population undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Background Recent 1- and 3-year results from randomized trials have indicated similar safety and efficacy outcomes of BP-BES and DP-EES. Whether benefits of the biodegradable polymer device arise over longer follow-up is unknown. Moreover, in-depth, prospective, long-term follow-up data on metallic drug-eluting stents with durable or biodegradable polymers are scarce. Methods The COMPARE II trial (Abluminal Biodegradable Polymer Biolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stent) was a prospective, randomized, multicenter, all-comers trial in which 2,707 patients were randomly allocated (2:1) to BP-BES or DP-EES. The pre-specified endpoint at 5 years was major adverse cardiac events, a composite of cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization. Results Five-year follow-up was available in 2,657 patients (98%). At 5 years, major adverse cardiac events occurred in 310 patients (17.3%) in the BP-BES group and 142 patients (15.6%) in the DP-EES group (p = 0.26). The rate of the combined safety endpoint all-cause death or myocardial infarction was 15.0% in the BP-BES group versus 14.8% in the DP-EES group (p = 0.90), whereas the efficacy measure target vessel revascularization was 10.6% versus 9.0% (p = 0.18), respectively. Interestingly, definite stent thrombosis rates did not differ between groups (1.5% for BP-BES vs. 0.9% for DP-EES; p = 0.17). Conclusions The 5-year analysis comparing biodegradable polymer-coated BES and the durable polymer-coated EES confirms the initial early- and mid-term results regarding similar safety and efficacy outcomes in this all-comers percutaneous coronary intervention population.

Contains fulltext : 182904.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) BACKGROUND: To eliminate some of the potential late limitations of permanent metallic stents, the bioresorbable coronary stents or 'bioresorbable vascular scaffolds' (BVS) have been developed. METHODS: We reviewed all currently available clinical data on BVS implantation. RESULTS: Since the 2015 position statement on the appropriateness of BVS in percutaneous coronary interventions, several large randomised trials have been presented. These have demonstrated that achieving adequate 1 and 2 year outcomes with these first-generation BVS is not straightforward. These first adequately powered studies in non-complex lesions showed worse results if standard implantation techniques were used for these relatively thick scaffolds. Post-hoc analyses hypothesise that outcomes similar to current drug-eluting stents are still possible if aggressive lesion preparation, adequate sizing and high-pressure postdilatation are implemented rigorously. As long as this has not been confirmed in prospective studies the usage should be restricted to experienced centres with continuous outcome monitoring. For more complex lesions, results are even more disappointing and usage should be discouraged. When developed, newer generation scaffolds with thinner struts or faster resorption rates are expected to improve outcomes. In the meantime prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT, beyond one year) is recommended in an individualised approach for patients treated with current generation BVS. CONCLUSION: The new 2017 recommendations downgrade and limit the use of the current BVS to experienced centres within dedicated registries using the updated implantation protocol and advise the prolonged usage of DAPT. In line with these recommendations the manufacturer does not supply devices to the hospitals without such registries in place.

Aims Extent of coronary artery disease (CAD) may affect outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). In this pre-specified subgroup analysis of the AIDA trial we evaluated the impact of SXscore on clinical outcomes Methods and results AIDA was a multicenter trial comparing Absorb with Xience. SX score was assessed using the baseline diagnostic angiograms. Each coronary lesion with diameter stenosis ≥50% in vessels ≥1.5 mm was scored. All lesion scores were combined to provide the overall SXscore. The angiographic SXscore calculations were performed by core laboratory analysts who were blinded for clinical events (Cardialysis B.V., Rotterdam, The Netherlands). Clinical outcomes were subsequently stratified according to SXscore tertiles: SXlow (SXcore ≤8), SXmid (SXscore >8 and ≤15) and SXhigh (>15). The primary endpoint of this AIDA-trial substudy was target vessel failure (TVF), defined as a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction and target vessel revascularization. The SXscore was prospectively calculated in 1661 of the 1845 patients (90%). The SXscore ranged from 1 to 57, with a mean±SD of 12.9±8.5 and a median of 11 (Q1-Q3 7–17). In this analysis the SXscore tertiles were defined as SXlow (SXcore ≤8) (n=589), SXmid (SXscore >8 and ≤15) (n=538), and SXhigh (>15) (n=534). Patients in the SXhigh group were older, had a more extensive medical history for previous revascularizations (both PCI and coronary artery bypass grafting), and were more likely to present with a ST-elevation myocardial infarction. At 2 follow-up the Kaplan-Meier estimates of TVF for the overall AIDA study population was 15.5% in the SXhigh tertile, 10.4% in the SXmid tertile and 4.7% in the SXlow tertile (hazard ratio (HR) 3.53 95% CI 2.28–5.45; P8 had significantly higher event rates as compared to patients with a SXscore ≤8. The rates of TVF in the Absorb BVS population are 15.5% (SXhigh), 11.4% (SXmid), and 3.7% (SXlow), with a significant difference between the SXlow versus SXmid (HR 3.27; 95% CI 1.61–6.68; p=0.001) and SXlow versus SXhigh (HR 4.57; 95% CI 2.29–9.10; p Target Vessel Failure in Absorb BVS Conclusions This study demonstrates that implantation of the Absorb in patients with a SXscore ≤8 is associated with numerically lower TVF rates as compared to the Xience drug-eluting stent. The rate of scaffold thrombosis in this SXlow tertile, while still higher for Absorb, is more acceptable than in SXmid and SXhigh score tertiles. Higher SXscore (i.e. >8), both Sxmid and SXhigh, however, appears to be associated with markedly increased risk of device thrombosis, revascularization and myocardial infarction in patients treated with the Absorb. Acknowledgement/Funding The AIDA trial was financially supported by an unrestricted research grant from Abbott Vascular

AIMS Patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) might represent a specific subgroup, in which bioresorbable scaffold implantation in percutaneous coronary intervention, might lead to better outcomes when compared to conventional treatment. ACS patients (STE-ACS patients in particular) are generally younger, and most often have lesions with softer plaques, a lower plaque burden and less extensive coronary artery disease. In this pre-specified subgroup analysis of the AIDA trial, we evaluated the clinical outcomes of Absorb BVS versus Xience EES treated patients presenting with or without ACS. Methods and results This analysis includes the 2-year outcomes of all 1845 patients randomized in the AIDA trial subdivided by clinical presentation, a pre-specified subgroup analysis. We compared patients presenting with ACS with those presenting without ACS (ACS versus no-ACS patients). Patients presenting with ACS were further sub-categorized according to the presence or absence of ST-segment elevation at presentation (STE-ACS versus NSTE-ACS patients). Baseline status by clinical presentation was known in all patients, and 842 (45.6%) patients presented with ACS, 456 (25.2%) with STE-ACS and 377 (20.4%) with NSTE-ACS.The rate of the 2-year primary endpoint of target vessel failure (TVF) was similar after treatment with Absorb BVS or Xience EES in ACS patients (10.2% versus 9.0% respectively; p=0.49) and in no-ACS patients (11.7% versus 10.7% respectively; p=0.67) Definite or probable device thrombosis occurred more frequently with Absorb BVS compared to Xience EES in ACS patients (4.3% versus 1.7% respectively, p=0.03) as well as in no-ACS patients (2.4% versus 0.2% respectively; p=0.002). There were no statistically significant interactions between clinical presentation and randomized device modality for TVF (p=0.80) and for the endpoint of definite or probable device thrombosis (p=0.17). Conclusions In ACS patients within AIDA, we found no difference in rates of target vessel failure between the Absorb BVS and Xience EES groups. Rates of definite or definite/probable device thrombosis were higher in the Absorb BVS group throughout all clinical presentations. No significant interaction between ACS and no-ACS patients and the occurrence of TVF Acknowledgement/Funding The AIDA trial was financially supported by an unrestricted research grant from Abbott Vascular.

Background Drug-eluting stents have shown their superiority in primary percutaneous intervention in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). No specific stent type has fully proven its superiority over others. Purpose We sought to compare the safety and efficacy of coronary artery stents in STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI through comprehensive network meta-analysis (NMA). Methods We performed an individual patient data (IPD) NMA of dedicated randomized trials in STEMI patients treated with coronary stents. The primary endpoint of interest was the composite outcome of cardiac death, any myocardial infarction (MI) or target lesion revascularization (TLR). Secondary outcomes were the individual component of the primary endpoint and definite or probable stent thrombosis. Outcomes were analyzed at the longest available follow-up. The primary analysis was performed using a one-stage random-effects meta-analysis. Results IPD from 15 randomized trials in STEMI patients were obtained including a total of 10,979 patients. Six different stent types were studied including bare metal stents (BMS), durable-polymer paclitaxel-eluting stents (DP-PES), durable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (DP-SES), durable-polymer zotarolimus-eluting stents (DP-ZES), durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP-EES) and biodegradable-polymer biolimus-eluting stent (BP-BES). Mean patient age was 60.7±11.9 years; 22.7% were female and 16.1% were diabetic. Median symptom onset to balloon time was 210 min. At a median follow-up of 3 years (interquartile range 2–4.9 years), patients treated with second-generation (DP-EES and BP-BES) or first-generation DES (DP-PES, DP-SES and DP-ZES) had significantly lower risk of the primary endpoint than patients treated with BMS (BMS vs. second-generation DES; HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.57–0.82, BMS vs. first-generation DES; HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.61–0.80). The differences were driven by the significant reduction of TLR associated with first- and second-generation DES compared with BMS. A trend towards lower risk of MI with second-generation DES compared with BMS or first-generation DES was observed (BMS vs. second-generation DES; HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.58–1.06, first- vs. second-generation DES; HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.54–1.03). Second-generation DES was associated with a significantly lower risk of definite or probable stent thrombosis compared with BMS (HR 0.62, 95% 0.40–0.97) and first-generation DES (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.34–0.91). DP-EES and BP-BES had a similar risk of the primary endpoint, individual components of the primary endpoint, and definite or probable stent thrombosis. Conclusions In this larger-scale IPD NMA in STEMI patients, second-generation DES were superior to BMS with respect to long-term efficacy and safety outcomes. Second-generation DES were associated with a significant reduction of stent thrombosis compared with BMS and first-generation DES. Similar long-term outcomes were observed between DP-EES and BP-BES. Acknowledgement/Funding This study was funded by Biosensors International

Aims We evaluated the impact of the complexity of coronary disease assessed by SYNTAX score (SXscore) on the clinical outcomes in the AIDA trial. Methods and results In the AIDA trial, we compared Absorb versus Xience in routine clinical practice. Clinical outcomes were stratified by SXscore tertiles: SXlow (SXscore≤8), SXmid (SXscore >8 and ≤15) and SXhigh (>15). SXscore was available in 1661 of the 1845 (90%) patients. Event rate of TVF was numerically lower in Absorb compared to Xience (3.7% versus 5.6%; p=0.257) in the Sxlow tertile, numerically higher in Absorb in in the Sxmid tertile (11.4% versus 9.3%, p=0.421) and similar in the Sxhigh tertile (15.5% versus. 15.6%; p=0.960) . The rates of definite/probable device thrombosis in Absorb versus Xience were significantly higher in the Sxmid tertile (3.3% versus 0.8%, p=0.043) and in the SXhigh tertile (3.7% versus 0.8%, p=0.006) Patients treated with Absorb and a SXscore>8 had numerically, but non significantly, higher rates of myocardial revascularization and revascularization rates when compared to Xience. Conclusions We found no significantly different rates of TVF between Absorb and Xience patients. Absorb treated patients in the Sxmid and SXhigh tertile, however, had an increased risk of device thrombosis when compared to Xience treated patients. The rates of device thrombosis in the SXlow tertile, while still higher for Absorb, but are more acceptable than in SXmid and SXhigh score tertiles.

Aims: The aim of this study was to assess whether the nine months of cytostatic inhibition by crystalline sirolimus has a beneficial effect in the two-year follow-up in an all-comer population undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Methods and results: The DESSOLVE III study (n=1,398) is a prospective, all-comer, multicentre, randomised controlled study (NCT02385279) allocating 703 patients to receive the MiStent drug-eluting stent with a fully absorbable polymer coating containing and embedding a microcrystalline form of sirolimus into the vessel wall, and 695 patients to receive the XIENCE durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent. At two years, the device-oriented composite endpoint (cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction [TVMI], and clinically indicated target lesion revascularisation [TLR]) occurred in 8.7% and 8.6% (p=0.958) of patients, and the patient-oriented composite endpoint (all deaths, all MI, and all revascularisations) was observed in 18.5% and 19.6% (p=0.598) of patients in the MiStent and XIENCE arms, respectively. The frequency of TV-MI and clinically indicated TLR was also comparable for both stent types. The rate of definite/probable stent thrombosis was not different in the two arms (0.9% vs 1.3%, p=0.435). Conclusions: In an all-comer population, at two-year follow-up, the use of the MiStent sirolimus-eluting bioabsorbable polymer-coated stent was at least as safe and efficacious as the XIENCE durable polymer stent. The MiStent's potential long-term clinical benefit will be further elucidated after five years of follow-up.

[Background] To date, no specific drug-eluting stent (DES) has fully proven its superiority over others in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention., [Objectives] The purpose of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of coronary artery stents in STEMI patients in a patient-level network meta-analysis. [Methods] Eligible studies were dedicated randomized controlled trials comparing different stents in STEMI patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with at least 12 months of clinical follow-up. Of 19 studies identified from the published data, individual patient data were collected in 15 studies with 10,979 patients representing 87.7% of patients in the overall network of evidence. The primary endpoint was the composite of cardiac death, reinfarction, or target lesion revascularization. [Results] Overall, 8,487 (77.3%) of 10,979 STEMI patients were male and the mean age was 60.7 years. At a median follow-up of 3 years, compared with bare-metal stents (BMS), patients treated with paclitaxel-, sirolimus-, everolimus-, or biolimus-eluting stents had a significantly lower risk of the primary endpoint (adjusted hazard ratios [HRs]: 0.74 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.63 to 0.88], 0.65 [95% CI: 0.49 to 0.85], 0.70 [95% CI: 0.53 to 0.91], and 0.66 [95% CI: 0.49 to 0.88], respectively). The risk of primary endpoint was not different between patients treated with BMS and zotarolimus-eluting stents (adjusted HR: 0.83 [95% CI: 0.51 to 1.38]). Among patients treated with DES, no significant difference in the risk of the primary outcome was demonstrated. Treatment with second-generation DES was associated with significantly lower risk of definite or probable stent thrombosis compared with BMS (adjusted HR: 0.61 [95% CI: 0.42 to 0.89]) and first-generation DES (adjusted HR: 0.56 [95% CI: 0.36 to 0.88]). [Conclusions] In STEMI patients, DES were superior to BMS with respect to long-term efficacy. No difference in long-term efficacy and safety was observed among specific DES. Second-generation were superior to first-generation DES in reducing stent thrombosis. (Clinical Outcomes After Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention [PCI] Using Contemporary Drug-Eluting Stent [DES]: Evidence From the Individual Patient Data Network Meta-Analysis; CRD42018104053)., This study was funded by Biosensors international. Drs. Chichareon, Modolo, Collet, and Tenekecioglu have received a grant from Biosensors during the conduct of the study. Dr. Collet has received grants and personal fees from Heartflow Inc.; and has received personal fees from Philips and Abbott Vascular outside of the submitted work. Dr. Piek has received nonfinancial support from Abbott Vascular; and has received personal fees and nonfinancial support from Philips/Volcano outside of the submitted work. Dr. Spaulding has received grants and personal fees from Cordis, Johnson & Johnson, during the conduct of the study; has received personal fees from Stentys, Medtronic, Abbott, and Terumo; and has received grants from Biosensors and Boston Scientific outside of the submitted work. Dr. Hofma has received unrestricted research grants from Abbott Vascular to the Research Department of the Division of Cardiology of the Medical Center Leeuwarden, during the conduct of the XAMI study. Dr. Pijls has received grants from Abbott and Hexacath; has equity in Philips, ASML, General Electric, and Heart Flow; and has received consultant fees from Boston Scientific outside of the submitted work. Dr. Räber has received grants to his institution from Abbott, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Heartflow, Sanofi, and Regeneron; and has received speaker fees from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, CSL Behring, Sanofi, and Vifor. Dr. Sabaté has received personal fees from and served as a consultant for Abbott Vascular outside of the submitted work. Dr. Stoll is a full-time employee of Biosensors International. Dr. Stone has received personal fees from Terumo, Amaranth, Medical Development Technologies, Shockwave, Valfix, TherOx, Reva, Vascular Dynamics, Robocath, HeartFlow, Gore, Ablative Solutions, Matrizyme, Miracor, Neovasc, V-wave, Abiomed, Claret, Backbeat, Sirtex, Ancora, Qool Therapeutics, and SpectraWave; holds equity in Ancora, Qool Therapeutics, Cagent, Applied Therapeutics, Caliber, SpectraWave, Biostar family of funds, and MedFocus family of funds; is director of SpectraWave; and his institution, Columbia University, has received royalties from Abbott for sale of the MitraClip. Dr. Windecker has received grants from Amgen, Abbott, Boston Scientific, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer, Biotronik, Edwards, Medtronic, Sinomed, and Polares outside of the submitted work. Dr. Onuma has served as a member of the Advisory Board of Abbott Vascular. Dr. Serruys has received personal fees from Abbott Laboratories, AstraZeneca, Biotronik, Cardialysis, GLG Research, Medtronic, Sino Medical Sciences Technology, Société Europa Digital Publishing, Stentys France, Svelte Medical Systems, Philips/Volcano, St. Jude Medical, Qualimed, and Xeltis outside of the submitted work.

AIMS: The Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (Absorb BVS) provides similar clinical outcomes compared with a durable polymer-based everolimus-eluting metallic stent (EES) in stable coronary artery disease patients. ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) lesions have been associated with delayed arterial healing and impaired stent-related outcomes. The purpose of the present study is to compare directly the arterial healing response, angiographic efficacy and clinical outcomes between the Absorb BVS and metallic EES.METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 191 patients with acute STEMI were randomly allocated to treatment with the Absorb BVS or a metallic EES 1:1. The primary endpoint is the neointimal healing (NIH) score, which is calculated based on a score taking into consideration the presence of uncovered and malapposed stent struts, intraluminal filling defects and excessive neointimal proliferation, as detected by optical frequency domain imaging (OFDI) six months after the index procedure. The study will provide 90% power to show non-inferiority of the Absorb BVS compared with the EES.CONCLUSIONS: This will be the first randomised study investigating the arterial healing response following implantation of the Absorb BVS compared with the EES. The healing response assessed by a novel NIH score in conjunction with results on angiographic efficacy parameters and device-oriented events will elucidate disease-specific applications of bioresorbable scaffolds.

Background: Supraflex is a sirolimus-eluting stent with a biodegradable polymer coating and ultra-thin struts. We aimed to compare Supraflex with the standard of care, Xience, an everolimus-eluting stent with a durable polymer coating, regarding clinical outcomes with a randomised trial in an all-comer population. Methods: We did a prospective, randomised, single-blind, multicentre study (TALENT) across 23 centres in Europe (the Netherlands, Poland, the UK, Spain, Bulgaria, Hungary, and Italy). Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older, had one or more coronary artery stenosis of 50% or greater in a native coronary artery, saphenous venous graft, or arterial bypass conduit, and had a reference vessel diameter of 2·25–4·50 mm. Patients underwent percutaneous coronary intervention in an all-comer manner. We randomly assigned patients (1:1) to implantation of either a sirolimus-eluting stent with a biodegradable polymer coating and ultra-thin struts (Supraflex) or an everolimus-eluting stent with a durable polymer coating (Xience). Randomisation was done by local investigators by use of a web-based software with random blocks according to centre. The primary endpoint was a non-inferiority comparison of a device-oriented composite endpoint—cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically indicated target lesion revascularisation—between groups at 12 months after the procedure, assessed in an intention-to-treat population. On assumption of 1-year composite endpoint prevalence of 8·3%, a margin of 4·0% was defined for non-inferiority of the Supraflex group compared with the Xience group. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02870140. Findings: Between Oct 21, 2016, and July 3, 2017, 1435 patients with 1046 lesions were randomly assigned to Supraflex, of whom 720 received the index procedure, and 715 patients with 1030 lesions were assigned to Xience, all receiving the index procedure. At 12 months, the primary endpoint had occurred in 35 patients (4·9 %) in the Supraflex group and in 37 patients (5·3%) in the Xience group (absolute difference −0·3% [one-sided 95% upper confidence bound 1·6%], p non-inferiority

Introduction Previous midterm follow-up reports after implantation of the Absorb™ everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold (BRS; Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA, USA) in stable coronary artery disease and acute coronary syndrome have shown an increase of scaffold thrombosis leading to an excess of the device-oriented composite endpoint (DOCE: a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction [TVMI], and clinically driven target lesion revascularisation [CD-TLR])1. In contrast, in the six-month primary report of ABSORB STEMI: the TROFI II Study (NCT01986803)2, which randomised patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) to receive either the Absorb BRS or the XIENCE metallic everolimus-eluting stent (EES; Abbott Vascular), optical frequency domain imaging (OFDI)-derived healing score was comparable between the BRS arm and the EES arm. The aim of this report was to present the three-year clinical outcome results of the BRS and the metallic EES at the time when full resorption of the scaffold device can be expected. Methods The trial design and methods, as well as the study population, have been described in previous reports2. Follow-up information at three years was available in 100% of the study population (Figure 1). All clinical events were adjudicated by an independent clinical events adjudication committee. Time-to-event variables were compared by log-rank test. Results Clinical outcomes at three years are tabulated in Table 1. At three years, the rates of DOCE were 5.3% (5/95) in the BRS arm and 3.1% (3/96) in the EES arm without a statistically significant difference (p=0.465). There were two cardiac deaths (2.1%) in the BRS arm: one was adjudicated as cardiac death on day 280 since no information was available as the patient died overseas. The autopsy of the second patient who died on day 999 revealed no evidence of scaffold thrombosis. There were no cardiac deaths in the EES arm. Discussion Three years after implantation of BRS or EES, in the setting of primary PCI, the rates of DOCE and ST were low and not significantly different between both arms. It is of note that there were no cases of ST after two years, while most of the patients in both arms discontinued dual antiplatelet therapy between one and two years (Supplementary Table 1). The three-year clinical results are in line with the comparable OFDI-derived healing scores2 and neointimal quality3 at six months. In addition, the recent report in the subpopulation of the current cohort showed a better vasomotion in BRS than in EES and similar microcirculatory function as well as healing score at three years4. Although routine thrombectomy is not recommended in the recent guidelines, in treating STEMI patients with BRS, thrombectomy could facilitate better scaffold sizing to achieve better long-term outcome. In the substudy of the present trial4, intraluminal dismantling was observed by OCT in 26.3%. However, the fact that the substudy only included event-free patients precludes the understanding of the clinical implication of intraluminal dismantling. Limitations The trial was not powered to evaluate clinical endpoints. The implantation technique reflects the state of the art at the time of enrolment in 2014 and did not take into account the more recent findings on BRS usage in terms of size selection, lesion preparation and deployment technique. It remains to be elucidated whether the comparative clinical outcomes in this study performed in STEMI patients will be maintained after three years. Conclusions Three years after implantation of BRS or EES, in the setting of primary PCI, the rates of DOCE and ST were low and not significantly different between both arms. The three-year clinical results are in line with the comparable healing scores observed at six months. However, the study was not powered to assess clinical endpoints.

Aims The aim of this analysis was to compare the long-term safety and efficacy of the biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stent (BES) with that of the durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent (EES). Methods and results The COMPARE II study was a prospective, randomised, multicentre, all-comers trial in which 2,707 patients were randomly allocated (2:1) to BES or EES. The pre-specified endpoint at three years was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), a composite of cardiac death, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), or target vessel revascularisation (TVR). Moreover, the combined endpoint all-cause death or MI was analysed as a safety, and TVR as an efficacy measure. Three-year follow-up was available in 2,683 patients (99.1%). At three years, MACE occurred in 213 patients (11.9%) in the BES group and in 101 patients (11.1 %) in the EES group (p=0.57). The rate of the combined safety endpoint all-cause death or MI was 9.3% in the BES group vs. 8.4% (p=0.52), while the efficacy measure TVR was 7.6% in BES vs. 6.5% (p=0.27). Interestingly, definite stent thrombosis rates did not differ between groups (1.2% for BES vs. 0.8%, p=0.33). Conclusions At three-year follow-up, MACE as well as safety and efficacy measures including stent thrombosis were not statistically different between the biodegradable polymer-coated BES and the durable polymer-coated EES. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01233453.

Percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) have become a reliable revascularisation option to treat ischaemic coronary artery disease. Drug-eluting stents (DES) are widely used as first choice devices in many procedures due to their established good medium to long term outcomes. These permanent implants, however, do not have any residual function after vascular healing following the PCI. Beyond this initial healing period, metallic stents may induce new problems, resulting in an average rate of 2 % reinterventions per year. To eliminate this potential late limitation of permanent metallic DES, bioresorbable coronary stents or 'vascular scaffolds' (BVS) have been developed. In a parallel publication in this journal, an overview of the current clinical performance of these scaffolds is presented. As these scaffolds are currently CE marked and commercially available in many countries and as clinical evidence is still limited, recommendations for their general usage are needed to allow successful clinical introduction.

This study sought to investigate the effect of post-dilatation on angiographic and intracoronary imaging parameters in the setting of primary percutaneous coronary intervention comparing the everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold (BRS) with the everolimus-eluting metallic stent (EES).Routine post-dilatation of BRS has been suggested to improve post-procedural angiographic and subsequent device-related clinical outcomes.In the ABSORB STEMI TROFI II trial, 191 patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction were randomly assigned to treatment with BRS (n = 95) or EES (n = 96). Minimal lumen area and healing score as assessed by optical coherence tomography at 6 months were compared between BRS- and EES-treated patients stratified according to post-dilatation status.Primary percutaneous coronary intervention with post-dilatation was performed in 48 (50.5%) BRS- and 25 (25.5%) EES-treated lesions. There were no differences in baseline characteristics and post-procedural minimal lumen diameter between groups. In the BRS group, lesions with post-dilatation were associated with a trend toward a smaller minimal lumen area at 6 months (5.07 ± 1.68 mmIn the setting of selected patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention with BRS or EES, post-dilatation did not translate into larger lumen area or improved arterial healing at follow-up. (ABSORB STEMI: The TROFI II; NCT01986803).

Item does not contain fulltext BACKGROUND: Several concerns have emerged about the higher risk of very late stent thrombosis (ST) with first generation drug-eluting stent (DES) especially among STEMI patients. Newer generation DES has demonstrated to reduce ST at mid-term follow-up. Therefore, the aim of the present study is to perform an individual patient's data meta-analysis of trials comparing 1st generation DES vs. 2nd generation DES (everolimus-eluting stent, EES) in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for STEMI. METHODS: We performed a formal search of electronic databases (MEDLINE and CENTRAL) and scientific session presentations from January 2010 to June 2016. We included all completed randomized trials comparing 1st vs. EES for patient presenting with STEMI. RESULTS: Individual patients data were obtained from 3 trials, including a total of 1581 patients (686 or 43.4% randomized to 1st generation DES and 895 or 56.4% randomized to EES). At long-term follow-up (1584+/-588days), EES did not significantly reduce mortality (7.8.% vs 11.7%, HR [95%CI]=0.77 [0.52, 1.13], p=0.18, pheterogeneity=0.93), cardiac mortality (6.2% vs 7.6%, HR [95%CI]=0.90 [0.56, 1.44], p=0.65, pheterogeneity=0.85), and reinfarction (8.1% versus 11.2%, respectively; HR [95%CI]=0.74 [0.51, 1.07], p=0.11, pheterogeneity=0.52). However, EES significantly reduced the occurrence of ST (3.4% versus 6.1% respectively, HR [95%CI]=0.56 [0.32, 0.97], p=0.04, pheterogeneity=0.42) and target vessel revascularization (TVR) (14.2% versus 20.1%; HR [95%CI]=0.63 [0.42, 0.96], p=0.03, pheterogeneity=0.55). Landmark analysis showed more consistent benefits in ST with EES within 1year, whereas benefits in TVR were mostly observed later than 1year. CONCLUSIONS: The present pooled patient-level meta-analysis demonstrates that among STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI, EES as compared to 1st generation DES is associated with a significant reduction in ST and TVR at long-term follow-up.

BACKGROUND Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds were developed to overcome the shortcomings of drug-eluting stents in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We performed an investigator-initiated, randomized trial to compare an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold with an everolimus-eluting metallic stent in the context of routine clinical practice. METHODS We randomly assigned 1845 patients undergoing PCI to receive either a bioresorbable vascular scaffold (924 patients) or a metallic stent (921 patients). The primary end point was target-vessel failure (a composite of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or target-vessel revascularization). The data and safety monitoring board recommended early reporting of the study results because of safety concerns. This report provides descriptive information on end-point events. RESULTS The median follow-up was 707 days. Target-vessel failure occurred in 105 patients in the scaffold group and in 94 patients in the stent group (2-year cumulative event rates, 11.7% and 10.7%, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85 to 1.48; P = 0.43); event rates were based on Kaplan-Meier estimates in time-to-event analyses. Cardiac death occurred in 18 patients in the scaffold group and in 23 patients in the stent group (2-year cumulative event rates, 2.0% and 2.7%, respectively), target-vessel myocardial infarction occurred in 48 patients in the scaffold group and in 30 patients in the stent group (2-year cumulative event rates, 5.5% and 3.2%), and target-vessel revascularization occurred in 76 patients in the scaffold group and in 65 patients in the stent group (2-year cumulative event rates, 8.7% and 7.5%). Definite or probable device thrombosis occurred in 31 patients in the scaffold group as compared with 8 patients in the stent group (2-year cumulative event rates, 3.5% vs. 0.9%; hazard ratio, 3.87; 95% CI, 1.78 to 8.42; P

Aims Everolimus-eluting stents (EES) were superior to sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) in a dedicated myocardial infarction trial, a finding that was not observed in trials with low percentages of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Therefore, this study sought to investigate the influence of clinical presentation on outcome after EES and SES implantation. Methods A pooled population of 1602 randomised patients was formed from XAMI (acute MI trial) and APPENDIX-AMI (all-comer trial). Primary outcome was cardiac mortality, MI and target vessel revascularisation at 2 years. Secondary endpoints included definite/probable stent thrombosis (ST). Adjustment was done using Cox regression. Results In total, 902 EES and 700 SES patients were included, of which 44 % STEMI patients (EES 455; SES 257) and 56 % without STEMI (EES 447; SES 443). In the pooled population, EES and SES showed similar outcomes during follow-up. Moreover, no differences in the endpoints were observed after stratification according to presentation. Although a trend toward reduced early definite/probable ST was observed in EES compared with SES in STEMI patients, long-term ST rates were low and comparable. Conclusions EES and SES showed a similar outcome during 2-year follow-up, regardless of clinical presentation. Long-term safety was excellent for both devices, despite wide inclusion criteria and a large sub-population of STEMI patients.

Objectives The transaortic (TAo) approach has been introduced as an alternative to transapical and transaxillary aortic valve implantation for patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis in whom a transfemoral approach is not feasible. However, only very limited data from a minimal number of specialized centres are available on this approach. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the early postoperative 30-day outcomes of the direct aortic approach performed by a single-centre multidisciplinary Heart Team. Methods Between May 2011 and July 2013, 159 patients underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) at our institution; of which, 44 were believed to benefit most from the TAo as assessed by a multidisciplinary Heart Team. All patients underwent an upper 'J' median hemi-sternotomy through a 6-cm incision. The evaluation of early operative results was made according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC) consensus criteria. These include device success endpoints and combined safety endpoints at 30 days. Results The mean age of the patients was 78 years, the mean logistic EuroSCORE was 25.9 ± 14.4% and the mean Society of the Thoracic Surgeons score 5.8 ± 4.5%. Seventeen patients (39%) underwent redo operations; 4 (9%) received a transcatheter valve in a degenerated bioprosthesis. The procedure was performed using the Medtronic CoreValve Revalving system in 36 patients, with the Edwards SAPIEN XT in 7 cases and the St Jude Medical Portico valve in 1. Device success was achieved in 90.8% of the cases. Complications included; major stroke (n = 1), re-exploration for cardiac tamponade (n = 3), transient renal failure requiring temporary haemodialysis (n = 1) and permanent pacemaker implantation (n = 5). There were no myocardial infarctions. The total 30-day mortality rate was 6.8% (3 patients). Postoperative intensive care unit stay was 2.6 ± 3.6 days, and the mean hospitalization was 12 ± 9.6 days. Conclusions The TAo TAVI approach is feasible and offers a safe alternative for patients in whom a transfemoral approach is not feasible or desirable.

Females are underrepresented in clinical trials evaluating new stent technologies. This sub-analysis sought to assess sex-specific outcomes after bioresorbable scaffold implantation. The AIDA trial was an investigator-initiated, non-inferiority, all-comers trial, in which 1,845 patients were