Explore the vast range of titles available.

Incomplete revascularisation is common after percutaneous coronary intervention and is associated with increased mortality and adverse cardiovascular events. We aimed to assess whether adjunctive anti-ischaemic pharmacotherapy with ranolazine would improve the prognosis of patients with incomplete revascularisation after percutaneous coronary intervention. We performed this multicentre, randomised, parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled, event-driven trial at 245 centres in 15 countries in Europe, Israel, Russia, and the USA. Patients (aged ≥18 years) with a history of chronic angina with incomplete revascularisation after percutaneous coronary intervention (defined as one or more lesions with ≥50% diameter stenosis in a coronary artery ≥2 mm diameter) were randomly assigned (1:1), via an interactive web-based block randomisation system (block sizes of ten), to receive either twice-daily oral ranolazine 1000 mg or matching placebo. Randomisation was stratified by diabetes history (presence vs absence) and acute coronary syndrome presentation (acute coronary syndrome vs non-acute coronary syndrome). Study investigators, including all research teams, and patients were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was time to first occurrence of ischaemia-driven revascularisation or ischaemia-driven hospitalisation without revascularisation. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01442038. Between Nov 3, 2011, and May 27, 2013, we randomly assigned 2651 patients to receive ranolazine (n=1332) or placebo (n=1319); 2604 (98%) patients comprised the full analysis set. After a median follow-up of 643 days (IQR 575–758), the composite primary endpoint occurred in 345 (26%) patients assigned to ranolazine and 364 (28%) patients assigned to placebo (hazard ratio 0·95, 95% CI 0·82–1·10; p=0·48). Incidence of ischaemia-driven revascularisation and ischaemia-driven hospitalisation did not differ significantly between groups. 189 (14%) patients in the ranolazine group and 137 (11%) patients in the placebo group discontinued study drug because of an adverse event (p=0·04). Ranolazine did not reduce the composite rate of ischaemia-driven revascularisation or hospitalisation without revascularisation in patients with a history of chronic angina who had incomplete revascularisation after percutaneous coronary intervention. Further studies are warranted to establish whether other treatment could be effective in improving the prognosis of high-risk patients in this population. Gilead Sciences, Menarini.

Background: This multi-site retrospective analysis with a control group was devised to evaluate the impact of prophylactic SARS-CoV-2 vaccination the on outcomes of myocardial infarction (MI) patients with confirmed COVID-19. Methods: An overall of 129 subjects who had been diagnosed with COVID-19 and MI were included in the analysis and were divided into the study group (44 vaccinated patients) and the control group (85 non-vaccinated comparable patients). The primary outcome measure was defined as the time until in-hospital death, while the secondary outcome measure was defined as the time until death outside the hospital setting. Results: According to in-hospital mortality analysis, 1 (2.27%) subject died in the study group, whereas a total of 19 (22.4%) subjects died among the controls (OR = 0.08; CI: 0.001–0.553; p = 0.023). The impact of vaccination on the in-hospital outcomes of patients treated for COVID-19 and MI was further confirmed using Cox regression analysis (HR: 0.1 CI: 0.01–0.77; p = 0.026). The observed difference was the absence of respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation in the study group, whereas it was observed in 14 (16.47%) patients in the control group. During out-of-hospital observation, there were no observed differences in mortality (OR: 1.56; 95% CI: 0.21–11.52; p = 0.66). Conclusions: The complete prophylactic SARS-CoV-2 vaccination course demonstrates a protective role in patients undergoing treatment for MI with confirmed COVID-19 during in-hospital observation.

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. 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 2·50–3·75 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 4·0% 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. 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 (5·8%) in the sirolimus-eluting stent group and in 45 patients (6·5%) in the everolimus-eluting stent group (absolute difference −0·8% [95% CI −3·3 to 1·8], pnon-inferiority=0·0001). Procedural complications occurred in 12 patients (1·7%) in the sirolimus-eluting stent group and ten patients (1·4%) 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. 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. The European Cardiovascular Research Institute, Micell Technologies (Durham, NC, USA), and Stentys (Paris, France).

Background/Objectives: Patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD) or carotid stenosis (CS) who do not exhibit symptoms suggesting the coexistence of CAD are often not evaluated for CAD. The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of asymptomatic CAD identified by coronary angiography in patients with PAD or CS, undergoing peripheral arteriography, and without prior diagnosis of CAD. Methods: A total of 350 PAD patients undergoing peripheral angiography, without a history or symptoms of CAD were prospectively enrolled in this study. These patients underwent simultaneous coronary angiography during scheduled peripheral arteriography. The severity of CAD was assessed using the Jeopardy Score Scale (JSC) and by evaluating the number of major coronary vessels involved. Results: Significant coronary artery stenosis was detected in 52.86%, with 50.00% in the PAD group and 51.43% in the CS group. One-, two-, and three-vessel disease was present in 29.14%, 14.28%, and 10.01% of the study population, respectively. The JSC median for the entire cohort was 2 (0–4) and 4 (2–8) when CAD was diagnosed. The combination of CS and PAD was associated with the highest risk for CAD (73%), with a median JSC of 2 (0–8). Conclusions: The risk of co-occurrence of CAD in patients with PAD, regardless of the presence of CAD symptoms, is high, exceeding 50%. Consequently, (in accordance with the guidelines for the management of chronic coronary syndromes), in all patients with PAD, regardless of CAD symptoms, advanced cardiological diagnostics, including coronary CT angiography or functional imaging, should be considered.

Background: This multicenter retrospective study with a control group was designed to assess the influence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection on the outcomes of patients with myocardial infarction (MI). Methods: A total of 129 patients with COVID-19 who were treated for MI were included in this study. The control group comprised 129 comparable patients without SARS-CoV-2 infection. The in-hospital, out-of-hospital, and overall mortality were analyzed. Results: A total of thirty-one (24%) patients died in the study group, and two (1.6%) patients died in the control group (OR = 20.09; CI: 4.69–85.97; p < 0.001). Similar results were observed in all analyzed patient subgroups. Multivariable Cox regression analysis confirmed the significant influence of SARS-CoV-2 infection on in-hospital outcomes (HR: 8.48459; CI: 1.982–36.320; p = 0.004). Subanalysis of the groups with COVID-19 plus ST-elevation MI (STEMI) or non-ST-elevation MI (NSTEMI) revealed comparable mortality rates: 14 (21.12%) patients in the NSTEMI group and 17 (26.98%) patients in the STEMI subgroup died (OR: 1.3; CI: 0.56–3.37; p = 0.45). During out-of-hospital observation, no differences in mortality were observed (OR: 0.77; CI: 0.11–4.07; p = 0.73). Conclusions: SARS-CoV-2 infection affects the in-hospital outcomes of patients with both MI and COVID-19, regardless of MI type (STEMI vs. NSTEMI).

ObjectiveRecruitment and retention in trials may bias the results and subsequently complicate their interpretation and validity. The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of recruitment and retention on all-cause mortality in a large all-comers trial.MethodsThe recruitment rate in each investigating center of the GLOBAL LEADERS trial was assessed and the 130 centers were subdivided into low and high recruiters according to the median, with all-cause mortality then compared between the two groups. Vital status was obtained from public records in patients with incomplete follow-up.ResultsThe trial randomized 15,991 (7.86%) of 203,483 eligible patients with percutaneous coronary intervention during the recruitment period, of whom 15,267 (95.47%) completed follow-up, 23 (0.14%) patients withdrew consent and formally requested to be deleted from the database; 183 (1.14%) withdrew consent but only objected to future data collection; 303 (1.89%) discontinued the study; and 215 (1.34%) were lost to follow-up. Vital status was finally obtained in all but 31 patients (99.81%). Patients from low recruiters had a significantly lower all-cause mortality than high ones (2.26% vs. 3.24%; hazard ratio: 0.69; 95% confidence interval: 0.55–0.87; p = 0.002). There was a significant difference in all-cause mortality among the incomplete follow-up groups (log-rank p < 0.001) with a significantly higher mortality in the 183 patients who withdrew consent than those who completed follow-up (7.38% vs. 2.99%, p = 0.002).ConclusionsRecruitment and retention significantly impacted all-cause mortality. Search for vital status through public domains is of paramount importance in the interpretation and validity of large clinical trials.Graphic abstract

We hypothesised that ticagrelor, in combination with aspirin for 1 month, followed by ticagrelor alone, improves outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention compared with standard antiplatelet regimens. GLOBAL LEADERS was a randomised, open-label superiority trial at 130 sites in 18 countries. Patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with a biolimus A9-eluting stent for stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes were randomly assigned (1:1) to 75–100 mg aspirin daily plus 90 mg ticagrelor twice daily for 1 month, followed by 23 months of ticagrelor monotherapy, or standard dual antiplatelet therapy with 75–100 mg aspirin daily plus either 75 mg clopidogrel daily (for patients with stable coronary artery disease) or 90 mg ticagrelor twice daily (for patients with acute coronary syndromes) for 12 months, followed by aspirin monotherapy for 12 months. Randomisation was concealed, stratified by centre and clinical presentation (stable coronary artery disease vs acute coronary syndrome), and blocked, with randomly varied block sizes of two and four. The primary endpoint at 2 years was a composite of all-cause mortality or non-fatal centrally adjudicated new Q-wave myocardial infarction as assessed by a core lab in a blinded manner. The key secondary safety endpoint was site-reported bleeding assessed according to the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium criteria (grade 3 or 5). Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01813435, and is closed to new participants, with follow-up completed. Between July 1, 2013, and Nov 9, 2015, 15 968 participants were randomly assigned, 7980 to the experimental group and 7988 to the control group. At 2 years, 304 (3·81%) participants in the experimental group had died or had a non-fatal centrally adjudicated new Q-wave myocardial infarction, compared with 349 (4·37%) participants in the control group (rate ratio 0·87 [95% CI 0·75–1·01]; p=0·073]). There was no evidence for a difference in treatment effects for the primary endpoint across prespecified subgroups of acute coronary syndromes and stable coronary artery disease (p=0·93). Grade 3 or 5 bleeding occurred in 163 participants in the experimental group and 169 in the control group (2·04% vs 2·12%; rate ratio 0·97 [95% CI 0·78–1·20]; p=0·77). Ticagrelor in combination with aspirin for 1 month followed by ticagrelor alone for 23 months was not superior to 12 months of standard dual antiplatelet therapy followed by 12 months of aspirin alone in the prevention of all-cause mortality or new Q-wave myocardial infarction 2 years after percutaneous coronary intervention. AstraZeneca, Biosensors, and The Medicines Company.

Novel sirolimus eluting stents (SES) have shown non-inferior clinical outcomes when compared to everolimus eluting stents (EES), however only limited preclinical data have been published. Therefore, we evaluate vascular response of a new generation biodegradable polymer SES (BP-SES: Alex Plus, Balton) and fluoropolymer EES (EES: Xience Pro, Abbott) in the porcine coronary restenosis model. A total of 40 stents were implanted with 120% overstretch in coronaries of 17 domestic swine: 16 BP-SES, 16 EES and 8 bare metal controls (BMS). Following 28 and 90 days, coronary angiography and optical coherence tomography (OCT) was performed, animals sacrificed and stented segments harvested for pathological evaluation. At 28 days neointimal thickness in OCT was lowest in the BP-SES when compared to EES and BMS (0.18 ± 0.1 vs. 0.39 ± 0.1 vs. 0.34 ± 0.2 mm, respectively; p = 0.04). There was no difference in the proportion of malapposed or uncovered struts, although protruding covered struts were more common in BP-SES (14.8 ± 10% vs. 4.1 ± 4% vs. 3.7 ± 6%; p = 0.03). In pathology, the lowest neointimal thickness was confirmed in BP-SES (p < 0.05). The inflammation score was significantly lower in BP-SES and EES when compared to BMS (0.24 ± 0.1 vs. 0.4 ± 0.1 vs. 0.77 ± 0.4; p < 0.01) whilst EES and BP-SES had higher fibrin scores than BMS (1.2 ± 0.4 vs. 1.3 ± 0.3 vs. 0.17 ± 0.2; p < 0.01). At 90 days neointimal coverage and thickness in OCT was comparable between groups and healing in histopathology was complete. New generation, BP-SES show similar vascular healing and biocompatibility profile with marginally higher degree of restenosis inhibition, when compared to fluoropolymer EES in the porcine coronary restenosis model.

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. 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. 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%], pnon-inferiority<0·0001). Definite or probable stent thrombosis prevalence, a safety indicator, was low in both groups and did not differ between them. The Supraflex stent was non-inferior to the Xience stent for a device-oriented composite clinical endpoint at 12 months in an all-comer population. Supraflex seems a safe and effective alternative drug-eluting stent to other stents in clinical practice. European Cardiovascular Research Institute.