Explore the vast range of titles available.

Purpose To evaluate longer outcomes of primary nitinol stenting for the treatment of femoropopliteal lesions up to 15 cm long after these stents were found to have superior short-term patency vs. balloon angioplasty. Methods Two hundred and six patients (143 men; mean age 67 years) with intermittent claudication due to superficial femoral and proximal popliteal artery lesions were randomized (2:1) to treatment with nitinol stents or balloon angioplasty at 24 US and European centers and followed for 3 years. In that time, 15 patients died, 20 withdrew consent, and 10 were lost to follow-up, leaving 161 (78.2%) patients for 36-month assessment. Results The 12-month freedom from target lesion revascularization (TLR) was 87.3% for the stent group vs. 45.2% for the angioplasty group (p<0.0001). At 3 years, there was no difference in survival (90.0% vs. 91.7%, p=0.71) or major adverse events (75.2% vs. 75.2%, p=0.98) between the stent and angioplasty groups. Duplex ultrasound was not mandated after the first year, so stent patency could not be ascertained beyond 1 year, but freedom from TLR at 3 years was significantly better in the stent group (75.5% vs. 41.8%, p<0.0001), as was clinical success (63.2% vs. 17.9%, p<0.0001). At 18 months, a 4.1% (12/291) stent fracture rate was documented. Conclusion In this multicenter trial, primary implantation of a nitinol stent for moderate-length lesions in the femoropopliteal segment of patients with claudication was associated with better long-term results vs. balloon angioplasty alone.

Primary results of the HORIZONS-AMI trial have been previously reported. In this final report, we aimed to assess 3-year outcomes. HORIZONS-AMI was a prospective, open-label, randomised trial undertaken at 123 institutions in 11 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older were eligible for enrolment if they had ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), presented within 12 h after onset of symptoms, and were undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. By use of a computerised interactive voice response system, we randomly allocated patients 1:1 to receive bivalirudin or heparin plus a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor (GPI; pharmacological randomisation; stratified by previous and expected drug use and study site) and, if eligible, randomly allocated 3:1 to receive a paclitaxel-eluting stent or a bare metal stent (stent randomisation; stratified by pharmacological group assignment, diabetes mellitus status, lesion length, and study site). We produced Kaplan-Meier estimates of major adverse cardiovascular events at 3 years by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00433966. Compared with 1802 patients allocated to receive heparin plus a GPI, 1800 patients allocated to bivalirudin monotherapy had lower rates of all-cause mortality (5·9% vs 7·7%, difference −1·9% [−3·5 to −0·2], HR 0·75 [0·58–0·97]; p=0·03), cardiac mortality (2·9% vs 5·1%, −2·2% [−3·5 to −0·9], 0·56 [0·40–0·80]; p=0·001), reinfarction (6·2% vs 8·2%, −1·9% [−3·7 to −0·2], 0·76 [0·59–0·99]; p=0·04), and major bleeding not related to bypass graft surgery (6·9% vs 10·5%, −3·6% [−5·5 to −1·7], 0·64 [0·51–0·80]; p=0·0001) at 3 years, with no significant differences in ischaemia-driven target vessel revascularisation, stent thrombosis, or composite adverse events. Compared with 749 patients who received a bare-metal stent, 2257 patients who received a paclitaxel-eluting stent had lower rates of ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularisation (9·4% vs 15·1%, −5·7% [−8·6 to −2·7], 0·60 [0·48–0·76]; p<0·0001) after 3 years, with no significant differences in the rates of death, reinfarction, stroke or stent thrombosis. Stent thrombosis was high (≥4·5%) in both groups. The effectiveness and safety of bivalirudin monotherapy and paclitaxel-eluting stenting are sustained at 3 years for patients with STEMI undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Boston Scientific and The Medicines Company.

Purpose: To compare the safety and efficacy of laser debulking (LD) and drug-eluting balloon (DEB) angioplasty to treatment with DEB angioplasty alone in patients affected by critical limb ischemia (CLI) and superficial femoral artery (SFA) chronic stent occlusion in a prospective, randomized study. Methods: Among 448 CLI patients treated from December 2009 to March 2011, 48 patients (39 men; mean age 72.7±7.8 years) with chronic SFA in-stent occlusion were randomly assigned to treatment using LD+DEB (n=24) or DEB angioplasty alone (n=24). Patency at 12 months was the primary outcome measure; secondary outcomes were target lesion revascularization (TLR) and clinical success at 12 months. Results: In the LD+DEB group, the patency rates at 6 and 12 months (91.7% and 66.7%, respectively) were significantly higher (p=0.01) than in the DEB only patients (58.3% and 37.5%, respectively). TLR at 12 months was 16.7% in the LD+DEB group and 50% in the DEB only group (p=0.01). Two (8%) patients needed major amputations in the LD+DEB group vs. 11 (46%) in the DEB only group at 12 months (p=0.003). Conclusion: In this small initial experience, combined treatment with LD and DEB angioplasty is correlated with better outcomes in CLI patients with occluded SFA stents.

Bivalirudin, with selective use of glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa inhibitor agents, is an accepted standard of care in primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). We aimed to compare antithrombotic therapy with bivalirudin or unfractionated heparin during this procedure. In our open-label, randomised controlled trial, we enrolled consecutive adults scheduled for angiography in the context of a PPCI presentation at Liverpool Heart and Chest Hospital (Liverpool, UK) with a strategy of delayed consent. Before angiography, we randomly allocated patients (1:1; stratified by age [<75 years vs ≥75 years] and presence of cardiogenic shock [yes vs no]) to heparin (70 U/kg) or bivalirudin (bolus 0·75 mg/kg; infusion 1·75 mg/kg per h). Patients were followed up for 28 days. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality, cerebrovascular accident, reinfarction, or unplanned target lesion revascularisation. The primary safety outcome was incidence of major bleeding (type 3–5 as per Bleeding Academic Research Consortium definitions). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01519518. Between Feb 7, 2012, and Nov 20, 2013, 1829 of 1917 patients undergoing emergency angiography at our centre (representing 97% of trial-naive presentations) were randomly allocated treatment, with 1812 included in the final analyses. 751 (83%) of 905 patients in the bivalirudin group and 740 (82%) of 907 patients in the heparin group had a percutaneous coronary intervention. The rate of GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor use was much the same between groups (122 patients [13%] in the bivalirudin group and 140 patients [15%] in the heparin group). The primary efficacy outcome occurred in 79 (8·7%) of 905 patients in the bivalirudin group and 52 (5·7%) of 907 patients in the heparin group (absolute risk difference 3·0%; relative risk [RR] 1·52, 95% CI 1·09–2·13, p=0·01). The primary safety outcome occurred in 32 (3·5%) of 905 patients in the bivalirudin group and 28 (3·1%) of 907 patients in the heparin group (0·4%; 1·15, 0·70–1·89, p=0·59). Compared with bivalirudin, heparin reduces the incidence of major adverse ischaemic events in the setting of PPCI, with no increase in bleeding complications. Systematic use of heparin rather than bivalirudin would reduce drug costs substantially. Liverpool Heart and Chest Hospital, UK National Institute of Health Research, The Medicines Company, AstraZeneca, The Bentley Drivers Club (UK).

The best way to manage restenosis in patients who have previously received a drug-eluting stent is unknown. We investigated the efficacy of paclitaxel-eluting balloons (PEB), paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES), and balloon angioplasty in these patients. In this randomised, open-label trial, we enrolled patients older than 18 years with restenosis of at least 50% after implantation of any limus-eluting stent at three centres in Germany between Aug 3, 2009, and Oct 27, 2011. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1; stratified according to centre) to receive PEB, PES, or balloon angioplasty alone by means of sealed, opaque envelopes containing a computer-generated sequence. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment allocation, but events and angiograms were assessed by individuals who were masked. The primary endpoint was diameter stenosis at follow-up angiography at 6–8 months. Primary analysis was done by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00987324. We enrolled 402 patients, of whom 137 (34%) were assigned to PEB, 131 (33%) to PES, and 134 (33%) to balloon angioplasty. Follow-up angiography at 6-8 months was available for 338 (84%) patients. PEB was non-inferior to PES in terms of diameter stenosis (38·0% [SD 21·5] vs 37·4% [21·8]; difference 0·6%, one-sided 95% CI 4·9%; pnon-inferiority=0·007; non-inferiority margin of 7%). Findings were consistent in per-protocol analysis (pnon-inferiority=0·011). PEB and PES were superior to balloon angioplasty alone (54·1% [25·0]; psuperiority<0·0001 for both comparisons). Frequency of death, myocardial infarction, or target lesion thrombosis did not differ between groups. By obviating the need for additional stent implantation, PEB could be a useful treatment for patients with restenosis after implantation of a drug-eluting stent. Deutsches Herzzentrum.

BackgroundAlthough endovascular stenting is considered an effective and safe therapeutic option for symptomatic intracranial atherosclerotic disease (sICAD), an elevated rate of restenosis remains an important issue for the conventional bare-metal stent (BMS). Recent evidence from observational studies suggests that applying drug-coated balloons (DCB) in sICAD may decrease restenosis occurrence. Additional large randomised studies are warranted to provide firmer evidence and to determine which patients would benefit most from DCB.AimTo design a randomised trial to examine DCB angioplasty (Taijieweiye intracranial paclitaxel-coated balloon catheter) versus BMS stenting (Wingspan intracranial stent system) in patients with sICAD.DesignThis is a multicentre, prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded end-point study to assess whether DCB angioplasty reduces the risk of restenosis compared with BMS stenting in sICAD patients with high-grade stenosis (≥70%–99%). Our goal is to randomly assign 198 eligible individuals at a 1:1 ratio to undergo DCB angioplasty (intervention group) or BMS stenting (control group).OutcomeThe primary efficacy outcome is restenosis at 6 months post treatment, that is, >50% stenosis in or within 5 mm of the treated segment and >20% absolute luminal loss. The primary safety outcome is stroke or death within 30 days post treatment.DiscussionThe DRug-coated Balloon for Endovascular treatment of sYmptOmatic intracraNial stenotic Disease trial aims to produce strong evidence on the efficacy and safety of DCB angioplasty as a promising therapeutic option for sICAD cases with high-grade stenosis.

Background Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with primary stenting, which stands for stent implantation regardless of obtaining satisfactory results with balloon angioplasty, has superseded conventional plain old balloon angioplasty with provisional stenting. With drug-coated balloon (DCB), primary DCB angioplasty with provisional stenting has shown non-inferiority to primary stenting for de novo coronary small vessel disease. However, the long-term efficacy and safety of such a strategy to the primary stenting on clinical endpoints in de novo lesions without vessel diameter restrictions remain uncertain. Study design The REC-CAGEFREE I is an investigator-initiated, multicenter, randomized, open-label trial aimed to enroll 2270 patients with acute or chronic coronary syndrome from 43 interventional cardiology centers in China to evaluate the non-inferiority of primary paclitaxel-coated balloons angioplasty to primary stenting for the treatment of de novo , non-complex lesions without vessel diameter restrictions. Patients who fulfill all the inclusion and exclusion criteria and have achieved a successful lesion pre-dilatation will be randomly assigned to the two arms in a 1:1 ratio. Protocol-guided DCB angioplasty and bailout stenting after unsatisfactory angioplasty are mandatory in the primary DCB angioplasty group. The second-generation sirolimus-eluting stent will be used as a bailout stent in the primary DCB angioplasty group and the treatment device in the primary stenting group. The primary endpoint is the incidence of Device-oriented Composite Endpoint (DoCE) within 24 months after randomization, including cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically and physiologically indicated target lesion revascularization. Discussion The ongoing REC-CAGEFREE I trial is the first randomized trial with a clinical endpoint to assess the efficacy and safety of primary DCB angioplasty for the treatment of de novo , non-complex lesions without vessel diameter restrictions. If non-inferiority is shown, PCI with primary DCB angioplasty could be an alternative treatment option to primary stenting. Trial registration Registered on clinicaltrial.gov (NCT04561739).

Background Few studies investigated the implications of post-PCI QFR and post-PCI ΔQFR (absolute increase of QFR) in de novo lesions of small coronary disease after drug-coated balloon (DCB). Objectives We sought to investigate the prognostic implications of post-PCI QFR and post-PCI ΔQFR in patients who received DCB only. Methods Patients were divided according to the optimal cutoff value of the post-PCI QFR and the post-PCI ΔQFR. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), including target vessel revascularization (TVR), cardiac death, and myocardial infarction (MI). Results The optimal cutoff values of QFR and ΔQFR for the MACE rate were 0.86 and 0.57, respectively. There were 175 patients (61.2%) with a high QFR (≥ 0.86) and 113 patients (39.5%) with a high ΔQFR (≥ 0.57) after PCI. The MACE rate was significantly higher in patients with a low QFR compared to a high QFR (5.7% vs. 27.0%, hazard ratio [HR]: 3.632, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.872 to 7.044, P  < 0.001). The MACE rate was higher in patients with a low ΔQFR increase compared to those with high ΔQFR (4.4% vs. 20.2%, HR: 4.700, 95%CI: 2.430 to 9.089, P  = 0.001). In multivariable model, a low post-PCI QFR and a low post-PCI ΔQFR was independent predictor of MACE (adjusted HR: 4.071, 95%CI: 2.037 to 8.135, P  = 0.001). Conclusions After DCB in de novo lesions of small coronary disease, both post-PCI QFR and ΔQFR showed similar prognostic implications in MACE.

The FAST-MI Tunisia registry was set up by the Tunisian Society of Cardiology and Cardiovascular Surgery to assess the demographic and clinical characteristics, management and hospital outcome of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Data for 459 consecutive patients (mean age 60.8 years; 88.5% male) with STEMI, treated in 16 public hospitals (representing 72.2% of public hospitals in Tunisia treating STEMI patients), were collected prospectively.The most common risk factors were smoking (63.6%), hypertension (39.7%), diabetes (32%) and dyslipidaemia (18.2%). Among the 459 patients, 61.8% received reperfusion therapy: 30% with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) and 31.8% with intravenous fibrinolysis (IF) (28.6% with pre-hospital thrombolysis). The median time from symptom onset to thrombolysis was 185 min and to PPCI was 358 min. In-hospital mortality was 5.3%. Compared with those managed at regional hospitals, patients managed at interventional university hospitals (n = 357) were more likely to receive reperfusion therapy (52.9% vs. 34.1%; p<0.001), with less IF (28.6% vs. 43.1%; p = 0.002) but more PPCI (37.8% vs. 3.9%; p<0.0001). However, in-hospital mortality in the two types of hospitals was similar (5.3% vs. 5.1%; p = 0.866). Data from the FAST-MI Tunisia registry show that a pharmaco-invasive strategy of management for STEMI should be promoted in non-interventional regional hospitals.

BackgroundIt is still uncertain whether coronary bifurcations with lesions involving a large side branch (SB) should be treated by stenting the main vessel and provisional stenting of the SB (simple) or by routine two-stent techniques (complex). We aimed to compare clinical outcome after treatment of lesions in large bifurcations by simple or complex stent implantation.MethodsThe study was a randomised, superiority trial. Enrolment required a SB≥2.75 mm, ≥50% diameter stenosis in both vessels, and allowed SB lesion length up to 15 mm. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiac death, non-procedural myocardial infarction and target lesion revascularisation at 6 months. Two-year clinical follow-up was included in this primary reporting due to lower than expected event rates.ResultsA total of 450 patients were assigned to simple stenting (n=221) or complex stenting (n=229) in 14 Nordic and Baltic centres. Two-year follow-up was available in 218 (98.6%) and 228 (99.5%) patients, respectively. The primary endpoint of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 6 months was 5.5% vs 2.2% (risk differences 3.2%, 95% CI −0.2 to 6.8, p=0.07) and at 2 years 12.9% vs 8.4% (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.13, p=0.12) after simple versus complex treatment. In the subgroup treated by newer generation drug-eluting stents, MACE was 12.0% vs 5.6% (HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.17, p=0.10) after simple versus complex treatment.ConclusionIn the treatment of bifurcation lesions involving a large SB with ostial stenosis, routine two-stent techniques did not improve outcome significantly compared with treatment by the simpler main vessel stenting technique after 2 years.Trial registration numberNCT01496638.