Explore the vast range of titles available.

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is increasingly used in revascularisation of patients with left main coronary artery disease in place of the standard treatment, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). The NOBLE trial aimed to evaluate whether PCI was non-inferior to CABG in the treatment of left main coronary artery disease and reported outcomes after a median follow-up of 3·1 years. We now report updated 5-year outcomes of the trial. The prospective, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority NOBLE trial was done at 36 hospitals in nine northern European countries. Patients with left main coronary artery disease requiring revascularisation were enrolled and randomly assigned (1:1) to receive PCI or CABG. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (MACCE), a composite of all-cause mortality, non-procedural myocardial infarction, repeat revascularisation, and stroke. Non-inferiority of PCI to CABG was defined as the upper limit of the 95% CI of the hazard ratio (HR) not exceeding 1·35 after 275 MACCE had occurred. Secondary endpoints included all-cause mortality, non-procedural myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularisation. Outcomes were analysed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01496651. Between Dec 9, 2008, and Jan 21, 2015, 1201 patients were enrolled and allocated to PCI (n=598) or CABG (n=603), with 17 subsequently lost to early follow-up. 592 patients in each group were included in this analysis. At a median of 4·9 years of follow-up, the predefined number of events was reached for adequate power to assess the primary endpoint. Kaplan-Meier 5-year estimates of MACCE were 28% (165 events) for PCI and 19% (110 events) for CABG (HR 1·58 [95% CI 1·24–2·01]); the HR exceeded the limit for non-inferiority of PCI compared to CABG. CABG was found to be superior to PCI for the primary composite endpoint (p=0·0002). All-cause mortality was estimated in 9% after PCI versus 9% after CABG (HR 1·08 [95% CI 0·74–1·59]; p=0·68); non-procedural myocardial infarction was estimated in 8% after PCI versus 3% after CABG (HR 2·99 [95% CI 1·66–5·39]; p=0·0002); and repeat revascularisation was estimated in 17% after PCI versus 10% after CABG (HR 1·73 [95% CI 1·25–2·40]; p=0·0009). In revascularisation of left main coronary artery disease, PCI was associated with an inferior clinical outcome at 5 years compared with CABG. Mortality was similar after the two procedures but patients treated with PCI had higher rates of non-procedural myocardial infarction and repeat revascularisation. Biosensors.

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is most commonly guided by angiography alone. Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guidance has been shown to reduce major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) after PCI, principally by resulting in a larger postprocedure lumen than with angiographic guidance. Optical coherence tomography (OCT) provides higher resolution imaging than does IVUS, although findings from some studies suggest that it might lead to smaller luminal diameters after stent implantation. We sought to establish whether or not a novel OCT-based stent sizing strategy would result in a minimum stent area similar to or better than that achieved with IVUS guidance and better than that achieved with angiography guidance alone. In this randomised controlled trial, we recruited patients aged 18 years or older undergoing PCI from 29 hospitals in eight countries. Eligible patients had one or more target lesions located in a native coronary artery with a visually estimated reference vessel diameter of 2·25–3·50 mm and a length of less than 40 mm. We excluded patients with left main or ostial right coronary artery stenoses, bypass graft stenoses, chronic total occlusions, planned two-stent bifurcations, and in-stent restenosis. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1; with use of an interactive web-based system in block sizes of three, stratified by site) to OCT guidance, IVUS guidance, or angiography-guided stent implantation. We did OCT-guided PCI using a specific protocol to establish stent length, diameter, and expansion according to reference segment external elastic lamina measurements. All patients underwent final OCT imaging (operators in the IVUS and angiography groups were masked to the OCT images). The primary efficacy endpoint was post-PCI minimum stent area, measured by OCT at a masked independent core laboratory at completion of enrolment, in all randomly allocated participants who had primary outcome data. The primary safety endpoint was procedural MACE. We tested non-inferiority of OCT guidance to IVUS guidance (with a non-inferiority margin of 1·0 mm2), superiority of OCT guidance to angiography guidance, and superiority of OCT guidance to IVUS guidance, in a hierarchical manner. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02471586. Between May 13, 2015, and April 5, 2016, we randomly allocated 450 patients (158 [35%] to OCT, 146 [32%] to IVUS, and 146 [32%] to angiography), with 415 final OCT acquisitions analysed for the primary endpoint (140 [34%] in the OCT group, 135 [33%] in the IVUS group, and 140 [34%] in the angiography group). The final median minimum stent area was 5·79 mm2 (IQR 4·54–7·34) with OCT guidance, 5·89 mm2 (4·67–7·80) with IVUS guidance, and 5·49 mm2 (4·39–6·59) with angiography guidance. OCT guidance was non-inferior to IVUS guidance (one-sided 97·5% lower CI −0·70 mm2; p=0·001), but not superior (p=0·42). OCT guidance was also not superior to angiography guidance (p=0·12). We noted procedural MACE in four (3%) of 158 patients in the OCT group, one (1%) of 146 in the IVUS group, and one (1%) of 146 in the angiography group (OCT vs IVUS p=0·37; OCT vs angiography p=0·37). OCT-guided PCI using a specific reference segment external elastic lamina-based stent optimisation strategy was safe and resulted in similar minimum stent area to that of IVUS-guided PCI. These data warrant a large-scale randomised trial to establish whether or not OCT guidance results in superior clinical outcomes to angiography guidance. St Jude Medical.

ObjectiveTo investigate percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) practice in an international cohort of patients with spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD). To explore factors associated with complications and study angiographic and longer term outcomes.MethodsSCAD patients (n=215, 94% female) who underwent PCI from three national cohort studies were investigated and compared with a matched cohort of conservatively managed SCAD patients (n=221).ResultsSCAD-PCI patients were high risk at presentation with only 8.8% undergoing PCI outside the context of ST-elevation myocardial infarction/cardiac arrest, thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) 0/1 flow or proximal dissections. PCI complications occurred in 38.6% (83/215), with 13.0% (28/215) serious complications. PCI-related complications were associated with more extensive dissections (multiple vs single American Heart Association coronary segments, OR 1.9 (95% CI: 1.06–3.39),p=0.030), more proximal dissections (proximal diameter per mm, OR 2.25 (1.38–3.67), p=0.001) and dissections with no contrast penetration of the false lumen (Yip-Saw 2 versus 1, OR 2.89 (1.12–7.43), p=0.028). SCAD-PCI involved long lengths of stent (median 46mm, IQR: 29–61mm). Despite these risks, SCAD-PCI led to angiographic improvements in those with reduced TIMI flow in 84.3% (118/140). Worsening TIMI flow was only seen in 7.0% (15/215) of SCAD-PCI patients. Post-PCI major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) and left ventricular function outcomes were favourable.ConclusionWhile a conservative approach to revascularisation is favoured, SCAD cases with higher risk presentations may require PCI. SCAD-PCI is associated with longer stent lengths and a higher risk of complications but leads to overall improvements in coronary flow and good medium-term outcomes in patients.

Implantation of drug-eluting stents (DES) is the dominant treatment strategy for patients with symptomatic coronary artery disease. However, the first-generation DES had substantial drawbacks, including delayed healing, local hypersensitivity reactions and neoatherosclerosis, which all led to a steady increase in major adverse cardiovascular events over time. Subsequently, newer-generation DES were introduced with thinner struts, different scaffold designs (to improve deliverability while maintaining radial strength), different durable and biodegradable polymers — and in some cases no polymer (to improve vascular biocompatibility) — and new antiproliferative drug types and doses. Currently, >30 different DES are commercially available in Europe, with fewer available in the USA but with many new entrants coming onto the US market in the next few years. Never before have cardiologists been faced with so many choices of stent, each with its own unique design. In this Review, we detail preclinical and pathology studies for each stent design, examining thromboresistance, speed of neointimal coverage and completeness of healing, including endothelialization. We conclude by discussing how these design characteristics might affect the potential for shortening the minimum duration of dual antiplatelet therapy needed after coronary intervention.

In patients with coronary artery disease, treated with durable polymer-coated drug-eluting stents, the life-long presence of the polymer might delay arterial healing. Novel very thin strut biodegradable polymer stents, which leave only a bare metal stent after polymer resorption, might improve long-term outcome. We investigated in allcomers the safety and efficacy of three stents eluting either everolimus, sirolimus, or zotarolimus, often clinically used but never compared, of which the biodegradable polymer everolimus-eluting stent was never before assessed in allcomers. The large-scale, investigator-initiated, multicentre, assessor and patient blinded, three-arm, randomised, BIO-RESORT non-inferiority trial was done at four clinical sites in the Netherlands. All-comer patients were aged 18 years or older, capable of providing informed consent, and required a percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stent implantation according to clinical guidelines or the operators' judgment. Exclusion criteria were: participation in another randomised drug or device study before reaching the primary endpoint of that study; planned surgery necessitating interruption of dual antiplatelet therapy within the first 6 months; known intolerance to components of the investigational product or medication required; uncertainty about the adherence to follow-up procedures or an assumed life expectancy of less than 1 year; or known pregnancy. Web-based computer-generated allocation sequences randomly assigned patients (1:1:1) to treatment with very thin strut biodegradable polymer everolimus-eluting or sirolimus-eluting stents (which differ substantially in type, amount, distribution, and resorption speed of their respective coating), or thin strut durable polymer zotarolimus-eluting stents. The primary endpoint was a composite of safety (cardiac death or target vessel-related myocardial infarction) and efficacy (target vessel revascularisation) at 12 months of follow up with a very thin strut biodegradable polymer of either everolimus-eluting or sirolimus-eluting stents, compared with durable polymer zotarolimus-eluting stents, analysed by intention to treat (non-inferiority margin 3·5%). This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01674803. From Dec 21, 2012, to Aug 24, 2015, 3514 patients were enrolled and analysed, of whom 2449 (70%) had acute coronary syndromes, which included 1073 (31%) ST-elevation myocardial infarctions. 12 month follow-up of 3490 (99%) patients (three lost to follow-up; 21 withdrawals) was available. The primary endpoint was met by 55 (5%) of 1172 patients assigned to everolimus-eluting stents, 55 (5%) of 1169 assigned to sirolimus-eluting stents and 63 (5%) of 1173 assigned to zotarolimus-eluting stents. Non-inferiority of the everolimus-eluting stents and sirolimus-eluting stents compared with zotarolimus-eluting stents was confirmed (both −0·7% absolute risk difference, 95% CI −2·4 to 1·1; upper limit of one sided 95% CI 0·8%, pnon-inferiority<0·0001). Definite stent thrombosis (defined by the Academic Research Consortium) occurred in four (0·3%) of 1172 patients who were allocated to everolimus-eluting stents, four (0·3%) of 1169 patients who were allocated to sirolimus-eluting stents, and three (0·3%) of 1173 patients who were allocated to zotarolimus-eluting stents (log-rank p=0·70 for both comparisons with zotarolimus-eluting stents). At 12 month follow-up, both very thin strut drug-eluting stents with dissimilar biodegradable polymer coatings (eluting either everolimus or sirolimus) were non-inferior to the durable polymer stent (eluting zotarolimus) in treating allcomers with a high proportion of patients with acute coronary syndromes. The absence of a loss of 1 year safety and efficacy with the use of these two biodegradable polymer-coated stents is a prerequisite before assessing their potential longer-term benefits. Biotronik, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic.

Fully bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) were designed to overcome the limitations of metallic drug-eluting stents, but long-term results with these devices have been disappointing. In this Review, the authors discuss the available preclinical and clinical data for BRS and how this information can inform the development of next-generation BRS.

Stent thrombosis (ST) is a rare but severe complication of coronary procedures with high mortality, high relapse rate and a very complex pathophysiology. An individual’s susceptibility to ST is multifactorial and results from interactions between clinical factors, endothelial biology, hypersensitivity and/or inflammatory reactions, blood rheology, platelet reactivity, clotting factors, physical and mechanical properties of the stent and from the effects of these different factors on the fluid dynamics of blood flow. Since the introduction of stents 32 years ago, continuous improvements in our understanding of the pathophysiology of ST have triggered important advances, including new therapies, new technologies and an increased awareness of the implications of implantation techniques. Furthermore, advances in medical imaging and in the mathematical processing of this information have allowed a more detailed assessment of the mechanisms of ST at the time of its onset. Evidence shows that addressing the risk factors for ST leads to a substantial reduction in its incidence, both early and late after stent implantation. A better knowledge of the mechanisms of this complication is, however, necessary to direct the choice of the most appropriate strategy for its prevention and treatment.

Bioresorbable coronary stents might improve outcomes of patients treated with percutaneous coronary interventions. The everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold is the most studied of these stent platforms; however, its performance versus everolimus-eluting metallic stents remains poorly defined. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds versus everolimus-eluting metallic stents in patients with ischaemic heart disease treated with percutaneous revascularisation. We searched Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), scientific sessions abstracts, and relevant websites for randomised trials investigating everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds versus everolimus-eluting metallic stents published or posted between Nov 30, 2006, and Oct 12, 2015. The primary efficacy outcome was target lesion revascularisation and the primary safety outcome was definite or probable stent (scaffold) thrombosis. Secondary outcomes were target lesion failure (the composite of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularisation), myocardial infarction, death, and in-device late lumen loss. We derived odds ratios (ORs) and weighted mean differences with 95% CIs, and calculated the risk estimates for the main outcomes according to a random-effects model. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42015026374. We included six trials, comprising data for 3738 patients randomised to receive percutaneous coronary intervention with either an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold (n=2337) or an everolimus-eluting metallic stent (n=1401). Median follow-up was 12 months (IQR 9–12). Patients treated with bioresorbable vascular scaffolds had a similar risk of target lesion revascularisation (OR 0·97 [95% CI 0·66–1·43]; p=0·87), target lesion failure (1·20 [0·90–1·60]; p=0·21), myocardial infarction (1·36 [0·98–1·89]; p=0·06), and death (0·95 [0·45–2·00]; p=0·89) as those treated with metallic stents. Patients treated with a bioresorbable vascular scaffold had a higher risk of definite or probable stent thrombosis than those treated with a metallic stent (OR 1·99 [95% CI 1·00–3·98]; p=0·05), with the highest risk between 1 and 30 days after implantation (3·11 [1·24–7·82]; p=0·02). Lesions treated with a bioresorbable vascular scaffold had greater in-device late lumen loss than those treated with a metallic stent (weighted mean difference 0·08 [95% CI 0·05–0·12]; p<0·0001). Compared with everolimus-eluting metallic stents, everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds had similar rates of repeat revascularisation at 1 year of follow-up, despite inferior mid-term angiographic performance. However, patients treated with a bioresorbable vascular scaffold had an increased risk of subacute stent thrombosis. Studies with extended follow-up in a larger number of patients are needed to fully assess the long-term advantages of everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds. None.

BackgroundPatients with diabetes mellitus (DM) have an elevated risk of late events after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The Second-generation Drug-eluting Stents in Diabetes (SUGAR) trial (NCT03321032) compared amphilimus-eluting stents (AESs) and onyx-zotarolimus-eluting stents (O-ZESs) in this population.ObjectivesTo report the co-primary endpoint comparing target lesion failure (TLF) between AES and O-ZES at 2 years and the extended follow-up at 3 years.MethodsThe SUGAR trial enrolled 1175 patients with DM across 23 centres in a randomised (1:1 AES (Cre8EVO) or O-ZES (Resolute Onyx)) assessor-blinded design. The primary endpoint, assessed with a Cox proportional hazards model, was TLF (a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction or ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularisation). Secondary endpoints included all-cause mortality, stent thrombosis and major adverse cardiac events.ResultsAt 2 years, TLF occurred in 60 (10.4%) patients in the AES group and 71 (12.1%) in the O-ZES group; HR 0.84 (95% CI 0.60 to 1.19), p=0.331. At 3 years, TLF occurred in 66 (11.4%) of the AES group compared with 87 (14.9%) of the O-ZES group (HR 0.77; 95% CI 0.56 to 1.06; p=0.106). Landmark analysis revealed no significant differences in TLF rates between 1 and 3 years (HR 1.07; 95% CI 0.62 to 1.87; p=0.801). Rates of individual components of the primary endpoint were comparable between groups. No significant differences were observed in secondary endpoints.ConclusionsThe SUGAR trial demonstrates that AES and O-ZES provide comparable long-term efficacy in preventing TLF in patients with DM undergoing PCI. These findings support the use of either stent type and highlight the importance of further long-term studies to optimise outcomes.Trial registration numberNCT03321032

Drug-eluting stents combining an ultrathin cobalt-chromium stent platform with a biodegradable polymer eluting sirolimus have been shown to be non-inferior or superior to thin-strut, durable-polymer, everolimus-eluting stents in terms of 1 year safety and efficacy outcomes. In the randomised, single-blind, multicentre, non-inferiority BIOSCIENCE trial, we compared biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stents with durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stents in patients with chronic stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes. Here, we assess the final 5-year clinical outcomes of BIOSCIENCE with regards to the primary clinical outcome of target lesion failure, which was a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically indicated target lesion revascularisation. The primary analysis was done by intention to treat. The BIOSCIENCE trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01443104. 2008 (95%) of 2119 patients recruited between March 1, 2012, and May 31, 2013, completed 5 years of follow-up. Target lesion failure occurred in 198 patients (cumulative incidence 20·2%) treated with biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stents and in 189 patients (18·8%) treated with durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stents (rate ratio [RR] 1·07, 95% CI 0·88–1·31; p=0·487). All-cause mortality was significantly higher in patients treated with biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stents than in those treated with durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stents (14·1% vs 10·3%; RR 1·36, 95% CI 1·06–1·75; p=0·017), driven by a difference in non-cardiovascular deaths. We observed no difference between groups in cumulative incidence of definite stent thrombosis at 5 years (1·6% in both groups; 1·02, 0·51–2·05; p=0·950). 5-year risk of target lesion failure among all-comer patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention is similar after implantation of ultrathin-strut, biodegradable-polymer, sirolimus-eluting stents or thin-strut, durable-polymer, everolimus-eluting stents. Higher incidences of all-cause and non-cardiovascular mortality in patients treated with biodegradable-polymer stents eluting sirolimus than in those treated with durable-polymer stents eluting everolimus warrant careful observation in ongoing clinical trials. Clinical Trials Unit of the University of Bern and Biotronik.