Explore the vast range of titles available.

Patients with peripheral artery disease were randomly assigned to receive endovascular intervention with paclitaxel-coated or uncoated devices. In an unplanned interim analysis, there was no significant difference in all-cause mortality between the two groups.

Patients with CAD at bleeding risk received a umirolimus-coated stent or a bare-metal stent, along with dual antiplatelet therapy. A composite end point (cardiac death, MI, or stent thrombosis) and clinically driven target-lesion revascularization occurred less often with the coated stent. Among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), it is estimated that 15% or more are at high risk for bleeding. 1 , 2 Such patients are usually excluded from trials of stents and adjunctive therapy, and the default management of their care, supported by current guidelines, 3 , 4 favors the use of either a second-generation drug-eluting stent with a shortened course of dual antiplatelet therapy or a bare-metal stent followed by 1 month of dual antiplatelet therapy. The latter strategy, driven by the need to minimize the risk of bleeding, is associated with a higher risk of restenosis and reintervention than that observed . . .

In a randomized trial involving patients at high bleeding risk who received 1 month of dual antiplatelet therapy after PCI, use of polymer-based zotarolimus-eluting stents was noninferior to use of polymer-free drug-coated stents with regard to safety and effectiveness composite outcomes.

BackgroundEndobiliary radiofrequency ablation (EB-RFA) has emerged as a palliative treatment for malignant biliary strictures (MBSs); however, concerns about complications related to thermal injury remain. In this study, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of EB-RFA with a novel catheter for MBS.MethodsPatients with inoperable cancer causing MBS were randomly assigned to either the radiofrequency ablation (RFA) group or the non-RFA group. The RFA group underwent EB-RFA at the stricture site with a temperature-controlled catheter (ELRA™; STARmed Co., Goyang, Korea) followed by deployment of a self-expanding metal stent (SEMS). For the non-RFA group, only SEMS placement was performed. The duration of stent patency, overall survival (OS), and 30-day complication rate were evaluated. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (number NCT02646514).ResultsA total of 48 patients were enrolled (24 in each group). During a median follow-up period of 135.0 days (RFA group) and 119.5 days (non-RFA group), the 90-day stent patency rate, median duration of stent patency, and median OS were not different between the groups (58.3% vs. 45.8% [P = 0.386], 132.0 days vs. 116.0 days [P = 0.440], and 244.0 days vs. 180.0 days [P = 0.281], respectively). In the RFA group, procedure-related complications including thermal injury-related complications, such as bile duct perforation or hemobilia, were not reported. The early complication (< 7 days) rates were not different between the groups (4.2% vs. 12.5%, P = 0.609), and there were no late complications (7–30 days) in both groups.ConclusionEB-RFA with a temperature-controlled catheter followed by SEMS placement for patients with inoperable MBS can be safe and feasible with acceptable biliary patency.

The optimal treatment strategy for coronary bifurcation lesions by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is complex and remains a subject of debate. Current guidelines advise a stepwise provisional approach with optional two-stent strategy. However, a two-stent strategy, both upfront and stepwise provisional, is technically demanding. Therefore, there is increasing interest in the use of drug-eluting balloons (DEB) in bifurcation lesions, mainly after a provisional approach with unsatisfactory result of the side branch. Some small pilot studies already showed that the use of DEB in bifurcation lesions is safe and feasible. However, a randomized comparison of this hybrid DEB strategy with a two-stent strategy is currently lacking. The Hybrid DEB study is a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial investigating noninferiority of a hybrid DEB approach, using a combination of a drug-eluting stent (DES) in the main vessel and DEB in the side branch, compared to stepwise provisional two-stent strategy in patients with true bifurcation lesions. A total of 500 patients with de novo true coronary bifurcation lesions, treated with a stepwise provisional approach and an unsatisfactory result of the side branch after main vessel stenting (≥ 70% stenosis and/or < thrombolysis in myocardial infarction III flow), will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either treatment with a DEB or with a DES in the side branch. The primary endpoint is a composite endpoint of the occurrence of all-cause death, periprocedural or spontaneous myocardial infarction and/or target vessel revascularization at the anticipated median 2-year follow-up. The Hybrid DEB study will compare in a multicenter, randomized fashion a hybrid DEB approach with a stepwise provisional two-stent strategy in patients with true bifurcation lesions. ClinicalTrials.gov no. NCT05731687.

Acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction is often treated with immediate coronary stenting of the infarct-related artery. The use of a paclitaxel-eluting stent, as compared with a bare-metal stent, reduced the risk of restenosis and was equally safe. Acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction is often treated with immediate coronary stenting of the infarct-related artery. The use of a paclitaxel-eluting stent, as compared with a bare-metal stent, reduced the risk of restenosis and was equally safe. By enlarging luminal dimensions and sealing dissection planes at the site of coronary-artery occlusion in patients with evolving ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, bare-metal stents reduce the risk of early and late recurrent ischemia and reocclusion of the infarct-related artery, as compared with balloon angioplasty alone, decreasing the need for subsequent revascularization of the target lesion with repeat percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary-artery bypass grafting. 1 , 2 Nonetheless, restenosis occurs in more than 20% of patients in whom bare-metal stents are implanted during primary PCI, and implantation of bare-metal stents, as compared with balloon angioplasty, has not reduced the rates of . . .

The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of paclitaxel-coated balloon (PCB) for the treatment of the bare-metal stent restenosis (BMS-ISR) and drug-eluting stent restenosis (DES-ISR). This study was a prospective, multicenter, randomized (2:1) trial conducted in 208 patients with 213 in-stent restenosis lesions (BMS-ISR: 123 lesions, DES-ISR: 90 lesions) at 13 centers in Japan. Patients were randomly assigned to a PCB group (137 patients with 142 lesions) or a conventional balloon angioplasty (BA) group (71 patients with 71 lesions). The primary end point was target vessel failure at 6-month follow-up. Clinical and angiographic follow-up 6 months after intervention was performed in 207 patients (99.5%) with 208 lesions (97.7%). Target vessel failure was noted in 6.6% of the PCB group and 31.0% of the BA group (P < .001). Recurrent restenosis occurred in 4.3% of the PCB group and 31.9% of the BA group (P < .001). Late lumen loss was lower in the PCB group than in the BA group (0.11 ± 0.33 mm vs 0.49 ± 0.50 mm, P < .001). In PCB-treated lesions, recurrent restenosis occurred in 1.1% of patients with BMS-ISR and in 9.1% of patients with DES-ISR (P = .04). Late lumen loss was lower in patients with BMS-ISR than in patients with DES-ISR (0.05 ± 0.28 mm vs 0.18 ± 0.38 mm, P = .03). This randomized clinical study suggested that PCB provided much better clinical and angiographic outcomes than did conventional BA in patients with BMS-ISR and DES-ISR. Drug-eluting stent restenosis was associated with poorer outcomes compared with BMS-ISR after treatment with PCB.

Large-scale registries can provide valuable complementary data to randomized controlled trials (RCT) for the postmarketing evaluation of coronary stents, but their scientific relevance remains debated. We sought to compare the evidence on the performance of a single coronary stent platform generated by the RCT for its regulatory approval and a well-conducted international registry. Patients treated with the Ultimaster coronary stent in the CENTURY II (CII-UM) trial (n = 551) were compared to patients in the real-world e-ULTIMASTER (e-UM) registry (n = 35,389). All major events were adjudicated by an independent clinical event committee in both studies. Propensity weighted analysis was used to balance baseline and procedural differences between the 2 populations. Coronary artery disease was more complex in e-UM compared to CII-UM, including more acute coronary syndromes, multivessel disease, left main, arterial, or venous grafts, and chronic total occlusions (P < .005 for all). At one-year follow-up and after excluding periprocedural myocardial infarction (MI) there was no statistically significant difference between CII-UM and e-UM regarding all-cause death (hazard ratio [HR] 0.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.26-1.20, P = .14), cardiac death (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.29-1.72, P = .45), target lesion failure (HR 1.18, 95% CI 0.78-1.78, P = .44), and target vessel MI (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.24-2.38, P = .63). However, target vessel revascularization rate was significantly higher in CII-UM than in e-UM, HR 1.78, 95% CI 1.23-2.56, P = .002. A well-conducted large-scale registry can provide valuable complementary evidence to RCTs on the postmarket performance of new coronary stents, across a wider range of uses and various geographic areas.

Comparative assessment of clinical outcomes after use of drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents for treatment of aortocoronary saphenous vein graft lesions has not been undertaken in large randomised trials. We aimed to undertake a comparison in a randomised trial powered for clinical endpoints. In this randomised superiority trial, patients with de-novo saphenous vein graft lesions were assigned by computer-generated sequence (1:1:1:3) to receive either drug-eluting stents (one of three types: permanent-polymer paclitaxel-eluting stents, permanent-polymer sirolimus-eluting stents, or biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stents) or bare-metal stents. Randomisation took place immediately after crossing of the lesion with a guidewire, and was stratified for each participating centre. Investigators assessing data were masked to treatment allocation; patients were not masked to allocation. The primary endpoint was the combined incidence of death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularisation at 1 year. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00611910. 610 patients were allocated to treatment groups (303 drug-eluting stent, 307 bare-metal stent). Drug-eluting stents reduced the incidence of the primary endpoint compared with bare-metal stents (44 [15%] vs 66 [22%] patients; hazard ratio [HR] 0·64, 95% CI 0·44–0·94; p=0·02). Target lesion revascularisation rate was reduced by drug-eluting stents (19 [7%] vs 37 [13%] patients; HR 0·49, 95% CI 0·28–0·86; p=0·01). No significant differences were seen between drug-eluting stents and bare-metal stents regarding all-cause mortality (15 [5%] vs 14 [5%] patients; HR 1·08, 95% CI 0·52–2·24; p=0·83), myocardial infarction (12 [4%] vs 18 [6%]; HR 0·66, 95% CI 0·32–1·37; p=0·27), or definite or probable stent thrombosis (2 [1%] in both groups; HR 1·00, 95% CI 0·14–7·10; p=0·99). In patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for de-novo saphenous vein graft lesions, drug-eluting stents are the preferred treatment option because they reduce the risk of adverse events compared with bare-metal stents. Deutsches Herzzentrum.

Polymer-free drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation in combination with 1-month dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) has shown superior safety and efficacy outcomes compared with bare-metal stents among patients with high-bleeding risk (HBR) treated with 1-month DAPT. The safety and efficacy of the newer-generation durable-polymer DES Resolute Onyx compared with polymer-free DES among HBR patients treated with 1-month DAPT is unknown. The Onyx ONE global randomized trial is an international, prospective, randomized, blinded, controlled study enrolling HBR patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. The trial will randomize up to 2,000 patients in a 1:1 fashion to receive either the durable-polymer Resolute Onyx DES or the polymer-free Biosensors BioFreedom DES. After index procedure, patients in both arms will be treated with 1 month of DAPT (aspirin and oral P2Y12 inhibitor), followed by single antiplatelet therapy thereafter. The primary end point is the composite end point of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis at 1-year follow-up. The powered secondary end point is target lesion failure (defined as the composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target lesion revascularization) at 1 year. Patient follow-up is planned for 1, 2, and 6 months and 1 and 2 years after the procedure. The Onyx ONE global randomized trial is the first study to directly compare the safety and efficacy of a durable polymer DES (Resolute Onyx) with a polymer-free DES (BioFreedom) in HBR patients treated with 1 month of DAPT.