Summary Background Patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary disease have a worse prognosis compared with individuals with single-vessel disease. ...We aimed to study the clinical outcome of patients with STEMI treated with fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided complete revascularisation versus treatment of the infarct-related artery only. Methods We undertook an open-label, randomised controlled trial at two university hospitals in Denmark. Patients presenting with STEMI who had one or more clinically significant coronary stenosis in addition to the lesion in the infarct-related artery were included. After successful percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the infarct-related artery, patients were randomly allocated (in a 1:1 ratio) either no further invasive treatment or complete FFR-guided revascularisation before discharge. Randomisation was done electronically via a web-based system in permuted blocks of varying size by the clinician who did the primary PCI. All patients received best medical treatment. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, non-fatal reinfarction, and ischaemia-driven revascularisation of lesions in non-infarct-related arteries and was assessed when the last enrolled patient had been followed up for 1 year. Analysis was on an intention-to-treat basis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT01960933. Findings From March, 2011, to February, 2014, we enrolled 627 patients to the trial; 313 were allocated no further invasive treatment after primary PCI of the infarct-related artery only and 314 were assigned complete revascularisation guided by FFR values. Median follow-up was 27 months (range 12–44 months). Events comprising the primary endpoint were recorded in 68 (22%) patients who had PCI of the infarct-related artery only and in 40 (13%) patients who had complete revascularisation (hazard ratio 0·56, 95% CI 0·38–0·83; p=0·004). Interpretation In patients with STEMI and multivessel disease, complete revascularisation guided by FFR measurements significantly reduces the risk of future events compared with no further invasive intervention after primary PCI. This effect is driven by significantly fewer repeat revascularisations, because all-cause mortality and non-fatal reinfarction did not differ between groups. Thus, to avoid repeat revascularisation, patients can safely have all their lesions treated during the index admission. Future studies should clarify whether complete revascularisation should be done acutely during the index procedure or at later time and whether it has an effect on hard endpoints. Funding Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation and Danish Council for Strategic Research.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPUK
Diabetes is associated with increased risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) after percutaneous coronary intervention. The purpose of this substudy of the SORT OUT IV trial was to compare ...clinical outcomes in patients with and without diabetes mellitus treated with everolimus-eluting stents (EESs) or sirolimus-eluting stents (SESs). In total 2,774 patients (390 with diabetes, 14.1%) were randomized to stent implantation with EESs (n = 1,390, diabetes in 14.0%) or SESs (n = 1,384, diabetes in 14.2%). Randomization was stratified by presence/absence of diabetes. The primary end point was MACEs, a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, definite stent thrombosis, or target vessel revascularization within 18 months. MACEs were higher in diabetic than in nondiabetic patients (13.1% vs 6.4%, hazard ratio HR 2.08, 95% confidence interval CI 1.51 to 2.86). In diabetic patients, MACEs were seen in 10.3% of those treated with EESs and in 15.8% of those treated with SESs (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.11). In nondiabetic patients, MACEs occurred in 6.6% of EES-treated and in 6.3% SES-treated patients (HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.46). In diabetics, cardiac death occurred in 3.1% of EES-treated and in 4.6% of SES-treated patients (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.89), myocardial infarction occurred in 0.5% of EES-treated and in 3.6% of SES-treated patients (HR 0.14, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.16), and clinically driven target lesion revascularization was needed in 3.1% of EES-treated and in 7.7% of SES-treated patients (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.02). No interaction between diabetes status and type of drug-eluting stent was found for the end points. In conclusion, patients with diabetes have higher MACE rates than nondiabetics. No significant differences in safety or efficacy outcomes after EES or SES implantation were present in nondiabetic or diabetic patients.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPUK
Stent Thrombosis, Myocardial Infarction, and Death After Drug-Eluting and Bare-Metal Stent Coronary Interventions Lisette Okkels Jensen, Michael Mæng, Anne Kaltoft, Per Thayssen, Hans Henrik Tilsted ...Hansen, Morten Bøttcher, Jens Flensted Lassen, Lars Romer Krussel, Klaus Rasmussen, Knud Nøerregaard Hansen, Lars Pedersen, Søren Paaske Johnsen, Henrik Toft Sørensen, Leif Thuesen We compared rates of stent thrombosis (ST), myocardial infarction (MI), death, and target lesion revascularization after implantation of drug-eluting stents (DES) and bare-metal stents (BMS), with population-based medical databases in Denmark. The DES were implanted in 3,548 patients, and BMS were implanted in 8,847 patients. The risk of definite ST was similar in the 2 groups. Very late definite ST (between 12 and 15 months after implantation) occurred more frequently in patients receiving DES. The MI and mortality were similar in the 2 groups. Target lesion revascularization was reduced by 43% in patients treated with DES.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UILJ, UL, UM, UPUK, ZAGLJ, ZRSKP
Background In patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), timely reperfusion with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is the preferred treatment. In primary PCI ...patients with multivessel disease, it is unclear whether culprit vessel PCI only is the preferred treatment. We compared mortality among (1) STEMI patients with single-vessel disease and those with multivessel disease and (2) multivessel disease patients with and without additional revascularization of nonculprit lesions within 2 months after the index PCI. Methods From January 2002 to June 2009, all patients presenting with STEMI and treated with primary PCI were identified from the Western Denmark Heart Registry, which covers a population of 3.0 million. The hazard ratio (HR) for death was estimated using a Cox regression model, controlling for potential confounding. Results The study cohort consisted of 8,822 patients: 4,770 (54.1%) had single-vessel disease and 4,052 (45.9%) had multivessel disease. Overall, 1-year cumulative mortality was 7.6%, and 7-year cumulative mortality was 24.0%. Multivessel disease was associated with higher 7-year mortality (adjusted HR 1.45 95% CI 1.30-1.62, P < .001). Among patients with multivessel disease, lack of additional revascularization beyond the culprit lesion was associated with higher 7-year mortality (adjusted HR 1.50 95% CI 1.25-1.80, P < .001). In patients with multivessel disease who underwent additional revascularization, 7-year mortality (adjusted HR 1.01 95% CI 0.84-1.22, P = .89) was similar compared to patients with single-vessel disease. Conclusion In STEMI patients, multivessel disease was associated with a higher mortality compared to single-vessel disease. In multivessel disease patients, additional revascularization was associated with a higher survival compared with culprit vessel PCI only.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK
Summary Background New-generation drug-eluting coronary stents have reduced the risk of coronary events, especially in patients with complex disease or lesions. To what extent different stent ...platforms, polymers, and antiproliferative drugs affect outcomes, however, is unclear. We investigated the safety and efficacy of a third-generation stent by comparing a highly biocompatible durable-polymer-coated zotarolimus-eluting stent with a biodegradable-polymer-coated biolimus-eluting stent. Methods This open-label, randomised, multicentre, non-inferiority trial was done at three sites across western Denmark. All patients who presented with stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes and at least one coronary artery lesion (more than 50% stenosis) from March, 2011, to August, 2012, were assessed for eligibility. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either the durable-polymer zotarolimus-eluting stent or the biodegradable-polymer biolimus-eluting stent. The primary endpoint was a composite of safety (cardiac death and myocardial infarction not clearly attributable to a non-target lesion) and efficacy (target-lesion revascularisation) at 12 months, analysed by intention to treat. The trial was powered to assess non-inferiority of durable-polymer zotarolimus-eluting stent compared with the biodegradable-polymer biolimus-eluting stent with a predetermined non-inferiority margin of 0·025. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT01956448. Findings Of 7103 screened, 1502 patients with 1883 lesions were assigned to receive the durable-polymer zotarolimus-eluting stent and 1497 patients with 1791 lesions to receive the biodegradable-polymer biolimus-eluting stent. 79 (5·3%) and 75 (5·0%) patients, respectively, met the primary endpoint (absolute risk difference 0·0025, upper limit of one-sided 95% CI 0·016%; p=0·004). The individual components of the primary endpoint did not differ significantly between stent types at 12 months. Interpretation The durable-polymer-coated zotarolimus-eluting stent was non-inferior to the biodegradable-polymer-coated biolimus-eluting stent in unselected patients. Funding Medtronic Cardiovascular and Biosensors Interventional Technologies.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPUK
Summary Background Third-generation biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents might reduce the risk of stent thrombosis compared with first-generation permanent polymer drug-eluting stents. We aimed ...to further investigate the effects of a biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stent compared with a durable polymer-coated sirolimus-eluting stent in a population-based setting. Methods This randomised, multicentre, all-comer, non-inferiority trial was undertaken at three sites across western Denmark. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with chronic stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes, and at least one coronary artery lesion (>50% diameter stenosis). We randomly assigned patients (1:1) using an independently managed computer-generated allocation sequence to receive either a biolimus-eluting biodegradable polymer stent (Nobori, Terumo, Tokyo, Japan) or a sirolimus-eluting permanent polymer stent (Cypher Select Plus, Cordis, Johnson & Johnson, Warren, NJ, USA). The primary endpoint was a composite of safety (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, definite stent thrombosis) and efficacy (target vessel revascularisation) at 9 months, analysed by intention to treat (non-inferiority margin of 0·02). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT01254981. Findings From July, 2009, to January, 2011, we assigned 1229 patients (1532 lesions) to receive the biolimus-eluting stent and 1239 (1555 lesions) to receive the sirolimus-eluting stent. One patient was lost to follow-up because of emigration. Intention-to-treat analysis showed that 50 (4·1%) patients who were assigned the biolimus-eluting stent and 39 (3·1%) who were assigned the sirolimus-eluting stent met the primary endpoint (risk difference 0·9% upper limit of one-sided 95% CI 2·1%; pnon-inferiority =0·06). Significantly more patients in the biolimus-eluting stent group had definite stent thrombosis at 12 months than did those in the sirolimus-eluting stent group (9 0·7% vs 2 0·2%, risk difference 0·6% 95% CI 0·0–1·1; p=0·034). Per-protocol analysis showed that 45 (3·8%) of 1193 patients who received a biolimus-eluting stent and 39 (3·2%) of 1208 who received a sirolimus-eluting stent met the primary endpoint (risk difference 0·5% upper limit of one-sided 95% CI 1·8%; pnon-inferiority =0·03). Interpretation At 1 year follow-up, the biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting Nobori stent did not improve clinical results compared with a first-generation sirolimus-eluting stent. We will need to obtain long-term data before we can make recommendations for the role of this biolimus-eluting stent in routine clinical practice. Funding Terumo and Cordis (Johnson & Johnson).
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPUK
Summary Background Despite successful treatment of the culprit artery lesion by primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with stent implantation, thrombotic embolisation occurs in some cases, ...which impairs the prognosis of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). We aimed to assess the clinical outcomes of deferred stent implantation versus standard PCI in patients with STEMI. Methods We did this open-label, randomised controlled trial at four primary PCI centres in Denmark. Eligible patients (aged >18 years) had acute onset symptoms lasting 12 h or less, and ST-segment elevation of 0·1 mV or more in at least two or more contiguous electrocardiographic leads or newly developed left bundle branch block. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), via an electronic web-based system with permuted block sizes of two to six, to receive either standard primary PCI with immediate stent implantation or deferred stent implantation 48 h after the index procedure if a stabilised flow could be obtained in the infarct-related artery. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, hospital admission for heart failure, recurrent infarction, and any unplanned revascularisation of the target vessel within 2 years' follow-up. Patients, investigators, and treating clinicians were not masked to treatment allocation. We did analysis by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT01435408. Findings Between March 1, 2011, and Feb 28, 2014, we randomly assigned 1215 patients to receive either standard PCI (n=612) or deferred stent implantation (n=603). Median follow-up time was 42 months (IQR 33–49). Events comprising the primary endpoint occurred in 109 (18%) patients who had standard PCI and in 105 (17%) patients who had deferred stent implantation (hazard ratio 0·99, 95% CI 0·76–1·29; p=0·92). Procedure-related myocardial infarction, bleeding requiring transfusion or surgery, contrast-induced nephopathy, or stroke occurred in 28 (5%) patients in the conventional PCI group versus 27 (4%) patients in the deferred stent implantation group, with no significant differences between groups. Interpretation In patients with STEMI, routine deferred stent implantation did not reduce the occurrence of death, heart failure, myocardial infarction, or repeat revascularisation compared with conventional PCI. Results from ongoing randomised trials might shed further light on the concept of deferred stenting in this patient population. Funding Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation, and Danish Council for Strategic Research.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPUK, ZRSKP
Diabetes is associated with an increased risk of major adverse cardiac events after percutaneous coronary intervention. We compared clinical outcomes in patients with and without diabetes mellitus ...treated with the second-generation Endeavor zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) or the first-generation Cypher Select+ sirolimus-eluting stent (SES). We randomized 2,332 patients to treatment with ZESs (n = 1,162, n = 169 diabetics) or SESs (n = 1,170, n = 168 diabetics) and followed them for 18 months. Randomization was stratified by presence/absence of diabetes. The primary end point was major adverse cardiac events defined as a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization. Secondary end points included these individual end points plus all-cause mortality and target lesion revascularization. In diabetic patients, use of ZES compared to SES was associated with an increased risk of major adverse cardiac events (18.3% vs 4.8%, hazard ratio 4.05, 95% confidence interval 1.86 to 8.82), myocardial infarction (4.7% vs 0.6%, hazard ratio 8.09, 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 64.7), target vessel revascularization (14.2% vs 3.0%, hazard ratio 4.99, 95% confidence interval 1.90 to 13.1), and target lesion revascularization (12.4% vs 1.2%, hazard ratio 11.0, 95% confidence interval 2.59 to 47.1). In patients without diabetes differences in absolute risk decrease were smaller but similarly favored SES. In conclusion, implantation of ZESs compared to SESs is associated with a considerable increased risk of adverse events in patients with diabetes at 18-month follow-up.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPUK
We compared 5-year clinical outcomes in diabetic and nondiabetic patients treated with Endeavor zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZESs; Endeavor Sprint, Medtronic, Santa Rosa, California) or Cypher ...sirolimus-eluting stents (SESs; Cordis, Johnson & Johnson, Warren, New Jersey) coronary implantation. We randomized 2,332 patients to either ZESs (n = 1,162, n = 169 diabetic patients) or SESs (n = 1,170, n = 168 diabetic patients) stratified according to presence or absence of diabetes mellitus. End points included major adverse cardiac event (MACE), a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization (TVR), and definite stent thrombosis. Among diabetic patients, MACE occurred more frequently in patients treated with ZESs than SESs (48 28.4% vs 31 18.5%; odds ratio OR 1.75, 95% confidence interval CI 1.05 to 2.93, p = 0.032) because of a higher rate of TVR (32 18.9% vs 14 8.3%; OR 2.57, 95% CI 1.32 to 5.02, p = 0.006). Among nondiabetic patients, ZES and SES had similar MACE rates at 5-year follow-up but SES was associated with a significantly higher risk of definite stent thrombosis (10 1.0% vs 23 2.3%; OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.91, p = 0.028). Moreover, during the last 4 years, ZES had fewer MACE, TVR, and stent thrombosis events among nondiabetic patients. In conclusion, SES remains superior to ZES in patients with diabetes throughout the 5-year follow-up, however, among nondiabetic patients, SES demonstrated a highly dynamic performance with favorable initial results followed by a late catch-up that included an overall higher risk of stent thrombosis.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPUK
Objectives This study sought to examine the 3-year clinical outcomes in patients treated with the Endeavor (Medtronic, Santa Rosa, California) zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) or the Cypher (Cordis, ...Johnson & Johnson, Warren, New Jersey) sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) in routine clinical practice. Background The long-term clinical outcome in patients treated with ZES in comparison with SES is unclear. Methods The authors randomized 2,332 patients to ZES (n = 1,162) or SES (n = 1,170) implantation. Endpoints included major adverse cardiac events (MACE), a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization; the individual endpoints of MACE; and definite stent thrombosis. Results At 3-year follow-up, the MACE rate was higher in patients treated with ZES than in patients treated with SES (148 12.9% vs. 116 10.1%; hazard ratio HR: 1.33, 95% confidence interval CI: 1.04 to 1.69; p = 0.022). Target vessel revascularization was more frequent in the ZES group compared with the SES group (103 9.1% vs. 76 6.7%; HR: 1.40, 95% CI: 1.04 to 1.89; p = 0.025), whereas the occurrence of myocardial infarction (3.8% vs. 3.3%) and cardiac death (2.8% vs. 2.8%) did not differ significantly. Although the rate of definite stent thrombosis was similar at 3-year follow-up (1.1% vs. 1.4%), very late (12 to 36 months) definite stent thrombosis occurred in 0 (0%) patients in the ZES group versus 12 (1.1%) patients in the SES group (p = 0.0005). Conclusions Although the 3-year MACE rate is higher in patients treated with ZES versus SES, our data highlight a late safety problem concerning definite stent thrombosis with the use of SES. This finding underscores the importance of long-term follow-up in head-to-head comparisons of drug-eluting stents. (Randomized Clinical Comparison of the Endeavor and the Cypher Coronary Stents in Non-selected Angina Pectoris Patients SORT OUT III; NCT00660478 )
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UILJ, UL, UM, UPUK, ZAGLJ, ZRSKP
PDF
