Summary Background It is unclear whether radial compared with femoral access improves outcomes in unselected patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing invasive management. Methods We did a ...randomised, multicentre, superiority trial comparing transradial against transfemoral access in patients with acute coronary syndrome with or without ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction who were about to undergo coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to radial or femoral access with a web-based system. The randomisation sequence was computer generated, blocked, and stratified by use of ticagrelor or prasugrel, type of acute coronary syndrome (ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, troponin positive or negative, non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome), and anticipated use of immediate percutaneous coronary intervention. Outcome assessors were masked to treatment allocation. The 30-day coprimary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events, defined as death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, and net adverse clinical events, defined as major adverse cardiovascular events or Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) major bleeding unrelated to coronary artery bypass graft surgery. The analysis was by intention to treat. The two-sided α was prespecified at 0·025. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT01433627. Findings We randomly assigned 8404 patients with acute coronary syndrome, with or without ST-segment elevation, to radial (4197) or femoral (4207) access for coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention. 369 (8·8%) patients with radial access had major adverse cardiovascular events, compared with 429 (10·3%) patients with femoral access (rate ratio RR 0·85, 95% CI 0·74–0·99; p=0·0307), non-significant at α of 0·025. 410 (9·8%) patients with radial access had net adverse clinical events compared with 486 (11·7%) patients with femoral access (0·83, 95% CI 0·73–0·96; p=0·0092). The difference was driven by BARC major bleeding unrelated to coronary artery bypass graft surgery (1·6% vs 2·3%, RR 0·67, 95% CI 0·49–0·92; p=0·013) and all-cause mortality (1·6% vs 2·2%, RR 0·72, 95% CI 0·53–0·99; p=0·045). Interpretation In patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing invasive management, radial as compared with femoral access reduces net adverse clinical events, through a reduction in major bleeding and all-cause mortality. Funding The Medicines Company and Terumo.
Standardization of Fractional Flow Reserve Measurements Toth, Gabor G., MD; Johnson, Nils P., MD; Jeremias, Allen, MD, MSc ...
Journal of the American College of Cardiology,
08/2016, Letnik:
68, Številka:
7
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Odprti dostop
Abstract Pressure wire–based fractional flow reserve is considered the standard of reference for evaluation of the ischemic potential of coronary stenoses and the expected benefit from ...revascularization. Accordingly, its application in daily practice or for research purposes has to be as standardized as possible to avoid technical or operator-related artifacts in pressure recordings. This document proposes a standardized way of acquiring, recording, interpreting, and archiving the pressure tracings for daily practice and for the purpose of clinical research involving a core laboratory. Proposed standardized steps enhance the uniformity of clinical practices and data interpretation.
Abstract Background The use of drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients at high risk of bleeding or thrombosis has not been prospectively studied; limited data are available in patients who have a low ...restenosis risk. Objectives This study sought to compare a hydrophilic polymer-based, second-generation zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) with a unique drug fast-release profile versus bare-metal stents (BMS) under similar durations of dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). Methods We randomly assigned 1,606 patients with stable or unstable symptoms, and who on the basis of thrombotic bleeding or restenosis risk criteria, qualified as uncertain candidates for DES, to receive ZES or BMS. DAPT duration was on the basis of patient characteristics, rather than stent characteristics, and allowed for a personalized 1-month dual antiplatelet regimen. The primary endpoint was the risk of 1-year major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), which included death, myocardial infarction (MI), or target vessel revascularization (TVR). Results Median DAPT duration was 32 days (interquartile range IQR: 30 to 180 days) and did not differ between the groups. In the ZES group, 140 patients (17.5%) reached the primary endpoint, compared with 178 patients (22.1%) in the BMS group (hazard ratio: 0.76; 95% confidence interval: 0.61 to 0.95; p = 0.011) as a result of lower MI (2.9% vs. 8.1%; p < 0.001) and TVR rates (5.9% vs.10.7%; p = 0.001) in the ZES group. Definite or probable stent thrombosis was also significantly reduced in ZES recipients (2.0% vs. 4.1%; p = 0.019). Conclusions Compared with BMS, DES implantation using a stent with a biocompatible polymer and fast drug-eluting characteristics, combined with an abbreviated, tailored DAPT regimen, resulted in a lower risk of 1-year MACE in uncertain candidates for DES implantation. (Zotarolimus-eluting Endeavor Sprint Stent in Uncertain DES Candidates ZEUS Study; NCT01385319 )
Abstract Objectives This study sought to investigate the ischemic and bleeding outcomes of patients fulfilling high bleeding risk (HBR) criteria who were randomized to zotarolimus-eluting Endeavor ...Sprint stent (E-ZES) or bare-metal stent (BMS) implantation followed by an abbreviated dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) duration for stable or unstable coronary artery disease. Background DES instead of BMS use remains controversial in HBR patients, in whom long-term DAPT poses safety concerns. Methods The ZEUS (Zotarolimus-Eluting Endeavor Sprint Stent in Uncertain DES Candidates) is a multinational, randomized single-blinded trial that randomized among others, in a stratified manner, 828 patients fulfilling pre-defined clinical or biochemical HBR criteria—including advanced age, indication to oral anticoagulants or other pro-hemorrhagic medications, history of bleeding and known anemia—to receive E-ZES or BMS followed by a protocol-mandated 30-day DAPT regimen. The primary endpoint of the study was the 12-month major adverse cardiovascular event rate, consisting of death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization. Results Compared with patients without, those with 1 or more HBR criteria had worse outcomes, owing to higher ischemic and bleeding risks. Among HBR patients, major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in 22.6% of the E-ZES and 29% of the BMS patients (hazard ratio: 0.75; 95% confidence interval: 0.57 to 0.98; p = 0.033), driven by lower myocardial infarction (3.5% vs. 10.4%; p < 0.001) and target vessel revascularization (5.9% vs. 11.4%; p = 0.005) rates in the E-ZES arm. The composite of definite or probable stent thrombosis was significantly reduced in E-ZES recipients, whereas bleeding events did not differ between stent groups. Conclusions Among HBR patients with stable or unstable coronary artery disease, E-ZES implantation provides superior efficacy and safety as compared with conventional BMS. (Zotarolimus-Eluting Endeavor Sprint Stent in Uncertain DES Candidates ZEUS; NCT01385319 )
Summary Background In the RESOLUTE All Comers trial, the Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stent was non-inferior to the Xience V everolimus-eluting stent for the primary stent-related endpoint of target ...lesion failure (cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularisation) at 1 year. However, data for long-term safety and efficacy from randomised studies of new generation drug-eluting coronary stents in patients treated in routine clinical practice are scarce. We report the prespecified 2-year clinical outcomes from the RESOLUTE All Comers trial. Methods In 2008, patients with at least one coronary lesion 2·25–4·0 mm in diameter, with greater than 50% stenosis, were randomly assigned to a Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stent or a Xience V everolimus-eluting stent at 17 centres in Europe and Israel. Randomisation was by an interactive voice response system stratified by centre. Study investigators were not masked to treatment allocation; but those who did data management and analysis, and patients were masked. There were no restrictions as to the number of vessels or lesions treated, or the number of stents implanted. We assessed prespecified safety and efficacy outcomes at 2 years with specific focus on patient-related composite (all death, all myocardial infarction, all revascularisation) and stent-related composite outcomes. Analyses were by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00617084. Findings 1140 patients were assigned to the zotarolimus-eluting stent and 1152 to the everolimus-eluting stent; 1121 and 1128 patients, respectively, completed 2-year follow-up. The patient-related outcome (231 20·6% zotarolimus vs 231 20·5% everolimus; difference 0·1%, 95% CI −3·2 to 3·5; p=0·958) and stent-related outcome (126 11·2% vs 121 10·7%; difference 0·5%, −2·1 to 3·1; p=0·736) did not differ between groups, although rates of the stent-related outcome were substantially lower than were those for the patient-related outcome. Three patients in each group (0·3%) had very late (after 1 year) stent thrombosis. Interpretation Similar safety and efficacy outcomes were sustained between two new generation drug-eluting stents at 2-year follow-up. The greater number of patient-related than stent-related events in patients with complex clinical and lesion characteristics emphasises that during long-term follow-up, the optimisation of secondary prevention is at least as important as the selection of which new generation drug-eluting stent to implant in a specific lesion. Funding Medtronic (USA).
Objectives The aim of the study was to investigate 4-year outcomes and predictors of repeat revascularization in patients treated with the Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stent (R-ZES) (Medtronic, ...Minneapolis, Minnesota) and XIENCE V everolimus-eluting stent (EES) (Abbott Vascular, Abbott Park, Illinois) in the RESOLUTE (A Randomized Comparison of a Zotarolimus-Eluting Stent With an Everolimus-Eluting Stent for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) All-Comers trial. Background Data on long-term outcomes of new-generation drug-eluting stents are limited, and predictors of repeat revascularization due to restenosis and/or progression of disease are largely unknown. Methods Patients were randomly assigned to treatment with the R-ZES (n = 1,140) or the EES (n = 1,152). We assessed pre-specified safety and efficacy outcomes at 4 years including target lesion failure and stent thrombosis. Predictors of revascularization at 4 years were identified by Cox regression analysis. Results At 4 years, the rates of target lesion failure (15.2% vs. 14.6%, p = 0.68), cardiac death (5.4% vs. 4.7%, p = 0.44), and target vessel myocardial infarction (5.3% vs. 5.4%, p = 1.00), clinically-indicated target lesion revascularization (TLR) (7.0% vs. 6.5%, p = 0.62), and definite/probable stent thrombosis (2.3% vs. 1.6%, p = 0.23) were similar with the R-ZES and EES. Independent predictors of TLR were age, insulin-treated diabetes, SYNTAX (Synergy between PCI with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery) score, treatment of saphenous vein grafts, ostial lesions, and in-stent restenosis. Independent predictors of any revascularization were age, diabetes, previous percutaneous coronary intervention, absence of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, smaller reference vessel diameter, SYNTAX score, and treatment of left anterior descending, right coronary artery, saphenous vein grafts, ostial lesions, or in-stent restenosis. Conclusions R-ZES and EES demonstrated similar safety and efficacy throughout 4 years. TLR represented less than one-half of all repeat revascularization procedures. Patient- and lesion-related factors predicting the risk of TLR and any revascularization showed considerable overlap. (A Randomized Comparison of a Zotarolimus-Eluting Stent With an Everolimus-Eluting Stent for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention RESOLUTE-AC; NCT00617084 )
Objectives This study sought to assess device-specific outcomes after implantation of bare-metal stents (BMS), zotarolimus-eluting Endeavor Sprint stents (ZES-S), paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES), ...or everolimus-eluting stents (EES) (Medtronic Cardiovascular, Santa Rosa, California) in all-comer patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Background Few studies have directly compared second-generation drug-eluting stents with each other or with BMS. Methods We randomized 2,013 patients to BMS, ZES-S, PES, or EES implantation. At 30 days, each stent group received up to 6 or 24 months of clopidogrel therapy. The key efficacy endpoint was the 2-year major adverse cardiac event (MACE) including any death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization, whereas the cumulative rate of definite or probable stent thrombosis (ST) was the key safety endpoint. Results Clinical follow-up at 2 years was complete for 99.7% of patients. The MACE rate was lowest in EES (19.2%; 95% confidence interval CI: 16.0 to 22.8), highest in BMS (32.1%; 95% CI: 28.1 to 36.3), and intermediate in PES (26.2%; 95% CI: 22.5 to 30.2) and ZES-S (27.8%; 95% CI: 24.1 to 31.9) groups (chi-square test = 18.9, p = 0.00029). The 2-year incidence of ST in the EES group (1%; 95% CI: 0.4 to 2.2) was similar to that in the ZES-S group (1.4%; 95% CI: 0.7 to 2.8), whereas it was lower compared with the PES (4.6%, 95% CI: 3.1 to 6.8) and BMS (3.6%; 95% CI: 2.4 to 5.6) groups (chi-square = 16.9; p = 0.0001). Conclusions Our study shows that cumulative MACE rate, encompassing both safety and efficacy endpoints, was lowest for EES, highest for BMS, and intermediate for PES and ZES-S groups. EES outperformed BMS also with respect to the safety endpoints with regard to definite or probable and definite, probable, or possible ST. (PROlonging Dual antiplatelet treatment after Grading stent-induced Intimal hyperplasia studY PRODIGY; NCT00611286 )
Objectives The purpose of this study is to compare the 5-year clinical outcomes, safety, and efficacy of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) in the ARTS II (Arterial Revascularization Therapies Study II) ...with the outcomes of coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) and bare-metal stenting (BMS) from the ARTS I. Background The long-term outcomes after SES implantation in patients with multivessel disease remains to be established. Methods The ARTS I was a randomized trial of 1,205 patients with multivessel disease comparing CABG and BMS. The ARTS II study was a nonrandomized trial with the Cypher sirolimus-eluting stent (Cordis, a Johnson & Johnson Company, Warren, New Jersey), applying the same inclusion and exclusion criteria, end points, and protocol definitions. The ARTS II trial enrolled 607 patients, with an attempt to enroll at least one-third of patients with 3-vessel disease. Results At 5-year, the death/stroke/myocardial infarction event-free survival rate was 87.1% in ARTS II SES, versus 86.0% (p = 0.1) and 81.9% (p = 0.007) in ARTS I CABG and BMS cohorts, respectively. The 5-year major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event (MACCE) rate in ARTS II (27.5%) was significantly higher than ARTS I CABG (21.1%, p = 0.02), and lower than in ARTS I BMS (41.5%, p < 0.001). The cumulative incidence of definite stent thrombosis was 3.8%. Thirty-two percent (56 of 176) of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 5 years were related to possible, probable, or definite stent thrombosis. Conclusions At 5 years, SES had a safety record comparable to CABG and superior to BMS, and a MACCE rate that was higher than in patients treated with CABG, and lower than in those treated with BMS. Approximately one-third of the events seen with SES could be prevented through the elimination of early, late, and very late stent thrombosis.
Background Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are frequently prescribed in combination with clopidogrel, but conflicting data exist as to whether PPIs diminish the efficacy of clopidogrel. We assessed the ...association between PPI use and clinical outcomes for patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with clopidogrel plus aspirin. Methods and results In the PRODIGY trial, 1,970 patients were randomized to 6- or 24-month DAPT at 30 days from index procedure. Among them, 738 patients (37.5%) received PPI (mainly lansoprazole; 90.1%) at the time of randomization. Proton pump inhibitor users were older, were most likely to be woman, had a lower creatinine clearance, presented more frequently with acute coronary syndrome, and had a higher CRUSADE bleeding score. After adjustment, the primary efficacy end point (composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and cerebrovascular accident) was similar between no PPI and PPI users (9.2% vs 11.5%, adjusted hazard ratio HR 1.051, 95% CI 0.788-1.400, P = .736). Bleeding rates did not differ between the 2 groups (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 2, 3, or 5: adjusted HR 0.996, 95% CI 0.672-1.474, P = .980). Net clinical adverse events were also similar in no PPI and PPI patients (12.9% vs 14.9%, adjusted HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.772-1.268, P = .93). Results remained consistent at sensitivity analysis when focusing on the 548 patients who remained on PPI for the whole study duration. Conclusions The current findings suggest that the concomitant use of PPIs, when clinically indicated, in patients receiving clopidogrel is not associated with adverse clinical outcome.
Summary Background We sought to compare the long-term safety of two devices with different antiproliferative properties: the Endeavor zotarolimus-eluting stent (E-ZES; Medtronic, Inc) and the Cypher ...sirolimus-eluting stent (C-SES; Cordis, Johnson & Johnson) in a broad group of patients and lesions. Methods Between May 21, 2007 and Dec 22, 2008, we recruited 8791 patients from 36 recruiting countries to participate in this open-label, multicentre, randomised, superiority trial. Eligible patients were those aged 18 years or older undergoing elective, unplanned, or emergency procedures in native coronary arteries. Patients were randomly assigned to either receive E-ZES and C-SES (ratio 1:1). Randomisation was stratified per centre with varying block sizes of four, six, or eight patients, and concealed with a central telephone-based or web-based allocation service. The primary outcome was definite or probable stent thrombosis at 3 years and was analysed by intention to treat. Patients and investigators were aware of treatment assignment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00476957. Findings PROTECT randomised 8791 patients, of whom 8709 provided consent to participate and were eligible: 4357 were allocated to the E-ZES group and 4352 patients to the C-SES group. At 3 years, rates of definite or probable stent thrombosis did not differ between groups (1·4% for E-ZES predicted: 1·5% vs 1·8% predicted: 2·5% for C-SES; hazard ratio HR 0·81, 95% CI 0·58–1·14, p=0·22). Dual antiplatelet therapy was used in 8402 (96%) patients at discharge, 7456 (88%) at 1 year, 3041 (37%) at 2 years, and 2364 (30%) at 3 years. Interpretation No evidence of superiority of E-ZES compared with C-SES in definite or probable stent thrombosis rates was noted at 3 years. Time analysis suggests a difference in definite or probable stent thrombosis between groups is emerging over time, and a longer follow-up is therefore needed given the clinical relevance of stent thrombosis. Funding Medtronic, Inc.
PDF
