Abstract Objectives The purpose of this study was to compare the 1-year outcome between bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) and everolimus-eluting metallic stent (EES) in ST-segment elevation ...myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients. Background The Absorb BVS (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, California) is a polymeric scaffold approved for treatment of stable coronary lesions. Limited and not randomized data are available on its use in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients. Methods This study included 290 consecutive STEMI patients treated by BVS, compared with either 290 STEMI patients treated with EES or 290 STEMI patients treated with bare-metal stents (BMS) from the EXAMINATION (A Clinical Evaluation of Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stents in the Treatment of Patients With ST-segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction) trial, by applying propensity score matching. The primary endpoint was a device-oriented endpoint (DOCE), including cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization, at 1-year follow-up. Device thrombosis, according to the Academic Research Consortium criteria, was also evaluated. Results The cumulative incidence of DOCE did not differ between the BVS and EES or BMS groups either at 30 days (3.1% vs. 2.4%, hazard ratio HR: 1.31 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.48 to 3.52, p = 0.593; vs. 2.8%, HR: 1.15 95% CI: 0.44 to 2.30, p = 0.776, respectively) or at 1 year (4.1% vs. 4.1%, HR: 0.99 95% CI: 0.23 to 4.32, p = 0.994; vs. 5.9%, HR: 0.50 95% CI: 0.13 to 1.88, p = 0.306, respectively). Definite/probable BVS thrombosis rate was numerically higher either at 30 days (2.1% vs. 0.3%, p = 0.059; vs. 1.0%, p = 0.324, respectively) or at 1 year (2.4% vs. 1.4%, p = 0.948; vs. 1.7%, p = 0.825, respectively), as compared with EES or BMS. Conclusions At 1-year follow-up, STEMI patients treated with BVS showed similar rates of DOCE compared with STEMI patients treated with EES or BMS, although rate of scaffolds thrombosis, mostly clustered in the early phase, was not negligible. Larger studies with longer follow-up are needed to confirm our findings.
Abstract Objectives The purpose of this study was to compare the 1-year outcomes of the ABSORB everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold (BRS) (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, California) and the ...XIENCE everolimus-eluting stent (EES) (Abbott Vascular) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Background Randomized studies of the ABSORB BRS have been performed in selected patient and lesion scenarios. The available registries of the ABSORB BRS reflect real-world practice more closely compared with randomized studies, but most of them are limited by the small sample size and the lack of comparative outcomes versus second-generation drug-eluting stents. Methods A total of 1,189 consecutive patients treated with ABSORB BRS from the GHOST-EU (Gauging coronary Healing with bioresorbable Scaffolding plaTforms in EUrope) registry and 5,034 patients treated with XIENCE EES from the XIENCE V USA registry were analyzed. Clinical outcomes were compared with the use of propensity-score matching techniques and reported as Kaplan-Meier estimates and absolute risk difference (D) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The primary endpoint was a device-oriented composite endpoint, including cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization at 1-year follow-up. Results After propensity score matching was performed for the entire population (N = 6,223), there were 905 matched pairs of patients. In the matched cohort (N = 1,810), there was no significant difference between ABSORB BRS and XIENCE EES in the risk of device-oriented composite endpoint at 1 year (5.8% vs. 7.6%, D = −1.8 95% CI: −4.1 to 0.5; p = 0.12). Cardiac death was less likely to occur in the ABSORB BRS group (0.7% vs. 1.9%, D = −1.2 95% CI: −2.2 to 0.2; p = 0.03), and a trend toward a reduction in myocardial infarction was noted with ABSORB BRS compared with XIENCE EES (2.4% vs. 4.0%, D = −1.6 95% CI: −3.2 to 0.0; p = 0.07). Conversely, no differences in ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (4.6% vs. 3.5%, D = 1.1 95% CI: −0.7 to 2.9; p = 0.22) and definite or probable device thrombosis (1.8% vs. 1.1%, D = 0.7 95% CI: −0.4 to 1.8; p = 0.23) were detected between ABSORB BRS and XIENCE EES. Conclusions In a contemporary large cohort of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with ABSORB BRS, the combined rate of ischemic events at 1 year was low and nonsignificantly different compared with matched patients treated with XIENCE EES.
Objectives This study sought to assess the 2-year outcomes of the population included in the EXAMINATION (Everolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Bare-Metal Stents in ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial ...Infarction) trial beyond the 1-year prescription period of dual antiplatelet therapy. Background The EXAMINATION trial compared the performance of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) versus bare-metal stents (BMS) in an all-comer ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) population. Methods This was a multicenter, multinational, prospective, randomized, single-blind, controlled trial in patients with STEMI. The primary endpoint, which was the combined endpoint of all-cause death, any recurrent myocardial infarction, and any revascularization, and the endpoints target lesion revascularization and stent thrombosis were assessed at 2 years. Results Between December 31, 2008, and May 15, 2010, 1,498 patients were randomized to receive EES (n = 751) or BMS (n = 747). Compliance with dual antiplatelet regimen was reduced at 2 years to a similar degree (17.3% vs. 17.2%, p = 0.91). At 2 years, the primary endpoint occurred in 108 (14.4%) patients of the EES group and in 129 (17.3%) patients of the BMS group (p = 0.11). Rate of target lesion revascularization was significantly lower in the EES group than in the BMS group (2.9% vs. 5.6%; p = 0.009). Rates of definite and definite or probable stent thrombosis were also significantly reduced in the EES group (0.8% vs. 2.1%; p = 0.03, and 1.3% vs. 2.8%; p = 0.04, respectively). Conclusions The 2-year follow-up of the EXAMINATION trial confirms the safety and efficacy of the EES compared with BMS in the setting of STEMI. Specifically, both rates of target lesion revascularization and stent thrombosis were reduced in recipients of EES without any signs of late attrition for either of these endpoints. (A Clinical Evaluation of Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stents in the Treatment of Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: EXAMINATION Study; NCT00828087 )
Complete revascularisation should be immediate in STEMI: pros and cons Kastrati, Adnan; Kessler, Thorsten; Rinaldi, Riccardo ...
EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology,
02/2024, Letnik:
20, Številka:
3
Journal Article
Intracoronary injection of bone marrow stem cells seems to improve left ventricular (LV) function after acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) could improve ...myocardial function and perfusion noninvasively through mobilization of stem cells into peripheral blood, although previous clinical trials have produced controversial results. Forty-one patients with large anterior wall AMI at high risk of unfavorable remodeling were randomized 1:2 to G-CSF (10 μg/kg/day for 5 days) or to conventional therapy. All patients underwent successful primary or rescue percutaneous coronary intervention. LV function was assessed by echocardiography before G-CSF administration, ≥5 days after AMI, and at follow-up. Only patients with a LV ejection fraction <50% at baseline were enrolled in the study. After a median follow-up of 5 months (range 4 to 6) patients treated with G-CSF exhibited improvement in LV ejection fraction, from 40 ± 6% to 45 ± 6% (p = 0.068) in the absence of LV dilation (LV end-diastolic volume from 147 ± 33 to 144 ± 46 ml at follow-up, p = 0.77). In contrast, patients treated conventionally exhibited significant LV dilation (LV end-diastolic volume from 141 ± 35 to 168 ± 41 ml, p = 0.002) in the absence of change in LV ejection fraction (from 38 ± 6% to 38 ± 8%, p = 0.95). However, when comparing patients treated with G-CSF with controls, variations in these parameters were significantly different at 2-way analysis of variance (p = 0.04 for LV end-diastolic volume, p = 0.02 for LV ejection fraction). In conclusion, G-CSF prevents unfavorable LV remodeling and improves LV function in patients with large anterior wall AMI and decreased LV ejection fraction after successful percutaneous coronary intervention.
The aim of this study was to investigate the potential role of post-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) quantitative flow ratio (QFR) measurements to predict clinical outcomes in patients with ...successful PCI.
The prognostic value of QFR measured immediately after PCI has not been prospectively investigated.
Patients undergoing complete revascularization with successful PCI and stent implantation were eligible for acquisition of projections for QFR computation. At the end of the procedure, 2 angiographic projections for each vessel treated with PCI were acquired. Computation of QFR was performed offline by an independent core laboratory. The primary outcome was the vessel-oriented composite endpoint, defined as vessel-related cardiovascular death, vessel-related myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization.
Seven hundred fifty-one vessels in 602 patients were analyzed. The median value of post-PCI QFR was 0.97 (interquartile range: 0.92 to 0.99). Lesion location in the left anterior descending coronary artery, baseline SYNTAX (Synergy Between PCI With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery) score, lesion length, and post-PCI diameter stenosis were found to be predictors of lower post-PCI QFR. Altogether, 77 events were detected in 53 treated vessels (7%). Post-PCI QFR was significantly lower in vessels with the vessel-oriented composite endpoint during follow-up, compared with those without it (0.88 interquartile range: 0.81 to 0.99 vs. 0.97 interquartile range: 0.93 to 0.99, respectively; p < 0.001). Receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis identified a post-PCI QFR best cutoff of ≤0.89 (area under the curve 0.77; 95% confidence interval: 0.74 to 0.80; p < 0.001). After correction for potential confounding factors, post-PCI QFR ≤0.89 was associated with a 3-fold increase in risk for the vessel-oriented composite endpoint (hazard ratio: 2.91; 95% confidence interval: 1.63 to 5.19; p < 0.001).
Lower values of QFR after complete and successful revascularization predict subsequent adverse events (Angio-Based Fractional Flow Reserve to Predict Adverse Events After Stent Implantation HAWKEYE; NCT02811796).
Objectives The purpose of this study was to investigate the long-term outcome after elective percutaneous coronary intervention in low-risk patients screened for aspirin and/or clopidogrel ...responsiveness in the 3T/2R (Tailoring Treatment With Tirofiban in Patients Showing Resistance to Aspirin and/or Resistance to Clopidogrel) trial. Background The impact of aspirin and/or clopidogrel poor response on long-term outcome is debated. Methods Aspirin and clopidogrel response was measured with the VerifyNow system aspirin and P2Y12 assays. After percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), death, stroke, and myocardial infarction were assessed up to 1 year. Results Overall, 1,277 patients were screened, and 826 (65%) were treated with PCI. In all, 124 patients were found to be aspirin poor responders, and there were 179 clopidogrel poor responders (totally, 278 poor responders). The 1-year end point was significantly higher in poor responders as compared to full responders (15.8% vs. 8.6%, p = 0.002), which is principally due to more myocardial infarction occurrence. At multivariable analysis, clopidogrel poor response emerged as an independent predictor (hazard ratio: 1.15, 95% confidence interval: 1.03 to 1.28). Receiver-operator characteristic analysis identifies ≤23 of percentage of platelet inhibition and ≥208 of P2Y12 reactivity units as optimal cut offs to predict 1-year end point. Excluding periprocedural events, also peri-PCI myocardial infarction, which is strongly related to aspirin/clopidogrel poor response, was an independent predictor (hazard ratio: 1.25, 95% confidence interval: 1.14 to 1.37). Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor administration reduces this risk in poor responders (21.2% vs. 34.7%, p = 0.02), but not in full responders (6.3% vs. 6.5%, p = 0.8). Conclusions Poor response to clopidogrel is an independent predictor of periprocedural myocardial infarction and worse 1-year outcome in low-risk patients undergoing PCI, whereas poor response to aspirin failed to predict a worse outcome. Contrary to what was observed in poor responders, glycoprotein IIb/IIa inhibitor therapy failed to provide a benefit in aspirin and/or clopidogrel full responders.
PDF
