Midterm Clinical Impacts of Biodegradable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stents Compared with Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stents: A 3-Year Propensity-Matched Study

Objectives. Our aim was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of biodegradable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (BP-EES) compared with durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP-EES) in midterm. Background. There are few data about midterm clinical outcomes of BP-EES compared with DP-EES. Methods and Results. Between January 2016 and December 2017, 395 consecutive patients were treated with BP-EES and 391 consecutive patients were treated with DP-EES in Nagoya Heart Center. The primary endpoint was a 3-year cumulative incidence of target lesion failure (TLF) defined as cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction (MI), and clinical indicated target lesion revascularization (TLR). Moreover, clinical indicated target vessel revascularization (TVR) and definite stent thrombosis (ST) were also evaluated as the secondary endpoints. After propensity score matching, 327 patients were selected in each group. At 3 years, the cumulative incidence of TLF was 4.5% in the BP-EES group versus 6.5% in DP-EES (adjusted HR 0.67 (95% CI 0.33–1.30), log-rank P=0.23). Regarding the individual components of the TLF at 3 years, the cumulative incidence of target vessel MI was significantly lower in BP-EES than in DP-EES (0% versus 1.9%: adjusted HR 0.83 (95% CI 0.71–0.97), log-rank P=0.01), but there was no difference between BP-EES and DP-EES in the incidence of cardiac death and clinically indicated TLR. The cumulative 3-year incidence of definite ST was significantly lower in BP-EES than in DP-EES (0% versus 1.6%, log-rank P=0.02). Conclusions. There were no significant differences of TLF between BP-EES and DP-EES within 3 years. In this study, BP-EES seems to prevent definite ST and be safer than DP-EES in midterm

Calculated plasma volume status and outcomes in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Abstract Aims This study investigated the prognostic value of plasma volume status (PVS) in patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Methods and results Plasma volume status was calculated in 2588 patients who underwent TAVR using data from the Japanese multicentre registry. All‐cause mortality and heart failure hospitalization (HFH) within 2 years of TAVR were compared among the PVS quartiles (Q1, PVS < 5.5%; Q2, PVS 5.5–13.5%; Q3, PVS 13.5–21.0%; and Q4, PVS ≥ 21.0%). Subgroups were stratified by the PVS cut‐off value combined with the New York Heart Association (NYHA) class as follows: low PVS with NYHA I/II (n = 959), low PVS with NYHA III/IV (n = 845), high PVS with NYHA I/II (n = 308), and high PVS with NYHA III/IV (n = 476). The cumulative all‐cause mortality and HFH within 2 years of TAVR significantly increased with increasing PVS quartiles [8.5%, 16.8%, 19.2%, and 27.0% (P < 0.001) and 5.8%, 8.7%, 10.3%, and 12.9% (P < 0.001), respectively]. The high‐PVS group regardless of the NYHA class had a higher all‐cause mortality and HFH [9.6%, 18.2%, 24.5%, and 30.4% (P < 0.001) and 6.1%, 10.4%, 14.1%, and 11.3% (P < 0.001)]. In a Cox regression multivariate analysis, the PVS values of Q3 and Q4 had independently increased all‐cause mortality [hazard ratio (HR), 1.50 and 1.64 (P = 0.017 and P = 0.008), respectively], and Q4 had independently increased HFH (HR, 1.98, P = 0.005). The low PVS with NYHA III/IV, high PVS with NYHA I/II, and high PVS with NYHA III/IV also had significantly increased all‐cause mortality [HR, 1.45, 1.73, and 1.86 (P = 0.006, P = 0.002, and P < 0.001), respectively] and HFH [HR, 1.52, 2.21, and 1.70 (P = 0.049, P = 0.002, and P = 0.031), respectively]. Conclusions Plasma volume status is useful for predicting all‐cause mortality and HFH after TAVR