A Randomized Comparison of the Endeavor Zotarolimus-Eluting Stent Versus the TAXUS Paclitaxel-Eluting Stent in De Novo Native Coronary Lesions 12-Month Outcomes From the ENDEAVOR IV Trial

ObjectivesThe ENDEAVOR IV (Randomized Comparison of Zotarolimus-Eluting and Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease) trial evaluated the safety and efficacy of the zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) compared with the paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES).BackgroundFirst-generation drug-eluting stents have reduced angiographic and clinical restenosis, but long-term safety remains controversial. A second-generation drug-eluting stent, which delivers zotarolimus, a potent antiproliferative agent, via a biocompatible phosphorylcholine polymer on a cobalt alloy thin-strut stent has shown promising experimental and early clinical results.MethodsThis is a prospective, randomized (1:1), single-blind, controlled trial comparing outcomes of patients with single de novo coronary lesions treated with ZES or PES. The primary end point was noninferiority of 9-month target vessel failure defined as cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization.ResultsAmong a total of 1,548 patients assigned to ZES (n = 773) or PES (n = 775), at 9 months, ZES was noninferior to PES with rates of target vessel failure 6.6% versus 7.1%, respectively (pnoninferiority≤ 0.001). There were fewer periprocedural myocardial infarctions with ZES (0.5% vs. 2.2%; p = 0.007), whereas at 12 months, there were no significant differences between groups in rates of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, or stent thrombosis. Although incidence of 8-month binary angiographic in-segment restenosis was higher in patients treated with ZES versus PES (15.3% vs. 10.4%; p = 0.284), rates of 12-month target lesion revascularization were similar (4.5% vs. 3.2%; p = 0.228), especially in patients without planned angiographic follow-up (3.6% vs. 3.2%; p = 0.756).ConclusionsThese findings demonstrate that ZES has similar clinical safety and efficacy compared with PES in simple and medium complexity single de novo coronary lesions. (ENDEAVOR IV Clinical Trial; NCT00217269

The Changing Landscape for Stroke\ua0Prevention in AF: Findings From the GLORIA-AF Registry Phase 2

Background GLORIA-AF (Global Registry on Long-Term Oral Antithrombotic Treatment in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation) is a prospective, global registry program describing antithrombotic treatment patterns in patients with newly diagnosed nonvalvular atrial fibrillation at risk of stroke. Phase 2 began when dabigatran, the first non\u2013vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC), became available. Objectives This study sought to describe phase 2 baseline data and compare these with the pre-NOAC era collected during phase 1. Methods During phase 2, 15,641 consenting patients were enrolled (November 2011 to December 2014); 15,092 were eligible. This pre-specified cross-sectional analysis describes eligible patients\u2019 baseline characteristics. Atrial fibrillation disease characteristics, medical outcomes, and concomitant diseases and medications were collected. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results Of the total patients, 45.5% were female; median age was 71 (interquartile range: 64, 78) years. Patients were from Europe (47.1%), North America (22.5%), Asia (20.3%), Latin America (6.0%), and the Middle East/Africa (4.0%). Most had high stroke risk (CHA2DS2-VASc [Congestive heart failure, Hypertension, Age  6575 years, Diabetes mellitus, previous Stroke, Vascular disease, Age 65 to 74 years, Sex category] score  652; 86.1%); 13.9% had moderate risk (CHA2DS2-VASc = 1). Overall, 79.9% received oral anticoagulants, of whom 47.6% received NOAC and 32.3% vitamin K antagonists (VKA); 12.1% received antiplatelet agents; 7.8% received no antithrombotic treatment. For comparison, the proportion of phase 1 patients (of N = 1,063 all eligible) prescribed VKA was 32.8%, acetylsalicylic acid 41.7%, and no therapy 20.2%. In Europe in phase 2, treatment with NOAC was more common than VKA (52.3% and 37.8%, respectively); 6.0% of patients received antiplatelet treatment; and 3.8% received no antithrombotic treatment. In North America, 52.1%, 26.2%, and 14.0% of patients received NOAC, VKA, and antiplatelet drugs, respectively; 7.5% received no antithrombotic treatment. NOAC use was less common in Asia (27.7%), where 27.5% of patients received VKA, 25.0% antiplatelet drugs, and 19.8% no antithrombotic treatment. Conclusions The baseline data from GLORIA-AF phase 2 demonstrate that in newly diagnosed nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients, NOAC have been highly adopted into practice, becoming more frequently prescribed than VKA in Europe and North America. Worldwide, however, a large proportion of patients remain undertreated, particularly in Asia and North America. (Global Registry on Long-Term Oral Antithrombotic Treatment in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation [GLORIA-AF]; NCT01468701

Antithrombotic strategies in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing early invasive management: one-year results from the ACUITY trial.

CONTEXT: At 30-day follow-up, patients with moderate- and high-risk acute coronary syndromes (ACS) undergoing early invasive treatment in the ACUITY trial with bivalirudin monotherapy vs heparin plus glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa inhibitors had noninferior rates of adverse ischemic events with reduced rates of major bleeding. Deferred upstream use of GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors for selective administration to patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) resulted in a significant reduction in major bleeding, although a small increase in composite ischemia could not be excluded. OBJECTIVE: To determine 1-year ischemic outcomes for patients in the ACUITY trial. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: A prospective, randomized, open-label trial with 1-year clinical follow-up at 450 academic and community-based institutions in 17 countries. A total of 13,819 patients with moderate- and high-risk ACS undergoing invasive treatment were enrolled between August 23, 2003, and December 5, 2005. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were assigned to heparin plus GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors (n = 4603), bivalirudin plus GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors (n = 4604), or bivalirudin monotherapy (n = 4612). Of these patients, 4605 were assigned to routine upstream GP IIb/IIIa administration and 4602 were deferred to selective GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor administration. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Composite ischemia (death, myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization for ischemia) at 1 year. RESULTS: Composite ischemia at 1 year occurred in 15.4% of patients assigned to heparin plus GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors and 16.0% assigned to bivalirudin plus GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors (compared with heparin plus GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors, HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.95-1.16; P = .35), and 16.2% assigned to bivalirudin monotherapy (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.95-1.17; P = .29). Mortality at 1 year occurred in an estimated 3.9% of patients assigned to heparin plus GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors, 3.9% assigned to bivalirudin plus GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.80-1.22; P = .92), and 3.8% assigned to bivalirudin monotherapy (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.77-1.18; P = .67). Composite ischemia occurred in 16.3% of patients assigned to deferred use compared with 15.2% of patients assigned to upstream administration (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.97-1.20; P = .15). CONCLUSIONS: At 1 year, no statistically significant difference in rates of composite ischemia or mortality among patients with moderate- and high-risk ACS undergoing invasive treatment with the 3 therapies was found. There was no statistically significant difference in the rates of composite ischemia between patients receiving routine upstream administration of GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors vs deferring their use for patients undergoing PCI. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00093158

Early stent thrombosis in patients with acute coronary syndromes treated with drug-eluting and bare metal stents: the Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage Strategy trial.

BACKGROUND: The clinical and angiographic predictors of early (\u3c30 \u3edays) stent thrombosis (ST) have not been reported in high-risk patients with acute coronary syndromes. METHODS AND RESULTS: Qualitative and quantitative coronary angiographic analyses were performed in 3405 patients with moderate- and high-risk acute coronary syndromes in whom stents were implanted in the prospective randomized Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage Strategy (ACUITY) trial, including 3043 patients (89.4%) in whom drug-eluting stents were implanted. Within 30 days, definite or probable ST occurred in 48 patients (1.4%). ST rates were not significantly different in patients treated with bare metal stents compared with drug-eluting stents (1.4% versus 1.4%; P=1.00) or with heparin plus glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (1.1%) compared with bivalirudin with or without IIb/IIIa inhibitors (1.6% and 1.5%, respectively; P=0.26 and P=0.37, respectively). Compared with patients without ST, patients with ST more frequently had insulin-requiring diabetes mellitus and baseline renal insufficiency, a greater overall burden of coronary atherosclerosis, and suboptimal final angiographic results. ST also was more common in patients without preprocedural thienopyridine administration and with inconsistent antiplatelet drug use within 30 days. By multivariable analysis, the strongest independent predictors of definite ST were a smaller final stent minimal lumen diameter, a lack of preprocedural thienopyridine administration, the extent of coronary artery disease, and higher baseline hemoglobin level. CONCLUSIONS: Occurring in nearly 1 in 70 patients, early ST is relatively common in acute coronary syndromes, occurs with similar frequency after anticoagulation with either heparin plus glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors or bivalirudin with or without IIb/IIIa inhibitors, and is predicted by diffuse atherosclerosis, suboptimal angiographic results, and inadequate pharmacotherapy

Bivalirudin for patients with acute coronary syndromes.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines for patients with moderate- or high-risk acute coronary syndromes recommend an early invasive approach with concomitant antithrombotic therapy, including aspirin, clopidogrel, unfractionated or low-molecular-weight heparin, and glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors. We evaluated the role of thrombin-specific anticoagulation with bivalirudin in such patients. METHODS: We assigned 13,819 patients with acute coronary syndromes to one of three antithrombotic regimens: unfractionated heparin or enoxaparin plus a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor, bivalirudin plus a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor, or bivalirudin alone. The primary end points were a composite ischemia end point (death, myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization for ischemia), major bleeding, and the net clinical outcome, defined as the combination of composite ischemia or major bleeding. RESULTS: Bivalirudin plus a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor, as compared with heparin plus a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor, was associated with noninferior 30-day rates of the composite ischemia end point (7.7% and 7.3%, respectively), major bleeding (5.3% and 5.7%), and the net clinical outcome end point (11.8% and 11.7%). Bivalirudin alone, as compared with heparin plus a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor, was associated with a noninferior rate of the composite ischemia end point (7.8% and 7.3%, respectively; P=0.32; relative risk, 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93 to 1.24) and significantly reduced rates of major bleeding (3.0% vs. 5.7%; P<0.001; relative risk, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.65) and the net clinical outcome end point (10.1% vs. 11.7%; P=0.02; relative risk, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.77 to 0.97). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with moderate- or high-risk acute coronary syndromes who were undergoing invasive treatment with glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, bivalirudin was associated with rates of ischemia and bleeding that were similar to those with heparin. Bivalirudin alone was associated with similar rates of ischemia and significantly lower rates of bleeding. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00093158 [ClinicalTrials.gov].)

Economic evaluation of bivalirudin with or without glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibition versus heparin with routine glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibition for early invasive management of acute coronary syndromes.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine the economic impact of several anticoagulation strategies for moderate- and high-risk non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) patients managed invasively. BACKGROUND: The ACUITY (Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage Strategy) trial demonstrated that bivalirudin monotherapy yields similar rates of ischemic complications and less bleeding than regimens incorporating glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitors (GPI) for moderate- and high-risk NSTE-ACS. METHODS: In ACUITY, 7,851 U.S. patients were randomized to: 1) heparin (unfractionated or enoxaparin) + GPI; 2) bivalirudin + GPI; or 3) bivalirudin monotherapy. Patients assigned to GPI were also randomized to upstream GPI before catheterization or selective GPI only with percutaneous coronary intervention. Resource use data were collected prospectively through 30-day follow-up. Costs were estimated with standard methods including resource-based accounting, hospital billing data, and the Medicare fee schedule. RESULTS: At 30 days, ischemic events were similar for all groups. Major bleeding was reduced with bivalirudin monotherapy compared with heparin + GPI or bivalirudin + GPI (p \u3c 0.001). Length of stay was lowest with bivalirudin monotherapy or bivalirudin + catheterization laboratory GPI (p = 0.02). Despite higher drug costs, aggregate hospital stay costs were lowest with bivalirudin monotherapy (mean difference range: $184 to$1,081, p \u3c 0.001 for overall comparison) and at 30 days (mean difference range: $123 to$938, p = 0.005). Regression modeling demonstrated that hospital savings were primarily due to less major and minor bleeding with bivalirudin ($8,658/event and$2,282/event, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Among U.S. patients in the ACUITY trial, bivalirudin monotherapy compared with heparin + GPI resulted in similar protection from ischemic events, reduced bleeding, and shorter length of stay. Despite higher drug costs, aggregate hospital and 30-day costs were lowest with bivalirudin monotherapy. Thus bivalirudin monotherapy seems to be an economically attractive alternative to heparin + GPI for patients with moderate- and high-risk NSTE-ACS. (Comparison of Angiomax Versus Heparin in Acute Coronary Syndromes [ACS]; NCT00093158)

Late Safety, Efficacy, and Cost-Effectiveness of a Zotarolimus-Eluting Stent Compared With a Paclitaxel-Eluting Stent in Patients With De Novo Coronary Lesions 2-Year Follow-Up From the ENDEAVOR IV Trial (Randomized, Controlled Trial of the Medtronic Endeavor Drug [ABT-578] Eluting Coronary Stent System Versus the Taxus Paclitaxel-Eluting Coronary Stent System in De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions)

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to assess, after 2 years of follow-up, the safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of a zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) compared with a paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) in patients with native coronary lesions.BackgroundEarly drug-eluting stents were associated with a small but significant incidence of very late stent thrombosis (VLST), occurring >1 year after the index procedure. The ZES has shown encouraging results in clinical trials.MethodsThe ENDEAVOR IV trial (Randomized, Controlled Trial of the Medtronic Endeavor Drug [ABT-578] Eluting Coronary Stent System Versus the Taxus Paclitaxel-Eluting Coronary Stent System in De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions), a randomized (1:1), single-blind, controlled trial (n = 1,548) compared ZES versus PES in patients with single de novo coronary lesions. Two-year follow-up was obtained in 96.0% of ZES and 95.4% of PES patients. The primary end point was target vessel failure (TVF), and safety end points included Academic Research Consortium-defined stent thrombosis. Economic end points analyzed included quality-adjusted survival, medical costs, and relative cost-effectiveness of ZES and PES.ResultsThe TVF at 2 years was similar in ZES and PES patients (11.1% vs. 13.1%, p = 0.232). There were fewer myocardial infarctions (MIs) in ZES patients (p = 0.022), due to fewer periprocedural non–Q-wave MIs and fewer late MIs between 1 and 2 years. Late MIs were associated with increased VLST (PES: 6 vs. ZES: 1; p = 0.069). Target lesion revascularization was similar comparing ZES with PES (5.9% vs. 4.6%; p = 0.295), especially in patients without planned angiographic follow-up (5.2% vs. 4.9%; p = 0.896). The cost-effectiveness of ZES and PES was similar.ConclusionsAfter 2 years of follow-up, ZES demonstrated efficacy and cost-effectiveness comparable to PES, with fewer MIs and a trend toward less VLST. (The ENDEAVOR IV Clinical Trial: A Trial of a Coronary Stent System in Coronary Artery Lesions; NCT00217269