The use of modern telemedicine technologies in an innovative optimal cardiac rehabilitation program for patients after myocardial revascularization: Concept and design of RESTORE, a randomized clinical trial

Despite proven efficacy of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) in reducing the all-cause mortality in patients after myocardial revascularization, the penetration of CR, due to patient-related factors and referral rates remains limited. To improve the outcomes, home-based tele-rehabilitation (TR) has been proposed recently. In theory TR enhances the effects of standard CR procedures due to implementation of an intelligent monitoring system designed to ensure optimal training through on-demand transmission of vital signs, aimed at motivating the patients through daily schedule reminders, setting daily goals and creating a platform for mutual feedback. Several meta-analyses assessing various studies comparing these two methods (CR and TR) have proven that they are at least equally effective, with some of the research showing superiority of TR. Although there was a small sample size, lack of long-term follow-up, reporting effects of TR itself, no integration with tools designed for coaching, motivating and promoting a healthy lifestyle constitutes an important limitation. The latter carries a hopeful prognosis for improvement when utilizing a broad-spectrum approach, especially with use of dedicated technological solutions exploiting the fact of a large and yet rapidly increasing penetration of smartphones, mobile PCs and tablets in the population. The above-mentioned findings worked as the basis and rationale for commencing the RESTORE project aimed at developing and delivering state-of-the-art, comprehensive TR for patients after myocardial revascularization and evaluating its molecular aspect in view of how it influences the atherosclerosis progression attenuation. This paper presents the current state and rationale behind the project based on up-to-date TR efficacy data

Early and Long-Term Results of Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Stenting The LE MANS (Left Main Coronary Artery Stenting) Registry

ObjectivesThe aim of the study was to evaluate early and late outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of unprotected left main coronary artery disease (ULMCA) and to compare bare-metal stent (BMS) and drug-eluting stent (DES) subgroups.BackgroundPCI is an increasingly utilized method of revascularization in patients with ULMCA.MethodsThis multicenter prospective registry included 252 patients after ULMCA stenting enrolled between March 1997 and February 2008. Non–ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome was diagnosed in 58% of patients; ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction cases were excluded. Drug-eluting stents were implanted in 36.2% of patients.ResultsMajor adverse cardiovascular and cerebral events (MACCE) occurred in 12 (4.8%) patients during the 30-day period, which included 4 (1.5%) deaths. After 12 months there were 17 (12.1%) angiographically confirmed cases of restenosis. During long-term follow-up (1 to 11 years, mean 3.8 years) there were 64 (25.4%) MACCE and 35 (13.9%) deaths. The 5- and 10-year survival rates were 78.1% and 68.9%, respectively. Despite differences in demographical and clinical data in favor of BMS patients, unmatched analysis showed a significantly lower MACCE rate in DES patients (25.9% vs. 14.9%, p = 0.039). This difference was strengthened after propensity score matching. The DES lowered both mortality and MACCE for distal ULMCA lesions when compared with BMS. Ejection fraction <50% was the only independent risk factor influencing long-term survival.ConclusionsStenting of ULMCA is feasible and offers good long-term outcome. Implantation of DES for ULMCA decreased the risk of long-term MACCE, and particularly improved survival in patients with distal ULMCA disease

Comparison of zotarolimus- and everolimus-eluting coronary stents: final 5-year report of the RESOLUTE all-comers trial

BACKGROUND Newer-generation drug-eluting stents that release zotarolimus or everolimus have been shown to be superior to the first-generation drug-eluting stents. However, data comparing long-term safety and efficacy of zotarolimus- (ZES) and everolimus-eluting stents (EES) are limited. RESOLUTE all-comers (Randomized Comparison of a Zotarolimus-Eluting Stent With an Everolimus-Eluting Stent for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) trial compared these 2 stents and has shown that ZES was noninferior to EES at 12-month for the primary end point of target lesion failure. We report the secondary clinical outcomes at the final 5-year follow-up of this trial. METHODS AND RESULTS RESOLUTE all-comer clinical study is a prospective, multicentre, randomized, 2-arm, open-label, noninferiority trial with minimal exclusion criteria. Patients (n=2292) were randomly assigned to treatment with either ZES (n=1140) or EES (n=1152). Patient-oriented composite end point (combination of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and any revascularizations), device-oriented composite end point (combination of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization), and major adverse cardiac events (combination of all-cause death, all myocardial infarction, emergent coronary bypass surgery, or clinically indicated target lesion revascularization) were analyzed at 5-year follow-up. The 2 groups were well-matched at baseline. Five-year follow-up data were available for 98% patients. There were no differences in patient-oriented composite end point (ZES 35.3% versus EES 32.0%, P=0.11), device-oriented composite end point (ZES 17.0% versus EES 16.2%, P=0.61), major adverse cardiac events (ZES 21.9% versus EES 21.6%, P=0.88), and definite/probable stent thrombosis (ZES 2.8% versus EES 1.8%, P=0.12). CONCLUSIONS At 5-year follow-up, ZES and EES had similar efficacy and safety in a population of patients who had minimal exclusion criteria. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00617084

Five-year outcomes of chronic total occlusion treatment with a biolimus A9-eluting biodegradable polymer stent versus a sirolimus-eluting permanent polymer stent in the LEADERS all-comers trial

Background: Few data are available on long-term follow-up of drug-eluting stents in the treatment of chronic total occlusion (CTO). The LEADERS CTO sub-study compared the long-term results in CTO and non-CTO lesions of a Biolimus A9™-eluting stent (BES) with a sirolimus-eluting stent (SES).Methods: Among 1,707 patients enrolled in the prospective, multi-center, all-comers LEADERS trial, 81 with CTOs were treated with either a BES (n = 45) or a SES (n = 36). The primary endpoint was the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE): cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI) and clinically-indicated target vessel revascularization (TVR).Results: At 5 years, the rate of MACE was numerically higher in the CTO group than in the non-CTO group (29.6% vs. 23.3%; p = 0.173), with a significant increase in the incidence of target lesion revascularization (TLR) (21.0 vs. 12.6; p = 0.033), but no difference in stent thrombosis (ST). Patients with CTO receiving a BES demonstrated a lower incidence of MACE (22.2% vs. 38.9%; p = 0.147) with a significant reduction in TLR compared to patients receiving a SES (11.1% vs. 33.3%, p = 0.0214) with an incidence similar to that observed in the non-CTO group treated with BES (11.6%). Definite ST at 5 years nearly halved in the BES group (4.4% vs. 8.3%, p = 0.478) with no ST in the BES group after the first year (0% vs. 8.3%, p for interaction = 0.009).Conclusions: The use of a BES showed a reduction in MACE, TVR, TLR, and ST over time in the CTO subset with similar outcome as for non-CTO lesions

Influence of Bleeding Risk on Outcomes of Radial and Femoral Access for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: An Analysis From the GLOBAL LEADERS Trial

Background: Radial artery access has been shown to reduce mortality and bleeding events, especially in patients with acute coronary syndromes. Despite this, interventional cardiologists experienced in femoral artery access still prefer that route for percutaneous coronary intervention. Little is known regarding the merits of each vascular access in patients stratified by their risk of bleeding. Methods: Patients from the Global Leaders trial were dichotomized into low or high risk of bleeding by the median of the PRECISE-DAPT score. Clinical outcomes were compared at 30 days. Results: In the overall population, there were no statistical differences between radial and femoral access in the rate of the primary end point, a composite of all-cause mortality, or new Q-wave myocardial infarction (MI) (hazard ratio [HR] 0.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.42-1.15). Radial access was associated with a significantly lower rate of the secondary safety end point, Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 3 or 5 bleeding (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.36-0.84). Compared by bleeding risk strata, in the high bleeding score population, the primary (HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.26-0.85; P = 0.012; Pinteraction = 0.019) and secondary safety (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.35-0.95; P = 0.030; Pinteraction = 0.631) end points favoured radial access. In the low bleeding score population, however, the differences in the primary and secondary safety end points between radial and femoral artery access were no longer statistically significant. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that the outcomes of mortality or new Q-wave MI and BARC 3 or 5 bleeding favour radial access in patients with a high, but not those with a low, risk of bleeding. Because thisContexte : Il a et e d emontr e que l ’accès par l’artère radiale reduit la mortalite et les h emorragies, en particulier chez les patients presentant un syndrome coronarien aigu. Malgr e cela, les cardiologues interventionnels qui ont acquis de l’experience en matière d ’accès par l’artère femorale pr efèrent encore utiliser cette voie lorsqu ’ils doivent pratiquer une intervention coronarienne percutanee. On connaît mal l’interêt de chacune de ces techniques d ’accès vasculaire au regard du risque d’hemorragie. Methodologie : Les patients de l’essai GLOBAL LEADERS ont et e repartis en deux groupes, selon qu ’ils presentaient un risque d’hemorragie faible ou elev e d ’après le score PRECISE-DAPT median, puis les resultats cliniques ont et e compar es à 30 jours. Resultats : Dans l’ensemble de la population, aucune difference sta- tistiquement significative n’a et e observ ee entre l ’accès radial et l’accès femoral quant au critère d ’evaluation principal, compos e de la mortalite toutes causes confondues et d ’un nouvel infarctus du myocarde (IM) avec onde Q (rapport des risques instantanes [RRI] de 0,70; intervalle de confiance [IC] à 95 % : 0,42-1,15). L’accès radial a et e associe à un taux signi ficativement plus faible de survenue du critère secondaire d’evaluation de l ’innocuite, c ’est-à-dire une hemorragie de type 3 ou 5 selon la classification du BARC (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium) (RRI de 0,55; IC à 95 % : 0,36-0,84). Lorsqu’on compare les sujets en fonction du risque d’hemorragie, les critères d’evaluation de l ’innocuite principal (RRI de 0,47; IC à 95 % : 0,26- 0,85; p ¼ 0,012; pinteraction ¼ 0,019) et secondaire (RRI de 0,57; IC à 95 % : 0,35-0,95; p ¼ 0,030; pinteraction ¼ 0,631) sont favorables à l’accès radial au sein de la population presentant un risque d ’hemor- ragie elev e. Dans la population pr esentant un risque d ’hemorragie faible, les differences entre l ’accès radial et l’accès femoral quant aux critères d’evaluation de l ’innocuite principal et secondaire ne sont toutefois plus statistiquement significatives. Conclusions : Selon ces observations, les resultats concernant la mortalite ou la survenue d ’un nouvel IM avec onde Q et le risque d’hemorragie de type 3 ou 5 selon la classi fication du BARC indiquent que l’accès radial serait à privilegier lorsque le risque d ’hemorragie est elev e, mais pas lorsqu ’il est faible. Comme il ne s’agissait pas d’une analyse principale, il convient de considerer ces observations comme etant g en eratrices d ’hypothèses

Resolute zotarolimus‐eluting stent in ST‐elevation myocardial infarction (resolute‐STEMI): A prespecified prospective register from the DAPT‐STEMI trial

To evaluate the safety and efficacy outcomes after primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) with second‐generation Resolute™ zotarolimus‐eluting stent (R‐ ZES) in patients enrolled in the DAPT‐STEMI Trial (NCT01459627).Background: R‐ ZES is one of the most used drug eluting stents worldwide. To date, the safety and efficacy data of this stent in setting of STEMI is limited.Methods: The Resolute‐STEMI is a prespecified prospective register that reports the safety and efficacy of R‐ZES in setting of ST‐Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI) at 6 months for the following endpoints: a composite endpoint of all‐cause mortality, any myocardial infarction (MI), any (unscheduled) revascularization, stroke and TIMI major bleeding, as well as target lesion failure and stent thrombosis (ST).Results: From a total of 1,100 STEMI patients enrolled in the trial, 998 received a R‐ZES. At 6 months the PE occurred in 42 (4.2%) patients. All‐cause death, MI, revascularization, stroke and TIMI major bleeding was respectively 8 (0.8%), 9 (0.8%), 34 (3.4%), 2 (0.2%), and 4 (0.4%). The rate of target lesion revascularizations involving the culprit lesion was 1.1%. Target lesion failure was 1.5%. The rate of definite ST was 0.5%. The rate of both definite or probable ST was 0.7%.Conclusions: The present analysis is the largest to date reporting short‐ term and mid‐term clinical outcomes with the R‐ZES stent in setting of STEMI. At 30  days and 6‐months R‐ZES has an outstanding safety and efficacy even in this high‐ risk category of patients

New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation After PCI or CABG for Left Main Disease: The EXCEL Trial

Background: There is limited information on the incidence and prognostic impact of new-onset atrial fibrillation (NOAF) following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD). Objectives: This study sought to determine the incidence of NOAF following PCI and CABG for LMCAD and its effect on 3-year cardiovascular outcomes. Methods: In the EXCEL (Evaluation of XIENCE Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization) trial, 1,905 patients with LMCAD and low or intermediate SYNTAX scores were randomized to PCI with everolimus-eluting stents versus CABG. Outcomes were analyzed according to the development of NOAF during the initial hospitalization following revascularization. Results: Among 1,812 patients without atrial fibrillation on presentation, NOAF developed at a mean of 2.7 ± 2.5 days after revascularization in 162 patients (8.9%), including 161 of 893 (18.0%) CABG-treated patients and 1 of 919 (0.1%) PCI-treated patients (p < 0.0001). Older age, greater body mass index, and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction were independent predictors of NOAF in patients undergoing CABG. Patients with versus without NOAF had a significantly longer duration of hospitalization, were more likely to be discharged on anticoagulant therapy, and had an increased 30-day rate of Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction major or minor bleeding (14.2% vs. 5.5%; p < 0.0001). By multivariable analysis, NOAF after CABG was an independent predictor of 3-year stroke (6.6% vs. 2.4%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 4.19; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.74 to 10.11; p = 0.001), death (11.4% vs. 4.3%; adjusted HR: 3.02; 95% CI: 1.60 to 5.70; p = 0.0006), and the primary composite endpoint of death, MI, or stroke (22.6% vs. 12.8%; adjusted HR: 2.13; 95% CI: 1.39 to 3.25; p = 0.0004). Conclusions: In patients with LMCAD undergoing revascularization in the EXCEL trial, NOAF was common after CABG but extremely rare after PCI. The development of NOAF was strongly associated with subsequent death and stroke in CABG-treated patients. Further studies are warranted to determine whether prophylactic strategies to prevent or treat atrial fibrillation may improve prognosis in patients with LMCAD who are undergoing CABG. (Evaluation of XIENCE Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularizatio

Impact of proton pump inhibitors on efficacy of antiplatelet strategies with ticagrelor or aspirin after percutaneous coronary intervention:Insights from the GLOBAL LEADERS trial

BACKGROUND Several studies have suggested that proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) may reduce the antiplatelet effects of clopidogrel and/or aspirin, possibly leading to cardiovascular events. AIMS We aimed to investigate the association between PPI and clinical outcomes in patients treated with ticagrelor monotherapy or conventional antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS This is a subanalysis of the randomized GLOBAL LEADERS trial, comparing the experimental antiplatelet arm (23-month ticagrelor monotherapy following 1-month dual antiplatelet therapy [DAPT]) with the reference arm (12-month aspirin monotherapy following 12-month DAPT) after PCI. Patient-oriented composite endpoints (POCEs: all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, or repeat revascularization) and its components were assessed stratified by PPI use as a time-dependent covariate in patients with the experiment or reference antiplatelet arm. RESULTS Among 15,839 patients, 2115 patients (13.5%) experienced POCE at 2 years. In the reference arm, the use of PPIs was independently associated with POCE (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.27; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.12-1.44) and its individual components, whereas it was not in the experimental arm (HR: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.92-1.19; pinteraction  = 0.035). During the second-year follow-up, patients taking aspirin with PPIs had a significantly higher risk of POCE compared to those on aspirin without PPIs (HR: 1.57; 95% CI: 1.27-1.94), whereas the risk did not differ significantly irrespective of PPI in ticagrelor monotherapy group (HR: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.83-1.28; pinteraction  = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS In contrast to conventional antiplatelet strategy, there were no evidence suggesting the interaction between ticagrelor monotherapy and PPIs on increased cardiovascular events, which should be confirmed in further studies. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov