Long-Term Clinical Outcomes With Sirolimus-Eluting Coronary Stents Five-Year Results of the RAVEL Trial

ObjectivesThis study examined the clinical outcomes at 5 years in RAVEL (A Randomized Comparison of a Sirolimus-Eluting Stent With a Standard Stent for Coronary Revascularization), the first controlled trial of drug-eluting stents.BackgroundThe 6-month rate of angiographic coronary restenosis has been markedly lowered by sirolimus-eluting stents (SES). The long-term performance of drug-eluting stents, however, is under close scrutiny.MethodsThe trial included 238 patients (mean age 60.7 ± 10.4 years, 76% men) with a single, de novo native coronary artery lesion, randomly assigned to treatment with SES versus bare-metal stents (BMS). Rates of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and percutaneous or surgical revascularization up to 5 years of follow-up, and rates of stent thrombosis were compared between the 2 treatment groups.ResultsComplete datasets were available in 92.5% of patients treated with SES and 89.1% of patients assigned to BMS. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year rates of survival free from target lesion revascularization (TLR) were, respectively, 99.2%, 93.8%, and 89.7% in the SES group versus 75.9%, 75.0%, and 74.0% in the control group (p < 0.001; log-rank). Rates of all MACE at 5 years were 25.8% in patients treated with SES versus 35.2% in patients assigned to BMS (p = 0.03; log-rank). Rates of stent thrombosis, per protocol or by the Academic Research Consortium definitions, were similar in both groups.ConclusionsThe 5-year rate of TLR associated with SES was significantly lower than that with BMS. There was no apparent adverse effect associated with the use of SES, although the trial was not powered to examine uncommon complications

Randomized Comparison of Everolimus- and Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents 2-Year Follow-Up From the SPIRIT (Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System) IV Trial

ObjectivesWe sought to determine whether the differences in outcomes present between everolimus-eluting stents (EES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) in the SPIRIT (Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System) IV trial at 1 year were sustained with longer-term follow-up.BackgroundIn the SPIRIT IV trial, patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention who were randomized to EES compared with PES experienced lower 1-year rates of target lesion failure (cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction [MI], or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization [TLR]), with significant reductions in the individual rates of MI, TLR, and stent thrombosis.MethodsWe prospectively randomized 3,687 patients with up to 3 noncomplex previously untreated native coronary artery lesions to EES versus PES at 66 U.S. sites. Follow-up through 2 years is complete in 3,578 patents (97.0%).ResultsTreatment with EES compared with PES reduced the 2-year rates of TLF (6.9% vs. 9.9%, p = 0.003), all MI (2.5% vs. 3.9%, p = 0.02), Q-wave MI (0.1% vs. 0.8%, p = 0.002), stent thrombosis (0.4% vs. 1.2%, p = 0.008), and ischemia-driven TLR (4.5% vs. 6.9%, p = 0.004), with nonsignificantly different rates of all-cause and cardiac mortality. Between 1 year and 2 years, there were no significant differences in adverse event rates between the 2 stent types.ConclusionsIn the large-scale, prospective, multicenter, randomized SPIRIT IV trial, the benefits of EES compared with those of PES present at 1 year were sustained at 2 years. (Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System; NCT01016041

Prediction of cardiovascular outcomes with machine learning techniques: application to the Cardiovascular Outcomes in Renal Atherosclerotic Lesions (CORAL) study.

Background: Data derived from the Cardiovascular Outcomes in Renal Atherosclerotic Lesions (CORAL) study were analyzed in an effort to employ machine learning methods to predict the composite endpoint described in the original study. Methods: We identified 573 CORAL subjects with complete baseline data and the presence or absence of a composite endpoint for the study. These data were subjected to several models including a generalized linear (logistic-linear) model, support vector machine, decision tree, feed-forward neural network, and random forest, in an effort to attempt to predict the composite endpoint. The subjects were arbitrarily divided into training and testing subsets according to an 80%:20% distribution with various seeds. Prediction models were optimized within the CARET package of R. Results: The best performance of the different machine learning techniques was that of the random forest method which yielded a receiver operator curve (ROC) area of 68.1%±4.2% (mean ± SD) on the testing subset with ten different seed values used to separate training and testing subsets. The four most important variables in the random forest method were SBP, serum creatinine, glycosylated hemoglobin, and DBP. Each of these variables was also important in at least some of the other methods. The treatment assignment group was not consistently an important determinant in any of the models. Conclusion: Prediction of a composite cardiovascular outcome was difficult in the CORAL population, even when employing machine learning methods. Assignment to either the stenting or best medical therapy group did not serve as an important predictor of composite outcome. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00081731

TCT-400 2-Year Clinical Follow-up of the TRYTON IDE Randomized Trial Comparing a Dedicated Bifurcation Stent to Provisional Stenting in the Treatment of Coronary Bifurcations

n/

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

Evaluation and Treatment of Patients With Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery&nbsp;Disease Consensus Definitions From Peripheral Academic Research&nbsp;Consortium (PARC)

The lack of consistent definitions and nomenclature across clinical trials of novel devices, drugs, or biologics poses a significant barrier to accrual of knowledge in and across peripheral artery disease therapies and technologies. Recognizing this problem, the Peripheral Academic Research Consortium, together with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and&nbsp;the Japanese Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency, has developed a series of pragmatic consensus definitions for patients being treated for peripheral artery disease affecting the lower extremities. These consensus definitions include the clinical presentation, anatomic depiction, interventional outcomes, surrogate imaging and physiological follow-up, and clinical outcomes of patients with lower-extremity peripheral artery disease. Consistent application of these definitions in clinical trials evaluating novel revascularization technologies should result in more efficient regulatory evaluation and best practice guidelines to inform clinical decisions in patients with lower extremity peripheral artery disease