Polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stents reduce in-stent neointimal tissue proliferation A serial volumetric intravascular ultrasound analysis from the TAXUS-IV trial

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to use serial volumetric intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) to evaluate the effects of polymer-based, paclitaxel-eluting stents on in-stent neointima formation and late incomplete stent apposition.BackgroundThe TAXUS-IV trial demonstrated that the slow-release, polymer-based, paclitaxel-eluting stent reduces angiographic restenosis and the need for repeat revascularization procedures. Serial IVUS studies reveal details of the pattern of vascular responses provoked by stent implantation that provide insight into device safety and efficacy.MethodsIn the TAXUS-IV trial, patients were randomized to the slow-release, polymer-based, paclitaxel-eluting TAXUS stent or a bare-metal EXPRESS stent (Boston Scientific Corp., Natick, Massachusetts). As part of a formal substudy, complete volumetric IVUS data were available in 170 patients, including 88 TAXUS patients and 82 controls, at implantation and at nine-month follow-up.ResultsNo baseline differences were present in the clinical characteristics or IVUS parameters between the control and TAXUS groups. At nine-month follow-up, IVUS lumen volumes were larger in the TAXUS group (123 ± 43 mm3vs. 104 ± 44 mm3, p = 0.005), due to a reduction in neointimal volume (18 ± 18 mm3vs. 41 ± 23 mm3, p < 0.001). Millimeter-by-millimeter analysis within the stent demonstrated uniform suppression of neointimal growth along the entire stent length. Late lumen loss was similar at the proximal edge of the stent between the two groups, and reduced with the TAXUS stent at the distal edge (p = 0.004). Incomplete stent apposition at nine months was observed in only 3.0% of control and 4.0% of TAXUS stents (p = 0.12).ConclusionsPolymer-based, paclitaxel-eluting TAXUS stents are effective in inhibiting neointimal tissue proliferation, and do not result in late incomplete stent apposition

Outcomes of the roll-in cohort of the Amulet IDE trial of left atrial appendage occlusion.

Background Left atrial appendage (LAA) occlusion is an alternative therapy to oral anticoagulants to reduce stroke risk in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). The Amulet IDE trial compared the Amplatzer™ Amulet™ occluder (Abbott) with the Watchman™ 2.5 device (Boston Scientific) for LAA occlusion in patients with NVAF. Objective The purpose of this study was to describe outcomes of the Amulet IDE trial roll-in cohort. Methods At US sites up to 3 patients per implanter could be implanted with the Amulet occluder in the roll-in phase. The primary Endpoints in the Amulet IDE trial included safety (composite of procedure-related complications, all-cause death, or major bleeding at 12 months), effectiveness (composite of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism at 18 months), and rate of LAA occlusion at 45 days. Results A total of 201 roll-in patients were enrolled. Device success occurred in 99% of patients, and device closure (residual jet ≤5 mm) was observed in 98.9% of patients at 45 days. The safety endpoint rate was numerically higher (worse) in the roll-in cohort compared to the randomized Amulet occluder cohort (18.4% vs 14.5%). Six patients (3.1%) experienced an ischemic stroke and 0 patients with a systemic embolism within 18 months, which was similar to the primary effectiveness endpoint rate in the randomized Amulet occluder cohort (2.8%). Conclusions Despite lack of experience of the operators with the Amulet occluder in the roll-in phase, device implant success was high, a high rate of device closure was achieved, and low stroke rates were observed in patients with NVAF

Triage Considerations for Patients Referred for Structural Heart Disease Intervention During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic: An ACC /SCAI Consensus Statement

The COVID-19 pandemic has strained health care resources around the world causing many institutions to curtail or stop elective procedures. This has resulted in the inability to care for patients valvular and structural heart disease (SHD) in a timely fashion potentially placing these patients at increased risk for adverse cardiovascular complications including congestive heart failure and death. The effective triage of these patients has become challenging in the current environment as clinicians have had to weigh the risk of bringing susceptible patients into the hospital environment during the COVID-19 pandemic versus the risk of delaying a needed procedure. In this document, we suggest guidelines as to how to triage patients in need of SHD interventions and provide a framework of how to decide when it may be appropriate to proceed with intervention despite the ongoing pandemic. In particular, we address the triage of patients in need of trans-catheter aortic valve replacement and percutaneous mitral valve repair. We also address procedural issues and considerations for the function of structural heart disease teams during the COVID-19 pandemic

Outcomes and Complications With Off-Label Use of Drug-Eluting Stents Results From the STENT (Strategic Transcatheter Evaluation of New Therapies) Group

ObjectivesThis study evaluates outcomes and complications in patients treated with drug-eluting stents (DES) for “off-label” indications.BackgroundDrug-eluting stents have been effective in randomized trials, but their safety and efficacy for off-label indications has not been well studied.MethodsThe STENT (Strategic Transcatheter Evaluation of New Therapies) Registry is the largest multicenter U.S. registry evaluating outcomes of DES. Off-label indications included ostial, left main, long, bifurcation, and in-stent restenotic lesions, saphenous vein grafts, chronic total occlusions, small or large vessels, multilesion or multivessel percutaneous coronary interventions, and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Outcomes were adjusted using Cox proportional hazards regression and propensity analyses.ResultsDrug-eluting stents were used in an off-label manner in 59% of patients. The patients who received off-label treatment were more often male, had a higher incidence of prior infarction and bypass surgery, and lower ejection fractions. Off-label versus “on-label” use of DES was associated with higher rates of death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, major adverse cardiac events, and stent thrombosis at 9 months and 2 years. Off-label use of DES compared with off-label use of bare-metal stents (BMS) had lower rates of death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, and major adverse cardiac events at 9 months and 2 years and lower rates of stent thrombosis at 9 months.ConclusionsOff-label use of DES is associated with higher event rates compared with on-label use of DES, which is consistent with a higher risk clinical and lesion profile. However, event rates with off-label use of DES are lower compared with off-label use of BMS. Pending results from randomized trials, our data support the use of DES for off-label indications in selected patients

Triage Considerations for Patients Referred for Structural Heart Disease Intervention During the COVID-19 Pandemic: An ACC/SCAI Position Statement

The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has strained health care resources around the world, causing many institutions to curtail or stop elective procedures. This has resulted in an inability to care for patients with valvular and structural heart disease in a timely fashion, potentially placing these patients at increased risk for adverse cardiovascular complications, including CHF and death. The effective triage of these patients has become challenging in the current environment as clinicians have had to weigh the risk of bringing susceptible patients into the hospital environment during the COVID-19 pandemic against the risk of delaying a needed procedure. In this document, the authors suggest guidelines for how to triage patients in need of structural heart disease interventions and provide a framework for how to decide when it may be appropriate to proceed with intervention despite the ongoing pandemic. In particular, the authors address the triage of patients in need of transcatheter aortic valve replacement and percutaneous mitral valve repair. The authors also address procedural issues and considerations for the function of structural heart disease teams during the COVID-19 pandemic

Drug-Eluting Stents in the Management of Coronary Artery Disease: Implications for Payors and Hospitals

Of the >1 million patients who undergo coronary intervention in the US annually, 10-45% develop stent restenosis. Designed to inhibit tissue growth following coronary intervention, the drug-eluting stent (DES) is a breakthrough technology that has been shown to reduce restenosis by 80%, dramatically lowering the percentage of patients requiring repeat intervention. The health-economic implications of DES are complex and depend on the perspective from which they are viewed (i.e. hospital, payor, or physician). For hospitals, DES are a truly disruptive technology. Hospitals are caught between substantially higher costs (DES cost 3-fold more than bare-metal stents), inadequate reimbursement for those higher costs, and potentially declining revenue (fewer bypasses and repeat interventions for restenosis). In contrast, DES appear to be very cost effective for payors. Randomized studies have suggested that the higher initial costs of DES are nearly offset by reduced follow-up costs related to fewer repeat angioplasties and bypass surgeries. Furthermore, overall cost reductions to payors will occur as patients are converted from bypass surgery to multi-vessel coronary intervention with DES. Their high price continues to be a barrier to the use of DES, while the concerns about safety and stent thrombosis have substantially diminished. With greater competition, declining DES prices, and further studies demonstrating safety and efficacy in a wider range of real-world patients, DES will become the default platform for transcatheter coronary intervention in the near future.Coronary-artery-disease, Coronary-stent-thrombosis, Economic-implications, Paclitaxel, Sirolimus