Second-Generation Everolimus-Eluting Stents Versus First-Generation Sirolimus-Eluting Stents in Acute Myocardial Infarction 1-Year Results of the Randomized XAMI (XienceV Stent vs. Cypher Stent in Primary PCI for Acute Myocardial Infarction) Trial

ObjectivesThe goal of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of second-generation everolimus-eluting stents (EES) with first-generation sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) in primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute myocardial infarction (AMI).BackgroundDrug-eluting stents (DES) in AMI are still feared for possible late and very late stent thrombosis (ST). Newer-generation DES, with more hemocompatible polymers and improved healing, may show promise regarding increased efficacy of DES with improved safety. However, no randomized trials in AMI are available.MethodsA total of 625 patients with AMI were randomized (2:1) to receive EES or SES in the XAMI (XienceV Stent vs Cypher Stent in Primary PCI for Acute Myocardial Infarction) trial. Primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 1 year consisting of cardiac death, nonfatal AMI, or any target vessel revascularization. The study was powered for noninferiority of EES. Secondary endpoints comprised ST rates and MACE rate up to 3 years.ResultsThe MACE rate was 4.0% for EES and 7.7% for SES; the absolute difference was −3.7% (95% confidence interval: −8.28 to −0.03; p = 0.048) and relative risk was 0.52 (95% confidence interval: 0.27 to 1.00). One-year cardiac mortality was low at 1.5% for EES versus 2.7% for SES (p = 0.36), and 1-year incidence of definite and/or probable ST was 1.2% for EES versus 2.7% for SES (p = 0.21).ConclusionsIn this all-comer, randomized, multicenter AMI trial, second-generation EES was noninferior to SES, and superiority for MACE was suggested. ST rate in EES at 1-year was low, but long-term follow-up and larger studies will have to show whether very late ST rates will also be improved in newer DES. (XienceV Stent vs Cypher Stent in Primary PCI for Acute Myocardial Infarction [XAMI]; NTR1123

Short- and long-term clinical benefit of sirolimus-eluting stents compared to conventional bare stents for patients with acute myocardial infarction

AbstractObjectivesThis study investigated the clinical outcomes of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (MI) treated with sirolimus-eluting stents (SESs) or with conventional bare stents.BackgroundThe clinical impact of SES implantation for patients with ST-segment elevation MI is currently unknown.MethodsPrimary angioplasty was performed with SESs in 186 consecutive patients with acute MI who were compared with 183 patients treated with bare stents. The incidence of death, reinfarction, and repeat revascularization was assessed at 30 and 300 days.ResultsPostprocedure vessel patency, enzymatic release, and the incidence of short-term adverse events were similar in both the sirolimus and the bare stents (30-day rate of death, reinfarction, or repeat revascularization: 7.5% vs. 10.4%, respectively; p = 0.4). Stent thrombosis was not diagnosed in any patient in the sirolimus group and occurred in 1.6% of patients treated with bare stents (p = 0.1). At 300 days, treatment with SESs significantly reduced the incidence of combined adverse events (9.4% vs. 17%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.52 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.30 to 0.92]; p = 0.02), mainly due to a marked reduction in the risk of repeat intervention (1.1% vs. 8.2%; HR 0.21 [95% CI 0.06 to 0.74]; p = 0.01).ConclusionsCompared to conventional bare stents, the SESs were not associated with an increased risk of stent thrombosis and were effective in reducing the incidence of adverse events at 300 days in unselected patients with ST-segment elevation acute MI referred for primary angioplasty

Significant reduction in restenosis after the use of sirolimus-eluting stents in the treatment of chronic total occlusions

AbstractObjectivesThe aim of this study was to assess sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) implantation for the treatment of chronic total coronary occlusions (CTO).BackgroundLong-term results after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the treatment of CTOs is hindered by a significant rate of restenosis and reocclusion. In the treatment of relatively simple nonocclusive lesions, SESs have shown dramatically reduced restenosis rates compared with bare metal stents (BMS), but whether these results are more widely applicable is unknown.MethodsFrom April 2002, all patients at our institution were treated with SES as the device of choice during PCI. During the first six months, 563 patients were treated solely with SES, with treatment of a de novo CTO in 56 (9.9%). This CTO cohort was compared with a similar group of patients (n = 28) treated in the preceding six-month period with BMS.ResultsAt one year, the cumulative survival-free of major adverse cardiac events was 96.4% in the SES group versus 82.8% in the BMS group, p < 0.05. At six-month follow-up, 33 (59%) patients in the SES group underwent angiography with a binary restenosis rate (>50% diameter stenosis) of 9.1% and in-stent late loss of 0.13 ± 0.46 mm. One patient (3.0%) at follow-up was found to have reoccluded the target vessel.ConclusionsThe use of SESs in the treatment of chronic total coronary occlusions is associated with a reduction in the rate of major adverse cardiac events and restenosis compared with BMS

Long-term clinical outcomes of everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffolds versus everolimus-eluting stents:final five-year results of the AIDA randomised clinical trial

Background: Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS)-related events have been reported between 1 and 3 years – the period of active scaffold bioresorption. Data on the performance of the Absorb BVS in daily clinical practice beyond this time point are scarce. Aims: This report aimed to provide the final five-year clinical follow-up of the Absorb BVS in comparison with the XIENCE everolimus-eluting stent (EES). In addition, we evaluated the effect of prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) administration on events in the scaffold group. Methods: AIDA was a multicentre, investigator-initiated, non-inferiority trial, in which 1,845 unselected patients with coronary artery disease were randomly assigned to either the Absorb BVS (n=924) or the XIENCE EES (n=921). Target vessel failure (TVF), a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction or target vessel revascularisation, was the primary endpoint. Scaffold thrombosis cases were matched with controls and tested for the effect of prolonged DAPT. Results: Up to five-year follow-up, there was no difference in TVF between the Absorb BVS (17.7%) and the XIENCE EES (16.1%) (hazard ratio [HR] 1.31, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.90-1.41; p=0.302). Definite or probable device thrombosis (DT) occurred in 43 patients (4.8%) in the scaffold group compared to 13 patients (1.5%) in the stent group (HR 3.32, 95% CI: 1.78-6.17; p<0.001). DT between 3 and 4 years occurred six times in the Absorb arm versus three times in the XIENCE arm. Between 4 and 5 years, the incidence was three versus two, respectively. Of those three DT in the scaffold group, two occurred in XIENCE EES-treated lesions. The odds ratio of scaffold thrombosis in patients on DAPT compared to off DAPT throughout five-year follow-up was 0.36 (95% CI: 0.15-0.86). Conclusions: The excess risk of the Absorb BVS on late adverse events, in particular device thrombosis, in routine PCI continues up to 4 years and seems to plateau afterwards

Benefit and Risks of Aspirin in Addition to Ticagrelor in Acute Coronary Syndromes:A Post Hoc Analysis of the Randomized GLOBAL LEADERS Trial

Key PointsQuestionWhat are the benefits and risks of continuing aspirin in addition to P2Y12 receptor inhibition with ticagrelor among patients with acute coronary syndrome between 1 month and 12 months after percutaneous coronary intervention? FindingsIn this nonprespecified, post hoc analysis of the GLOBAL LEADERS randomized clinical trial, beyond 1 month after percutaneous coronary intervention in acute coronary syndrome, aspirin was associated with increased bleeding risk and appeared not to add to the benefit of ticagrelor on ischemic events. MeaningThe findings of this hypothesis-generating analysis pave the way for further trials evaluating aspirin-free antiplatelet strategies after percutaneous coronary intervention. ImportanceThe role of aspirin as part of antiplatelet regimens in acute coronary syndromes (ACS) needs to be clarified in the context of newer potent P2Y12 antagonists. ObjectiveTo evaluate the benefit and risks of aspirin in addition to ticagrelor among patients with ACS beyond 1 month after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis is a nonprespecified, post hoc analysis of GLOBAL LEADERS, a randomized, open-label superiority trial comparing 2 antiplatelet treatment strategies after PCI. The trial included 130 secondary/tertiary care hospitals in different countries, with 15991 unselected patients with stable coronary artery disease or ACS undergoing PCI. Patients had outpatient visits at 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after index procedure. InterventionsThe experimental group received aspirin plus ticagrelor for 1 month followed by 23-month ticagrelor monotherapy; the reference group received aspirin plus either clopidogrel (stable coronary artery disease) or ticagrelor (ACS) for 12 months, followed by 12-month aspirin monotherapy. In this analysis, we examined the clinical outcomes occurring between 31 days and 365 days after randomization, specifically in patients with ACS who, within this time frame, were assigned to receive either ticagrelor alone or ticagrelor and aspirin. Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was the composite of all-cause death or new Q-wave myocardial infarction. ResultsOf 15968 participants, there were 7487 patients with ACS enrolled; 3750 patients were assigned to the experimental group and 3737 patients to the reference group. Between 31 and 365 days after randomization, the primary outcome occurred in 55 patients (1.5%) in the experimental group and in 75 patients (2.0%) in the reference group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% CI, 0.51-1.03; P=.07); investigator-reported Bleeding Academic Research Consortium-defined bleeding type 3 or 5 occurred in 28 patients (0.8%) in the experimental group and in 54 patients (1.5%) in the reference arm (HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.33-0.81; P=.004). Conclusions and RelevanceBetween 1 month and 12 months after PCI in ACS, aspirin was associated with increased bleeding risk and appeared not to add to the benefit of ticagrelor on ischemic events. These findings should be interpreted as exploratory and hypothesis generating; however, they pave the way for further trials evaluating aspirin-free antiplatelet strategies after PCI. Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01813435. This secondary analysis of the GLOBAL LEADERS randomized clinical trial evaluates the benefit and risks of aspirin in addition to ticagrelor among patients with acute coronary syndrome beyond 1 month after percutaneous coronary intervention

Two-Year Results of an Open-Label Randomized Comparison of Everolimus-Eluting Stents and Sirolimus-Eluting Stents

<div><p>Background</p><p>Second generation drug-eluting stents were developed to improve the safety and efficacy of first generation stents. So far, limited long term randomized data exist comparing the second generation everolimus-eluting stents (EES) with first generation sirolimus-eluting stents (SES).</p><p>Methods</p><p>A prospective, open-label, randomized, single center trial comparing EES and SES in all-comer patients. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiac mortality, myocardial infarction and target vessel revascularization. Secondary endpoints included individual components of the composite, along with target lesion revascularization and stent thrombosis.</p><p>Results</p><p>In total, 977 patients were randomized, of which 498 patients to EES and 479 to SES. Average age was 65.2±11.2 years and 71.6% of the population was male. Fifty percent of patients were treated for acute coronary syndrome, more often for ST-elevation myocardial infarctions in EES patients (13.7% vs. 9.2% in SES). In contrast, SES patients more often had prior interventions and showed more calcified lesions. Two-year follow-up was available in 98% of patients. The primary endpoint occurred in 10.7% of EES patients compared to 10.6% of SES patients (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.68–1.48). Additionally, secondary endpoints were similar between groups. The rate of stent thrombosis was low for both stent types.</p><p>Conclusion</p><p>In this all-comer population, there were no differences in endpoints between EES and SES during two-year follow-up. Stent thrombosis rates were low, supporting the safety of drug-eluting stent appliance in clinical practice.</p><p>Trial registration</p><p>TrialRegister.nl <a href="http://trialregister.nl/ct2/show/NTR3170" target="_blank">NTR3170</a></p></div