2-Year Outcomes of High Bleeding Risk Patients After Polymer-Free Drug-Coated Stents.

BACKGROUND: A 1-year follow-up, polymer-free metallic stent coated with biolimus-A9 followed by 1-month dual antiplatelet therapy is safer and more effective than a bare-metal stent (BMS) for patients with high risk of bleeding. OBJECTIVES: This study analyzed 2-year outcomes to determine whether these benefits are maintained. METHODS: In a prospective, multicenter, double-blind trial, we randomized 2,466 high bleeding risk patients to receive a drug-coated stent (DCS) or a BMS followed by 1-month dual antiplatelet therapy. The primary safety endpoint was a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis. The primary efficacy endpoint was clinically driven target lesion revascularization. RESULTS: At 2 years, the primary safety endpoint had occurred in 147 DCS and 180 BMS patients (15.3%) (hazard ratio: 0.80; 95% confidence interval: 0.64 to 0.99; p = 0.039). Clinically driven target lesion revascularization occurred for 77 DCS and 136 BMS patients (12.0%) (hazard ratio: 0.54; 95% confidence interval: 0.41 to 0.72; p 75 years, anemia, raised plasma creatinine, and planned long-term anticoagulation. Correlates of the primary safety endpoint were age, anemia, congestive heart failure, multivessel disease, number of stents implanted, and use of a BMS rather than a DCS. CONCLUSIONS: Safety and efficacy benefits of DCS over BMS were maintained for 2 years in high bleeding risk patients. Rates of major bleeding and coronary thrombotic events were no different and were associated with a substantial and comparable mortality risk. (A Prospective Randomized Comparison of the BioFreedom Biolimus A9 Drug Coated Stent Versus the Gazelle Bare Metal Stent in Patients With High Risk of Bleeding [LEADERS FREE]; NCT01623180)

A randomized multicentre trial to compare revascularization with optimal medical therapy for the treatment of chronic total coronary occlusions

Aims The clinical value of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for chronic coronary total occlusions (CTOs) is not established by randomized trials. This study should compare the benefit of PCI vs. optimal medical therapy (OMT) on the health status in patients with at least one CTO. Method and results Three hundred and ninety-six patients were enrolled in a prospective randomized, multicentre, open-label, and controlled clinical trial to compare the treatment by PCI with OMT with a 2:1 randomization ratio. The primary endpoint was the change in health status assessed by the Seattle angina questionnaire (SAQ) between baseline and 12months follow-up. Fifty-two percent of patients have multi-vessel disease in whom all significant non-occlusive lesions were treated before randomization. An intention-to-treat analysis was performed including 13.4% failed procedures in the PCI group and 7.3% cross-overs in the OMT group. At 12months, a greater improvement of SAQ subscales was observed with PCI as compared with OMT for angina frequency [5.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.75; 8.71; P= 0.003], and quality of life (6.62, 95% CI 1.78-11.46; P = 0.007), reaching the prespecified significance level of 0.01 for the primary endpoint. Physical limitation (P= 0.02) was also improved in the PCI group. Complete freedom from angina was more frequent with PCI 71.6% than OMT 57.8% (P = 0.008). There was no periprocedural death or myocardial infarction. At 12months, major adverse cardiac events were comparable between the two groups. Conclusion Percutaneous coronary intervention leads to a significant improvement of the health status in patients with stable angina and a CTO as compared with OMT alone

Radial Versus Femoral Approach for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention : MACE Outcomes at Long-Term Follow-up

Objective: To compare the main outcomes of radial versus femoral access at long-term follow-up. Background: Little is known about the long-term major cardiovascular events and bleeding complications of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with radial vs femoral approach. Methods: A total of 1107 patients from the CENTURY II trial were included. To minimize baseline differences between radial and femoral groups, we applied propensity-score matching for this comparison. Results: In this multicenter study, the radial approach was used in 73.4% of patients. After propensity-score matching, baseline and procedural characteristics were comparable between both groups. Procedural success was high and similar in radial and femoral approaches (98.2% vs 97.5%; P=.47) while radial access was associated with a shorter hospital stay (1.69 \ub1 1.92 days vs 2.08 \ub1 1.98 days; P<.01). The short-term bleeding and vascular complication rates were significantly lower in the radial group (1.7% vs 6.2% [P<.001 in-hospital] and 2.7% vs 9.6% [P<.001 at 1-month follow-up]). At 3-year follow-up, radial access was associated with lower rates of all-cause mortality (3.9 vs 6.9%; P=.04) and cardiovascular death (2.1 vs 4.9%; P=.02). The composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and revascularization showed no differences between groups (18.2 vs 21.1%; P=.29). Conclusions: Compared to the femoral approach, the radial approach is associated with significantly lower long-term all-cause mortality rate as well as lower in-hospital and short-term bleeding rates. These results suggest additional long-term benefits of radial access for PCI, but should be interpreted within the context of the current study and further verified in future studies