Abluminal biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent in patients with diabetes mellitus 5 years follow-up from the COMPARE II trial

_Background:_ Drug eluting stents with biodegradable polymers have been developed to address the risk of very late adverse events. Long-term comparison data between the biodegradable polymer-coated biolimus-eluting stent (BES; Nobori®) and the second-generation durable polymer-coated everolimus-eluting stent (EES; XIENCE V® or XIENCE PRIME® or PROMUS™) in diabetic patients are scarce. _Methods:_ The COMPARE II trial was an investigator-initiated, multicenter, open-label, randomized, all-comers trial which assigned patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in a 2:1 fashion to either BES or EES.We analyzed the safety and efficacy outcomes in diabetic patients at 5 year follow-up. The primary pre-specified composite endpoint major adverse cardiac event (MACE) was defined as cardiac death, non-fatal target-vessel myocardial infarction (TV-MI), or clinically indicated target vessel revascularization (CD-TVR). _Results:_ Out of 2707 study patients, 588 were diabetics of whom 391 were treated with BES and 197 with EES. At 5 years follow-up, MACE occurred in 87 patients in the BES group and in 34 patients in the EES group. Other safety and efficacy endpoints did not differ between stent groups. _Conclusions:_ At 5 years follow-up, no differences in terms of MACE as well as all analyzed safety and efficacy measures, including stent thrombosis, between the biodegradable polymer-coated BES and the durable polymercoated EES in diabetic patients were observe

Long-term safety of drug-eluting and bare-metal stents: Evidence from a comprehensive network meta-analysis

Abstract Background Previous meta-analyses have investigated the relative safety and efficacy profiles of different types of drug-eluting stents (DES) and bare-metal stents (BMS); however, most prior trials in these meta-analyses reported follow-up to only 1 year, and as such, the relative long-term safety and efficacy of these devices are unknown. Many recent studies have now reported extended follow-up data. Objectives This study sought to investigate the long-term safety and efficacy of durable polymer-based DES, bioabsorbable polymer-based biolimus-eluting stents (BES), and BMS by means of network meta-analysis. Methods Randomized controlled trials comparing DES to each other or to BMS were searched through MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases and proceedings of international meetings. Information on study design, inclusion and exclusion criteria, sample characteristics, and clinical outcomes was extracted. Results Fifty-one trials that included a total of 52,158 randomized patients with follow-up duration ≥3 years were analyzed. At a median follow-up of 3.8 years, cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents (EES) were associated with lower rates of mortality, definite stent thrombosis (ST), and myocardial infarction than BMS, paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES), and sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) and less ST than BES. Phosphorylcholine-based zotarolimus-eluting stents had lower rates of definite ST than SES and lower rates of myocardial infarction than BMS and PES. The late rates of target-vessel revascularization were reduced with all DES compared with BMS, with cobalt-chromium EES, platinum chromium-EES, SES, and BES also having lower target-vessel revascularization rates than PES. Conclusions After a median follow-up of 3.8 years, all DES demonstrated superior efficacy compared with BMS. Among DES, second-generation devices have substantially improved long-term safety and efficacy outcomes compared with first-generation device

COMPARE LAAO: Rationale and design of the randomized controlled trial "COMPARing Effectiveness and safety of Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion to standard of care for atrial fibrillation patients at high stroke risk and ineligible to use oral anticoagulation therapy"

Contains fulltext : 252137.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) provides an alternative to oral anticoagulation (OAC) for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). In patients with a long-term or permanent contraindication for OAC randomized controlled trial (RCT) data is lacking. STUDY OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of LAAO in AF patients who are ineligible to use OAC. The co-primary efficacy endpoint is (1) time to first occurrence of stroke (ischemic, hemorrhagic, or undetermined) and (2) time to first occurrence of the composite of stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), and systemic embolism (SE). The primary safety endpoint is the 30-day rate of peri-procedural complications. STUDY DESIGN: This is a multicenter, investigator-initiated, open-label, blinded endpoint (PROBE), superiority-driven RCT. Patients with AF, a CHA₂DS₂-VASc score ≥2 for men and ≥3 for women and a long-term or permanent contraindication for OAC will be randomized in a 2:1 fashion to the device- or control arm. Patients in the device arm will undergo percutaneous LAAO and will receive post-procedural dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) per protocol, while those in the control arm will continue their current treatment consisting of no antithrombotic therapy or (D)APT as deemed appropriate by the primary responsible physician. In this endpoint-driven trial design, assuming a 50% lower stroke risk of LAAO compared to conservative treatment, 609 patients will be followed for a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 5 years. Cost-effectiveness and budget impact analyses will be performed to allow decision-making on reimbursement of LAAO for the target population in the Netherlands. SUMMARY: The COMPARE LAAO trial will investigate the clinical superiority in preventing thromboembolic events and cost-effectiveness of LAAO in AF patients with a high thromboembolic risk and a contraindication for OAC use. NCT TRIAL NUMBER: NCT04676880

Direct Stenting versus Conventional Stenting in Patients with ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction—A COMPARE CRUSH Sub-Study

Background: Direct stenting (DS) compared with conventional stenting (CS) after balloon predilatation may reduce distal embolization during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), thereby improving tissue reperfusion. In contrast, DS may increase the risk of stent underexpansion and target lesion failure. Methods:In this sub-study of the randomized COMPARE CRUSH trial (NCT03296540), we reviewed the efficacy of DS versus CS in a cohort of contemporary, pretreated ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients undergoing primary PCI. We compared DS versus CS, assessing (1) stent diameter in the culprit lesion, (2) thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) flow in the infarct-related artery post-PCI and complete ST-segment resolution (STR) one-hour post-PCI, and (3) target lesion failure at one year. For proportional variables, propensity score weighting was applied to account for potential treatment selection bias. Results: This prespecified sub-study included 446 patients, of whom 189 (42%) were treated with DS. Stent diameters were comparable between groups (3.2 ± 0.5 vs. 3.2 ± 0.5 mm, p = 0.17). Post-PCI TIMI 3 flow and complete STR post-PCI rates were similar between groups (DS 93% vs. CS 90%, adjusted OR 1.16 [95% CI, 0.56–2.39], p = 0.69, and DS 72% vs. CS 58%, adjusted OR 1.29 [95% CI 0.77–2.16], p = 0.34, respectively). Moreover, target lesion failure rates at one year were comparable (DS 2% vs. 1%, adjusted OR 2.93 [95% CI 0.52–16.49], p = 0.22). Conclusion:In this contemporary pretreated STEMI cohort, we found no difference in early myocardial reperfusion outcomes between DS and CS. Moreover, DS seemed comparable to CS in terms of stent diameter and one-year vessel patency.</p

Final 5-Year Follow-Up of a Randomized Controlled Trial of Everolimus- and Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents for Coronary Revascularization in Daily Practice the COMPARE Trial (A Trial of Everolimus-Eluting Stents and Paclitaxel Stents for Coronary Revascularization in Daily Practice)

Objectives This study sought to report the 5-year outcomes of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) in an all-comers population undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Background The medium-term 1 and 2-year results of the prospective randomized COMPARE trial (A Trial of Everolimus-Eluting Stents and Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents for Coronary Revascularization in Daily Practice) showed superior clinical outcomes with EES compared with PES in an all-comers PCI population. Whether this benefit is sustained over longer-term follow-up is unknown. Furthermore, systematic long-term follow-up data on these metallic drug eluting stents with durable polymers are scarce. Methods We randomly assigned 1,800 patients undergoing PCI to EES or PES. The pre-specified composite primary endpoint was death, myocardial infarction (MI), or target vessel revascularization (TVR). Results Follow-up at 5 years was completed in 1,791 (99.5%) patients. Treatment with EES compared with PES led to a relative risk reduction of the primary endpoint by 27% (18.4% vs. 25.1%, p = 0.0005), driven by lower rates of MI (7.0% vs. 11.5%, p = 0.001) and TVR (7.4% vs. 11.4%, p = 0.003), but not with mortality (9.0% vs. 10.3%, relative risk 0.88, p = 0.36). Moreover, patients treated with EES compared with PES had lower rates of definite/probable stent thrombosis at 5 years (3.1% vs. 5.9%, p = 0.005). The hazard curves for TVR, MI, and stent thrombosis diverge over the first 3 years and, subsequently, progress in parallel. Conclusions The early- and medium-term superiority of EES over PES measured both by safety and efficacy endpoints is sustained at 5 years in this all-comer population. (A Trial of Everolimus-Eluting Stents and Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents for Coronary Revascularization in Daily Practice [COMPARE]; NCT01016041)

Data on sex differences in one-year outcomes of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients without ST-segment elevation

Sex differences in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients are increasingly recognized. Although it has been found that post-resuscitated women are less likely to have significant coronary artery disease (CAD) than men, data on follow-up in these patients are limited. Data for this data in brief article was obtained as a part of the randomized controlled Coronary Angiography after Cardiac Arrest without ST-segment elevation (COACT) trial. The data supplements the manuscript "Sex differences in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients without ST-segment elevation: A COACT trial substudy" were it was found that women were less likely to have significant CAD including chronic total occlusions, and had worse survival when CAD was present. The dataset presented in this paper describes sex differences on interventions, implantable-cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) shocks and hospitalizations due to heart failure during one-year follow-up in patients successfully resuscitated after OHCA. Data was derived through a telephone interview at one year with the patient or general practitioner. Patients in this randomized dataset reflects a homogenous study population, which can be valuable to further build on research regarding long-term sex differences and to further improve cardiac care. (C) 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc

Sex differences in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest without ST-segment elevation:A COACT trial substudy

Background: Whether sex is associated with outcomes of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is unclear. Objectives: This study examined sex differences in survival in patients with OHCA without ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Methods: Using data from the randomized controlled Coronary Angiography after Cardiac Arrest (COACT) trial, the primary point of interest was sex differences in OHCA-related one-year survival. Secondary points of interest included the benefit of immediate coronary angiography compared to delayed angiography until after neurologic recovery, angiographic and clinical outcomes. Results: In total, 522 patients (79.1% men) were included. Overall one-year survival was 59.6% in women and 63.4% in men (HR 1.18; 95% CI: 0.761.81;p = 0.47). No cardiovascular risk factors were found that modified survival. Women less often had significant coronary artery disease (CAD) (37.0% vs. 71.3%; p < 0.001), but when present, they had a worse prognosis than women without CAD (HR 3.06; 95% CI 1.31-7.19; p = 0.01). This was not the case for men (HR 1.05; 95% CI 0.67-1.65; p = 0.83). In both sexes, immediate coronary angiography did not improve one-year survival compared to delayed angiography (women, odds ratio (OR) 0.87; 95% CI 0.58-1.30;p = 0.49; vs. men, OR 0.97; 95% CI 0.45-2.09; p = 0.93). Conclusion: In OHCA patients without STEMI, we found no sex differences in overall one-year survival. Women less often had significant CAD, but when CAD was present they had worse survival than women without CAD. This was not the case for men. Both sexes did not benefit from a strategy of immediate coronary angiography as compared to delayed strategy with respect to one-year survival

Cost Analysis From a Randomized Comparison of Immediate Versus Delayed Angiography After Cardiac Arrest

Background In patients with out‐of‐hospital cardiac arrest without ST‐segment elevation, immediate coronary angiography did not improve clinical outcomes when compared with delayed angiography in the COACT (Coronary Angiography After Cardiac Arrest) trial. Whether 1 of the 2 strategies has benefits in terms of health care resource use and costs is currently unknown. We assess the health care resource use and costs in patients with out‐of‐hospital cardiac arrest. Methods and Results A total of 538 patients were randomly assigned to a strategy of either immediate or delayed coronary angiography. Detailed health care resource use and cost‐prices were collected from the initial hospital episode. A generalized linear model and a gamma distribution were performed. Generic quality of life was measured with the RAND‐36 and collected at 12‐month follow‐up. Overall total mean costs were similar between both groups (EUR 33 575±19 612 versus EUR 33 880±21 044; P=0.86). Generalized linear model: (β, 0.991; 95% CI, 0.894–1.099; P=0.86). Mean procedural costs (coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention, coronary artery bypass graft) were higher in the immediate angiography group (EUR 4384±3447 versus EUR 3028±4220; P<0.001). Costs concerning intensive care unit and ward stay did not show any significant difference. The RAND‐36 questionnaire did not differ between both groups. Conclusions The mean total costs between patients with out‐of‐hospital cardiac arrest randomly assigned to an immediate angiography or a delayed invasive strategy were similar during the initial hospital stay. With respect to the higher invasive procedure costs in the immediate group, a strategy awaiting neurological recovery followed by coronary angiography and planned revascularization may be considered. Registration URL: https://trialregister.nl; Unique identifier: NL4857

Coronary Angiography After Cardiac Arrest Without ST Segment Elevation:One-Year Outcomes of the COACT Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance: Ischemic heart disease is a common cause of cardiac arrest. However, randomized data on long-term clinical outcomes of immediate coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients successfully resuscitated from cardiac arrest in the absence of ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) are lacking. Objective: To determine whether immediate coronary angiography improves clinical outcomes at 1 year in patients after cardiac arrest without signs of STEMI, compared with a delayed coronary angiography strategy. Design, Setting, and Participants: A prespecified analysis of a multicenter, open-label, randomized clinical trial evaluated 552 patients who were enrolled in 19 Dutch centers between January 8, 2015, and July 17, 2018. The study included patients who experienced out-of-hospital cardiac arrest with a shockable rhythm who were successfully resuscitated without signs of STEMI. Follow-up was performed at 1 year. Data were analyzed, using the intention-to-treat principle, between August 29 and October 10, 2019. Interventions: Immediate coronary angiography and PCI if indicated or coronary angiography and PCI if indicated, delayed until after neurologic recovery. Main Outcomes and Measures: Survival, myocardial infarction, revascularization, implantable cardiac defibrillator shock, quality of life, hospitalization for heart failure, and the composite of death or myocardial infarction or revascularization after 1 year. Results: At 1 year, data on 522 of 552 patients (94.6%) were available for analysis. Of these patients, 413 were men (79.1%); mean (SD) age was 65.4 (12.3) years. A total of 162 of 264 patients (61.4%) in the immediate angiography group and 165 of 258 patients (64.0%) in the delayed angiography group were alive (odds ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.63-1.28). The composite end point of death, myocardial infarction, or repeated revascularization since the index hospitalization was met in 112 patients (42.9%) in the immediate group and 104 patients (40.6%) in the delayed group (odds ratio, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.77-1.56). No significant differences between the groups were observed for the other outcomes at 1-year follow-up. For example, the rate of ICD shocks was 20.4% in the immediate group and 16.2% in the delayed group (odds ratio, 1.32; 95% CI, 0.66-2.64). Conclusions and Relevance: In this trial of patients successfully resuscitated after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and without signs of STEMI, a strategy of immediate angiography was not found to be superior to a strategy of delayed angiography with respect to clinical outcomes at 1 year. Coronary angiography in this patient group can therefore be delayed until after neurologic recovery without affecting outcomes