Coronary plaque quantification and fractional flow reserve by coronary computed tomography angiography identify ischaemia-causing lesions

AIMS: Coronary plaque characteristics are associated with ischaemia. Differences in plaque volumes and composition may explain the discordance between coronary stenosis severity and ischaemia. We evaluated the association between coronary stenosis severity, plaque characteristics, coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA)-derived fractional flow reserve (FFR(CT)), and lesion-specific ischaemia identified by FFR in a substudy of the NXT trial (Analysis of Coronary Blood Flow Using CT Angiography: Next Steps). METHODS AND RESULTS: Coronary CTA stenosis, plaque volumes, FFR(CT), and FFR were assessed in 484 vessels from 254 patients. Stenosis >50% was considered obstructive. Plaque volumes (non-calcified plaque [NCP], low-density NCP [LD-NCP], and calcified plaque [CP]) were quantified using semi-automated software. Optimal thresholds of quantitative plaque variables were defined by area under the receiver-operating characteristics curve (AUC) analysis. Ischaemia was defined by FFR or FFR(CT) ≤0.80. Plaque volumes were inversely related to FFR irrespective of stenosis severity. Relative risk (95% confidence interval) for prediction of ischaemia for stenosis >50%, NCP ≥185 mm(3), LD-NCP ≥30 mm(3), CP ≥9 mm(3), and FFR(CT) ≤0.80 were 5.0 (3.0–8.3), 3.7 (2.4–5.6), 4.6 (2.9–7.4), 1.4 (1.0–2.0), and 13.6 (8.4–21.9), respectively. Low-density NCP predicted ischaemia independent of other plaque characteristics. Low-density NCP and FFR(CT) yielded diagnostic improvement over stenosis assessment with AUCs increasing from 0.71 by stenosis >50% to 0.79 and 0.90 when adding LD-NCP ≥30 mm(3) and LD-NCP ≥30 mm(3) + FFR(CT) ≤0.80, respectively. CONCLUSION: Stenosis severity, plaque characteristics, and FFR(CT) predict lesion-specific ischaemia. Plaque assessment and FFR(CT) provide improved discrimination of ischaemia compared with stenosis assessment alone

2-Year Patient-Related Versus Stent-Related Outcomes:The SORT OUT IV (Scandinavian Organization for Randomized Trials With Clinical Outcome IV) Trial

ObjectivesThere are limited head-to-head randomized data on patient-related versus stent-related outcomes for everolimus-eluting stents (EES) and sirolimus-eluting stents (SES).BackgroundIn the SORT OUT IV (Scandinavian Organization for Randomized Trials With Clinical Outcome IV) trial, comparing the EES with the SES in patients with coronary artery disease, the EES was noninferior to the SES at 9 months.MethodsThe primary endpoint was a composite: cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), definite stent thrombosis, or target vessel revascularization. Safety and efficacy outcomes at 2 years were further assessed with specific focus on patient-related composite (all death, all MI, or any revascularization) and stent-related composite outcomes (cardiac death, target vessel MI, or symptom-driven target lesion revascularization). A total of 1,390 patients were assigned to receive the EES, and 1,384 patients were assigned to receive the SES.ResultsAt 2 years, the composite primary endpoint occurred in 8.3% in the EES group and in 8.7% in the SES group (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.73 to 1.22). The patient-related outcome: 15.0% in the EES group versus 15.6% in the SES group, (HR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.78 to 1.15), and the stent-related outcome: 5.2% in the EES group versus 5.3% in the SES group (HR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.70 to 1.35) did not differ between groups. Rate of definite stent thrombosis was lower in the EES group (0.2% vs. 0.9%, (HR: 0.23, 95% CI: 0.07 to 0.80).ConclusionsAt 2-year follow-up, the EES was found to be noninferior to the SES with regard to both patient-related and stent-related clinical outcomes. (The SORT OUT IV TRIAL [SORT OUT IV]; NCT00552877

3-Year clinical outcomes in the randomized SORT OUT III superiority trial comparing zotarolimus- and sirolimus-eluting coronary stents

ObjectivesThis study sought to examine the 3-year clinical outcomes in patients treated with the Endeavor (Medtronic, Santa Rosa, California) zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) or the Cypher (Cordis, Johnson & Johnson, Warren, New Jersey) sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) in routine clinical practice.BackgroundThe long-term clinical outcome in patients treated with ZES in comparison with SES is unclear.MethodsThe authors randomized 2,332 patients to ZES (n = 1,162) or SES (n = 1,170) implantation. Endpoints included major adverse cardiac events (MACE), a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization; the individual endpoints of MACE; and definite stent thrombosis.ResultsAt 3-year follow-up, the MACE rate was higher in patients treated with ZES than in patients treated with SES (148 [12.9%] vs. 116 [10.1%]; hazard ratio [HR]: 1.33, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.04 to 1.69; p = 0.022). Target vessel revascularization was more frequent in the ZES group compared with the SES group (103 [9.1%] vs. 76 [6.7%]; HR: 1.40, 95% CI: 1.04 to 1.89; p = 0.025), whereas the occurrence of myocardial infarction (3.8% vs. 3.3%) and cardiac death (2.8% vs. 2.8%) did not differ significantly. Although the rate of definite stent thrombosis was similar at 3-year follow-up (1.1% vs. 1.4%), very late (12 to 36 months) definite stent thrombosis occurred in 0 (0%) patients in the ZES group versus 12 (1.1%) patients in the SES group (p = 0.0005).ConclusionsAlthough the 3-year MACE rate is higher in patients treated with ZES versus SES, our data highlight a late safety problem concerning definite stent thrombosis with the use of SES. This finding underscores the importance of long-term follow-up in head-to-head comparisons of drug-eluting stents. (Randomized Clinical Comparison of the Endeavor and the Cypher Coronary Stents in Non-selected Angina Pectoris Patients [SORT OUT III]; NCT00660478