Effects of the high-density lipoprotein mimetic agent CER-001 on coronary atherosclerosis in patients with acute coronary syndromes: a randomized trial†

Aim High-density lipoproteins (HDLs) have several potentially protective vascular effects. Most clinical studies of therapies targeting HDL have failed to show benefits vs. placebo. Objective To investigate the effects of an HDL-mimetic agent on atherosclerosis by intravascular ultrasonography (IVUS) and quantitative coronary angiography (QCA). Design and setting A prospective, double-blinded, randomized trial was conducted at 51 centres in the USA, the Netherlands, Canada, and France. Intravascular ultrasonography and QCA were performed to assess coronary atherosclerosis at baseline and 3 (2-5) weeks after the last study infusion. Patients Five hundred and seven patients were randomized; 417 and 461 had paired IVUS and QCA measurements, respectively. Intervention Patients were randomized to receive 6 weekly infusions of placebo, 3 mg/kg, 6 mg/kg, or 12 mg/kg CER-001. Main outcome measures The primary efficacy parameter was the nominal change in the total atheroma volume. Nominal changes in per cent atheroma volume on IVUS and coronary scores on QCA were also pre-specified endpoints. Results The nominal change in the total atheroma volume (adjusted means) was −2.71, −3.13, −1.50, and −3.05 mm3 with placebo, CER-001 3 mg/kg, 6 mg/kg, and 12 mg/kg, respectively (primary analysis of 12 mg/kg vs. placebo: P = 0.81). There was also no difference among groups for the nominal change in per cent atheroma volume (0.02, −0.02, 0.01, and 0.19%; nominal P = 0.53 for 12 mg/kg vs. placebo). Change in the coronary artery score was −0.022, −0.036, −0.022, and −0.015 mm (nominal P = 0.25, 0.99, 0.55), and change in the cumulative coronary stenosis score was −0.51, 2.65, 0.71, and −0.77% (compared with placebo, nominal P = 0.85 for 12 mg/kg and nominal P = 0.01 for 3 mg/kg). The number of patients with major cardiovascular events was 10 (8.3%), 16 (13.3%), 17 (13.7%), and 12 (9.8%) in the four groups. Conclusion CER-001 infusions did not reduce coronary atherosclerosis on IVUS and QCA when compared with placebo. Whether CER-001 administered in other regimens or to other populations could favourably affect atherosclerosis must await further study. Name of the trial registry: Clinicaltrials.gov; Registry's URL: http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01201837?term=cer-001&rank=2; Trial registration number: NCT0120183

Compliant vs non-compliant balloons - A prospective randomized study

In this prospective randomized trial we explored the possibility of different procedural outcomes with regard to compliant (polyolefin copolymer (POC)), and non-compliant (polyethylene terapthelate (PET)) balloon materials commonly used during percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA)

Directional coronary atherectomy versus coronary angioplasty in vessels larger than 3 mm in diameter

It has been proposed that directional coronary atherectomy (DCA) should be an intervention of choice in larger vessels as one can achieve a greater minimal luminal diameter with DCA than with percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA). This in turn should translate into a higher success rate and may even reduce the restenosis rate. The aim of this study was to compare DCA versus PTCA in vessels > 3 mm in diameter. One hundred fifty consecutive patients who met the inclusion criteria and had DCA were compared to 150 similarly selected PTCA patients. PTCA patients were selected from the era immediately preceding the advent of DCA so that selection bias could be excluded. All patients with ostial lesions, restenosis, vessels < 3 mm in diameter, and vessels with more than two significant lesions were excluded. Distal segments and circumflex cases were excluded as they formed a small subsegment. Both groups were similar in terms of demographic, clinical and angiographic variables. Quantitative analysis showed that the initial net gain was significantly greater in the DCA group than in the PTCA group (2.36 +/- 0.8 mm vs. 1.78 +/- 0.7 mm; p < 0.05). Residual stenosis was 11% with DCA compared to 33% with PTCA (p < 0.05). Despite these improved anatomical results the procedural success rates were similar (91.5% vs 84%). Major in hospital complications (death, acute occlusion, MI, emergency CABG, re-do) were higher in the DCA group than in the PTCA group (12% vs 6%). Clinical follow-up on 276 patients (150 DCA vs 126 PTCA) showed a 6 month clinical restenosis rate of 18% vs 28%, respectively. The incidence of re-do in 24 hours for acute occlusion was 6% for DCA and 1% for PTCA. In large-sized vessels DCA results in a lower restenosis rate. However, despite a lower incidence of residual stenosis, the complication rate tends to be higher with DCA (p < 0.05)