The use of modern telemedicine technologies in an innovative optimal cardiac rehabilitation program for patients after myocardial revascularization: Concept and design of RESTORE, a randomized clinical trial

Despite proven efficacy of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) in reducing the all-cause mortality in patients after myocardial revascularization, the penetration of CR, due to patient-related factors and referral rates remains limited. To improve the outcomes, home-based tele-rehabilitation (TR) has been proposed recently. In theory TR enhances the effects of standard CR procedures due to implementation of an intelligent monitoring system designed to ensure optimal training through on-demand transmission of vital signs, aimed at motivating the patients through daily schedule reminders, setting daily goals and creating a platform for mutual feedback. Several meta-analyses assessing various studies comparing these two methods (CR and TR) have proven that they are at least equally effective, with some of the research showing superiority of TR. Although there was a small sample size, lack of long-term follow-up, reporting effects of TR itself, no integration with tools designed for coaching, motivating and promoting a healthy lifestyle constitutes an important limitation. The latter carries a hopeful prognosis for improvement when utilizing a broad-spectrum approach, especially with use of dedicated technological solutions exploiting the fact of a large and yet rapidly increasing penetration of smartphones, mobile PCs and tablets in the population. The above-mentioned findings worked as the basis and rationale for commencing the RESTORE project aimed at developing and delivering state-of-the-art, comprehensive TR for patients after myocardial revascularization and evaluating its molecular aspect in view of how it influences the atherosclerosis progression attenuation. This paper presents the current state and rationale behind the project based on up-to-date TR efficacy data

Early and Long-Term Results of Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Stenting The LE MANS (Left Main Coronary Artery Stenting) Registry

ObjectivesThe aim of the study was to evaluate early and late outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of unprotected left main coronary artery disease (ULMCA) and to compare bare-metal stent (BMS) and drug-eluting stent (DES) subgroups.BackgroundPCI is an increasingly utilized method of revascularization in patients with ULMCA.MethodsThis multicenter prospective registry included 252 patients after ULMCA stenting enrolled between March 1997 and February 2008. Non–ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome was diagnosed in 58% of patients; ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction cases were excluded. Drug-eluting stents were implanted in 36.2% of patients.ResultsMajor adverse cardiovascular and cerebral events (MACCE) occurred in 12 (4.8%) patients during the 30-day period, which included 4 (1.5%) deaths. After 12 months there were 17 (12.1%) angiographically confirmed cases of restenosis. During long-term follow-up (1 to 11 years, mean 3.8 years) there were 64 (25.4%) MACCE and 35 (13.9%) deaths. The 5- and 10-year survival rates were 78.1% and 68.9%, respectively. Despite differences in demographical and clinical data in favor of BMS patients, unmatched analysis showed a significantly lower MACCE rate in DES patients (25.9% vs. 14.9%, p = 0.039). This difference was strengthened after propensity score matching. The DES lowered both mortality and MACCE for distal ULMCA lesions when compared with BMS. Ejection fraction <50% was the only independent risk factor influencing long-term survival.ConclusionsStenting of ULMCA is feasible and offers good long-term outcome. Implantation of DES for ULMCA decreased the risk of long-term MACCE, and particularly improved survival in patients with distal ULMCA disease

Comparison of zotarolimus- and everolimus-eluting coronary stents: final 5-year report of the RESOLUTE all-comers trial

BACKGROUND Newer-generation drug-eluting stents that release zotarolimus or everolimus have been shown to be superior to the first-generation drug-eluting stents. However, data comparing long-term safety and efficacy of zotarolimus- (ZES) and everolimus-eluting stents (EES) are limited. RESOLUTE all-comers (Randomized Comparison of a Zotarolimus-Eluting Stent With an Everolimus-Eluting Stent for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) trial compared these 2 stents and has shown that ZES was noninferior to EES at 12-month for the primary end point of target lesion failure. We report the secondary clinical outcomes at the final 5-year follow-up of this trial. METHODS AND RESULTS RESOLUTE all-comer clinical study is a prospective, multicentre, randomized, 2-arm, open-label, noninferiority trial with minimal exclusion criteria. Patients (n=2292) were randomly assigned to treatment with either ZES (n=1140) or EES (n=1152). Patient-oriented composite end point (combination of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and any revascularizations), device-oriented composite end point (combination of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization), and major adverse cardiac events (combination of all-cause death, all myocardial infarction, emergent coronary bypass surgery, or clinically indicated target lesion revascularization) were analyzed at 5-year follow-up. The 2 groups were well-matched at baseline. Five-year follow-up data were available for 98% patients. There were no differences in patient-oriented composite end point (ZES 35.3% versus EES 32.0%, P=0.11), device-oriented composite end point (ZES 17.0% versus EES 16.2%, P=0.61), major adverse cardiac events (ZES 21.9% versus EES 21.6%, P=0.88), and definite/probable stent thrombosis (ZES 2.8% versus EES 1.8%, P=0.12). CONCLUSIONS At 5-year follow-up, ZES and EES had similar efficacy and safety in a population of patients who had minimal exclusion criteria. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00617084

New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation After PCI or CABG for Left Main Disease: The EXCEL Trial

Background: There is limited information on the incidence and prognostic impact of new-onset atrial fibrillation (NOAF) following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD). Objectives: This study sought to determine the incidence of NOAF following PCI and CABG for LMCAD and its effect on 3-year cardiovascular outcomes. Methods: In the EXCEL (Evaluation of XIENCE Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization) trial, 1,905 patients with LMCAD and low or intermediate SYNTAX scores were randomized to PCI with everolimus-eluting stents versus CABG. Outcomes were analyzed according to the development of NOAF during the initial hospitalization following revascularization. Results: Among 1,812 patients without atrial fibrillation on presentation, NOAF developed at a mean of 2.7 ± 2.5 days after revascularization in 162 patients (8.9%), including 161 of 893 (18.0%) CABG-treated patients and 1 of 919 (0.1%) PCI-treated patients (p < 0.0001). Older age, greater body mass index, and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction were independent predictors of NOAF in patients undergoing CABG. Patients with versus without NOAF had a significantly longer duration of hospitalization, were more likely to be discharged on anticoagulant therapy, and had an increased 30-day rate of Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction major or minor bleeding (14.2% vs. 5.5%; p < 0.0001). By multivariable analysis, NOAF after CABG was an independent predictor of 3-year stroke (6.6% vs. 2.4%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 4.19; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.74 to 10.11; p = 0.001), death (11.4% vs. 4.3%; adjusted HR: 3.02; 95% CI: 1.60 to 5.70; p = 0.0006), and the primary composite endpoint of death, MI, or stroke (22.6% vs. 12.8%; adjusted HR: 2.13; 95% CI: 1.39 to 3.25; p = 0.0004). Conclusions: In patients with LMCAD undergoing revascularization in the EXCEL trial, NOAF was common after CABG but extremely rare after PCI. The development of NOAF was strongly associated with subsequent death and stroke in CABG-treated patients. Further studies are warranted to determine whether prophylactic strategies to prevent or treat atrial fibrillation may improve prognosis in patients with LMCAD who are undergoing CABG. (Evaluation of XIENCE Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularizatio

Rationale and design of a prospective substudy of clinical endpoint adjudication processes within an investigator-reported randomised controlled trial in patients with coronary artery disease: the GLOBAL LEADERS Adjudication Sub-StudY (GLASSY)

pragmatic and superiority randomised controlled trial designed to challenge the current treatment paradigm of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for 12 months followed by aspirin monotherapy among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. By design, all study endpoints are investigator reported (IR) and not subject to formal adjudication by an independent Clinical Event Committee (CEC), which may introduce detection, reporting or ascertainment bias. Methods and analysis We designed the GLOBAL LEADERS Adjudication Sub-StudY (GLASSY) to prospectively implement, in a large sample of patients enrolled within the GLOBAL LEADERS trial (7585 of 15 991, 47.5%), an independent adjudication process of reported and unreported potential endpoints, using standardised CEC procedures, in order to assess whether 23-month ticagrelor monotherapy (90mg twice daily) after 1-month DAPT is non-inferior to a standard regimen of DAPT for 12 months followed by aspirin monotherapy for the primary efficacy endpoint of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke or urgent target vessel revascularisation and superior for the primary safety endpoint of type 3 or 5 bleeding according to the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium criteria. This study will comprehensively assess the comparative safety and efficacy of the two tested antithrombotic strategies on CEC-adjudicated ischaemic and bleeding endpoints and will provide insights into the role of a standardised CEC adjudication process on the interpretation of study findings by quantifying the level of concordance between IR-reported and CEC-adjudicated events. Ethics and dissemination GLASSY has been approved by local ethics committee of all study sites and/or by the central ethics committee for the country depending on country-specific regulations. In all cases, they deemed that it was not neces

Five-Year Outcomes after PCI or CABG for Left Main Coronary Disease.

BACKGROUND: Long-term outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with contemporary drug-eluting stents, as compared with coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG), in patients with left main coronary artery disease are not clearly established. METHODS: We randomly assigned 1905 patients with left main coronary artery disease of low or intermediate anatomical complexity (according to assessment at the participating centers) to undergo either PCI with fluoropolymer-based cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents (PCI group, 948 patients) or CABG (CABG group, 957 patients). The primary outcome was a composite of death, stroke, or myocardial infarction. RESULTS: At 5 years, a primary outcome event had occurred in 22.0% of the patients in the PCI group and in 19.2% of the patients in the CABG group (difference, 2.8 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.9 to 6.5; P = 0.13). Death from any cause occurred more frequently in the PCI group than in the CABG group (in 13.0% vs. 9.9%; difference, 3.1 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.2 to 6.1). In the PCI and CABG groups, the incidences of definite cardiovascular death (5.0% and 4.5%, respectively; difference, 0.5 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.4 to 2.5) and myocardial infarction (10.6% and 9.1%; difference, 1.4 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.3 to 4.2) were not significantly different. All cerebrovascular events were less frequent after PCI than after CABG (3.3% vs. 5.2%; difference, -1.9 percentage points; 95% CI, -3.8 to 0), although the incidence of stroke was not significantly different between the two groups (2.9% and 3.7%; difference, -0.8 percentage points; 95% CI, -2.4 to 0.9). Ischemia-driven revascularization was more frequent after PCI than after CABG (16.9% vs. 10.0%; difference, 6.9 percentage points; 95% CI, 3.7 to 10.0). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with left main coronary artery disease of low or intermediate anatomical complexity, there was no significant difference between PCI and CABG with respect to the rate of the composite outcome of death, stroke, or myocardial infarction at 5 years. (Funded by Abbott Vascular; EXCEL ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01205776.)