Safety and efficacy of the supreme biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent in patients with diabetes mellitus

Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) have worse outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention than nondiabetic patients. The novel Supreme DES is a biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent designed to synchronize early drug delivery, limiting the potential for long-term inflammatory response. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the Supreme DES in patients with DM. Methods This is a prespecified analysis of the diabetic subgroup from the PIONEER III randomized (2:1), controlled trial, comparing the Supreme DES with a durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent (DP-EES). The primary safety and efficacy composite endpoint was target lesion failure at 1 year, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target lesion revascularization. Results The PIONEER III trial randomized 1629 patients, of which 494 (30.3%) had DM with 331 (398 lesions) randomly assigned to Supreme DES and 163 (208 lesions) to DP-EES. Among patients with DM, target lesion failure at 1 year was 6.1% (20/331) with Supreme DES vs 3.7% (6/163) with DP-EES (hazard ratio = 1.65; 95% confidence interval = 0.66-4.10, P = .28). The composite of cardiac death or target vessel myocardial infarction was 3.3% (11/331) with Supreme DES and 3.7% (6/163) with DP-EES (hazard ratio = 0.90; 95% confidence interval = 0.33-2.44, P = .83). There were no significant differences in other secondary endpoints. Conclusions This prespecified substudy of the PIONEER III trial demonstrated the relative safety and efficacy of the novel Supreme DES when compared with commercially available DP-EES in diabetics at 1 year. Longer term follow-up will be required to ensure continued safety and efficacy of the Supreme DES

Impella Versus Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump for High-Risk PCI: A Propensity-Adjusted Large-Scale Claims Dataset Analysis

Impella was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2015 for use during high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs); however, its safety and efficacy compared with intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) has not been evaluated in contemporary practice and remains debated. We aimed to compare postapproval outcomes and costs of Impella versus IABP support for high-risk PCI in real-world practice across hospitals in the United States. We identified patients from the Premier Healthcare Database undergoing nonemergent Impella- or IABP-supported high-risk PCI. We used propensity adjustment to control baseline, procedure, and post-PCI medical treatment differences between treatment groups. We included patients undergoing nonemergent single-PCI procedures with either Impella or IABP support and excluded patients presenting with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction or cardiogenic shock or requiring \u3e1 mechanical support devices during index hospitalization. Outcomes included in-hospital survival, myocardial infarction (MI), cardiogenic shock, stroke, bleeding requiring transfusion, acute kidney injury, index hospitalization length of stay, and costs. From April 2016 to June 2019, a total of 48,179 patients were treated with Impella or IABP mechanical circulatory support at 304 hospitals in the United States. Among these, we identified 2,156 patients undergoing nonemergent high-risk PCI treated with Impella (n = 1,447) or IABP (n = 709). After propensity adjustment, Impella use was associated with improved survival (odds ratio [OR] 1.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02 to 2.36) and less MI (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.46) and cardiogenic shock (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.74). Stroke, bleeding requiring transfusion, and acute kidney injury were similar between groups. In conclusion, this Premier Healthcare Database propensity-adjusted analysis, Impella use during nonemergent high-risk PCI was associated with improved survival and reduced in-hospital MI and cardiogenic shock compared with IABP

Comparison between ticlopidine and clopidogrel in patients undergoing primary stenting in acute myocardial infarction: results from the CADILLAC trial.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this article is to examine whether clopidogrel and ticlopidine treatments produce similar clinical outcomes for patients receiving primary stenting for acute myocardial infarction (AMI). BACKGROUND: Prior studies have yielded conflicting results on the relative safety and efficacy of clopidogrel and ticlopidine after stent implantation, warranting an evaluation in primary stenting for AMI. METHODS: In the multicenter, prospective CADILLAC trial, patients undergoing primary infarct stenting were treated at operator discretion with either ticlopidine (931 patients) or clopidogrel (163 patients) and then followed for 1 year. Baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics were comparable except for baseline TIMI 0/1 flow (72.5% clopidogrel vs. 63.9% ticlopidine, P = 0.04). RESULTS: Patients receiving clopidogrel had more recurrent ischemia in hospital (6.1 vs. 2.8%, P = 0.02) and at 30 days (10.5 vs. 5.8%, P = 0.02), more moderate and severe bleeding at 30 days (7.4 vs. 2.7%, P = 0.002), and similar rates of stent thrombosis out to 1 year (P = 0.11). By multivariable analysis, clopidogrel use was an independent predictor for recurrent ischemia in hospital (P = 0.0002), and at 30 days (P = 0.012); and of moderate and severe bleeding in hospital (P = 0.002), and at 30 days (P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Despite thienopyridines similarities, their efficacy may be different within the first 30 days of primary stenting for AMI. A prospective, randomized trial is required to confirm these findings

Gender differences in outcomes after primary angioplasty versus primary stenting with and without abciximab for acute myocardial infarction: results of the Controlled Abciximab and Device Investigation to Lower Late Angioplasty Complications (CADILLAC) trial.

BACKGROUND: Women with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) undergoing primary angioplasty have higher rates of morbidity and mortality than do men. Whether contemporary interventional treatment strategies have improved outcomes for women compared with men is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: In the CADILLAC trial, 2082 patients (27% women) with AMI within 12 hours of symptom onset were randomized to balloon angioplasty (PTCA; n=518), PTCA+abciximab (n=528), stenting (n=512), and stenting+abciximab (n=524). As compared with men, women had a lower body surface area; had a greater prevalence of diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia; experienced significant delays to treatment; and had better baseline and final TIMI grade 3 flows. Unadjusted 1-year event rates were higher for women, including death (7.6% versus 3.0%, P CONCLUSIONS: The higher mortality rate in women compared with men after interventional treatment for AMI may be explained by differences in body size and clinical risk factors, although female gender remains an important independent determinant of overall adverse outcomes. For women in the CADILLAC trial, the addition of abciximab reduced 30-day TVR without increasing bleeding risk, and primary stenting reduced 1-year TVR and MACE rates compared with PTCA

A prospective randomized evaluation of the TriGuard (TM) HDH embolic DEFLECTion device during transcatheter aortic valve implantation : results fromthe DEFLECT III trial

Aims To evaluate the safety, efficacy, and performance of the TriGuard (TM) HDH Embolic Deflection Device (TriGuard) compared with no cerebral protection in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Methods and results From February 2014 to March 2015, 85 subjects undergoing TAVI at 13 centres in Europe and Israelwere randomized to TriGuard protection vs. no protection. Subjects underwent neurologic and cognitive evaluation at baseline, pre-discharge and 30 days; cerebral diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging was performed at 4 +/- 2 days post-procedure and at 30 days. Technical success, which included complete 3-vessel cerebral coverage, was achieved in 88.9% (40/45) of cases. The primary in-hospital procedural safety endpoint (death, stroke, life-threatening or disabling bleeding, stage2 or 3 acute kidney injury, or major vascular complications) occurred in 21.7% ofTriGuard and 30.8% of control subjects (P = 0.34). In the Per Treatment population (subjects with complete three-vessel cerebral coverage), TriGuard use was associated with greater freedom from new ischaemic brain lesions (26.9 vs. 11.5%), fewer new neurologic deficits detected by the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (3.1 vs. 15.4%), improved Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) scores, better performance on a delayed memory task (P = 0.028) at discharge, and a >2-fold increase in recovery of normal cognitive function (MoCA score >26) at 30 days. Conclusion TriGuard cerebral protection during TAVI is safe and complete cerebral vessel coveragewas achieved in 89% of subjects. In this exploratory study, subjects undergoing protected TAVI had more freedom from ischaemic brain lesions, fewer neurologic deficits, and improved cognitive function in some domains at discharge and 30 days compared with controls

Percutaneous coronary intervention and adjunctive pharmacotherapy in women - A statement for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association

More than 1.2 million percutaneous coronary interventions are performed annually in the United States, with only an estimated 33% performed in women, despite the established benefits of percutaneous coronary intervention and adjunctive pharmacotherapy in reducing fatal and nonfatal ischemic complications in acute myocardial infarction and high-risk acute coronary syndromes. This statement reviews sex-specific data on the safety and efficacy of contemporary interventional therapies in women