Impact of premature coronary artery disease on adverse event risk following first percutaneous coronary intervention

ObjectivesWe assessed differences in risk profile and 3-year outcome between patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for premature and non-premature coronary artery disease (CAD).BackgroundThe prevalence of CAD increases with age, yet some individuals develop obstructive CAD at younger age.MethodsAmong participants in four randomized all-comers PCI trials, without previous coronary revascularization or myocardial infarction (MI), we compared patients with premature (men <50 years; women <55 years) and non-premature CAD. Various clinical endpoints were assessed, including multivariate analyses.ResultsOf 6,171 patients, 887(14.4%) suffered from premature CAD. These patients had fewer risk factors than patients with non-premature CAD, but were more often smokers (60.7% vs. 26.4%) and overweight (76.2% vs. 69.8%). In addition, premature CAD patients presented more often with ST-segment elevation MI and underwent less often treatment of multiple vessels, and calcified or bifurcated lesions. Furthermore, premature CAD patients had a lower all-cause mortality risk (adj.HR:0.23, 95%-CI: 0.10–0.52; p < 0.001), but target vessel revascularization (adj.HR:1.63, 95%-CI: 1.18–2.26; p = 0.003) and definite stent thrombosis risks (adj.HR:2.24, 95%-CI: 1.06–4.72; p = 0.034) were higher. MACE rates showed no statistically significant difference (6.6% vs. 9.4%; adj.HR:0.86, 95%-CI: 0.65–1.16; p = 0.33).ConclusionsAbout one out of seven PCI patients was treated for premature CAD. These patients had less complex risk profiles than patients with non-premature CAD; yet, their risk of repeated revascularization and stent thrombosis was higher. As lifetime event risk of patients with premature CAD is known to be particularly high, further efforts should be made to improve modifiable risk factors such as smoking and overweight.Clinical Trial Registration[clinicaltrials.gov], TWENTE [NCT01066650]; DUTCH PEERS [NCT01331707]; BIO-RESORT [NCT01674803]; BIONYX [NCT02508714]

Final 5-Year Report of the Randomized BIO-RESORT Trial Comparing 3 Contemporary Drug-Eluting Stents in All-Comers

BACKGROUND: In a previous trial, higher 5‐year mortality was observed following treatment with biodegradable polymer Orsiro sirolimus‐eluting stents (SES). We assessed 5‐year safety and efficacy of all‐comers as well as patients with diabetes treated with SES or Synergy everolimus‐eluting stents (EES) versus durable polymer Resolute Integrity zotarolimus‐eluting stents (ZES). METHODS AND RESULTS: The randomized BIO‐RESORT (Comparison of Biodegradable Polymer and Durable Polymer Drug‐Eluting Stents in an All Comers Population) trial enrolled 3514 all‐comer patients at 4 Dutch cardiac centers. Patients aged ≥18 years who required percutaneous coronary intervention were eligible. Participants were stratified for diabetes and randomized to treatment with SES, EES, or ZES (1:1:1). The main end point was target vessel failure (cardiac mortality, target vessel myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization). Five‐year follow‐up was available in 3183 of 3514 (90.6%) patients. The main end point target vessel failure occurred in 142 of 1169 (12.7%) patients treated with SES, 130 of 1172 (11.6%) treated with EES, versus 157 of 1173 (14.1%) treated with ZES (hazard ratio [HR], 0.89 [95% CI, 0.71–1.12], P (log‐rank)=0.31; and HR, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.65–1.04], P (log‐rank)=0.10, respectively). Individual components of target vessel failure showed no significant between‐stent difference. Very late definite stent thrombosis rates were low and similar (SES, 1.1%; EES, 0.6%; ZES, 0.9%). In patients with diabetes, target vessel failure did not differ significantly between stent‐groups (SES, 19.8%; EES, 19.2%; versus ZES, 21.1% [P (log‐rank)=0.69 and P (log‐rank)=0.63]). CONCLUSIONS: Orsiro SES, Synergy EES, and Resolute Integrity ZES showed similar 5‐year outcomes of safety and efficacy, including mortality. A prespecified stent comparison in patients with diabetes also revealed no significant differences in 5‐year clinical outcomes. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01674803

Prediction of All-Cause Mortality Following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Bifurcation Lesions Using Machine Learning Algorithms

Stratifying prognosis following coronary bifurcation percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is an unmet clinical need that may be fulfilled through the adoption of machine learning (ML) algorithms to refine outcome predictions. We sought to develop an ML-based risk stratification model built on clinical, anatomical, and procedural features to predict all-cause mortality following contemporary bifurcation PCI. Multiple ML models to predict all-cause mortality were tested on a cohort of 2393 patients (training, n = 1795; internal validation, n = 598) undergoing bifurcation PCI with contemporary stents from the real-world RAIN registry. Twenty-five commonly available patient-/lesion-related features were selected to train ML models. The best model was validated in an external cohort of 1701 patients undergoing bifurcation PCI from the DUTCH PEERS and BIO-RESORT trial cohorts. At ROC curves, the AUC for the prediction of 2-year mortality was 0.79 (0.74–0.83) in the overall population, 0.74 (0.62–0.85) at internal validation and 0.71 (0.62–0.79) at external validation. Performance at risk ranking analysis, k-center cross-validation, and continual learning confirmed the generalizability of the models, also available as an online interface. The RAIN-ML prediction model represents the first tool combining clinical, anatomical, and procedural features to predict all-cause mortality among patients undergoing contemporary bifurcation PCI with reliable performance

Everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffolds and metallic stents in diabetic patients: a patient-level pooled analysis of the prospective ABSORB DM Benelux Study, TWENTE and DUTCH PEERS

Background: Several studies compared everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffolds (EE-BRS) with everolimus-eluting stents (EES), but only few assessed these devices in patients with diabetes mellitus. Aim: To evaluate the safety and efficacy outcomes of all-comer patients with diabetes mellitus up to 2 years after treatment with EE-BRS or EES. Methods: We performed a post hoc pooled analysis of patient-level data in diabetic patients who were treated with EE-BRS or EES in 3 prospective clinical trials: The ABSORB DM Benelux Study (NTR5447), TWENTE (NTR1256/NCT01066650) and DUTCH PEERS (NTR2413/NCT01331707). Primary endpoint of the analysis was target lesion failure (TLF): a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction or clinically driven target lesion revascularization. Secondary endpoints included major adverse cardiac events (MACE): a composite of all-cause death, any myocardial infarction or clinically driven target vessel revascularization, as well as definite or probable device thrombosis (ST). Results: A total of 499 diabetic patients were assessed, of whom 150 received EE-BRS and 249 received EES. Total available follow-up was 222.6 patient years (PY) in the EE-BRS and 464.9 PY in the EES group. The adverse events rates were similar in both treatment groups for TLF (7.2 vs. 5.2 events per 100 PY, p = 0.39; adjusted hazard ratio (HR) = 1.48 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.77-2.87), p = 0.24), MACE (9.1 vs. 8.3 per 100 PY, p = 0.83; adjusted HR = 1.23 (95% CI: 0.70-2.17), p = 0.47), and ST (0.9 vs. 0.6 per 100 PY, p > 0.99). Conclusion: In this patient-level pooled analysis of patients with diabetes mellitus from 3 clinical trials, EE-BRS showed clinical outcomes that were quite similar to EES

Quality of Life After Orthognathic Surgery in Patients with Cleft: An Overview of Available Patient-Reported Outcome Measures

Objective : Measuring the impact of orthognathic surgery on quality of life is of significant importance in patients with cleft deformities. Standardized tools such as patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are needed to fully comprehend patients’ needs and perceptions. Therefore, the availability of reliable, valid, and comprehensive questionnaires for patients is essential. The aim of this study is to identify PROMs measuring the impact of orthognathic surgery on quality of life in patients with cleft deformities and to evaluate the identified PROMs. Methods : A systematic search of the literature was performed according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis guidelines. All validated PROMs, regarding the impact of orthognathic surgery on quality of life in patients with cleft deformities, were identified and assessed according to the quality criteria proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Results : An electronic search yielded 577 articles. After a full-text review of 87 articles, 4 articles met the inclusion criteria, comprising 58 PROMs. Of these 58 PROMs, 1 PROM (the CLEFT-Q) has been validated to measure the impact of orthognathic surgery on patients with a facial cleft. Evaluation of methodological quality of the included articles and assessment of the measurement properties of the CLEFT-Q show that the CLEFT-Q scores relatively good for all available measurement properties, making it suitable for immediate use. Conclusion: The CLEFT-Q was found to be the only valid instrument so far to measure the impact of orthognathic surgery on the quality of life in patients with cleft deformities