Evaluation of in-stent restenosis in the APPROACH trial (assessment on the prevention of progression by Rosiglitazone on atherosclerosis in diabetes patients with cardiovascular history)

To determine (1) the medium-term effect of rosiglitazone and glipizide on intra-stent neointima hyperplasia, (2) restenosis pattern as assessed by intra-vascular ultrasound (IVUS) and quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) in patients with T2DM and coronary artery disease. A total of 462 patients with T2DM were randomized to rosiglitazone or glipizide for up to 18 months in the APPROACH trial, and had evaluable baseline and follow-up IVUS examinations. There was no significant difference in the size of plaque behind stent between the rosiglitazone and glipizide groups at 18 months among those treated with a bare metal stent (−5.6 mm3 vs. 1.9 mm3; P = 0.61) or with a drug-eluting stent (12.1 mm3 vs. 5.5 mm3; P = 0.09). Similarly, there was no significant difference in percentage intimal hyperplasia volume between the rosiglitazone and glipizide groups at 18 months among those treated with a bare metal stent (24.1% vs. 19.8%; P = 0.38) or with a drug-eluting stent (9.8% vs. 8.3%; P = 0.57). QCA data (intra-stent late loss, intra-stent diameter stenosis or binary restenosis) were not different between the rosiglitazone and glipizide groups. This study suggests that both rosiglitazone and glipizide have a similar effect on neointimal growth at medium term follow-up, a finding that warrants investigation in dedicated randomized trials

Rationale and design of EXPLORE: a randomized, prospective, multicenter trial investigating the impact of recanalization of a chronic total occlusion on left ventricular function in patients after primary percutaneous coronary intervention for acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In the setting of primary percutaneous coronary intervention, patients with a chronic total occlusion in a non-infarct related artery were recently identified as a high-risk subgroup. It is unclear whether ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients with a chronic total occlusion in a non-infarct related artery should undergo additional percutaneous coronary intervention of the chronic total occlusion on top of optimal medical therapy shortly after primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Possible beneficial effects include reduction in adverse left ventricular remodeling and preservation of global left ventricular function and improved clinical outcome during future coronary events.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>The Evaluating Xience V and left ventricular function in Percutaneous coronary intervention on occLusiOns afteR ST-Elevation myocardial infarction (EXPLORE) trial is a randomized, prospective, multicenter, two-arm trial with blinded evaluation of endpoints. Three hundred patients after primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-elevation myocardial infarction with a chronic total occlusion in a non-infarct related artery are randomized to either elective percutaneous coronary intervention of the chronic total occlusion within seven days or standard medical treatment. When assigned to the invasive arm, an everolimus-eluting coronary stent is used. Primary endpoints are left ventricular ejection fraction and left ventricular end-diastolic volume assessed by cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging at four months. Clinical follow-up will continue until five years.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The ongoing EXPLORE trial is the first randomized clinical trial powered to investigate whether recanalization of a chronic total occlusion in a non-infarct related artery after primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-elevation myocardial infarction results in a better preserved residual left ventricular ejection fraction, reduced end-diastolic volume and enhanced clinical outcome.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>trialregister.nl NTR1108.</p

Revascularization for coronary artery disease in diabetes mellitus: Angioplasty, stents and coronary artery bypass grafting

Author Manuscript: 2011 April 14Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) are prone to a diffuse and rapidly progressive form of atherosclerosis, which increases their likelihood of requiring revascularization. However, the unique pathophysiology of atherosclerosis in patients with DM modifies the response to arterial injury, with profound clinical consequences for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Multiple studies have shown that DM is a strong risk factor for restenosis following successful balloon angioplasty or coronary stenting, with greater need for repeat revascularization and inferior clinical outcomes. Early data suggest that drug eluting stents reduce restenosis rates and the need for repeat revascularization irrespective of the diabetic state and with no significant reduction in hard clinical endpoints such as myocardial infarction and mortality. For many patients with 1- or 2-vessel coronary artery disease, there is little prognostic benefit from any intervention over optimal medical therapy. PCI with drug-eluting or bare metal stents is appropriate for patients who remain symptomatic with medical therapy. However, selection of the optimal myocardial revascularization strategy for patients with DM and multivessel coronary artery disease is crucial. Randomized trials comparing multivessel PCI with balloon angioplasty or bare metal stents to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) consistently demonstrated the superiority of CABG in patients with treated DM. In the setting of diabetes CABG had greater survival, fewer recurrent infarctions or need for re-intervention. Limited data suggests that CABG is superior to multivessel PCI even when drug-eluting stents are used. Several ongoing randomized trials are evaluating the long-term comparative efficacy of PCI with drug-eluting stents and CABG in patients with DM. Only further study will continue to unravel the mechanisms at play and optimal therapy in the face of the profoundly virulent atherosclerotic potential that accompanies diabetes mellitus.National Institutes of Health (U.S.) (GM 49039