Long-term benefit-risk balance of drug-eluting vs. bare-metal stents in daily practice: does stent diameter matter? Three-year follow-up of BASKET

Aims To assess the long-term benefit-risk ratio of drug-eluting (DES) vs. bare-metal stents (BMS) relative to stent size. Methods and results All 826 consecutive BASKET (BAsel Stent Kosten-Effektivitäts Trial) patients randomized 2:1 to DES vs. BMS were followed after 3 years. Data were analysed separately for patients with small stents (<3.0 mm vessel/<4.0 mm bypass grafts, n = 268) vs. only large stents (≥3.0 mm native vessels, n = 558). Clinical events were related to stent thrombosis. Three-year clinical target-vessel revascularization rates remained borderline reduced after DES [9.9 vs. 13.9% (BMS), P = 0.07], particularly in patients with small stents (10.7 vs. 19.8%, P = 0.03; large stents: 9.5 vs. 11.5%, P = 0.44). Cardiac death/myocardial infarction (MI) rates (12.7 vs. 10.0%, P = 0.30) were similar, however, death/MI beyond 6 months was higher after DES [9.1 vs. 3.8% (BMS), P = 0.009], mainly due to increased late death/MI in patients with large stents (9.7 vs. 3.1%, P = 0.006). The results paralleled findings for stent thrombosis. Conclusion The clinical benefit of DES was maintained at no overall increased risk of death or death/MI up to 3 years. However, death/MI rates were increased in DES vs. BMS patients beyond 6 months, particularly in patients with large stents, paralleling findings for stent thrombosis. Thus, stent size seems to influence the 3-year benefit-risk ratio after DES implantatio

Cost-effectiveness of invasive versus medical management of elderly patients with chronic symptomatic coronary artery disease: Findings of the randomized trial of invasive versus medical therapy in elderly patients with chronic angina (TIME)

Aim To compare benefits and costs of invasive versus medical management in elderly patients with chronic angina. Methods and results In a predefined subgroup of 188 patients of the Trial of Invasive versus Medical therapy in Elderly patients with chronic angina (TIME), one-year benefits were assessed as freedom from major events and improvements in symptoms and quality of live. Costs were determined as one-year costs of resource utilisation. Invasive patients had higher 30-day, but lower months 2-12 hospital and intervention costs than medical patients, resulting in somewhat higher one-year costs for invasive management (p=0.08). However, billing data available for a subgroup of patients showed higher practitioner's charges in the medical patients (adjusted p=0.0015). Incremental costs to prevent one major event by invasive management averaged CHF 10100 (95% CI: −800 to 28300) or € 6965, ranging from average CHF 5100 (€ 3515) to CHF 11600 (€ 8000) in a best, compared to a worst, case scenario. Conclusions Early increased costs of revascularization in invasive patients were balanced after one year by increased practitioners' charges and symptom-driven late revascularizations in medical patients. Therefore, the invasive strategy with improved clinical effectiveness at only marginally higher costs as medical management was cost-effective. Costs should not be an argument against invasive management of elderly patients with chronic angin

End-of-life preferences of elderly patients with chronic heart failure

Aims Elderly heart failure (HF) patients are assumed to prefer improved quality of life over longevity, but sufficient data are lacking. Therefore, we assessed the willingness to trade survival time for quality-of-life (QoL) and the preferences for resuscitation. Methods and results At baseline and after 12 and 18 months, 622 HF patients aged ≥60 years (77 ± 8 years, 74% NYHA-class ≥III) participating in the Trial of Intensified vs. standard Medical therapy in Elderly patients with Congestive Heart Failure had prospective evaluation of end-of-life preferences by answering trade-off questions (willingness to accept a shorter life span in return for living without symptoms) and preferences for resuscitation if necessary. The time trade-off question was answered by 555 patients (89%), 74% of whom were not willing to trade survival time for improved QoL. This proportion increased over time (Month 12: 85%, Month 18: 87%, P < 0.001). In multivariable analysis, willingness to trade survival time increased with age, female sex, a reduced Duke Activity Status Index, Geriatric Depression Score, and history of gout, exercise intolerance, constipation and oedema, but even combining these variables did not result in reliable prediction. Of 603 (97%) patients expressing their resuscitation preference, 51% wished resuscitation, 39% did not, and 10% were undecided, with little changes over time. In 430 patients resuscitation orders were known; they differed from patients' preferences 32% of the time. End-of-life preferences were not correlated to 18-month outcome. Conclusion Elderly HF patients are willing to address their end-of-life preferences. The majority prefers longevity over QoL and half wished resuscitation if necessary. Prediction of individual preferences was inaccurate. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN4359647

Long-Term Results After Drug-Eluting Versus Bare-Metal Stent Implantation in Saphenous Vein Grafts: Randomized Controlled Trial

Background Efficacy data on drug-eluting stents (DES) versus bare-metal stents (BMS) in saphenous vein grafts are controversial. We aimed to compare DES with BMS among patients undergoing saphenous vein grafts intervention regarding long-term outcome. Methods and Results In this multinational trial, patients were randomized to paclitaxel-eluting or BMS. The primary end point was major adverse cardiac events (cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and target-vessel revascularization at 1 year. Secondary end points included major adverse cardiac events and its individual components at 5-year follow-up. One hundred seventy-three patients were included in the trial (89 DES versus 84 BMS). One-year major adverse cardiac event rates were lower in DES compared with BMS (2.2% versus 16.0%, hazard ratio, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.03-0.64,; P; =0.01), which was mainly driven by a reduction of subsequent myocardial infarctions and need for target-vessel revascularization. Five-year major adverse cardiac event rates remained lower in the DES compared with the BMS arm (35.5% versus 56.1%, hazard ratio, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.23-0.68,; P; <0.001). A landmark-analysis from 1 to 5 years revealed a persistent benefit of DES over BMS (hazard ratio, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.13-0.74,; P; =0.007) in terms of target-vessel revascularization. More patients in the BMS group underwent multiple target-vessel revascularization procedures throughout the study period compared with the DES group (DES 1.1% [n=1] versus BMS 9.5% [n=8],; P; =0.013). Enrollment was stopped before the target sample size of 240 patients was reached. Conclusions In this randomized controlled trial with prospective long-term follow-up of up to 5 years, DES showed a better efficacy than BMS with sustained benefits over time. DES may be the preferred strategy in this patient population. Registration URL: https://www.clini​caltr​ials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT00595647

Impact of Insulin-Treated Compared to Non-Insulin-Treated Diabetes Mellitus on Outcome of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with Drug-Coated Balloons versus Drug-Eluting Stents in De Novo Coronary Artery Disease: The Randomized BASKET-SMALL 2 Trial

Background: We evaluated the outcome of PCI of de novo stenosis with drug-coated balloons (DCB) versus drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) versus non-insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (NITDM). Methods: Patients were randomized in the BASKET-SMALL 2 trial to DCB or DES and followed over 3 years for MACE (cardiac death, non-fatal myocardial infarction [MI], and target vessel revascularization [TVR]). Outcome in the diabetic subgroup (n = 252) was analyzed with respect to ITDM or NITDM. Results: In NITDM patients (n = 157), rates of MACE (16.7% vs. 21.9%, hazard ratio [HR] 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.29–1.58, p = 0.37), death, non-fatal MI, and TVR (8.4% vs. 14.5%, HR 0.30, 95% CI 0.09–1.03, p = 0.057) were similar between DCB and DES. In ITDM patients (n = 95), rates of MACE (DCB 23.4% vs. DES 22.7%, HR 1.12, 95% CI 0.46–2.74, p = 0.81), death, non-fatal MI, and TVR (10.1% vs. 15.7%, HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.18–2.27, p = 0.49) were similar between DCB and DES. TVR was significantly lower with DCB versus DES in all diabetic patients (HR 0.41, 95% CI 0.18–0.95, p = 0.038). Conclusions: DCB compared to DES for treatment of de novo coronary lesions in diabetic patients was associated with similar rates of MACE and numerically lower need for TVR both for ITDM and NITDM patients

Novel concept to guide systolic heart failure medication by repeated biomarker testing-results from TIME-CHF in context of predictive, preventive, and personalized medicine

Background It is uncertain whether repeated measurements of a multi-target biomarker panel may help to personalize medical heart failure (HF) therapy to improve outcome in chronic HF. Methods This analysis included 499 patients from the Trial of Intensified versus standard Medical therapy in Elderly patients with Congestive Heart Failure (TIME-CHF), aged >= 60 years, LVEF = II, who had repeated clinical visits within 19 months follow-up. The interaction between repeated measurements of biomarkers and treatment effects of loop diuretics, spironolactone, beta-blockers, and renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors on risk of HF hospitalization or death was investigated in a hypothesis-generating analysis. Generalized estimating equation (GEE) models were used to account for the correlation between recurrences of events in a patient. Results One hundred patients (20%) had just one event (HF hospitalization or death) and 87 (17.4%) had at least two events. Loop diuretic up-titration had a beneficial effect for patients with high interleukin-6 (IL6) or high high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) (interaction, P = 0.013 and P = 0.001), whereas the opposite was the case with low hsCRP (interaction, P = 0.013). Higher dosage of loop diuretics was associated with poor outcome in patients with high blood urea nitrogen (BUN) or prealbumin (interaction, P = 0.006 and P = 0.001), but not in those with low levels of these biomarkers. Spironolactone up-titration was associated with lower risk of HF hospitalization or death in patients with high cystatin C (CysC) (interaction, P = 0.021). beta-Blockers up-titration might have a beneficial effect in patients with low soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase-1 (sFlt) (interaction, P = 0.021). No treatment biomarker interactions were found for RAS inhibition. Conclusion The data of this post hoc analysis suggest that decision-making using repeated biomarker measurements may be very promising in bringing treatment of heart failure to a new level in the context of predictive, preventive, and personalized medicine. Clearly, prospective testing is needed before this novel concept can be adopted

Drug-coated balloons for small coronary artery disease (BASKET-SMALL 2): an open-label randomised non-inferiority trial

Drug-coated balloons (DCB) are a novel therapeutic strategy for small native coronary artery disease. However, their safety and efficacy is poorly defined in comparison with drug-eluting stents (DES).; BASKET-SMALL 2 was a multicentre, open-label, randomised non-inferiority trial. 758 patients with de-novo lesions (&lt;3 mm in diameter) in coronary vessels and an indication for percutaneous coronary intervention were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive angioplasty with DCB versus implantation of a second-generation DES after successful predilatation via an interactive internet-based response system. Dual antiplatelet therapy was given according to current guidelines. The primary objective was to show non-inferiority of DCB versus DES regarding major adverse cardiac events (MACE; ie, cardiac death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and target-vessel revascularisation) after 12 months. The non-inferiority margin was an absolute difference of 4% in MACE. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01574534.; Between April 10, 2012, and February 1, 2017, 382 patients were randomly assigned to the DCB group and 376 to DES group. Non-inferiority of DCB versus DES was shown because the 95% CI of the absolute difference in MACE in the per-protocol population was below the predefined margin (-3·83 to 3·93%, p=0·0217). After 12 months, the proportions of MACE were similar in both groups of the full-analysis population (MACE was 7·5% for the DCB group vs 7·3% for the DES group; hazard ratio [HR] 0·97 [95% CI 0·58-1·64], p=0·9180). There were five (1·3%) cardiac-related deaths in the DES group and 12 (3·1%) in the DCB group (full analysis population). Probable or definite stent thrombosis (three [0·8%] in the DCB group vs four [1·1%] in the DES group; HR 0·73 [0·16-3·26]) and major bleeding (four [1·1%] in the DCB group vs nine [2·4%] in the DES group; HR 0·45 [0·14-1·46]) were the most common adverse events.; In small native coronary artery disease, DCB was non-inferior to DES regarding MACE up to 12 months, with similar event rates for both treatment groups.; Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung, Basel Cardiovascular Research Foundation, and B Braun Medical AG

Medikamentöse Therapie der chronischen Herzinsuffizienz mit verminderter Auswurffraktion

Based on multiple randomized controlled trials performed in the last 20 years, drugs form the basis of treatment for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFREF). Despite solid evidence for their efficacy and safety and publication of detailed national and international guidelines many patients with HFREF remain, who are not at all or only insufficiently treated. Treatment goals include reduction of mortality and hospitalizations, improvement of symptoms and exercise tolerance as well as prevention of disease progression. ACE-inhibitors and beta-adrenergic receptor blockers exert beneficial effects on all treatment goals and are therefore indicated in all patients with HFREF if tolerated. Diuretics allow control of fluid retention and maintenance of "euvolemia". Low-dose spironolactone can be considered in persistent moderate to severe (NYHA 3 - 4) HFREF despite treatment. Angiotensin receptor blockers are indicated for ACE-inhibitor intolerance or in addition to ACE-inhibitors and beta-adrenergic receptor blockers in case of persistent symptoms. Triple combination of ACE-inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers and aldosterone antagonists should be avoided in view of the substantial risk of hyperkalemia. In current praxis digoxin is mainly used as an adjunctive agent for rate control of atrial fibrillation in combination with beta-adrenergic receptor blockers. Titration and maintenance of heart failure treatment requires continuous control of clinical parameters, renal function and electrolytes. It is recommended to use drugs and dosest hat have been shown to be effective in clinial trials. Despite the fact that heart failure is mainly a disease of the elderly, this population is underrepresented in clinical trials. The risk of side effects and drug-drug interactions is increased in elderly patients because of physiologic changes with age and frequent comorbidities with resultant polypharmacy