Long-Term Efficacy and Safety of Paclitaxel-Eluting Balloon for the Treatment of Drug-Eluting Stent Restenosis 3-Year Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial

AbstractObjectivesThis study sought to investigate the long-term comparative efficacy and safety of paclitaxel-eluting balloon (PEB), paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES), or balloon angioplasty (BA) for the treatment of drug-eluting stent restenosis.BackgroundThe optimal treatment of drug-eluting stent restenosis remains unknown. Although PEB has shown encouraging results, the long-term clinical efficacy and safety of PEB remains poorly defined.MethodsA total of 402 patients with clinically significant restenosis in limus-eluting stents were randomly assigned to receive PEB (n = 137), PES (n = 131), or BA (n = 134). For this analysis, PEB versus PES and PEB versus BA were compared. The primary efficacy and safety endpoints were target lesion revascularization and the composite of death or myocardial infarction.ResultsAt a median follow-up of 3 years, the risk of target lesion revascularization was comparable with PEB versus PES (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.46, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.91 to 2.33; p = 0.11) and lower with PEB versus BA (HR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.34 to 0.74; p < 0.001). The risk of death/myocardial infarction tended to be lower with PEB versus PES (HR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.28 to 1.07; p = 0.08), due to a lower risk of death (HR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.17 to 0.87; p = 0.02). The risk of death/myocardial infarction was similar with PEB versus BA (HR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.46 to 2.0; p = 0.91).ConclusionsAt 3 years, the use of PEB as compared with PES to treat patients with limus-eluting stent restenosis has similar efficacy and safety. PEB remains superior to BA. The sustained efficacy without trade-off in safety supports the role of PEB as treatment option for patients with drug-eluting stent restenosis. (Intracoronary Stenting and Angiographic Results: Drug Eluting Stent In-Stent Restenosis: 3 Treatment Approaches [ISAR-DESIRE 3]; NCT00987324

Duration of dual antiplatelet therapy in acute coronary syndrome

Despite a large volume of evidence supporting the use of dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome, there remains major uncertainty regarding the optimal duration of therapy. Clinical trials have varied markedly in the duration of therapy, both across and within trials. Recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses suggest that shorter durations of dual antiplatelet therapy are superior because the avoidance of atherothrombotic events is counterbalanced by the greater risks of excess major bleeding with apparent increases in all-cause mortality with longer durations. These findings did not show significant heterogeneity according to whether patients had stable or unstable coronary heart disease. Moreover, the potential hazards and benefits may differ when applied to the general broad population of patients encountered in everyday clinical practice who have markedly higher bleeding and atherothrombotic event rates. Clinicians lack definitive information regarding the duration of therapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome and risk scores do not appear to be sufficiently robust to address these concerns. We believe that there is a pressing need to undertake a broad inclusive safety trial of shorter durations of therapy in real world populations of patients with acute coronary syndrome. The clinical evidence would further inform future research into strategies for personalised medicine

Efficacy and Safety of Revacept, a Novel Lesion-Directed Competitive Antagonist to Platelet Glycoprotein VI, in Patients Undergoing Elective Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Stable Ischemic Heart Disease: The Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-Controlled ISAR-PLASTER Phase 2 Trial

Importance The assessment of new antithrombotic agents with a favorable safety profile is clinically relevant. Objective To test the efficacy and safety of revacept, a novel, lesion-directed antithrombotic drug, acting as a competitive antagonist to platelet glycoprotein VI. Design, Setting, and Participants A phase 2 randomized clinical trial; patients were enrolled from 9 centers in Germany from November 20, 2017, to February 27, 2020; follow-up ended on March 27, 2020. The study included patients with stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD) undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Interventions Single intravenous infusion of revacept, 160 mg, revacept, 80 mg, or placebo prior to the start of PCI on top of standard antithrombotic therapy. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary end point was the composite of death or myocardial injury, defined as an increase in high-sensitivity cardiac troponin to at least 5 times the upper limit of normal within 48 hours from randomization. The safety end point was bleeding type 2 to 5 according to the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium criteria at 30 days. Results Of 334 participants (median age, 67.4 years; interquartile range, 60-75.1 years; 253 men [75.7%]; and 330 White participants [98.8%]), 120 were allocated to receive the 160-mg dose of revacept, 121 were allocated to receive the 80-mg dose, and 93 received placebo. The primary end point showed no significant differences between the revacept and placebo groups: 24.4%, 25.0%, and 23.3% in the revacept, 160 mg, revacept, 80 mg, and placebo groups, respectively (P = .98). The high dose of revacept was associated with a small but significant reduction of high-concentration collagen-induced platelet aggregation, with a median 26.5 AU × min (interquartile range, 0.5-62.2 AU × min) in the revacept, 160 mg, group; 43.5 AU × min (interquartile range, 22.8-99.5 AU × min) in the revacept, 80 mg, group; and 41.0 AU × min (interquartile range, 31.2-101.0 AU × min) in the placebo group (P = .02), while adenosine 5'-diphosphate-induced aggregation was not affected. Revacept did not increase Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 2 or higher bleeding at 30 days compared with placebo: 5.0%, 5.9%, and 8.6% in the revacept, 160 mg, revacept, 80 mg, and placebo groups, respectively (P = .36). Conclusions and Relevance Revacept did not reduce myocardial injury in patients with stable ischemic heart disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. There were few bleeding events and no significant differences between treatment arms. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03312855