Randomized Comparison of Everolimus- and Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents 2-Year Follow-Up From the SPIRIT (Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System) IV Trial

ObjectivesWe sought to determine whether the differences in outcomes present between everolimus-eluting stents (EES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) in the SPIRIT (Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System) IV trial at 1 year were sustained with longer-term follow-up.BackgroundIn the SPIRIT IV trial, patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention who were randomized to EES compared with PES experienced lower 1-year rates of target lesion failure (cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction [MI], or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization [TLR]), with significant reductions in the individual rates of MI, TLR, and stent thrombosis.MethodsWe prospectively randomized 3,687 patients with up to 3 noncomplex previously untreated native coronary artery lesions to EES versus PES at 66 U.S. sites. Follow-up through 2 years is complete in 3,578 patents (97.0%).ResultsTreatment with EES compared with PES reduced the 2-year rates of TLF (6.9% vs. 9.9%, p = 0.003), all MI (2.5% vs. 3.9%, p = 0.02), Q-wave MI (0.1% vs. 0.8%, p = 0.002), stent thrombosis (0.4% vs. 1.2%, p = 0.008), and ischemia-driven TLR (4.5% vs. 6.9%, p = 0.004), with nonsignificantly different rates of all-cause and cardiac mortality. Between 1 year and 2 years, there were no significant differences in adverse event rates between the 2 stent types.ConclusionsIn the large-scale, prospective, multicenter, randomized SPIRIT IV trial, the benefits of EES compared with those of PES present at 1 year were sustained at 2 years. (Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System; NCT01016041

Hemodynamic-GUIDEd management of Heart Failure (GUIDE-HF)

In that study, incremental reductions in the PA pressures in the monitored arm were associated with both reduction in the frequency of HFH and improvements in health-related quality of life among patients with both preserved (HFpEF) and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).3,4 Additionally, hemodynamic-guided HF management in the subset of HFrEF patients treated with guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) was associated with a strong trend toward improved survival compared to traditional clinical management.4,7 Consistent benefit is demonstrated in several retrospective studies from the CHAMPION Trial.10-13 as well as extensive analysis of “real-world� experience.6,14 and in Medicare claims data managed in a commercial setting.5,15 Whether the benefits of PA pressure guided therapy can be extended to a broader pool of patients with milder (NYHA class II) or more severe (NYHA class IV) HF or to those without recent hospitalization for HF but with elevation in natriuretic peptide levels remains unclear. Remotely uploaded PA pressure information from the control group will be blocked from investigator review. [...]other than medication changes resulting from information from RHC procedures, control group subjects will not have pressure-based medication changes over time and should be managed instead according to routine practice as informed by published clinical guidelines. Thresholds for NT-proBNP/BNP corrected for BMI using a 4% reduction per BMI unit over 25 kg/m2 Subjects ≥18 y of age able and willing to provide informed consent Chest circumference of 15) at implant RHC, a history of noncompliance, or any condition that would preclude CardioMEMS PA Sensor implantation Table I Inclusion and exclusion criteria PA pressure goals PA diastolic: 8-20 mm Hg PA mean: 10-25 mm Hg PA systolic: 15-35 mm Hg Optimization phas

Impact of left ventricular assist device implantation on mitral regurgitation: An analysis from the MOMENTUM 3 trial

BACKGROUND: Mitral regurgitation (MR) determines pathophysiology and outcome in advanced heart failure. The impact of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) placement on clinically significant MR and its contribution to long-term outcomes has been sparsely evaluated. METHODS: We evaluated the effect of clinically significant MR on patients implanted in the MOMENTUM 3 trial with either the HeartMate II (HMII) or the HeartMate 3 (HM3) at 2 years. Clinical significance was defined as moderate or severe grade MR determined by site-based echocardiograms. RESULTS: Of 927 patients with LVAD implants without a prior or concomitant mitral valve procedure, 403 (43.5%) had clinically significant MR at baseline. At 1-month of support, residual MR was present in 6.2% of patients with HM3 and 14.3% of patients with HMII (relative risk = 0.43; 95% CI, 0.22-0.84; p = 0.01) with a low rate of worsening at 2 years. Residual MR at 1-month post-implant did not impact 2-year mortality for either the HM3 (hazard ratio [HR],1.41; 95% CI, 0.52-3.89; p = 0.50) or HMII (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.37-2.26; p = 0.84) LVAD. The presence or absence of baseline MR did not influence mortality (HM3 HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.56-1.33; p = 0.50; HMII HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.54-1.22; p = 0.32), major adverse events or functional capacity. In multivariate analysis, severe baseline MR (p = 0.001), larger left ventricular dimension (p = 0.002), and implantation with the HMII instead of the HM3 LVAD (p = 0.05) were independently associated with an increased likelihood of persistent MR post-implant. CONCLUSIONS: Hemodynamic unloading after LVAD implantation improves clinically significant MR early, sustainably, and to a greater extent with the HM3 LVAD. Neither baseline nor residual MR influence outcomes after LVAD implantation

Aspirin and left ventricular assist devices: rationale and design for the international randomized, placebo‐controlled, non‐inferiority ARIES HM3 trial

AimsOver decades, left ventricular assist device (LVAD) technology has transitioned from less durable bulky pumps to smaller continuous‐flow pumps which have substantially improved long‐term outcomes and quality of life. Contemporary LVAD therapy is beleaguered by haemocompatibility‐related adverse events including thrombosis, stroke and bleeding. A fully magnetically levitated pump, the HeartMate 3 (HM3, Abbott, USA) LVAD, has been shown to be superior to the older HeartMate II (HMII, Abbott, USA) pump by improving haemocompatibility. Experience with the HM3 LVAD suggests near elimination of de‐novo pump thrombosis, a marked reduction in stroke rates, and only a modest decrease in bleeding complications. Since the advent of continuous‐flow LVAD therapy, patients have been prescribed a combination of aspirin and anticoagulation therapy on the presumption that platelet activation and perturbations to the haemostatic axis determine their necessity. Observational studies in patients implanted with the HM3 LVAD who suffer bleeding have suggested a signal of reduced subsequent bleeding events with withdrawal of aspirin. The notion of whether antiplatelet therapy can be avoided in an effort to reduce bleeding complications has now been advanced.MethodsTo evaluate this hypothesis and its clinical benefits, the Antiplatelet Removal and Hemocompatibility Events with the HeartMate 3 Pump (ARIES HM3) has been introduced as the first‐ever international prospective, randomized, double‐blind and placebo‐controlled, non‐inferiority trial in a patient population implanted with a LVAD.ConclusionThis paper reviews the biological and clinical role of aspirin (100 mg) with LVADs and discusses the rationale and design of the ARIES HM3 trial.This figure incorporates the rationale for ARIES HM3 (Antiplatelet Removal and Hemocompatibility Events with the HeartMate 3 Pump), the principal study hypothesis and a summary of its design. LVAD, left ventricular assist device.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/168502/1/ejhf2275.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/168502/2/ejhf2275_am.pd

Stent thrombosis: Insights on outcomes, predictors and impact of dual antiplatelet therapy interruption from the SPIRIT II, SPIRIT III, SPIRIT IV and COMPARE trials

Aims: Recent studies have suggested that EES may reduce ST compared to PES, but no individual trial has been adequately powered for this endpoint. The incidence of stent thrombosis, as well as the impact of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) discontinuation during the first two years following everolimus-eluting stent (EES) and paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) deployment were therefore analysed from a pooled, patient-level database derived from four randomised clinical trials. Methods and results: Data from the SPIRIT II, SPIRIT III, SPIRIT IV and COMPARE trials (n=6,789 patients) were analysed. Two-year ST rates were determined using time-to-event methods and compared with the log-rank test. ST rates were also determi

Impact of lesion length and vessel size on clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention with everolimus- versus paclitaxel-eluting stents: Pooled analysis from the SPIRIT (Clinical evaluation of the XIENCE v everolimus eluting coronary stent system) and COMPARE (second-generation everolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents in real-life practice) randomized trials

Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of reference vessel diameter (RVD) and lesion length (LL) on the relative safety and efficacy of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES). Background: Lesion length and RVD are well-known predictors of adverse events after percutaneous coronary intervention. Methods: Patient-level data were pooled from the randomized SPIRIT (Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System) II, III, IV and COMPARE (Second-generation everolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents in real-life practice) trials. Quantitative angiographic core laboratory data were available for 6,183 patients randomized to EES (n = 3,944) or PES (n = 2,239). Long lesions and small vessels were defined as LL >median (13.4 mm) and RVD ≤median (2.65 mm), respectively. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (consisting of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization) were assessed at 2 years, according to stent type in 3 groups: short lesions in large vessels (group A, n = 1,297); long lesions or small vessels but not both (group B, n = 2,981); and long lesions in small vessels (group C, n = 1,905). Results: The pooled 2-year MACE rates were 5.6%, 8.2%, and 10.4% in Groups A, B, and C, respectively (p < 0.0001). There was no significant interaction between lesion group and stent type (p = 0.64), indicating lower MACE with EES compared with PES regardless of LL and RVD. However, the absolute difference was largest in Groups B and C. In Group A, 2-year MACE rates were not significantly different between EES and PES (4.8% vs. 7.0%, respectively, p = 0.11). In contrast, EES was associated with lower 2-year rates of MACE in Group B (6.6% vs. 11.2%, p < 0.01) and in Group C (9.1% vs. 12.7%, p = 0.008) as well as lower rates of myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization, and stent thrombosis. Multivariable analysis confirmed EES versus PES as an independent predictor of freedom from MACE in Groups B and C. Conclusions: Patients with short lesions in large vessels have low rates of MACE at 2 years after treatment with either EES or PES. In higher-risk patients with long lesions and/or small vessels, EES results in significant improvements in both clinical safety and efficacy outcomes. (A Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Patients With de Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions; NCT00180310; SPIRIT III: A Clinical Evaluation of the Investigational Device XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System [EECSS] in the Treatment of Subjects With de Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions; NCT00180479; SPIRIT IV Clinical Trial: Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Subjects With de Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions; NCT00307047; A Randomized Controlled Trial of Everolimus-eluting Stents and Paclitaxel-eluting Stents for Coronary Revascularization in Daily Practice: The COMPARE Trial; NCT01016041

A pooled gender based analysis comparing the XIENCE V® everolimus-eluting stent and the TAXUS paclitaxel-eluting stent in male and female patients with coronary artery disease, results of the SPIRIT II and SPIRIT III studies: Two-year analysis

Aims: To assess the safety and efficacy of the XIENCE V everolimus-eluting stent (EES) compared to the TAXUS paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) in women at two years. Methods and results: In this pooled analysis, a cohort of 395 women and 906 men was studied by using patient level and lesion level clinical data from SPIRIT II and SPIRIT III studies. Women enrolled in these two studies had higher demographic and lesion risk characteristics than their male counterparts. In-stent and insegment late loss (LL) was significantly less in the women in the EES group compared to the women in the PES group (in-stent 0.15±44 mm vs. 0.45±51 mm; P<0.01, in-segment 0.09±46 mm vs. 0.29±40 mm; P<0.01). In women, EES compared to PES resulted in significant reductions in major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (8.5% vs 16.4%; p=0.02) and in target vessel failure (TVF) (11.2% vs 19.5%; p=0.02) at two years. In men, a significant difference was seen in in-stent LL and in-stent % diameter stenosis (DS) favouring EES (in-stent LL 0.14±33 mm vs. 0.28±47 mm; P<0.01, in-stent %DS 9.28±3.86 vs. 13.64±8.31; P<0.01). MACE rates at two years were lower in males treated with EES compared to PES (6.7% vs. 10.9%; p=0.03). The interaction between gender and stent type was not found to be significant for MACE at two years. Conclusions: In this pooled analysis of two randomised trials, at two years, EES compared to PES resulted in reduced angiographic LL, fewer MACE and TVF events in women and reduced angiographic LL and %DS and fewer MACE events in men