A Randomized Comparison of the Endeavor Zotarolimus-Eluting Stent Versus the TAXUS Paclitaxel-Eluting Stent in De Novo Native Coronary Lesions 12-Month Outcomes From the ENDEAVOR IV Trial

ObjectivesThe ENDEAVOR IV (Randomized Comparison of Zotarolimus-Eluting and Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease) trial evaluated the safety and efficacy of the zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) compared with the paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES).BackgroundFirst-generation drug-eluting stents have reduced angiographic and clinical restenosis, but long-term safety remains controversial. A second-generation drug-eluting stent, which delivers zotarolimus, a potent antiproliferative agent, via a biocompatible phosphorylcholine polymer on a cobalt alloy thin-strut stent has shown promising experimental and early clinical results.MethodsThis is a prospective, randomized (1:1), single-blind, controlled trial comparing outcomes of patients with single de novo coronary lesions treated with ZES or PES. The primary end point was noninferiority of 9-month target vessel failure defined as cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization.ResultsAmong a total of 1,548 patients assigned to ZES (n = 773) or PES (n = 775), at 9 months, ZES was noninferior to PES with rates of target vessel failure 6.6% versus 7.1%, respectively (pnoninferiority≤ 0.001). There were fewer periprocedural myocardial infarctions with ZES (0.5% vs. 2.2%; p = 0.007), whereas at 12 months, there were no significant differences between groups in rates of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, or stent thrombosis. Although incidence of 8-month binary angiographic in-segment restenosis was higher in patients treated with ZES versus PES (15.3% vs. 10.4%; p = 0.284), rates of 12-month target lesion revascularization were similar (4.5% vs. 3.2%; p = 0.228), especially in patients without planned angiographic follow-up (3.6% vs. 3.2%; p = 0.756).ConclusionsThese findings demonstrate that ZES has similar clinical safety and efficacy compared with PES in simple and medium complexity single de novo coronary lesions. (ENDEAVOR IV Clinical Trial; NCT00217269

Drug-Eluting Stents in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease: A Prospective Registry Study

BACKGROUND: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is strongly associated with adverse outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). There are limited data on the effectiveness of drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients with CKD. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Of 3,752 consecutive patients enrolled in the Guthrie PCI Registry between 2001 and 2006, 436 patients with CKD - defined as a creatinine clearance <60 mL/min - were included in this study. Patients who received DES were compared to those who received bare metal stents (BMS). Patients were followed for a mean duration of 3 years after the index PCI to determine the prognostic impact of stent type. Study end-points were all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularization (TVR), stent thrombosis (ST) and the composite of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as death, MI or TVR. Patients receiving DES in our study, by virtue of physician selection, had more stable coronary artery disease and had lower baseline risk of thrombotic or restenotic events. Kaplan-Meier estimates of proportions of patients reaching the end-points were significantly lower for DES vs. BMS for all-cause death (p = 0.0008), TVR (p = 0.029) and MACE (p = 0.0015), but not MI (p = 0.945) or ST (p = 0.88). Multivariable analysis with propensity adjustment demonstrated that DES implantation was an independent predictor of lower rates of all-cause death (hazard ratio [HR] 0.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.25-0.92), TVR (HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.27-0.94) and MACE (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.41-0.94). CONCLUSIONS: In a contemporary PCI registry, selective use of DES in patients with CKD was safe and effective in the long term, with lower risk of all-cause death, TVR and MACE and similar risk of MI and ST as compared with BMS. The mortality benefit may be a result of selection bias and residual confounding, or represent a true finding; a hypothesis that warrants clarification by randomized clinical trials

Accounting for the mortality benefit of drug-eluting stents in percutaneous coronary intervention: a comparison of methods in a retrospective cohort study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Drug-eluting stents (DES) reduce rates of restenosis compared with bare metal stents (BMS). A number of observational studies have also found lower rates of mortality and non-fatal myocardial infarction with DES compared with BMS, findings not observed in randomized clinical trials. In order to explore reasons for this discrepancy, we compared outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with DES or BMS by multiple statistical methods.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We compared short-term rates of all-cause mortality and myocardial infarction for patients undergoing PCI with DES or BMS using propensity-score adjustment, propensity-score matching, and a stent-era comparison in a large, integrated health system between 1998 and 2007. For the propensity-score adjustment and stent era comparisons, we used multivariable logistic regression to assess the association of stent type with outcomes. We used McNemar's Chi-square test to compare outcomes for propensity-score matching.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Between 1998 and 2007, 35,438 PCIs with stenting were performed among health plan members (53.9% DES and 46.1% BMS). After propensity-score adjustment, DES was associated with significantly lower rates of death at 30 days (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.39 - 0.63, <it>P </it>< 0.001) and one year (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.49 - 0.68, <it>P </it>< 0.001), and a lower rate of myocardial infarction at one year (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 - 0.87, <it>P </it>< 0.001). Thirty day and one year mortality were also lower with DES after propensity-score matching. However, a stent era comparison, which eliminates potential confounding by indication, showed no difference in death or myocardial infarction for DES and BMS, similar to results from randomized trials.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Although propensity-score methods suggested a mortality benefit with DES, consistent with prior observational studies, a stent era comparison failed to support this conclusion. Unobserved factors influencing stent selection in observational studies likely account for the observed mortality benefit of DES not seen in randomized clinical trials.</p

ICAR: endoscopic skull‐base surgery

n/

Intermediate versus standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation and statin therapy versus placebo in critically-ill patients with COVID-19: Rationale and design of the INSPIRATION/INSPIRATION-S studies

Background: Microvascular and macrovascular thrombotic events are among the hallmarks of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Furthermore, the exuberant immune response is considered an important driver of pulmonary and extrapulmonary manifestations of COVID-19. The optimal management strategy to prevent thrombosis in critically-ill patients with COVID-19 remains unknown. Methods: The Intermediate versus Standard-dose Prophylactic anticoagulation In cRitically-ill pATIents with COVID-19: An opeN label randomized controlled trial (INSPIRATION) and INSPIRATION-statin (INSPIRATION-S) studies test two independent hypotheses within a randomized controlled trial with 2 � 2 factorial design. Hospitalized critically-ill patients with reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction confirmed COVID-19 will be randomized to intermediate-dose versus standard dose prophylactic anticoagulation. The 600 patients undergoing this randomization will be screened and if meeting the eligibility criteria, will undergo an additional double-blind stratified randomization to atorvastatin 20 mg daily versus matching placebo. The primary endpoint, for both hypotheses will be tested for superiority and includes a composite of adjudicated acute arterial thrombosis, venous thromboembolism (VTE), use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or all-cause death within 30 days from enrollment. Key secondary endpoints include all-cause mortality, adjudicated VTE, and ventilator-free days. Key safety endpoints include major bleeding according to the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium definition and severe thrombocytopenia (platelet count 3 times upper normal limit and clinically-diagnosed myopathy. The primary analyses will be performed in the modified intention-to-treat population. Results will be tested in exploratory analyses across key subgroups and in the intention-to-treat and per-protocol cohorts. Conclusions: INSPIRATION and INSPIRATON-S studies will help address clinically-relevant questions for antithrombotic therapy and thromboinflammatory therapy in critically-ill patients with COVID-19. © 2020 Elsevier Lt