Impact of postdilatation on performance of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds in patients with acute coronary syndrome compared with everolimus-eluting stents: A propensity score-matched analysis from a multicenter “real-world” registry

Background: Safety and efficacy of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BRS) and the role of postdilatation on outcome in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients compared with those of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) remain unknown. The aim of the study is to compare the safety and efficacy of BRS with EES in ACS and to investigate the role of BRS postdilatation. Methods: Consecutive ACS patients undergoing BRS implantation in 8 centers were com­pared with those with EES before and after propensity score matching. Major adverse cardiac event (MACE), myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization (TLR) were the primary endpoint. Sensitivity analysis was performed according to postdilatation after BRS implantation. We enrolled 303 BRS and 748 EES patients; 215 from each group were com­pared after matching, and 117 (55.2%) BRS patients were treated with postdilatation. Results: After a median follow-up of 24.0 months, MACE rates were higher in BRS patients than in EES patients (9.3% vs. 4.7%, p < 0.001), mainly driven by TLR (6.1% vs. 1.9%, p < 0.001). Stent thrombosis increased in the BRS group (2.8% vs. 0.9%, p = 0.01). How­ever, after sensitivity analysis, MACE rates in BRS patients with postdilatation were signifi­cantly lower than in those without, comparable to EES patients (6.0% vs. 12.6% vs. 4.7%, p < 0.001). The same trend was observed for TLR (3.4% vs. 8.4% vs. 1.9%, p < 0.001). Stent thrombosis rates were higher in both the BRS groups than in EES patients (2.6% vs. 3.2% vs. 0.9%, p = 0.045). Conclusions: Postdilatation appears effective when using BRS in ACS patients. MACE rates are comparable to those of EES, although scaffold thrombosis is not negligible. Randomized prospective studies are required for further investigation

Radial versus femoral access in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing invasive management: a randomised multicentre trial.

Summary Background It is unclear whether radial compared with femoral access improves outcomes in unselected patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing invasive management. Methods We did a randomised, multicentre, superiority trial comparing transradial against transfemoral access in patients with acute coronary syndrome with or without ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction who were about to undergo coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to radial or femoral access with a web-based system. The randomisation sequence was computer generated, blocked, and stratified by use of ticagrelor or prasugrel, type of acute coronary syndrome (ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, troponin positive or negative, non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome), and anticipated use of immediate percutaneous coronary intervention. Outcome assessors were masked to treatment allocation. The 30-day coprimary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events, defined as death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, and net adverse clinical events, defined as major adverse cardiovascular events or Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) major bleeding unrelated to coronary artery bypass graft surgery. The analysis was by intention to treat. The two-sided α was prespecified at 0·025. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01433627. Findings We randomly assigned 8404 patients with acute coronary syndrome, with or without ST-segment elevation, to radial (4197) or femoral (4207) access for coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention. 369 (8·8%) patients with radial access had major adverse cardiovascular events, compared with 429 (10·3%) patients with femoral access (rate ratio [RR] 0·85, 95% CI 0·74-0·99; p=0·0307), non-significant at α of 0·025. 410 (9·8%) patients with radial access had net adverse clinical events compared with 486 (11·7%) patients with femoral access (0·83, 95% CI 0·73-0·96; p=0·0092). The difference was driven by BARC major bleeding unrelated to coronary artery bypass graft surgery (1·6% vs 2·3%, RR 0·67, 95% CI 0·49-0·92; p=0·013) and all-cause mortality (1·6% vs 2·2%, RR 0·72, 95% CI 0·53-0·99; p=0·045). Interpretation In patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing invasive management, radial as compared with femoral access reduces net adverse clinical events, through a reduction in major bleeding and all-cause mortality. Funding The Medicines Company and Terumo. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd

Comparison of bioresorbable vs durable polymer drug-eluting stents in unprotected left main (from the RAIN-CARDIOGROUP VII Study)

International audienceAbstract Background There are limited data regarding the impact of bioresorbable polymer drug eluting stent (BP-DES) compared to durable polymer drug eluting stent (DP-DES) in patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention using ultrathin stents in left main or bifurcations. Methods In the RAIN registry (ClinicalTrials NCT03544294, june 2018 retrospectively registered) patients with a ULM or bifurcation stenosis treated with PCI using ultrathin stents (struts thinner than 81 μm) were enrolled. The primary endpoint was the rate of target lesion revascularization (TLR); major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE, a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, TLR and stent thrombosis) and its components, along with target vessel revascularization (TVR) were the secondary ones. A propensity score with matching analysis to compare patients treated with BP-DES versus DP-DES was also assessed. Results From 3001 enrolled patients, after propensity score analysis 1400 patients (700 for each group) were selected. Among them, 352 had ULM disease and 1048 had non-LM bifurcations. At 16 months (12–22), rates of TLR (3.7% vs 2.9%, p = 0.22) and MACE were similar (12.3% vs. 11.6%, p = 0.74) as well as for the other endpoints. Sensitivity analysis of outcomes after a two-stents strategy, showed better outcome in term of MACE (20.4% vs 10%, p = 0.03) and TVR (12% vs 4.6%, p = 0.05) and a trend towards lower TLR in patients treated with BP-DES. Conclusion In patients with bifurcations or ULM treated with ultrathin stents BP-DES seems to perform similarly to DP-DES: the trends toward improved clinical outcomes in patients treated with the BP-DES might potentially be of value for speculating the stent choice in selected high-risk subgroups of patients at increased risk of ischemic events. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03544294 . Retrospectively registered June 1, 2018

Daily risk of adverse outcomes in patients undergoing complex lesions revascularization: a subgroup analysis from the RAIN-CARDIOGROUP VII study (veRy thin stents for patients with left mAIn or bifurcatioN in real life)

Introduction: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for complex lesions, including unprotected left main (ULM) and bifurcations, is gaining a relevant role in treating coronary artery disease with good outcomes, also thanks to new generation stents. The daily risk of adverse cardiovascular events and their temporal distribution after these procedures is not known.Methods: All consecutive patients presenting with a critical lesion of ULM or bifurcation treated with very thin struts stents, enrolled in the RAIN-Cardiogroup VII study, were analyzed. The daily risk of major acute cardiovascular events (MACE), target lesion revascularization (TLR) and stent thrombosis (ST) and their temporal distribution in the first year of follow-up was the primary endpoint. Differences among subgroups (ULM, patient presentation, kind of stent polymer) were the secondary endpoint.Results: 2745 patients were included, mean age 68 ± 11 years, 33.3% diabetics, 54.5% had an acute coronary syndrome (ACS); 88.5% of treated lesions were bifurcations, 27.2% ULM. Average daily risk was 0.022% for MACE, 0.005% for TLR and 0.004% for ST, in the first year. Bimodal distribution of adverse events, especially TLR, with an early peak in the first 50 days and a late one after 150 days, was observed. Patients with ULM presented a significantly higher daily risk of events, and ACS patients presented higher MACE risk. No difference emerged according to the type of stent polymer.Conclusions: The daily risk of adverse events in the first year after complex PCI in our study is acceptably low. PCI on ULM carries a higher risk of complications

Safety and efficacy of thrombectomy in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for Acute ST elevation MI: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Clinical trials comparing thrombectomy devices with conventional percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) in patients with acute ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) have produced conflicting results. The objective of our study was to systematically evaluate currently available data comparing thrombectomy followed by PCI with conventional PCI alone in patients with acute STEMI

How do cardiologists select patients for dual antiplatelet therapy continuation beyond 1 year after a myocardial infarction? Insights from the EYESHOT Post-MI Study

Background: Current guidelines suggest to consider dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) continuation for longer than 12 months in selected patients with myocardial infarction (MI). Hypothesis: We sought to assess the criteria used by cardiologists in daily practice to select patients with a history of MI eligible for DAPT continuation beyond 1 year. Methods: We analyzed data from the EYESHOT Post-MI, a prospective, observational, nationwide study aimed to evaluate the management of patients presenting to cardiologists 1 to 3 years from the last MI event. Results: Out of the 1633 post-MI patients enrolled in the study between March and December 2017, 557 (34.1%) were on DAPT at the time of enrolment, and 450 (27.6%) were prescribed DAPT after cardiologist assessment. At multivariate analyses, a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with multiple stents and the presence of peripheral artery disease (PAD) resulted as independent predictors of DAPT continuation, while atrial fibrillation was the only independent predictor of DAPT interruption for patients both at the second and the third year from MI at enrolment and the time of discharge/end of the visit. Conclusions: Risk scores recommended by current guidelines for guiding decisions on DAPT duration are underused and misused in clinical practice. A PCI with multiple stents and a history of PAD resulted as the clinical variables more frequently associated with DAPT continuation beyond 1 year from the index MI