Search

Background: There is limited evidence that fractional flow reserve (FFR) is effective in guiding therapeutic strategy in multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) beyond prespecified percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary graft surgery candidates.Objectives: The FUTURE (FUnctional Testing Underlying coronary REvascularization) trial aimed to evaluate whether a treatment strategy based on FFR was superior to a traditional strategy without FFR in the treatment of multivessel CAD.Methods: The FUTURE trial is a prospective, randomized, open-label superiority trial. Multivessel CAD candidates were randomly assigned (1:1) to treatment strategy based on FFR in all stenotic (≥50%) coronary arteries or to a traditional strategy without FFR. In the FFR group, revascularization (percutaneous coronary intervention or surgery) was indicated for FFR ≤0.80 lesions. The primary endpoint was a composite of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events at 1 year.Results: The trial was stopped prematurely by the data safety and monitoring board after a safety analysis and 927 patients were enrolled. At 1-year follow-up, by intention to treat, there were no significant differences in major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events rates between groups (14.6% in the FFR group vs 14.4% in the control group; hazard ratio: 0.97; 95% confidence interval: 0.69-1.36; P = 0.85). The difference in all-cause mortality was nonsignificant, 3.7% in the FFR group versus 1.5% in the control group (hazard ratio: 2.34; 95% confidence interval: 0.97-5.18; P = 0.06), and this was confirmed with a 24 months' extended follow-up. FFR significantly reduced the proportion of revascularized patients, with more patients referred to exclusively medical treatment (P = 0.02).Conclusions: In patients with multivessel CAD, we did not find evidence that an FFR-guided treatment strategy reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death at 1-year follow-up. (Functional Testing Underlying Coronary Revascularisation; NCT01881555). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The FREEDOM (Future Revascularization Evaluation in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus: Optimal Management of Multivessel Disease) trial demonstrated that for patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) and multivessel coronary disease (MVD), coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is superior to percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents (PCI-DES) in reducing the rate of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events after a median follow-up of 3.8 years. It is not known, however, whether CABG confers a survival benefit after an extended follow-up period.Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the long-term survival of DM patients with MVD undergoing coronary revascularization in the FREEDOM trial.Methods: The FREEDOM trial randomized 1,900 patients with DM and MVD to undergo either PCI with sirolimus-eluting or paclitaxel-eluting stents or CABG on a background of optimal medical therapy. After completion of the trial, enrolling centers and patients were invited to participate in the FREEDOM Follow-On study. Survival was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier analysis, and Cox proportional hazards models were used for subgroup and multivariate analyses.Results: A total of 25 centers (of 140 original centers) agreed to participate in the FREEDOM Follow-On study and contributed a total of 943 patients (49.6% of the original cohort) with a median follow-up of 7.5 years (range 0 to 13.2 years). Of the 1,900 patients, there were 314 deaths during the entire follow-up period (204 deaths in the original trial and 110 deaths in the FREEDOM Follow-On). The all-cause mortality rate was significantly higher in the PCI-DES group than in the CABG group (24.3% [159 deaths] vs. 18.3% [112 deaths]; hazard ratio: 1.36; 95% confidence interval: 1.07 to 1.74; p = 0.01). Of the 943 patients with extended follow-up, the all-cause mortality rate was 23.7% (99 deaths) in the PCI-DES group and 18.7% (72 deaths) in the CABG group (hazard ratio: 1.32; 95% confidence interval: 0.97 to 1.78; p = 0.076).Conclusions: In patients with DM and MVD, coronary revascularization with CABG leads to lower all-cause mortality than with PCI-DES in long-term follow-up. (Comparison of Two Treatments for Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease in Individuals With Diabetes [FREEDOM]; NCT00086450). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although previous observational studies have documented late luminal enlargement and expansive remodeling following implantation of a bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS), no comparison with metallic stents has been conducted in a randomized fashion.Objectives: This study sought to compare vessel remodeling patterns after either Absorb BVS or Xience metallic drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, California) and determine the independent predictors of remodeling.Methods: In the ABSORB II randomized trial, 383 lesions (n = 359) were investigated by intravenous ultrasound both post-procedure and at 3-year follow-up. According to vessel and lumen area changes over 3 years, we categorized 9 patterns of vessel remodeling that were beyond the reproducibility of lumen and vessel area measurements.Results: The relative change in mean vessel area was significantly greater with the BVS compared to the DES (6.7 ± 12.6% vs. 2.9 ± 11.5%; p = 0.003); the relative change in mean lumen area was significantly different between the 2 arms (1.4 ± 19.1% vs. -1.9 ± 10.5%, respectively; p = 0.031). Multivariate analysis indicated that use of the BVS, female sex, balloon-artery ratio >1.25, expansion index ≥0.8, previous percutaneous coronary intervention, and higher level of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol were independent predictors of expansive remodeling. Furthermore, in the BVS arm, necrotic core pre-procedure was an independent determinant of expansive remodeling.Conclusions: Expansive vessel wall remodeling was more frequent and intense with the BVS than the metallic DES and could be determined by patient baseline characteristics and periprocedural factors. The clinical effect of the observed lumen and vessel remodeling must be investigated in further large clinical studies to optimize the clinical outcome of patients and lesions treated by bioresorbable scaffolds. (ABSORB II Randomized Controlled Trial; NCT01425281). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Lipid-rich plaque (LRP) is thought to be a precursor to cardiac events. However, its clinical significance in coronary arteries has never been systematically investigated.Objectives: This study investigated the prevalence and clinical significance of LRP in the nonculprit region of the target vessel in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).Methods: The study included 1,474 patients from 20 sites across 6 countries undergoing PCI, who had optical coherence tomography (OCT) imaging of the target vessel. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) were defined as a composite of cardiac death, acute myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven revascularization. Patients were followed for up to 4 years (median of 2 years).Results: Lipid-rich plaque was detected in nonculprit regions of the target vessel in 33.6% of patients. The cumulative rate of nonculprit lesion-related MACE (NC-MACE) over 48 months in patients with LRP was higher than in those without LRP (7.2% vs. 2.6%, respectively; p = 0.033). Acute coronary syndrome at index presentation (risk ratio: 2.538; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.246 to 5.173; p = 0.010), interruption of statin use ≥1 year (risk ratio: 4.517; 95% CI: 1.923 to 10.610; p = 0.001), and LRP in nonculprit regions (risk ratio: 2.061; 95% CI: 1.050 to 4.044; p = 0.036) were independently associated with increased NC-MACE. Optical coherence tomography findings revealed that LRP in patients with NC-MACE had longer lipid lengths (p < 0.001), wider maximal lipid arcs (p = 0.023), and smaller minimal lumen areas (p = 0.003) than LRPs in patients without MACE.Conclusions: Presence of LRP in the nonculprit regions of the target vessel by OCT predicts increased risk for future NC-MACE, which is primarily driven by revascularization for recurrent ischemia. Lipid-rich plaque with longer lipid length, wider lipid arc, and higher degree of stenosis identified patients at higher risk of future cardiac events. (The Massachusetts General Hospital Optical Coherence Tomography Registry; NCT01110538). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cangrelor, an intravenous, reversible P2Y12 antagonist, is approved for use in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).Objectives: This study sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of cangrelor compared with clopidogrel in subgroups that did and did not receive glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPIs).Methods: This pooled, patient-level analysis of the 3 CHAMPION (Cangrelor versus Standard Therapy to Achieve Optimal Management of Platelet Inhibition) trials analyzed all randomized patients who underwent PCI and received the study drug (n = 24,902). Only bailout/rescue GPI use was permitted, except in CHAMPION PCI, in which routine or bailout/rescue GPI use was at the site investigator's discretion. The primary efficacy endpoint was the composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, ischemia-driven revascularization, or stent thrombosis at 48 h after randomization.Results: Overall, 3,173 patients (12.7%) received a GPI, most commonly eptifibatide (69.4%). Despite variation in indications for GPIs, baseline characteristics were well balanced between the cangrelor and clopidogrel arms in subsets receiving and not receiving GPIs. Rates of the primary composite endpoint were lower with cangrelor compared with clopidogrel in patients who did (4.9% vs. 6.5%; odds ratio [OR]: 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.55 to 1.01) or did not receive a GPI (3.6% vs. 4.4%; OR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.72 to 0.94; Pint = 0.55). Cangrelor did not increase the primary safety endpoint, GUSTO-defined severe/life-threatening bleeding, in patients who did (0.4% vs. 0.5%; OR: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.25 to 1.99) or did not receive GPIs (0.2% vs. 0.1%; OR: 1.56; 95% CI: 0.80 to 3.04; Pint = 0.21). GPI use was associated with increased risk of bleeding in both treatment arms.Conclusions: Cangrelor's efficacy in reducing ischemic complications in patients undergoing PCI was maintained irrespective of GPI administration. GPI use was associated with substantially higher bleeding rates, regardless of the randomization to cangrelor or clopidogrel. (A Clinical Trial to Demonstrate the Efficacy of Cangrelor [PCI]: NCT00305162; Cangrelor Versus Standard Therapy to Achieve Optimal Management of Platelet Inhibition [PLATFORM]: NCT00385138; A Clinical Trial Comparing Cangrelor to Clopidogrel Standard Therapy in Subjects Who Require Percutaneous Coronary Intervention [PCI] [CHAMPION PHOENIX] [CHAMPION]: NCT01156571). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]