Search

BACKGROUND: In patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) with multigrees, vessel coronary artery disease, the time at which complete revascularization of nonculprit lesions should be performed remains unknown. METHODS: We performed an international, open-label, randomized, noninferiority trial at 37 sites in Europe. Patients in a hemodynamically stable condition who had STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease were randomly assigned to undergo immediate multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI; immediate group) or PCI of the culprit lesion followed by staged multivessel PCI of nonculprit lesions within 19 to 45 days after the index procedure (staged group). The primary end point was a composite of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization, or hospitalization for heart failure at 1 year after randomization. The percentages of patients with a primary or secondary end-point event are provided as Kaplan-Meier estimates at 6 months and at 1 year. RESULTS: We assigned 418 patients to undergo immediate multivessel PCI and 422 to undergo staged multivessel PCL A primary end-point event occurred in 35 patients (8.590) in the immediate group as compared with 68 patients (16.396) in the staged group (risk ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.38 to 0.72; P<0.001 for noninferiority and P< 0.001 for superiority). Nonfatal myocardial infarction and unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization occurred in 8 patients (2.090) and 17 patients (4.1°6), respectively, in the immediate group and in 22 patients (5.3°6) and 39 patients (9.3°6), respectively, in the staged group. The risk of death from any cause, the risk of stroke, and the risk of hospitalization for heart failure appeared to be similar in the two groups. A total of 104 patients in the immediate group and 145 patients in the staged group had a serious adverse event. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients in hemodynamically stable condition with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease, immediate multivessel PCI was noninferior to staged multivessel PCI with respect to the risk of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization, or hospitalization for heart failure at 1 year. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The ISAR-REACT 5 trial compared the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor and prasugrel in patients with ACS managed invasively. The present study sought to investigate the impact of ticagrelor and prasugrel on the incidence and pattern of urgent revascularization in acute coronary syndromes (ACS) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)., Methods and Results: This post-hoc analysis of the ISAR-REACT 5 trial included all ACS patients who underwent PCI. The primary endpoint for this analysis was the incidence of urgent revascularization at 12-month follow-up. Secondary outcome was the pattern of urgent revascularization procedures (namely, urgent target vessel/non-target vessel revascularization - TVR/NTVR). Among 3,377 ACS patients who underwent PCI, 1,676 were assigned to ticagrelor and 1,701 to prasugrel before PCI. After 12 months, the incidence of urgent revascularization was higher among patients assigned to ticagrelor as compared to prasugrel (6.8% vs. 5.2%; hazard ratio [HR] = 1.32, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.00-1.75; p = 0.051), mostly attributable to significantly more urgent NTVR in the ticagrelor group (3.8% vs. 2.4%; HR = 1.62 [1.09-2.41]; p = 0.017). The risk of urgent TVR did not differ between treatment groups (3.3% vs. 3.0%; HR = 1.13 [0.77-1.65]; p = 0.546)., Conclusions: In ACS patients treated with PCI, the cumulative rate of urgent revascularizations after 12 months is higher with ticagrelor compared to prasugrel, due to a significant increase in urgent revascularizations involving remote coronary vessels., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Evidence on the optimal timing of RA is scarce, although increased periprocedural complications for unplanned procedures have been reported., Aims: To compare planned versus unplanned use of rotational atherectomy (RA) for plaque modification in patients with severely calcified coronary lesions., Methods: Procedural and 1-year follow-up data of planned (n = 562 lesions in 448 vessels of 416 patients) and unplanned (n = 490 lesions in 435 vessels of 403 patients) RA between 2008 and 2020 were analyzed using the propensity score methods. The primary composite endpoint was target lesion failure (TLF), defined as cardiovascular death (CVD), target vessel myocardial infarction (TVMI), or target lesion revascularization (TLR)., Results: Angiographic success was > 99% in both groups. Fluoroscopy time and contrast volume were significantly lower in planned RA (p < 0.001). Periprocedural complications including slow-flow, coronary dissection, and MI occurred in 4.8% after planned, and in 5.7% after unplanned RA. TLF occurred in 18.5% after planned, and in 14.7% after unplanned RA. Weighted subdistribution hazard ratios for TLFs revealed an unfavorable 1-year outcome for planned RA (sHR 1.62 [1.07-2.45], p = 0.023), which was driven by TLR (sHR 2.01 [1.18-3.46], p = 0.011), but not by CVD, or TVMI. No differences were observed in all-cause mortality., Conclusions: Unplanned RA was associated with favorable outcome when compared to planned RA. Thus, RA can safely be reserved for lesions that prove untreatable by conventional means. Randomized and prospective trials are needed to evaluate a predominant use of rotational atherectomy as a bailout strategy in the future., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background:  The relative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor and prasugrel based dual antiplatelet therapy strategies according to the platelet count (PC) in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) have not been defined., Methods:  This is a posthoc analysis of the ISAR-REACT 5 trial, in which patients presenting with ACS were randomized to treatment with ticagrelor versus prasugrel. Patients were divided into quartiles according to PC. The primary endpoint was incidence of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, and the safety endpoint was incidence of BARC (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium) type 3 to 5 bleeding at 12 months., Results:  A total of 3,943 patients with known PC (997 patients in quartile 1 (Q1), 1,003 in quartile 2 (Q2) [205 ± 10.3 × 10 9 /L], 961 patients in quartile 3 (Q3) [241 ± 11.7 × 10 9 /L], and 982 patients in quartile 4 (Q4) [317 ± 68.6 × 10 9 /L]). There was no significant interaction between treatment arm (ticagrelor vs. prasugrel) and PC group with respect to primary endpoint (Q1: 8.8 vs. 6.3%, hazard ratio [HR] =1.41, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.89-2.23; p  = 0.148; Q2: 9.9 vs. 5.8%, HR = 1.68, 95% CI: 1.06-2.66; p  = 0.027; Q3: 7.8 vs. 5.5%, HR = 1.43, 95% CI: 0.87-2.37; p  = 0.159; Q4: 10.1 vs. 10.1%, HR = 1.05, 95% CI: 0.71-1.57; p  = 0.799; p for interaction [ p int ] = 0.482) and with respect to bleeding endpoint (Q1: 5.8 vs. 4.2%, HR = 1.41, 95% CI: 0.76-2.63; p  = 0.279; Q2: 6.4 vs. 3.7%, HR = 1.62, 95% CI: 0.85-2.06; p  = 0.140; Q3: 4.4 vs. 3.0%, HR = 1.53, 95% CI: 0.73-3.18; p  = 0.258; Q4: 5.6 vs. 8.5%, HR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.40-1.14; p  = 0.138, p int  = 0.102)., Conclusions:  In this analysis, incidences of ischemic and bleeding events at 12 months are comparable across quartiles of platelet count., Competing Interests: D.J.A. reports consulting fees or honoraria from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chiesi, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Haemonetics, Janssen, Merck, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Pfizer, and Sanofi; and research grants to his institution from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, CeloNova, CSL Behring, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Matsutani Chemical Industry Co., Merck, Novartis, Osprey Medical, Renal Guard Solutions, and Scott R. MacKenzie Foundation. H.S. reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer Vital, MSD SHARP&DOHME, Novartis, Servier, Sanofi-Aventis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Amgen, and Pfizer, and consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Amgen, and MSD SHARP&DOHME. S.K. reports consulting and lecture fees from Astra Zeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Translumina. T.K. is named inventor on a patent application for prevention of restenosis after angioplasty and stent implantation outside the submitted work and received lecture fees from Bayer AG, Pharmaceuticals; M.J. reports speaker fees from Biotronik, personal fees from OrbusNeich, grants and personal fees from Boston Scientific, grants and personal fees from Edwards, personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Recor, grants from Amgen, not related to the current work., (The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).)

Objectives: To assess the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) presenting during off- and on-hours., Background: The efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in patients with ACS according to time of hospital presentation remain unknown., Methods: This post hoc analysis of the ISAR-REACT 5 trial included 1565 patients with ACS presenting off-hours and 2453 patients presenting on-hours, randomized to ticagrelor or prasugrel. The primary endpoint was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke; the safety endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 3-5 bleeding, both at 12 months., Results: The primary endpoint occurred in 80 patients (10.4%) in the ticagrelor group and 57 patients (7.3%) in the prasugrel group in patients presenting off-hours (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.45; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-2.03; P = 0.033), and 104 patients (8.5%) in the ticagrelor group and 80 patients (6.7%) in the prasugrel group in patients presenting on-hours (HR = 1.29 [0.97-1.73]; P = 0.085), without significant treatment arm-by-presentation time interaction (P int  = 0.62). BARC type 3 to 5 bleeding occurred in 35 patients (5.1%) in the ticagrelor group and 37 patients (5.3%) in the prasugrel group (P = 0.84) in patients presenting off-hours, and 60 patients (5.9%) in the ticagrelor group and 43 patients (4.6%) in the prasugrel group in patients presenting on-hours (P = 0.17)., Conclusions: In patients with ACS planned to undergo an invasive treatment strategy, time of presentation (off-hours vs. on-hours) does not interact significantly with the relative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor vs. prasugrel., Clinical Trial Registration: NCT01944800., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background The efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome and prior myocardial infarction (MI) remain unstudied. We aimed to assess the treatment effect of ticagrelor versus prasugrel according to prior MI status in patients with ACS. Methods and Results Patients with acute coronary syndrome planned for an invasive strategy and randomized to ticagrelor or prasugrel in the ISAR-REACT (Intracoronary Stenting and Antithrombotic Regimen: Rapid Early Action for Coronary Treatment) 5 trial were included. The primary end point was the composite of 1-year all-cause death, MI, or stroke; the secondary safety end point was the composite of 1-year Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 to 5 bleeding. The study included 4015 patients (prior MI=631 patients; no prior MI=3384 patients). As compared with patients without prior MI, the primary end point occurred more frequently in patients with prior MI (12.6% versus 7.2%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.78 [95% CI, 1.38-2.29]); the secondary safety end point appears to differ little between patients with and without prior MI (5.8% versus 5.7%, respectively; HR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.71-1.45]). With regard to the primary end point, ticagrelor versus prasugrel was associated with an HR of 1.62 (95% CI, 1.03-2.55) in patients with prior MI and an HR of 1.28 (95% CI, 0.99-1.65) in patients without prior MI ( P int =0.37). With regard to the secondary safety end point, ticagrelor versus prasugrel was associated with an HR of 1.28 (95% CI, 0.56-2.91) in patients with prior MI and an HR of 1.13 (95% CI, 0.82-1.55) in patients without prior MI ( P int =0.79). Conclusions Patients with acute coronary syndrome and prior MI are at higher risk for recurrent ischemic but not bleeding events. Prasugrel is superior to ticagrelor in reducing the risk of ischemic events without a tradeoff in bleeding regardless of prior MI status. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01944800.

Background: The relative efficacy and safety of more potent P2Y 12 inhibitors in patients with acute coronary syndrome and high bleeding risk (HBR) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention remains unclear. We aimed to study the treatment effect of ticagrelor and prasugrel in percutaneous coronary intervention patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome and HBR., Methods: This post hoc analysis of the ISAR-REACT 5 trial (Intracoronary Stenting and Antithrombotic Regimen: Rapid Early Action for Coronary Treatment 5) included patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, randomized to ticagrelor or prasugrel, in whom HBR was defined as per Academic Research Consortium criteria. The primary (efficacy) end point was the composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. The secondary (safety) end point was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 to 5 bleeding. Outcomes were assessed 12 months after randomization., Results: Out of the 3239 patients included in this analysis, 486 fulfilled the criteria for Academic Research Consortium-HBR definition (HBR group; ticagrelor, n=230 and prasugrel, n=256), while 2753 did not (non-HBR group; ticagrelor, n=1375 and prasugrel, n=1378). Compared with the non-HBR group, the HBR group had a higher risk for the primary (hazard ratio [HR]=3.57 [95% CI, 2.79-4.57]; P <0.001) and secondary end point (HR=2.94 [2.17-3.99]; P <0.001). In the HBR group, the primary (HR=1.09 [0.73-1.62]) and secondary (HR=1.18 [0.67-2.08]) end points were not significantly different between patients assigned to ticagrelor and prasugrel. In the non-HBR group, the primary end point (HR=1.62 [1.19-2.20]) occurred more frequently in patients assigned to ticagrelor as compared to patients assigned to prasugrel, without difference in safety (HR=1.08 [0.74-1.58]). There was no significant treatment allocation-by-HBR status interaction with respect to the primary ( P for interaction=0.12) or secondary ( P for interaction=0.80) end points., Conclusions: In patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, HBR status increased both ischemic and bleeding risk without significant impact on the relative efficacy and safety of either ticagrelor or prasugrel. These results warrant confirmation in larger cohorts., Registration: URL: https://www., Clinicaltrials: gov; Unique identifier: NCT01944800.

Aims: To assess whether the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor vs. prasugrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACSs) are influenced by pre-admission treatment with aspirin and/or clopidogrel., Methods and Results: Patients (n = 4018) were categorized into two groups: pre-admission aspirin and/or clopidogrel group (n = 1455) and no pre-admission aspirin or clopidogrel group (n = 2563). The primary endpoint was the composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke; the secondary safety endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 3-5 bleeding, both at 1 year. Patients in the pre-admission aspirin and/or clopidogrel group had a higher risk of ischaemic events, but a similar risk of bleeding to patients in the no pre-admission aspirin or clopidogrel group (cumulative incidences 10.5% vs. 6.7%, and 5.7% vs. 5.7%, respectively). The primary endpoint occurred in 81/717 patients assigned to ticagrelor and 69/738 patients assigned to prasugrel in the pre-admission aspirin and/or clopidogrel group [11.5% vs. 9.5%; hazard ratio (HR) = 1.23; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89-1.69], and in 103/1295 patients assigned to ticagrelor and 68/1268 patients assigned to prasugrel in the no pre-admission aspirin or clopidogrel group [8.0% vs. 5.4%; HR = 1.50 (1.10-2.03); Pint = 0.38]. BARC type 3-5 bleeding events did not differ between ticagrelor and prasugrel in patients in the pre-admission aspirin and/or clopidogrel (6.2% vs. 4.5%) or no pre-admission aspirin or clopidogrel (5.3% vs. 5.1%) group (Pint = 0.54)., Conclusion: In patients with ACS, pre-admission therapy with aspirin and/or clopidogrel has no influence on the relative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor and prasugrel., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: Whether the access site influences the comparative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor and prasugrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing invasive treatment strategy remains unstudied., Methods: This post-hoc analysis included ACS patients undergoing invasive treatment via radial or femoral access and randomized to either ticagrelor or prasugrel in the ISAR-REACT 5 trial. The primary efficacy endpoint was the composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke, safety endpoint was BARC 3 to 5 bleeding. Outcomes were assessed out to 12 months after randomization., Results: Out of 4018 patients, 3984 underwent invasive treatment via radial or femoral access. 1479 had coronary angiography via radial access (ticagrelor, N = 748; prasugrel, N = 731) and 2505 via femoral access (ticagrelor, N = 1245; prasugrel, N = 1260). There was no interaction between access route and assignment to either ticagrelor or prasugrel regarding the primary efficacy or safety endpoints (P for interaction≥0.616). In the radial group, the primary efficacy endpoint (7.6% versus 5.8%, HR: 1.32 [0.88-1.97], P = 0.151) and the safety endpoint (4.3% versus 3.0%, HR: 1.36, [0.73-1.31], P = 0.300) were not statistically different in patients receiving either ticagrelor or prasugrel. In the femoral group, the primary efficacy endpoint occurred more frequently in patients assigned to ticagrelor as compared to prasugrel (10.3% versus 7.3%, HR: 1.44 [1.10-1.88], P = 0.006) without significant difference in terms of safety endpoint (6.4% versus 5.8%, HR: 1.14, [0.81-1.60], P = 0.470)., Conclusions: In patients with ACS undergoing an invasive treatment strategy, the access route does not influence the comparative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor and prasugrel., Clinical Trial Registration: NCT01944800., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Constant elevations of the serum concentration of cardiac troponin T (TnT) indicate a myocardial injury that may affect the long-term outcome of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR)., Objectives: We sought to investigate the impact of pre-TAVR TnT on outcomes after TAVR during long-term follow-up., Methods: In a retrospective, observational study we compared long term outcomes after TAVR between tertiles of preinterventional high-sensitivity TnT. Systematic follow-up was performed annually for 5 years. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death and any rehospitalization., Results: Between 2010 and 2018, 2,129 patients with severe aortic valve stenosis underwent TAVR at our institution (mean age 82.6 years, 57.2% female, logistic EuroSCORE 20.5 ± 15.8). Boundaries for TnT tertiles were <21 ng/L and >42 ng/L. The median follow-up was 895 days. Three-year incidences for the primary endpoint were 70.9%, 76.6%, and 81.7% in the low, middle, and high tertile (log rank p < .001). Compared with the first tertile, the corresponding adjusted hazard ratios were 1.23 (95%-CI 1.08-1.40, p < .001) and 1.50 (95%-CI 1.32-1.70, p < .001) for the second and third tertile. We found consistent differences between TnT strata for all-cause death (3-year incidences 23.3%, 33.3%, and 47.1%; adjusted p < .001) and rehospitalization (3-year incidences 64.7%, 68.7% and 72.0%; adjusted p < .001), including significant differences in deaths (p < .001). The association between TnT and outcome was independent of coronary artery disease or low aortic valve gradient., Conclusions: TnT before TAVR is strongly associated with all-cause death and rehospitalization during 3-year follow-up., (© 2021 The Authors. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Importance: It is unclear whether ticagrelor or prasugrel hydrochloride is superior for patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)., Objective: To assess the safety and efficacy of ticagrelor vs prasugrel for patients with ACS treated with PCI., Design, Setting, and Participants: A prespecified analysis was performed of a postrandomization subgroup of 3377 patients who presented with ACS and were treated with PCI in the investigator-initiated, multicenter, phase 4, open-label Intracoronary Stenting and Antithrombotic Regimen: Rapid Early Action for Coronary Treatment 5 randomized clinical trial, conducted from September 1, 2013, to February 28, 2018. Statistical analysis was performed from September 1, 2020, to January 30, 2021. Analysis was performed according to the intention-to-treat principle., Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to a ticagrelor-based or prasugrel-based strategy. This analysis focuses on the subgroup of patients who underwent PCI that was formed after randomization., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was a composite consisting of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 12 months. The safety end point was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 3 to 5 bleeding., Results: The ticagrelor group comprised 1676 patients (1323 men [78.9%]; mean [SD] age, 64.4 [12.0] years), and the prasugrel group comprised 1701 patients (1341 men [78.8%]; mean [SD] age, 64.7 [12.0] years). The primary end point occurred for 162 patients (9.8%) in the ticagrelor group and 120 patients (7.1%) in the prasugrel group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.41; 95% CI, 1.11-1.78; P = .005). Myocardial infarction occurred in 88 patients (5.3%) in the ticagrelor group compared with 55 patients (3.8%) in the prasugrel group (HR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.19-2.34; P = .003). The safety end point, BARC type 3 to 5 bleeding, occurred in 84 of 1672 patients (5.3%) in the ticagrelor group and 78 of 1680 patients (4.9%) in the prasugrel group (HR; 1.10; 95% CI, 0.81-1.50; P = .54)., Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients presenting with ACS who were treated with PCI, the incidence of the primary composite end point occurred less frequently for patients who received prasugrel compared with those who received ticagrelor. The incidence of bleeding events was comparable between the 2 groups. These results suggest that, for patients presenting with ACS who undergo PCI, a prasugrel-based strategy is superior to a ticagrelor-based strategy. However, because these observations are based on a postrandomization subgroup, these findings should be regarded as hypothesis generating and dedicated randomized clinical trials may be warranted to confirm these findings., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01944800.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of ticagrelor versus prasugrel for patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) according to their estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFRs)., Background: The outcomes of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in patients with ACS according to eGFR have not been defined., Methods: Patients (n = 4,012) were categorized into 3 groups: low eGFR (<60 mL/min/1.73 m 2 ), intermediate eGFR (≥60 and <90 mL/min/1.73 m 2 ), and high eGFR (≥90 mL/min/1.73 m 2 ). The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and stroke; the secondary safety endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium types 3 to 5 bleeding, both at 1 year., Results: Patients with low eGFRs had a higher risk for the primary endpoint compared with patients with intermediate eGFRs (adjusted HR: 1.89; 95% CI: 1.46-2.46]) and those with high eGFRs (adjusted HR: 2.33; 95% CI: 1.57-3.46). A risk excess for low eGFR was also observed for bleeding (adjusted HR: 1.55 [95% CI: 1.12-2.13] vs intermediate eGFR; adjusted HR: 1.59 [95% CI: 1.01-2.50] vs high eGFR). However, eGFR did not affect the relative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel. In patients with low eGFR, the primary endpoint occurred in 20.5% with ticagrelor and in 14.7% with prasugrel (HR: 1.47; 95% CI: 1.04-2.08; P = 0.029); there was no significant difference in bleeding., Conclusions: These results show that among patients with ACS, reduction of eGFR is associated with increased risk for ischemic and bleeding events but has no significant impact on the relative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel. (Prospective, Randomized Trial of Ticagrelor Versus Prasugrel in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome [ISAR-REACT 5]; NCT01944800)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures This research was supported by a grant (FKZ 81X1600501) from the German Center for Cardiovascular Research and Deutsches Herzzentrum München. Dr Angiolillo has received grants and personal fees from Amgen, Aralez, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chiesi, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Sanofi, and CeloNova; has received personal fees from Haemonetics, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Pfizer, The Medicines Company, and St. Jude Medical; and has received grants from CSL Behring, Eisai, Gilead, Idorsia Pharmaceuticals, Matsutani Chemical Industry, Novartis, Osprey Medical, Renal Guard Solutions, and the Scott R. MacKenzie Foundation. Dr Hochholzer has received personal fees from Bayer Vital, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi-Sankyo, Novartis, AstraZeneca, and The Medicines Company. Dr Kufner has received personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, and Translumina. Dr Sager has received grants from the European Research Council, Else-Kröner-Fresenius-Stiftung, Deutsche Herzstiftung, and Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. Dr Neumann has received personal fees from Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Novartis, and Ferrer; has received grants and personal fees from Pfizer, Biotronik, Edwards Lifesciences, Bayer Healthcare, and Boston Scientific; and has received grants from Medtronic and GlaxoSmithKline outside the submitted work. Dr Schüpke has received the Else Kröner memorial grant from Else Kröner-Fresenius Stiftung; has received financial support from the German Center for Cardiovascular Research; has received consulting fees from Bayer Vital; and has received lecture fees from Daiichi-Sankyo and Biopas Laboratories. Dr Sibbing has received personal fees from Daichi-Sankyo, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Pfizer, and Servier. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Data on the comparative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention are limited. We assessed the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in a head-to-head comparison in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention., Methods: In this prespecified subgroup analysis, we included 1653 patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction randomized to receive ticagrelor or prasugrel in the setting of the ISAR REACT-5 trial (Intracoronary Stenting and Antithrombotic Regimen: Rapid Early Action for Coronary Treatment 5). The primary end point was the incidence of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 1 year after randomization. The secondary end point was the incidence of bleeding defined as BARC (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium) type 3 to 5 bleeding at 1 year after randomization., Results: The primary end point occurred in 83 patients (10.1%) in the ticagrelor group and in 64 patients (7.9%) in the prasugrel group (hazard ratio, 1.31 [95% CI, 0.95-1.82]; P =0.10). One-year incidence of all-cause death (4.9% versus 4.7%; P =0.83), stroke (1.3% versus 1.0%; P =0.46), and definite stent thrombosis (1.8% versus 1.0%; P =0.15) did not differ significantly in patients assigned to ticagrelor or prasugrel. One-year incidence of myocardial infarction (5.3% versus 2.8%; hazard ratio, 1.95 [95% CI, 1.18-3.23]; P =0.010) was higher with ticagrelor than with prasugrel. BARC type 3 to 5 bleeding occurred in 46 patients (6.1%) in the ticagrelor group and in 39 patients (5.1%) in the prasugrel group (hazard ratio, 1.22 [95% CI, 0.80-1.87]; P =0.36)., Conclusions: In patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention, there was no significant difference in the primary end point between prasugrel and ticagrelor. Ticagrelor was associated with a significant increase in the risk for recurrent myocardial infarction. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01944800.

Background: Current guidelines recommend intensified platelet inhibition by prasugrel or ticagrelor in patients with unstable angina (UA) or non-ST-segment elevation (NSTE) myocardial infarction (MI)., Objectives: This study sought to investigate the benefits and risks of ticagrelor as compared with prasugrel in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS) and planned invasive management., Methods: This post hoc analysis combines the pre-specified subgroups of UA and NSTEMI of the randomized ISAR-REACT 5 trial. It included 1,179 patients assigned to ticagrelor and 1,186 assigned to prasugrel. Ticagrelor was started immediately after randomization and prasugrel after coronary angiography. The primary endpoint was a composite of death, MI, or stroke during 1-year follow-up, and the safety endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium class 3-5., Results: The primary endpoint was reached in 101 (8.7%) patients in the ticagrelor and in 73 (6.3%) patients in the prasugrel group (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.41; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.04 to 1.90). The HR for all-cause death was 1.43 (95% CI: 0.93 to 2.21) and that for MI 1.43 (95% CI: 0.94 to 2.19). The safety endpoint occurred in 49 (5.2%) patients in the ticagrelor and in 41 (4.7%) patients in the prasugrel group (HR: 1.09; 95% CI: 0.72 to 1.65). Landmark analysis revealed persistence of the efficacy advantage with prasugrel after the first month., Conclusions: In patients with NSTE-ACS, we found that prasugrel was superior to ticagrelor in reducing the combined 1-year risk of death, MI, and stroke without increasing the risk of bleeding. Due to the post hoc nature of the analysis, these findings need confirmation by further studies. (Prospective, Randomized Trial of Ticagrelor Versus Prasugrel in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome; NCT01944800)., Competing Interests: Author Relationship With Industry Dr. Neumann has received lecture fees, paid to his institution, from Amgen, Daiichi-Sankyo, Novartis, and Ferrer; has received lecture fees, paid to his institution, and consulting fees, paid to his institution, from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim; has received grant support and lecture fees, paid to his institution, from Pfizer, Biotronic, Edwards Lifesciences, Bayer HealthCare, and GlaxoSmithKline; and has received grant support from Medtronic, Abbott Vascular, and Boston Scientific. Dr. Sibbing has received personal fees from Bayer AG, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Ferrer, and Daiichi-Sankyo; and has received grants and personal fees from Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Angiolillo has received consulting fees or honoraria from Abbott, Amgen, Aralez, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chiesi, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Haemonetics, Janssen, Merck, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Pfizer, Sanofi, and The Medicines Company; has received payments for participation in review activities from CeloNova and St. Jude Medical; and his institution has received research grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, CeloNova, CSL Behring, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Idorsia, Janssen, Matsutani Chemical Industry Co., Merck, Novartis, Osprey Medical, Renal Guard Solutions, and the Scott R. MacKenzie Foundation. Dr. Liebetrau has received consulting fees or honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Berlin Chemie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi-Sankyo, Pfizer, and Thermo Fisher; and has received research grants from Deutsche Herzstiftung, Kerckhoff-Stiftung, and Kühl-Stiftung outside the submitted work. Dr. Liebetrau’s institution has received payments for participation in clinical study programs from Abbott, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, Boston Scientific, Daiichi-Sankyo, and Neovasc. Dr. Hamm has received Advisory Board and speaker fees from AstraZeneca and Daiichi-Sankyo. Dr. Sager has received funding from the European Research Council under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme (STRATO), the Else-Kröner-Fresenius-Stiftung, the Deutsche Herzstiftung, and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. Dr. Joner has received personal fees from Biotronik, Orbus Neich, Boston Scientific, Edwards, AstraZeneca, and Recor; and has received grants from Boston Scientific, Edwards, and Amgen. Dr. Trenk has received consulting fees or honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Berlin Chemie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi-Sankyo, Ferrer, Pfizer, and Sanofi; and has received research grants from Deutsche Herzstiftung and PharmCompNet Baden-Wuerttemberg: Kompetenznetzwerk Pharmakologie Baden-Wuerttemberg outside the submitted work. Dr. Trenk’s institution has received payments for participation in clinical study programs from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Daiichi-Sankyo, Doasense, Esperion, Idorsia, and Otsuka. Dr. Schunkert has received personal fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Amgen, Bayer Vital GmbH, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Novartis, Servier, Brahms, Bristol Myers Squibb, Medtronic, Sanofi, Synlab, Pfizer, and Vifor; and has received grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca. Dr. Schüpke has received grants from the DZHK (German Center for Cardiovascular Research) and the Else Kröner-Fresenius-Stiftung; has received consulting fees from Bayer Vital GmbH; and has received lecture fees from Daiichi-Sankyo. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

About half of patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) present with multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD). Recent evidence supports complete revascularization in these patients. However, optimal timing of non-culprit lesion revascularization in STEMI patients is unknown because dedicated randomized trials on this topic are lacking. STUDY DESIGN: The MULTISTARS AMI trial is a prospective, international, multicenter, randomized, two-arm, open-label study planning to enroll at least 840 patients. It is designed to investigate whether immediate complete revascularization is non-inferior to staged (within 19-45 days) complete revascularization in patients in stable hemodynamic conditions presenting with STEMI and MVD and undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). After successful primary PCI of the culprit artery, patients are randomized in a 1:1 ratio to immediate or staged complete revascularization. The primary endpoint is a composite of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, ischemia-driven revascularization, hospitalization for heart failure, and stroke at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: The MULTISTARS AMI trial tests the hypothesis that immediate complete revascularization is non-inferior to staged complete revascularization in stable patients with STEMI and MVD., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the 2-year clinical outcomes of the Firehawk stent (Shanghai MicroPort Medical Group, Shanghai, China), a novel abluminal groove-filled biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting coronary stent, compared with XIENCE (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, California), a durable-polymer everolimus-eluting coronary stent., Background: The long-term outcomes of the Firehawk stent have not been evaluated beyond 1 year in a randomized all-comers clinical trial., Methods: The TARGET All Comers study is a prospective, multicenter, all-comers, randomized, noninferiority trial conducted in Europe. A total of 1,653 patients were randomly assigned to undergo implantation of either the Firehawk or the XIENCE stent. The primary endpoint was target lesion failure, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization., Results: At 2-year follow-up, the incidence of target lesion failure was 8.7% in the Firehawk group versus 8.6% in the XIENCE group (p = 0.92). The event rates of individual components of the primary endpoint were comparable for the 2 groups. Landmark analyses between 1- and 2-year follow-up revealed no statistically significant difference of TLF for the Firehawk versus the XIENCE stent. Beyond 1 year, very late definite or probable stent thrombosis occurred in 3 patients (0.4%) in the Firehawk group and in 7 patients (0.9%) in the XIENCE group (p = 0.34)., Conclusions: The 2-year follow-up of the TARGET All Comers study confirms comparable safety and efficacy profiles of the Firehawk and XIENCE stents., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Current guidelines recommend as treatment option in patients on oral anticoagulation (OAC) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) an antiplatelet monotherapy with clopidogrel if there is an increased risk for bleeding. However, retrospective data suggested a potential interaction of clopidogrel and the vitamin K antagonist (VKA) phenprocoumon leading to a diminished antiplatelet effect. This would increase the ischemic risk of patients treated with this combination. Thus, this prospective study sought to evaluate the pharmacodynamic effect of clopidogrel monotherapy in patients on phenprocoumon undergoing PCI and assessed clinical outcomes. This study enrolled 100 patients on aspirin plus clopidogrel (DAPT-cohort, without indication for VKA) and 100 patients on clopidogrel monotherapy plus phenprocoumon (OAC-cohort) undergoing elective PCI. Platelet reactivity was assessed by impedance aggregometry on day 1 following PCI. Ischemic (death, stroke, or myocardial infarction) and bleeding (BARC 2-5) events within 12 months were compared in a propensity score adjusted model. Platelet reactivity was not different in the OAC- and DAPT-cohort (187 [127-242] vs. 167 [126-218] AU×min; p  = 0.23). Overall, 17 ischemic and 34 bleeding events were recorded during follow-up. The OAC-cohort showed a nonsignificant trend to an 80% higher incidence for ischemic and bleeding events in unadjusted analyses, which disappeared following adjustment (ischemic events HR 1.07, 95%-CI 0.32-3.59, p  = 0.91; bleeding events HR 1.25, 95%-CI 0.46-3.40, p  = 0.67). Following PCI, the pharmacodynamic effect of a clopidogrel monotherapy together with phenprocoumon is similar as compared to DAPT without a VKA, and not associated with an increased risk for ischemic events beyond the higher underlying baseline risk.

Background: The FIREHAWK is a drug-eluting stent with a fully biodegradable sirolimus-containing polymer coating localised to recessed abluminal grooves on the stent surface. We investigated clinical outcomes with this targeted, low-dose, biodegradable polymer, sirolimus-eluting stent compared with XIENCE durable polymer, everolimus-eluting stents in an all-comers population., Methods: The TARGET All Comers study was a prospective, multicentre, open-label randomised non-inferiority trial done at 21 centres in ten European countries. Patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic coronary artery disease and objective evidence of myocardial ischaemia who qualified for percutaneous coronary intervention were randomised 1:1 to undergo implantation of a FIREHAWK or XIENCE. Randomisation was web-based, with random block allocation and stratification by centre and ST elevation myocardial infarction. Outcome assessors were masked to treatment allocation, but treating physicians and patients were not. The primary endpoint was target lesion failure at 12 months, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularisation. The control event rate for XIENCE was assumed to be 7%, the non-inferiority margin was 3.5%, and the primary analysis was in the intention-to-treat population, censoring patients who did not have either an event before 365 days or contact beyond 365 days. Late lumen loss was the primary endpoint of an angiographic substudy designed to investigate the non-inferiority of the FIREHAWK compared with the XIENCE stent. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02520180., Findings: From Dec 17, 2015, to Oct 14, 2016, 1653 patients were randomly assigned to implantation of the FIREHAWK (n=823) or XIENCE (n=830). 65 patients in the FIREHAWK group and 66 in the XIENCE group had insufficient follow-up data and were excluded from the analyses. At 12 months, target lesion failure occurred in 46 (6·1%) of 758 patients in the FIREHAWK group and in 45 (5·9%) of 764 patients in the XIENCE group (difference 0·2%, 90% CI -1·9 to 2·2, p non-inferiority =0·004, 95% CI -2·2 to 2·6, p superiority =0·88). There were no differences in ischaemia-driven revascularisation or stent thrombosis rates at 12 months. 176 patients were included in the angiographic substudy, in which in-stent late lumen loss was 0·17 mm (SD 0·48) in the FIREHAWK group and 0·11 mm (0·52) in the XIENCE group (p=0·48), with an absolute difference of 0·05 mm (95% CI -0·09 to 0·18, p non-inferiority =0·024)., Interpretation: In a broad all-comers population of patients requiring stent implantation for myocardial ischaemia, the FIREHAWK was non-inferior to the XIENCE as assessed with the primary endpoint of target lesion failure at 12 months and in-stent late lumen loss at 13 months. The FIREHAWK is a safe and effective alternative stent to treat patients with ischaemic coronary artery disease in clinical practice., Funding: Shanghai Microport Medical., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Angioplasty with paclitaxel-coated balloons (PCB) is recommended for treatment of patients with coronary in-stent restenosis (ISR) according to European clinical practice guidelines. Most clinical trials have investigated iopromide-based PCB and there is a paucity of data comparing efficacy against butyryl-tri-hexyl citrate (BTHC)-based PCB. Our aim was to compare the performance of two widely-used PCB in the treatment of coronary ISR., Methods: We analysed patients treated with BTHC- or iopromide-PCB for treatment of drug-eluting stent ISR in the setting of 2 consecutive trials with identical inclusion and exclusion criteria. The primary endpoint was diameter stenosis at 6-8month angiographic surveillance. The secondary endpoint of interest was the composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI) or target-lesion revascularisation (TLR) at 1year. Multivariate analysis was performed to adjust for differences in baseline characteristics between groups., Results: In total, 264 patients were treated with BTHC-PCB (n=127) or iopromide-PCB (n=137). Baseline patient characteristics were similar for both groups. Post-procedure stenosis was slightly larger with BTHC-PCB (22.3 [SD 8.2]% vs. 18.4 [SD 9.9]%, P=0.001). At 6-8month angiography, diameter stenosis was 40.4 [SD 21.9]% vs. 37.4 [SD 21.4]% in the BTHC-PCB and iopromide-PCB groups, respectively (P=0.16, P adjusted =0.32). At 1year, death, MI or TLR occurred in 29 (23.2%) vs. 32 (23.4%) patients in the BTHC-PCB and iopromide-PCB groups, respectively (HR 1.03 [95% CI 0.62-1.70], P=0.91, P adjusted =0.96)., Conclusions: In patients undergoing intervention for ISR, angioplasty with BTHC-PCB showed similar angiographic and clinical results at 1year compared with iopromide-PCB., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Aims: In percutaneous coronary intervention for de-novo coronary bifurcation lesions, the optimal technique for provisional side-branch stenting is still a matter of debate. We tested whether in this setting culotte stenting reduces the incidence of restenosis as compared with T-and-protrusion (TAP) stenting., Methods and Results: This trial included 300 patients with a coronary bifurcation lesion requiring a side-branch stent. Patients were randomly assigned to culotte stenting or TAP stenting using drug-eluting stents in a 1:1 fashion. Primary endpoint was maximal per cent diameter stenosis of the bifurcation lesion at 9-month angiographic follow-up. As clinical endpoints we assessed target lesion re-intervention (TLR) and target lesion failure (composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and TLR).Angiographic follow-up was available in 91% of the patients. After culotte stenting, the maximum per cent diameter stenosis in the treated bifurcation lesion was 21 ± 20% as compared with 27 ± 25% after TAP stenting (P = 0.038). The respective corresponding binary restenosis rates were 6.5 and 17% (P = 0.006). The 1-year incidence of TLR was 6.0% after culotte stenting vs. 12.0% after T-stenting (P = 0.069). Target lesion failure occurred in 6.7% of the culotte group and in 12.0% of the TAP group (P = 0.11). Only one patient of the culotte group incurred a definite stent thrombosis during 1-year follow-up., Conclusions: Compared with the TAP stenting, culotte stenting was associated with a significantly lower incidence of angiographic restenosis., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author 2016. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: There is limited data on prognosis after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for coronary chronic total occlusions (CTO) in the era of drug-eluting stents (DES)., Aims: This study investigates the specific contribution of CTO recanalization to the survival benefit of complete revascularization., Methods: Consecutive patients who underwent PCI of a CTO at our center between 01/2005 and 12/2013 were followed for a median of 2.6 years (interquartile range 1.1-3.1 years). All-cause mortality was compared between patients with successful and failed PCI of CTO without and with adjustment for pertinent co-variables by the Cox models., Results: The study comprised 2002 patients with attempted PCI of CTO (mean age 65.2 ± 11 years, 17 % female), 82 % had multivessel disease. The CTO PCI was successful in 1662 (83 %) patients with a DES rate of 94 %. All-cause mortality was significantly lower in patients with successful PCI of CTO compared to failed PCI of CTO (15.3 vs. 25.9 % at 4 years; P < 0.001). In the multivariable model, both successful CTO PCI and complete revascularization were strong independent predictors of reduced long-term mortality (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.72; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.53-0.97; P = 0.03 and adjusted HR 0.59; 95 % CI 0.42-0.82; P = 0.002). Also within the subset of incomplete revascularization, successful PCI of CTO was associated with reduced mortality (adjusted HR: 0.67; 95 % CI: 0.50-0.92; P = 0.012)., Conclusion: Successful CTO recanalization is an independent predictor for improved long-term survival. Persistent CTO lesions are associated with significantly worse survival than persistent non-occlusive coronary lesions.

Background: Stent thrombosis (ST) is a rare but serious complication following percutaneous coronary intervention. Analysis of thrombus composition from patients undergoing catheter thrombectomy may provide important insights into the pathological processes leading to thrombus formation. We performed a large-scale multicentre study to evaluate thrombus specimens in patients with ST across Europe., Methods: Patients presenting with ST and undergoing thrombus aspiration were eligible for inclusion. Thrombus collection was performed according to a standardized protocol and specimens were analysed histologically at a core laboratory. Serial tissue cross sections were stained with haematoxylin-eosin (H&E), Carstairs and Luna. Immunohistochemistry was performed to identify leukocyte subsets, prothrombotic neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs), erythrocytes, platelets, and fibrinogen., Results: Overall 253 thrombus specimens were analysed; 79 (31.2%) from patients presenting with early ST, 174 (68.8%) from late ST; 79 (31.2%) were from bare metal stents, 166 (65.6%) from drug-eluting stents, 8 (3.2%) were from stents of unknown type. Thrombus specimens displayed heterogeneous morphology with platelet-rich thrombus and fibrin/fibrinogen fragments most abundant; mean platelet coverage was 57% of thrombus area. Leukocyte infiltrations were hallmarks of both early and late ST (early: 2260 ± 1550 per mm(2) vs. late: 2485 ± 1778 per mm(2); P = 0.44); neutrophils represented the most prominent subset (early: 1364 ± 923 per mm(2) vs. late: 1428 ± 1023 per mm(2); P = 0.81). Leukocyte counts were significantly higher compared with a control group of patients with thrombus aspiration in spontaneous myocardial infarction. Neutrophil extracellular traps were observed in 23% of samples. Eosinophils were present in all stent types, with higher numbers in patients with late ST in sirolimus-and everolimus-eluting stents., Conclusion: In a large-scale study of histological thrombus analysis from patients presenting with ST, thrombus specimens displayed heterogeneous morphology. Recruitment of leukocytes, particularly neutrophils, appears to be a hallmark of ST. The presence of NETs supports their pathophysiological relevance. Eosinophil recruitment suggests an allergic component to the process of ST., (© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: There is increasing evidence that various types of drug-eluting stents (DES) may differ regarding the long-term safety and efficacy, particularly in complex lesion subsets., Aims: In a cohort of consecutive patients undergoing bifurcation stenting, we sought to compare the 1-year efficacy and safety of the first-generation paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES), the first-generation sirolimus-eluting (SES) and the second-generation everolimus- or zotarolimus-eluting stents (EES/ZES)., Methods: We treated 2197 patients (mean age 67.5 years, 75.4 % male) with provisional T-stenting for de novo coronary bifurcation lesions using PES, SES or EES/ZES. Primary endpoint (MACE) was the composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction (MI) and target lesion revascularisation (TLR)., Results: Side branch stenting was found to be clinically indicated in 793 patients (36.1 %). The cumulative 1-year incidence of MACE was 18.8 % after PES, 13.1 % after PCI with SES and 12.2 % after EES/ZES (p = 0.003), the combined endpoint death and MI occurred in 6.6, 5.6 and 8.3 % (p = 0.253) and death in 4.3, 5.2 and 5.3 % (p = 0.581), respectively. After adjustment for co-variables the type of DES was a significant (p = 0.008) predictor of MACE [HR (95 % confidence interval) PES vs SES 1.34 (1.04-1.71), PES vs. EES/ZES 1.75 (1.19-2.57), EES/ZES vs. SES 0.762 (0.531-1.095)], but not of death (p = 0.581), death and MI (p = 0.077) or stent thrombosis (ST) (p = 0.925)., Conclusions: In de novo coronary bifurcation lesions treated with provisional T-stenting, SES and EES/ZES achieved better outcomes than PES by reducing the need for reintervention.

Background: In patients receiving aspirin, the optimal duration of clopidogrel therapy after drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation remains unclear., Methods: This multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial tested the hypothesis that in patients undergoing DES implantation, 6 months of clopidogrel is non-inferior to 12 months in terms of clinical outcomes. At 6 months after DES implantation, patients on clopidogrel were randomly assigned to either a 6-month period of placebo or an additional 6-month period of clopidogrel. The primary endpoint was the composite of death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, stroke, and thrombolysis in myocardial infarction major bleeding at 9 months after randomization., Results: Owing to slow recruitment and low event rates, the trial was stopped prematurely after enrolment of 4005 of 6000 planned patients. Of 4000 patients included in the final analysis, 1997 received 6 months of clopidogrel and 2003 received 12 months. The primary endpoint occurred in 29 patients (1.5%) assigned to 6 months of clopidogrel and 32 patients (1.6%) assigned to 12 months, observed difference -0.1%, upper limit of one-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.5%, limit of non-inferiority 2%, Pfor noninferiority <0.001. Stent thrombosis was observed in five patients (0.3%) assigned to 6 months of clopidogrel and three patients (0.2%) assigned to 12 months; hazard ratio (HR) 1.66, 95% CI: 0.40-6.96, P = 0.49. Thrombolysis in myocardial infarction major bleeding was observed in 4 patients (0.2%) assigned to 6 months clopidogrel and 5 patients (0.3%) assigned to 12 months; HR 0.80, 95% CI: 0.21-2.98, P = 0.74., Conclusions: In the present trial, characterized by low event rates, we did not observe a significant difference in net clinical outcome between 6 and 12 months of clopidogrel therapy after DES implantation. However, the results of the trial must be considered in view of its premature termination and lower than expected event rates. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, Identifier: NCT00661206., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author 2015. For permissions please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Dual antiplatelet therapy with low-dose acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) and an inhibitor of the P2Y12 adenosine diphosphate (ADP) receptor is the standard treatment for patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or undergoing elective coronary interventions according to the current guidelines published by the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). New generation P2Y12 inhibitors, such as prasugrel and ticagrelor exert stronger and more consistent inhibition of the P2Y12 receptor. In clinical studies enrolling patients with ACS these drugs decreased the incidence of ischemic events compared to the standard therapy with clopidogrel and ASA; however, this beneficial effect was associated with an increase in bleeding events. Alternative therapeutic approaches via addition of drugs with different modes of action showed an overall reduction of ischemic events but also failed to uncouple this beneficial effect from an increased bleeding risk.