Search

Introduction: Heart failure (HF) is a heterogeneous syndrome, and the specific sub-category HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (EF) range (HFmrEF; 41-49% EF) is only recently recognised as a distinct entity. Cluster analysis can characterise heterogeneous patient populations and could serve as a stratification tool in clinical trials and for prognostication. The aim of this study was to identify clusters in HFmrEF and compare cluster prognosis., Methods and Results: Latent class analysis to cluster HFmrEF patients based on their characteristics was performed in the Swedish HF registry (n = 7316). Identified clusters were validated in a Dutch cross-sectional HF registry-based dataset CHECK-HF (n = 1536). In Sweden, mortality and hospitalisation across the clusters were compared using a Cox proportional hazard model, with a Fine-Gray sub-distribution for competing risks and adjustment for age and sex. Six clusters were discovered with the following prevalence and hazard ratio with 95% confidence intervals (HR [95%CI]) vs. cluster 1: 1) low-comorbidity (17%, reference), 2) ischaemic-male (13%, HR 0.9 [95% CI 0.7-1.1]), 3) atrial fibrillation (20%, HR 1.5 [95% CI 1.2-1.9]), 4) device/wide QRS (9%, HR 2.7 [95% CI 2.2-3.4]), 5) metabolic (19%, HR 3.1 [95% CI 2.5-3.7]) and 6) cardio-renal phenotype (22%, HR 2.8 [95% CI 2.2-3.6]). The cluster model was robust between both datasets., Conclusion: We found robust clusters with potential clinical meaning and differences in mortality and hospitalisation. Our clustering model could be valuable as a clinical differentiation support and prognostic tool in clinical trial design., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: The effect of haemodynamic monitoring of pulmonary artery pressure has predominantly been studied in the USA. There is a clear need for randomised trial data from patients treated with contemporary guideline-directed-medical-therapy with long-term follow-up in a different health-care system., Methods: MONITOR-HF was an open-label, randomised trial, done in 25 centres in the Netherlands. Eligible patients had chronic heart failure of New York Heart Association class III and a previous heart failure hospitalisation, irrespective of ejection fraction. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to haemodynamic monitoring (CardioMEMS-HF system, Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, IL, USA) or standard care. All patients were scheduled to be seen by their clinician at 3 months and 6 months, and every 6 months thereafter, up to 48 months. The primary endpoint was the mean difference in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) overall summary score at 12 months. All analyses were by intention-to-treat. This trial was prospectively registered under the clinical trial registration number NTR7673 (NL7430) on the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform., Findings: Between April 1, 2019, and Jan 14, 2022, we randomly assigned 348 patients to either the CardioMEMS-HF group (n=176 [51%]) or the control group (n=172 [49%]). The median age was 69 years (IQR 61-75) and median ejection fraction was 30% (23-40). The difference in mean change in KCCQ overall summary score at 12 months was 7·13 (95% CI 1·51-12·75; p=0·013) between groups (+7·05 in the CardioMEMS group, p=0·0014, and -0·08 in the standard care group, p=0·97). In the responder analysis, the odds ratio (OR) of an improvement of at least 5 points in KCCQ overall summary score was OR 1·69 (95% CI 1·01-2·83; p=0·046) and the OR of a deterioration of at least 5 points was 0·45 (0·26-0·77; p=0·0035) in the CardioMEMS-HF group compared with in the standard care group. The freedom of device-related or system-related complications and sensor failure were 97·7% and 98·8%, respectively., Interpretation: Haemodynamic monitoring substantially improved quality of life and reduced heart failure hospitalisations in patients with moderate-to-severe heart failure treated according to contemporary guidelines. These findings contribute to the aggregate evidence for this technology and might have implications for guideline recommendations and implementation of remote pulmonary artery pressure monitoring., Funding: The Dutch Ministry of Health, Health Care Institute (Zorginstituut), and Abbott Laboratories., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests JJB received an independent research grant from Abbott for investigator-initiated studies to the hospital and reports speaker engagement or advisory board fees from Astra Zeneca, Abbott, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, and Vifor. CAdF received consulting or speaker fees from Astra Zeneca, Abbott, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Philips, and Servier. CJWB served on advisory boards, or had speaker engagements with Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novartis. HPB-LR reports unrestricted research grants from Vifor, Novartis, and Roche Diagnostics, and reports consultancy fees and payments for lectures from Vifor, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, and Roche Diagnostic. RAdB has received research grants or fees from AstraZeneca, Abbott, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cardior Pharmaceuticals, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Novo Nordisk, and Roche; and has had speaker engagements with Abbott, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, and Roche. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Both patients with obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) and patients with peripheral arterial disease (PADs) have an increased bleeding risk. Information is scarce on bleeding in CAD patients, treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), who have comorbid PADs. We assessed whether PCI patients with PADs have a higher bleeding risk than PCI patients without PADs. Furthermore, in PCI patients with PADs we evaluated the extent by which bleeding increased the risk of further adverse events., Methods: Three-year pooled patient-level data of two randomized PCI trials (BIO-RESORT, BIONYX) with drug-eluting stents were analyzed to assess mortality and the composite endpoint major adverse cardiac events (MACE: all-cause mortality, any myocardial infarction, emergent coronary artery bypass surgery, or target lesion revascularization)., Results: Among 5989 all-comer patients, followed for 3 years, bleeding occurred in 7.7% (34/440) with comorbid PADs and 5.0% (279/5549) without PADs (HR: 1.59, 95%CI: 1.11-2.23, p = 0.010). Of all PADs patients, those with a bleeding had significantly higher rates of all-cause mortality (HR: 4.70, 95%CI: 2.37-9.33, p < 0.001) and MACE (HR: 2.39, 95%CI: 1.23-4.31, p = 0.003). Furthermore, PADs patients with a bleeding were older (74.4 ± 6.9 vs. 67.4 ± 9.5, p < 0.001). After correction for age and other potential confounders, bleeding remained independently associated with all-cause mortality (adj.HR: 2.97, 95%CI: 1.37-6.43, p = 0.006) while the relation of bleeding with MACE became borderline non-significant (adj.HR: 1.85, 95%CI: 0.97-3.55, p = 0.06)., Conclusion: PCI patients with PADs had a higher bleeding risk than PCI patients without PADs. In PADs patients, bleeding was associated with all-cause mortality, even after adjustment for potential confounders., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: A considerable number of patients who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) also have peripheral arterial disease (PAD) - a signal of more advanced atherosclerosis. After bare metal and early-generation drug-eluting coronary stent implantation, PAD patients showed inferior outcome. As stents and medical treatment were further improved, we aimed to assess the impact of PAD on outcome of PCI with contemporary new-generation stents., Methods: We analyzed 3-year pooled patient-level data from 4 large-scale randomized new-generation stent trials to compare all-comer patients with and without (core lab-verified) history of symptomatic PAD, defined as obstructive lesions in peripheral locations including lower and upper extremities, carotid, vertebral, mesenteric and renal arteries. Main endpoint was target vessel failure: cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or clinically indicated target vessel revascularization., Results: Of all 9204 patients, 695 (7.6%) had a history of symptomatic PAD. They were older and had more often diabetes, renal failure, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and prior stroke. PAD was an independent risk factor for target vessel failure (adjusted-HR:1.42, 95%-CI:1.12-1.73, p = 0.001). Target vessel revascularization (adjusted-HR:1.37, 95%-CI:1.04-1.80, p = 0.026), death (adjusted-HR:1.52, 95%-CI:1.17-1.99, p = 0.002), and major adverse cardiovascular event risks (adjusted-HR:1.36, 95%-CI:1.13-1.64, p = 0.001) were also substantially higher., Conclusions: A history of symptomatic PAD still allows to simply identify patients with increased risk of unfavorable clinical outcome after PCI, including a higher risk of repeated coronary revascularization, despite using contemporary stents. In clinical practice, this knowledge about higher event risks of PAD patients is helpful both during Heart Team discussions and when informing patients about the procedural risk., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patients with diabetes have more extensive coronary disease, resulting in higher risks of adverse clinical events following stenting. In all-comer patients, contemporary DES have shown excellent safety and efficacy, but data on diabetic patients are scarce. Separately for the BIO-RESORT and BIONYX trials, we assessed the 2-year clinical outcomes of diabetic patients, treated with various contemporary drug-eluting stents (DES)., Methods: We performed two prespecified secondary analyses of two randomized DES trials, which both stratified for diabetes. The main endpoint was target vessel failure (TVF), a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization. Follow-up was finished before the COVID-19 pandemic., Results: In BIO-RESORT, 624/3514 (17.8%) had diabetes: 211 received Orsiro sirolimus-eluting stents (SES), 203 Synergy everolimus-eluting stents (EES), and 210 Resolute Integrity zotarolimus-eluting stents (RI-ZES). TVF did not differ between SES (10.2%) and EES (10.0%) versus RI-ZES (12.7%) (SES vs. RI-ZES HR:0.78, 95%-CI [0.44-1.40]; p = 0.40, EES vs. RI-ZES HR:0.79, 95%-CI [0.44-1.40]; p = 0.42). In BIONYX, 510/2488 (20.5%) patients had diabetes: 250 received SES and 260 Resolute Onyx zotarolimus-eluting stents (RO-ZES). There was no difference in TVF between SES (10.7%) versus RO-ZES (12.2%) (HR:0.88, 95%-CI [0.52-1.48]; p = 0.63)., Conclusions: There was no difference in 2-year clinical outcome among patients with diabetes, who were treated with SES, or EES, versus RI-ZES. In addition there was no difference in clinical outcome in diabetic patients, who were treated with SES versus RO-ZES. These findings may be considered as a signal of safety and efficacy of the studied DES in patients with diabetes., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest CvB reports that the research department of Thoraxcentrum Twente has received research grants provided by Abbott Vascular, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. All other authors declared that they have no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is common in chronic heart failure (HF) patients and influences the choice and effects of drug and device therapy. In this large real-world HF registry, we studied whether the presence of AF affects the prescription of guideline-recommended HF therapy., Methods: We analyzed 8253 patients with chronic HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) from 34 Dutch outpatient clinics included in the period between 2013 and 2016 treated according to the 2012 ESC guidelines., Results: 2109 (25.6%) of these patients were in AF (mean age 76.8 ± 9.2 years, 65.0% were men) and 6.144 (74.4%) had no AF (mean age 70.7 ± 12.2 years, 63.6% were men). Patients with AF more often received beta-blockers (81.7% vs. 79.7%, p = 0.04), MRAs (57.1% vs. 51.7%, p < 0.01), diuretics (89.7% vs. 80.6%, p < 0.01) and digoxin (40.1% vs. 9.3%, p < 0.01) compared to patients without AF, whereas they less often receive renin-angiotensin-system (RAS)-inhibitors (76.1% vs. 83.1%, p < 0.01). The number of patients who received beta-blockers, RAS-inhibitor and MRA at ≥50% of the recommended target dose was comparable between those with and without AF (16.6% vs. 15.2%, p = 0.07)., Conclusion: In this large cohort of chronic HFrEF patients, the prevalence of AF was high and we observed significant differences in prescription of both guideline-recommended HF between patients with and without AF., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest All authors report no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess 2-year safety and efficacy of the current-generation thin composite-wire-strut durable-polymer Resolute Onyx zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES), compared with the ultrathin-strut biodegradable-polymer Orsiro sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) in all-comers and a pre-specified small-vessel subgroup analysis., Background: The Resolute Onyx ZES is widely used in clinical practice, but no follow-up data beyond 1 year have been published. The randomized BIONYX (Bioresorbable Polymer-Coated Orsiro Versus Durable Polymer-Coated Resolute Onyx Stents) trial (NCT02508714) established the noninferiority of ZES versus SES regarding target vessel failure (TVF) rates., Methods: A total of 2,488 all-comer patients were treated at 7 coronary intervention centers in Belgium, Israel, and the Netherlands. The main endpoint, TVF, was a composite of safety (cardiac death or target vessel-related myocardial infarction) and efficacy (clinically indicated target vessel revascularization). Two-year follow-up data were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier methods., Results: Two-year follow-up data were available for 2,460 of 2,488 patients (98.9%). TVF occurred in 93 of 1,243 patients (7.6%) assigned to ZES versus 87 of 1,245 patients (7.1%) assigned to SES (log-rank p = 0.66). There was no significant between-stent difference in individual components of this endpoint. The incidence of definite-or-probable stent thrombosis was low for both treatment arms (0.4% vs. 1.1%; log-rank p = 0.057). In patients stented in small vessels, there was no between-stent difference (TVF 8.2% vs. 8.7% [log-rank p = 0.75], target lesion revascularization 4.0% vs. 4.4% [log-rank p = 0.77])., Conclusions: At 2-year follow-up, the novel thin composite-wire-strut durable-polymer Resolute Onyx ZES showed in all-comers similar safety and efficacy compared with the ultrathin cobalt-chromium-strut biodegradable-polymer Orsiro SES. The analysis of patients who were treated in small vessels also suggested no advantage for either stent., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study sought to assess 2-year clinical outcome following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with thin-strut new-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients treated in proximal left anterior descending artery (P-LAD) versus non-P-LAD lesions., Background: In current revascularization guidelines, P-LAD coronary artery stenosis is discussed separately, mainly because of a higher adverse event risk and benefits of bypass surgery., Methods: The study included 6,037 patients without previous bypass surgery or left main stem involvement from the TWENTE I, II, and III randomized trials. A total of 1,607 (26.6%) patients had at least 1 DES implanted in P-LAD and were compared with 4,430 (73.4%) patients who were exclusively treated in other (non-P-LAD) segments., Results: Two-year follow-up was available in 5,995 (99.3%) patients. At baseline, P-LAD patients had more multivessel treatment and longer total stent length. The rate of the patient-oriented composite clinical endpoint (any death, any myocardial infarction, or any revascularization) was similar in P-LAD versus non-P-LAD patients (11.4% vs. 11.6%; p = 0.87). In P-LAD patients, the rate of the device-oriented composite clinical endpoint (cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization) was higher (7.6% vs. 6.0%; p = 0.020), driven by a higher rate of target vessel myocardial infarction (4.1% vs. 2.6%; p = 0.002). However, multivariate analysis showed no independent association between stenting P-LAD lesions and clinical endpoints., Conclusions: In this patient-level pooled analysis of 3 large-scale contemporary DES trials, treatment of P-LAD lesions was not independently associated with higher 2-year adverse clinical event rates. These results imply that separate consideration in future revascularization guidelines may not be mandatory any longer., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the 3-year safety and efficacy of treating all-comer patients with 3 contemporary drug-eluting stents (DES)., Background: The BIO-RESORT (Comparison of Biodegradable Polymer and Durable Polymer Drug-Eluting Stents in an All Comers Population) (TWENTE III) randomized trial (NCT01674803) found similar 1-year safety and efficacy for the 2 biodegradable-polymer DES (i.e., ultrathin-strut cobalt-chromium Orsiro sirolimus-eluting stent [SES] and very-thin-strut platinum-chromium Synergy everolimus-eluting stent) compared with the durable-polymer thin-strut cobalt-chromium Resolute Integrity zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES). Two-year follow-up suggested that the SES might reduce repeat revascularizations beyond 1 year compared with the ZES., Methods: A total of 3,514 all-comer patients were treated at 4 centers for coronary intervention. The main clinical endpoint, target vessel failure, was a composite of safety (cardiac death or target vessel-related myocardial infarction) and efficacy (target vessel revascularization). Secondary endpoints included the individual components of target vessel failure and stent thrombosis., Results: Three-year follow-up data were available for 3,393 of 3,514 patients (96.6%). Target vessel failure occurred in 8.5% with SES and 10.0% with ZES (p log rank  = 0.22) and in 8.8% with everolimus-eluting stents (vs. ZES, p log rank  = 0.32). Rates of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization were similar between stent groups. Landmark analyses found no statistically significant between-stent difference in repeat revascularization between 1 and 3 years. Definite or probable stent thrombosis rates were low (SES, 1.1%; everolimus-eluting stent, 1.1%; ZES, 0.9%) and similar with all 3 DES., Conclusions: Despite substantial differences in stent backbone and polymer coating, all 3 DES showed favorable 3-year safety and efficacy in all comers, without significant between-stent differences. Further follow-up is required to definitely answer the question of whether one stent might improve clinical outcomes at a later stage., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: During the past decade, many patients had zotarolimus-eluting stents implanted, which had circular shape cobalt-chromium struts with limited radiographic visibility. The Resolute Onyx stent was developed to improve visibility while reducing strut thickness, which was achieved by using a novel composite wire with a dense platinum-iridium core and an outer cobalt-chromium layer. We did the first randomised clinical trial to assess the safety and efficacy of this often-used stent compared with the Orsiro stent, which consists of ultrathin cobalt-chromium struts., Methods: We did an investigator-initiated, assessor-blinded and patient-blinded, randomised non-inferiority trial in an allcomers population at seven independently monitored centres in Belgium, Israel, and the Netherlands. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older and required percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents. After guide wire passage with or without predilation, members of the catheterisation laboratory team used web-based computer-generated allocation sequences to randomly assign patients (1:1) to either the Resolute Onyx or the Orsiro stent. Randomisation was stratified by sex and diabetes status. Patients and assessors were masked to allocated stents, but treating clinicians were not. The primary endpoint was target vessel failure at 1 year, a composite of cardiac death, target-vessel-related myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularisation, and was assessed by intention to treat (non-inferiority margin 2·5%) on the basis of outcomes adjudicated by an independent event committee. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02508714., Findings: Between Oct 7, 2015, and Dec 23, 2016, 2516 patients were enrolled, 2488 of whom were included in the intention-to-treat analysis (28 withdrawals or screening failures). 1243 participants were assigned to the Resolute Onyx group, and 1245 to the Orsiro group. Overall, 1765 (70·9%) participants presented with acute coronary syndromes and 1275 (51·2%) had myocardial infarctions. 1-year follow-up was available for 2478 (99·6%) patients. The primary endpoint was met by 55 (4·5%) patients in the Resolute Onyx group and 58 (4·7%) in the Orsiro group. Non-inferiority of Resolute Onyx to Orsiro was thus established (absolute risk difference -0·2% [95% CI -1·9 to 1·4]; upper limit of the one-sided 95% CI 1·1%; p non-inferiority =0·0005). Definite or probable stent thrombosis occurred in one (0·1%) participant in the Resolute Onyx group and nine (0·7%) in the Orsiro group (hazard ratio 0·11 [95% CI 0·01-0·87]; p=0·0112)., Interpretation: The Resolute Onyx stent was non-inferior to Orsiro for a combined safety and efficacy endpoint at 1-year follow-up in allcomers. The low event rate in both groups suggests that both stents are safe, and the very low rate of stent thrombosis in the Resolute Onyx group warrants further clinical investigation., Funding: Biotronik and Medtronic., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The prospective observational CHANGE DAPT study compared clopidogrel versus ticagrelor-based dual antiplatelet (DAPT) regimens in consecutive patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with contemporary drug-eluting stents (DES). During the ticagrelor period (TP, May 2014-August 2015) there were more major bleedings than during the clopidogrel period (CP, December 2012-April 2014)., Methods and Results: To evaluate whether the excess of major bleedings during TP may be limited to high bleeding risk (HBR) patients, we performed an explorative analysis of all 2062 CHANGE DAPT participants, of whom 547(26.5%) were classified as HBR (CP, n = 245; TP, n = 302). In HBR and non-HBR patients, we assessed the impact of CP versus TP on propensity score-adjusted rates of major bleeding and a pre-defined ischemic endpoint (composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) at 1-year follow-up. Among HBR patients, the rate of major bleeding was significantly higher during TP (1.7% vs. 5.0%; HR adjusted 3.70 [95% CI 1.18-11.67], p = 0.03), while there was no significant difference in the ischemic endpoint (6.6% vs. 8.0%, HR adjusted 1.23 [95% CI 0.63-2.42], p = 0.54). In non-HBR patients, the rates of major bleeding (1.1% vs. 1.7%; HR adjusted 2.13 [95% CI 0.84-5.43], p = 0.11) and the ischemic endpoint (2.8% vs. 3.4%, HR adjusted 1.38 [95% CI 0.74-2.57], p = 0.32) were similar between both periods., Conclusions: Among consecutive ACS patients, the increased risk of major bleeding during ticagrelor-based DAPT was limited to HBR patients. In both HBR and non-HBR patients, ticagrelor-based DAPT did not reduce ischemic outcomes following treatment with contemporary DES implantation., (Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study sought to assess the prevalence and clinical impact of silent diabetes and pre-diabetes in "nondiabetic" percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) all-comers., Background: Patients with undetected and thus untreated (silent) diabetes may have higher event risks after PCI with contemporary drug-eluting stents (DES)., Methods: The BIO-RESORT Silent Diabetes study, performed at Thoraxcentrum Twente, is a substudy of the randomized multicenter BIO-RESORT (BIOdegradable Polymer and DuRable Polymer Drug-eluting Stents in an All COmeRs PopulaTion) trial (NCT01674803). Patients underwent oral glucose tolerance testing (OGTT), and assessment of glycosylated hemoglobin with fasting plasma glucose. Primary endpoint was a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization at 1 year., Results: Of the 988 participants, OGTT detected silent diabetes in 68 (6.9%), pre-diabetes in 133 (13.3%), and normal glucose metabolism in 788 (79.8%). Patients with silent diabetes had higher primary endpoint rates (13.2% vs. 7.6% vs. 4.8%; p < 0.001; silent diabetes vs. normal: hazard ratio: 4.2; 95% confidence interval: 1.9 to 9.2). Differences were driven by myocardial infarction (p < 0.001) which occurred mostly <48 h. Based on glycosylated hemoglobin and fasting plasma glucose, silent diabetes was found in 33 (3.3%) patients, pre-diabetes in 217 (22.0%) patients, and normal glucose metabolism in 738 (74.7%) patients; primary endpoint rates were similar to OGTT-based analyses (12.1% vs. 5.5% vs. 3.1%; p = 0.01). Multivariate analyses demonstrated that abnormal glucose metabolism by either diagnostic approach, present in 330 (33.4%) patients, independently predicted adverse event risk (hazard ratio: 2.2; 95% confidence interval: 1.2 to 4.2)., Conclusions: Abnormal glucose metabolism was detected in 1 of 3 "nondiabetic" PCI patients and was independently associated with up to 4-fold higher event risks. Future intervention trials should determine whether meaningful benefits accrue from routine glycemia testing in such patients., (Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The study sought to evaluate for the first time the 5-year outcomes after treating an all-comers population with newer-generation cobalt chromium-based Resolute Integrity zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZES) (Medtronic, Santa Rosa, California) versus platinum chromium-based PROMUS Element everolimus eluting stents (EES) (Boston Scientific, Natick, Massachusetts)., Background: The DUTCH PEERS (TWENTE II) (DUrable polymer-based sTent CHallenge of Promus ElemEnt versus ReSolute integrity: TWENTE II) trial is a randomized, multicenter, single-blinded, investigator-initiated all-comers trial that found at its main analysis similar 1-year safety and efficacy for both drug-eluting stents. It is the first randomized trial ever to investigate the Resolute Integrity ZES and the first trial to compare both devices., Methods: In total, 1,811 patients were 1:1 randomized to ZES versus EES. We performed a pre-specified assessment of the 5-year clinical outcomes in terms of safety and efficacy. The main endpoint target vessel failure (TVF) is a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization. Secondary endpoints included the individual components of TVF, and stent thrombosis. The study was independently monitored, and adverse clinical events were independently adjudicated., Results: Five-year clinical follow-up data was available in 1,798 (99.3%) patients. The ZES and EES groups showed favorable outcomes, with similar 5-year incidence of TVF (13.2% vs. 14.2%; p log-rank  = 0.62) and its individual components: cardiac death (4.5% vs. 4.9%; p log-rank  = 0.69), target vessel-related myocardial infarction (3.1% vs. 2.6%; p log-rank  = 0.47), and target vessel revascularization (7.6% vs. 8.6%; p log-rank  = 0.46). The 5-year incidence of definite or probable stent thrombosis was similar (1.5% vs. 1.3%; p log-rank  = 0.83)., Conclusions: At 5-year follow-up, the Resolute Integrity ZES and PROMUS Element EES showed similar and sustained results in terms of safety and efficacy for treating a broad population of all-comers., (Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To describe the adaptation of a global health economic model to determine whether treatment with the angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor LCZ696 is cost effective compared with the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor enalapril in adult patients with chronic heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction in the Netherlands; and to explore the effect of performing the cost-effectiveness analyses according to the new pharmacoeconomic Dutch guidelines (updated during the submission process of LCZ696), which require a value-of-information analysis and the inclusion of indirect medical costs of life-years gained., Methods: We adapted a UK model to reflect the societal perspective in the Netherlands by including travel expenses, productivity loss, informal care costs, and indirect medical costs during the life-years gained and performed a preliminary value-of-information analysis., Results: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio obtained was €17,600 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. This was robust to changes in most structural assumptions and across different subgroups of patients. Probability sensitivity analysis results showed that the probability that LCZ696 is cost-effective at a €50,000 per QALY threshold is 99.8%, with a population expected value of perfect information of €297,128. On including indirect medical costs of life-years gained, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €26,491 per QALY gained, and LCZ696 was 99.46% cost effective at €50,000 per QALY, with a population expected value of perfect information of €2,849,647., Conclusions: LCZ696 is cost effective compared with enalapril under the former and current Dutch guidelines. However, the (monetary) consequences of making a wrong decision were considerably different in both scenarios., (Copyright © 2017 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In patients with coronary artery disease, treated with durable polymer-coated drug-eluting stents, the life-long presence of the polymer might delay arterial healing. Novel very thin strut biodegradable polymer stents, which leave only a bare metal stent after polymer resorption, might improve long-term outcome. We investigated in allcomers the safety and efficacy of three stents eluting either everolimus, sirolimus, or zotarolimus, often clinically used but never compared, of which the biodegradable polymer everolimus-eluting stent was never before assessed in allcomers., Methods: The large-scale, investigator-initiated, multicentre, assessor and patient blinded, three-arm, randomised, BIO-RESORT non-inferiority trial was done at four clinical sites in the Netherlands. All-comer patients were aged 18 years or older, capable of providing informed consent, and required a percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stent implantation according to clinical guidelines or the operators' judgment. Exclusion criteria were: participation in another randomised drug or device study before reaching the primary endpoint of that study; planned surgery necessitating interruption of dual antiplatelet therapy within the first 6 months; known intolerance to components of the investigational product or medication required; uncertainty about the adherence to follow-up procedures or an assumed life expectancy of less than 1 year; or known pregnancy. Web-based computer-generated allocation sequences randomly assigned patients (1:1:1) to treatment with very thin strut biodegradable polymer everolimus-eluting or sirolimus-eluting stents (which differ substantially in type, amount, distribution, and resorption speed of their respective coating), or thin strut durable polymer zotarolimus-eluting stents. The primary endpoint was a composite of safety (cardiac death or target vessel-related myocardial infarction) and efficacy (target vessel revascularisation) at 12 months of follow up with a very thin strut biodegradable polymer of either everolimus-eluting or sirolimus-eluting stents, compared with durable polymer zotarolimus-eluting stents, analysed by intention to treat (non-inferiority margin 3·5%). This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01674803., Findings: From Dec 21, 2012, to Aug 24, 2015, 3514 patients were enrolled and analysed, of whom 2449 (70%) had acute coronary syndromes, which included 1073 (31%) ST-elevation myocardial infarctions. 12 month follow-up of 3490 (99%) patients (three lost to follow-up; 21 withdrawals) was available. The primary endpoint was met by 55 (5%) of 1172 patients assigned to everolimus-eluting stents, 55 (5%) of 1169 assigned to sirolimus-eluting stents and 63 (5%) of 1173 assigned to zotarolimus-eluting stents. Non-inferiority of the everolimus-eluting stents and sirolimus-eluting stents compared with zotarolimus-eluting stents was confirmed (both -0·7% absolute risk difference, 95% CI -2·4 to 1·1; upper limit of one sided 95% CI 0·8%, p non-inferiority <0·0001). Definite stent thrombosis (defined by the Academic Research Consortium) occurred in four (0·3%) of 1172 patients who were allocated to everolimus-eluting stents, four (0·3%) of 1169 patients who were allocated to sirolimus-eluting stents, and three (0·3%) of 1173 patients who were allocated to zotarolimus-eluting stents (log-rank p=0·70 for both comparisons with zotarolimus-eluting stents)., Interpretation: At 12 month follow-up, both very thin strut drug-eluting stents with dissimilar biodegradable polymer coatings (eluting either everolimus or sirolimus) were non-inferior to the durable polymer stent (eluting zotarolimus) in treating allcomers with a high proportion of patients with acute coronary syndromes. The absence of a loss of 1 year safety and efficacy with the use of these two biodegradable polymer-coated stents is a prerequisite before assessing their potential longer-term benefits., Funding: Biotronik, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)