Search

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.)

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.)

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.)

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.)

Objectives: The SYNTAX score (Ssc) assessing the complexity of coronary anatomy predicts survival after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We tested the hypothesis that the newly developed euroSCORE II (eSC2) can improve the prediction of outcome after complex PCI by the Ssc., Methods and Results: Our study comprised 1262 consecutive patients with triple vessel disease or left main stenosis, who were contacted 3 years after elective PCI with drug-eluting stents. We calculated eSC2, Ssc, logistic euroSCORE, and ACEF score. Prediction of 3-year all-cause mortality by these scores was assessed by Cox proportional hazard models. Models were compared by the Hosmer-Lemeshow test for calibration (HL), the C-statistics (AUC) for discrimination and by net reclassification indices (NRI). eSC2 and Ssc were significant predictors of 3-year mortality (unadjusted hazard ratios [95%-confidence limits], 1.050 [1.033-1.067], 1.180 [1.146-1.215], respectively, P<0.001). The predictive value of eSC2 was improved by logarithmic transformation. Adding eSC2 to the model with Ssc improved calibration (HL 7.4 vs. 11.1) and discrimination (increase in AUC [95%-confidence limits] 0.12 [0.07 to 0.17]) and yielded a significant NRI of 0.38 (95%-confidence limits 0.28 to 0.47). The absolute difference in 3-year mortality between strata of Ssc (≤22, >22-32, >32) was smaller with eSC2<1% (1.4%, 3.4%, 9.7%, respectively), than with eSC2>1.6% (11.2%, 20.2%, 30.6%, respectively). The predictive ability of eSC2 was similar to that of the other clinical scores., Conclusions: eSC2 predicts 3-year mortality after complex PCI and modifies the impact of angiographic complexity on outcome., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The best way to manage restenosis in patients who have previously received a drug-eluting stent is unknown. We investigated the efficacy of paclitaxel-eluting balloons (PEB), paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES), and balloon angioplasty in these patients., Methods: In this randomised, open-label trial, we enrolled patients older than 18 years with restenosis of at least 50% after implantation of any limus-eluting stent at three centres in Germany between Aug 3, 2009, and Oct 27, 2011. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1; stratified according to centre) to receive PEB, PES, or balloon angioplasty alone by means of sealed, opaque envelopes containing a computer-generated sequence. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment allocation, but events and angiograms were assessed by individuals who were masked. The primary endpoint was diameter stenosis at follow-up angiography at 6-8 months. Primary analysis was done by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00987324., Findings: We enrolled 402 patients, of whom 137 (34%) were assigned to PEB, 131 (33%) to PES, and 134 (33%) to balloon angioplasty. Follow-up angiography at 6-8 months was available for 338 (84%) patients. PEB was non-inferior to PES in terms of diameter stenosis (38·0% [SD 21·5] vs 37·4% [21·8]; difference 0·6%, one-sided 95% CI 4·9%; p(non-inferiority)=0·007; non-inferiority margin of 7%). Findings were consistent in per-protocol analysis (p(non-inferiority)=0·011). PEB and PES were superior to balloon angioplasty alone (54·1% [25·0]; p(superiority)<0·0001 for both comparisons). Frequency of death, myocardial infarction, or target lesion thrombosis did not differ between groups., Interpretation: By obviating the need for additional stent implantation, PEB could be a useful treatment for patients with restenosis after implantation of a drug-eluting stent., Funding: Deutsches Herzzentrum., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Vascular infection with Chlamydia pneumoniae might boost inflammatory responses that play a pivotal part in neointima formation, which is the main cause of restenosis after stenting. Our aim was to investigate whether or not treatment of C pneumoniae infection with antibiotics prevents restenosis after coronary stent placement., Methods: We enrolled 1010 consecutive patients with successful coronary stenting into a randomised, double-blind trial. Patients received the macrolide antibiotic roxithromycin 300 mg once daily for 28 days (506), or placebo (504). Primary endpoint was frequency of restenosis (diameter stenosis >50%) at follow-up angiography, and secondary endpoint was rate of target vessel revascularisation during the year after stenting. A prespecified secondary analysis addressed treatment effect with respect to titre of C pneumoniae in serum. Analysis was by intention to treat., Findings: Rate of angiographic restenosis was 31% (157 lesions) in the roxithromycin group and 29% (148) in the placebo group (relative risk 1.08 [95% CI 0.92-1.26]; p50.43), corresponding to a rate of target vessel revascularisation of 19% (120) and 17% (105), respectively (1.13 [0.95-1.36]; p50.30). The combined 1-year rates of death and myocardial infarction were 7% (36) in the roxithromycin group and 6% (30) in the placebo group (p50.45). We showed a significant interaction between treatment and C pneumoniae antibody titre (p50.038 for restenosis, p50.006 for revascularisation), favouring roxithromycin at high titres (adjusted odds ratios at a titre of 1/512 were 0.44 [0.19-1.06] and 0.32 [0.13-0.81], respectively)., Interpretation: Non-selective use of roxithromycin is inadequate for prevention of restenosis after coronary stenting. There is, however, a differential effect dependent on C pneumoniae titres. In patients with high titres, roxithromycin reduced the rate of restenosis.