Search

BACKGROUND In patients with coronary artery disease who receive metallic drug-eluting coronary stents, adverse events such as late target-lesion failure may be related in part to the persistent presence of the metallic stent frame in the coronary-vessel wall. Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds have been developed to attempt to improve longterm outcomes. METHODS In this large, multicenter, randomized trial, 2008 patients with stable or unstable angina were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular (Absorb) scaffold (1322 patients) or an everolimus-eluting cobalt–chromium (Xience) stent (686 patients). The primary end point, which was tested for both noninferiority (margin, 4.5 percentage points for the risk difference) and superiority, was target-lesion failure (cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization) at 1 year. RESULTS Target-lesion failure at 1 year occurred in 7.8% of patients in the Absorb group and in 6.1% of patients in the Xience group (difference, 1.7 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, −0.5 to 3.9; P = 0.007 for noninferiority and P = 0.16 for superiority). There was no significant difference between the Absorb group and the Xience group in rates of cardiac death (0.6% and 0.1%, respectively; P = 0.29), targetvessel myocardial infarction (6.0% and 4.6%, respectively; P = 0.18), or ischemiadriven target-lesion revascularization (3.0% and 2.5%, respectively; P = 0.50). Device thrombosis within 1 year occurred in 1.5% of patients in the Absorb group and in 0.7% of patients in the Xience group (P = 0.13). CONCLUSIONS In this large-scale, randomized trial, treatment of noncomplex obstructive coronary artery disease with an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold, as compared with an everolimus-eluting cobalt–chromium stent, was within the prespecified margin for noninferiority with respect to target-lesion failure at 1 year. (Funded by Abbott Vascular; ABSORB III ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01751906.)

Udgivelsesdato: 2008-May-22 BACKGROUND: We hypothesized that percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) preceded by early treatment with abciximab plus half-dose reteplase (combination-facilitated PCI) or with abciximab alone (abciximab-facilitated PCI) would improve outcomes in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, as compared with abciximab administered immediately before the procedure (primary PCI). METHODS: In this international, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, we randomly assigned patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction who presented 6 hours or less after the onset of symptoms to receive combination-facilitated PCI, abciximab-facilitated PCI, or primary PCI. All patients received unfractionated heparin or enoxaparin before PCI and a 12-hour infusion of abciximab after PCI. The primary end point was the composite of death from all causes, ventricular fibrillation occurring more than 48 hours after randomization, cardiogenic shock, and congestive heart failure during the first 90 days after randomization. RESULTS: A total of 2452 patients were randomly assigned to a treatment group. Significantly more patients had early ST-segment resolution with combination-facilitated PCI (43.9%) than with abciximab-facilitated PCI (33.1%) or primary PCI (31.0%; P=0.01 and P=0.003, respectively). The primary end point occurred in 9.8%, 10.5%, and 10.7% of the patients in the combination-facilitated PCI group, abciximab-facilitated PCI group, and primary-PCI group, respectively (P=0.55); 90-day mortality rates were 5.2%, 5.5%, and 4.5%, respectively (P=0.49). CONCLUSIONS: Neither facilitation of PCI with reteplase plus abciximab nor facilitation with abciximab alone significantly improved the clinical outcomes, as compared with abciximab given at the time of PCI, in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00046228 [ClinicalTrials.gov].)

Restenosis after coronary stenting necessitates repeated percutaneous or surgical revascularization procedures. The delivery of paclitaxel to the site of vascular injury may reduce the incidence of neointimal hyperplasia and restenosis.At 73 U.S. centers, we enrolled 1314 patients who were receiving a stent in a single, previously untreated coronary-artery stenosis (vessel diameter, 2.5 to 3.75 mm; lesion length, 10 to 28 mm) in a prospective, randomized, double-blind study. A total of 652 patients were randomly assigned to receive a bare-metal stent, and 662 to receive an identical-appearing, slow-release, polymer-based, paclitaxel-eluting stent. Angiographic follow-up was prespecified at nine months in 732 patients.In terms of base-line characteristics, the two groups were well matched. Diabetes mellitus was present in 24.2 percent of patients; the mean reference-vessel diameter was 2.75 mm, and the mean lesion length was 13.4 mm. A mean of 1.08 stents (length, 21.8 mm) were implanted per patient. The rate of ischemia-driven target-vessel revascularization at nine months was reduced from 12.0 percent with the implantation of a bare-metal stent to 4.7 percent with the implantation of a paclitaxel-eluting stent (relative risk, 0.39; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.26 to 0.59; P0.001). Target-lesion revascularization was required in 3.0 percent of the group that received a paclitaxel-eluting stent, as compared with 11.3 percent of the group that received a bare-metal stent (relative risk, 0.27; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.16 to 0.43; P0.001). The rate of angiographic restenosis was reduced from 26.6 percent to 7.9 percent with the paclitaxel-eluting stent (relative risk, 0.30; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.19 to 0.46; P0.001). The nine-month composite rates of death from cardiac causes or myocardial infarction (4.7 percent and 4.3 percent, respectively) and stent thrombosis (0.6 percent and 0.8 percent, respectively) were similar in the group that received a paclitaxel-eluting stent and the group that received a bare-metal stent.As compared with bare-metal stents, the slow-release, polymer-based, paclitaxel-eluting stent is safe and markedly reduces the rates of clinical and angiographic restenosis at nine months.

Although the frequency of restenosis after coronary angioplasty is reduced by stenting, when restenosis develops within a stent, the risk of subsequent restenosis is greater than 50 percent. We report on a multicenter, double-blind, randomized trial of intracoronary radiation therapy for the treatment of in-stent restenosis.Of 252 eligible patients in whom in-stent restenosis had developed, 131 were randomly assigned to receive an indwelling intracoronary ribbon containing a sealed source of iridium-192, and 121 were assigned to receive a similar-appearing nonradioactive ribbon (placebo).The primary end point, a composite of death, myocardial infarction, and the need for repeated revascularization of the target lesion during nine months of follow-up, occurred in 53 patients assigned to placebo (43.8 percent) and 37 patients assigned to iridium-192 (28.2 percent, P=0.02). However, the reduction in the incidence of major adverse cardiac events was determined solely by a diminished need for revascularization of the target lesion, not by reductions in the incidence of death or myocardial infarction. Late thrombosis occurred in 5.3 percent of the iridium-192 group, as compared with 0.8 percent of the placebo group (P=0.07), resulting in more late myocardial infarctions in the iridium-192 group (9.9 percent vs. 4.1 percent, P=0.09). Late thrombosis occurred in irradiated patients only after the discontinuation of oral antiplatelet therapy (with ticlopidine or clopidogrel) and only in patients who had received new stents at the time of radiation treatment.Intracoronary irradiation with iridium-192 resulted in lower rates of clinical and angiographic restenosis, although it was also associated with a higher rate of late thrombosis, resulting in an increased risk of myocardial infarction. If the problem of late thrombosis within the stent can be overcome, intracoronary irradiation with iridium-192 may become a useful approach to the treatment of in-stent restenosis.

The broad goals of treatment for patients with coronary artery disease are improvement in survival and a reduction in the risk of myocardial infarction and symptoms of coronary disease. The circumstances under which revascularization with the use of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or bypass surgery is needed, and the optimal means of providing revascularization for patients with multivessel coronary disease, remain enigmatic. Much of our evidence base is badly outdated.1,2 Fortunately, several large clinical trials are under way, and early results of some of these trials are available. For example, the 1-year results of the SYNTAX (Synergy between Percutaneous . . .

Background Inhibition of the platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor with the monoclonal-antibody fragment abciximab reduces the acute ischemic complications associated with percutaneous coronary revascularization, whereas coronary-stent implantation reduces restenosis. We conducted a trial to determine the efficacy of abciximab and stent implantation in improving long-term outcome. Methods A total of 2399 patients were randomly assigned to stent implantation and placebo, stent implantation and abciximab, or balloon angioplasty and abciximab. The patients were followed for six months. Results At six months, the incidence of the composite end point of death or myocardial infarction was 11.4 percent in the group that received a stent and placebo, as compared with 5.6 percent in the group that received a stent and abciximab (hazard ratio, 0.47; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.33 to 0.68; P

Background Directional coronary atherectomy is a new technique of coronary revascularization by which atherosclerotic plaque is excised and retrieved from target lesions. With respect to the rate of restenosis and clinical outcomes, it is not known how this procedure compares with balloon angioplasty, which relies on dilation of the plaque and vessel wall. We compared the rate of restenosis after angioplasty with that after atherectomy. Methods At 35 sites in the United States and Europe, 1012 patients were randomly assigned to either atherectomy (512 patients) or angioplasty (500 patients). The patients underwent coronary angiography at base line and again after six months; the paired angiograms were quantitatively assessed at one laboratory by investigators unaware of the treatment assignments. Results Stenosis was reduced to 50 percent or less more often with atherectomy than with angioplasty (89 percent vs. 80 percent, P