Search

Background: Patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) might represent a specific subgroup, in which bioresorbable scaffold implantation in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), might lead to better outcomes when compared to conventional treatment with metallic drug eluting stents. In this prespecified subgroup analysis of the Amsterdam Investigator-Initiated Absorb Strategy All-Comers (AIDA) trial, we evaluated the clinical outcomes of Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) versus Xience everolimus eluting stent (EES) treated patients presenting either with or without ACS., Methods and Results: We classified AIDA patients on the basis of clinical presentation of ACS or of no-ACS. The rate of the 2-year primary endpoint of target vessel failure (TVF) was similar after treatment with Absorb BVS or Xience EES in ACS patients (10.2% versus 9.0% respectively; P = 0.49) and in no-ACS patients (11.7% versus 10.7%, respectively; P = 0.67) Definite or probable device thrombosis occurred more frequently with Absorb BVS compared to Xience EES in ACS patients (4.3% versus 1.7%, respectively, P = 0.03) as well as in no-ACS patients (2.4% versus 0.2%, respectively; P = 0.002). There were no statistically significant interactions between clinical presentation and randomized device modality for TVF (P = 0.80) and for the endpoint of definite or probable device thrombosis (P = 0.17)., Conclusion: In the AIDA trial, the 2-year outcomes of PCI with Absorb BVS versus Xience EES were consistent in ACS and no-ACS patients: similar rates for TVF and consistently higher rates of definite or probable stent thrombosis under Absorb BVS versus Xience EES. There were no statistically significant interactions between clinical presentation and randomized device modality., (© 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Objectives: This study sought to assess the efficacy and safety of a drug-coated balloon (DCB) strategy versus drug-eluting stent (DES) in primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI)., Background: In primary percutaneous coronary intervention for STEMI, stenting has proved to be beneficial with regard to repeat revascularization, but not recurrent myocardial infarction or death, compared with balloon angioplasty alone. A strategy of DCB angioplasty without stenting might abolish the potential disadvantages of stent implantation while reducing the probability of restenosis observed in plain old balloon angioplasty., Methods: In the prospective, randomized, single-center REVELATION trial, we compared DCB with DES in patients presenting with STEMI. Patients with a new, nonseverely calcified culprit lesion in a native coronary artery and a residual stenosis of <50% after pre-dilatation were randomized to treatment with a DCB or DES. The primary endpoint was fractional flow reserve at 9 months, allowing for a functional measurement of the infarct-related lesion., Results: A total of 120 patients were included. At 9 months after enrolment, the mean fractional flow reserve value was 0.92 ± 0.05 in the DCB group (n = 35) and 0.91 ± 0.06 in the DES group (n = 38) (p = 0.27). One abrupt vessel closure requiring treatment occurred after treatment with DCB. Up to 9-months follow-up, 2 patients required nonurgent target lesion revascularization (1 in each group)., Conclusions: In the setting of STEMI, the DCB strategy was noninferior to DES in terms of fractional flow reserve assessed at 9 months. Furthermore, it seemed to be a safe and feasible strategy. (Revascularization With Paclitaxel-Coated Balloon Angioplasty Versus Drug-Eluting Stenting in Acute Myocardial Infarction [REVELATION]; NCT02219802)., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aim: In primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), stenting has proved to reduce the need for repeat revascularization compared with balloon angioplasty alone. The incidence of cardiac death or recurrent myocardial infarction, though, is not reduced by stenting. This is in part attributable to stent-related complications like stent thrombosis which may occur even years after implantation. A strategy of drug coated balloon (DCB) angioplasty without stenting would abolish the potential disadvantages of stent implantation while reducing the probability of restenosis observed in plain old balloon angioplasty. Our aim is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a DCB only strategy versus drug-eluting stents (DES) in PPCI for STEMI., Study Design: The REVELATION trial is a prospective, single center, randomized study, in which 120 patients presenting with STEMI will be allocated to treatment with a DCB versus DES. Appertaining to the established prognostic value of fractional flow reserve (FFR) rather than angiographic lesion severity, the functional assessment of the infarct-related lesion by FFR at 9 months after initial treatment is the primary end point. Assuming an FFR value of 0.90 after stenting and an increased risk of adverse events if post-PCI FFR <0.85, we decided to accept an FFR value of ≥0.85 after DCB only at follow-up as noninferiority margin. Secondary end points include major adverse cardiac events up to 5-year follow-up., Conclusion: Our trial will address the efficacy and safety of DCB angioplasty versus DES in the setting of PPCI for STEMI. The REVELATION trial will introduce the recognized prognostic significance of physiologic assessment of the infarct-related lesion by FFR at 9 months follow-up as primary end point. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc., (© 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Background: Although current clinical guidelines recommend the use of thrombus aspiration (TA) during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI), previous studies evaluating TA demonstrated contradictory results. The aim of this study was to evaluate long-term clinical outcome after TA in adjunct to PPCI for acute ST-segment myocardial infarction (STEMI), as compared with conventional treatment, with the use of paclitaxel-eluting stents or bare-metal stents., Methods: We analyzed data of the PASSION trial, in which 619 patients with STEMI were randomly assigned to a paclitaxel-eluting stent or a bare-metal stent. TA was performed in 311 patients (50.2%). Clinical endpoints at 2 years were compared between patients who received TA during PPCI with patients who underwent conventional PPCI. The primary outcome of interest was a composite of cardiac death, recurrent myocardial infarction (MI), or target-lesion revascularization (TLR). A propensity score model was made to account for baseline differences that could have affected the probability of performing TA., Results: Complete follow-up was available for 598 patients (96.6%). The cumulative incidence of the combined outcome measure of cardiac death, recurrent MI, or TLR was 40 (13.0%) in the TA group and 41 (13.5%) in the conventional PPCI group (HR 0.96; 95% CI 0.62-1.47; P = 0.84). Also after adjusting for propensity score, no significant difference in event rate was observed between both treatment groups., Conclusions: In this post-hoc analysis of the PASSION trial, TA in adjunct to PPCI did not affect rates of major adverse cardiac events at 2 years follow-up, as compared with conventional PPCI., (Copyright © 2011 Wiley-Liss, Inc.)

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the long-term outcomes of the PASSION (Paclitaxel-Eluting Versus Conventional Stent in Myocardial Infarction with ST-Segment Elevation) trial., Background: In primary percutaneous coronary intervention for acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), the use of drug-eluting stents (DES) is still controversial. Several randomized controlled trials of DES, compared with bare-metal stents (BMS), with short-term follow-up showed a reduction in target lesion revascularization (TLR), but no differences in rates of cardiac death or recurrent myocardial infarction. Moreover, the occurrence of (very) late stent thrombosis (ST) continues to be of major concern, and, therefore, long-term follow-up results are needed., Methods: We randomly assigned 619 patients presenting with STEMI to a paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) or the similar BMS. The primary end point was the composite of cardiac death, recurrent myocardial infarction, or TLR. We performed clinical follow-up at 5 years., Results: At 5 years, the occurrence of the composite of cardiac death, recurrent myocardial infarction, or TLR was comparable at 18.6% versus 21.8% in PES and BMS, respectively (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.58 to 1.18, p = 0.28). The incidence of definite or probable ST was 12 (4.2%) in the PES group and 10 (3.4%) in the BMS group (HR: 1.19, 95% CI: 0.51 to 276, p = 0.68)., Conclusions: In the present analysis of PES compared with BMS in primary percutaneous coronary intervention for STEMI, no significant difference in major adverse cardiac events was observed. In addition, no difference in the incidence of definite or probable ST was seen, although very late ST was almost exclusively seen after the use of PES. (Paclitaxel-Eluting Versus Conventional Stent in Myocardial Infarction with ST-Segment Elevation [PASSION]; ISRCTN65027270)., (Copyright © 2011 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)