Search

AIMS: Early healing after drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation may reduce the risk of stent thrombosis. The aim of this study was to compare patterns of early healing after implantation of the thin strut everolimus-eluting Synergy DES (Boston Scientific) or the biolimus-eluting Biomatix Neoflex DES (Biosensors).METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 160 patients with the chronic or acute coronary syndrome were randomized 1:1 to Synergy or Biomatrix DES. Optical coherence tomography (OCT) was performed at baseline and at either 1- or 3-month follow-up. The primary endpoint was a coronary stent healing index (CSHI), a weighted index of strut coverage, neointimal hyperplasia, malapposition, and extrastent lumen. A total of 133 cases had OCT follow-up and 119 qualified for matched OCT analysis. The median CSHI score did neither differ significantly between the groups at 1 month: Synergy 8.0 (interquartile range [IQR]: 3.0; 14.0) versus Biomatrix 8.5 (IQR: 4.0; 15.0) (p = 0.47) nor at 3 months: Synergy 6.5 (IQR: 2.0; 13.0) versus Biomatrix 6.0 (IQR: 4.0; 11.0) (p = 0.83). Strut coverage was 84.6% (IQR: 72.0; 97.9) for Synergy versus 77.6% (IQR: 70.1; 90.3) for Biomatrix (p = 0.15) at 1 month and 90.3% (IQR 79.0; 98.8) (Synergy) versus 83.9% (IQR: 77.5; 92.6) (Biomatrix) (p = 0.068) at 3 months. Pooled 1- and 3-month coverage was 88.6% (IQR: 74.4; 98.4) for Synergy compared with 80.7% (IQR: 73.2; 90.8) for Biomatrix (p = 0.02).CONCLUSIONS: The early healing response after treatment with the Synergy or Biomatrix DES did not differ significantly as determined by a healing index. The Synergy DES showed overall better early stent strut coverage.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of the dual-therapy CD34 antibody-covered sirolimus-eluting Combo stent (DTS) and the sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent (O-SES) in patients with and without acute coronary syndrome (ACS) included in the SORT OUT X study.BACKGROUND: The incidence of target lesion failure (TLF) after treatment with modern drug-eluting stents has been reported to be significantly higher in patients with ACS when compared to patients without ACS. Whether the results from the SORT OUT X study apply to patients with and without ACS remains unknown.METHODS: In total, 3146 patients were randomized to stent implantation with DTS (n = 1578; ACS: n = 856) or O-SES (n = 1568; ACS: n = 854). The primary end point, TLF, was a composite of cardiac death, target-lesion myocardial infarction (MI), or target lesion revascularization (TLR) within 1 year.RESULTS: At 1 year, the rate of TLF was higher in the DTS group compared to the O-SES group, both among patients with ACS (6.7% vs. 4.1%; incidence rate ratio: 1.65 [95% confidence interval, CI: 1.08-2.52]) and without ACS (6.0% vs. 3.2%; incidence rate ratio: 1.88 [95% CI: 1.13-3.14]). The differences were mainly explained by higher rates of TLR, whereas rates of cardiac death and target lesion MI did not differ significantly between the two stent groups in patients with or without ACS CONCLUSION: Compared to the O-SES, the DTS was associated with a higher risk of TLF at 12 months in patients with and without ACS. The differences were mainly explained by higher rates of TLR.

Aims Standardized data definitions are necessary for the quantification of quality of care and patient outcomes in observational studies and randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The European Unified Registries for Heart Care Evaluation and Randomised Trials (EuroHeart) project of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) aims to create pan-European data standards for cardiovascular diseases and interventions, including transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Methods and results We followed the EuroHeart methodology for cardiovascular data standard development. A Working Group of 29 members representing 12 countries was established and included a patient representative, as well as experts in the management of valvular heart disease from the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI), the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI) and the Working Group on Cardiovascular Surgery. We conducted a systematic review of the literature and used a modified Delphi method to reach consensus on a final set of variables. For each variable, the Working Group provided a definition, permissible values, and categorized the variable as mandatory (Level 1) or additional (Level 2) based on its clinical importance and feasibility. In total, 93 Level 1 and 113 Level 2 variables were selected, with the level 1 variables providing the dataset for registration of patients undergoing TAVI on the EuroHeart IT platform. Conclusion This document provides details of the EuroHeart data standards for TAVI processes of care and in-hospital outcomes. In the context of EuroHeart, this will facilitate quality improvement, observational research, registry-based RCTs and post-marketing surveillance of devices, and pharmacotherapies. One-sentence summary The EuroHeart data standards for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are a set of internationally agreed data variables and definitions that once implemented will facilitate improvement of quality of care and outcomes for patients receiving TAVI.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the difference in early vascular healing between the ultrathin-strut biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent (O-SES) and the polymer-free biolimus-A9-eluting BioFreedom stent (BF-BES), assessed with optical coherence tomography (OCT) after primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarctions (STEMIs).METHODS: Eighty patients with STEMI who underwent primary PCI were randomly allocated 1:1 to treatment with BF-BES or O-SES. OCT was acquired after PCI and at 1-month follow-up. The primary endpoint was 1-month OCT-assessed vascular healing index based on the presence of uncovered and malapposed stent struts and intraluminal filling defects where low vascular healing index indicated favorable vascular healing.RESULTS: At 1-month, the vascular healing index was similar in O-SES 11.5 [interquartile range (IQR) 9.5-17.5], compared to BF-BES 11.5 (IQR 7.1-12.5; P = 0.14). Percentage of uncovered struts [O-SES 31.5% (IQR 20.7-41.9), P = 0.43] vs. BF-BES 27.8% (IQR 19.4-41.9; P = 0.44), and median volume of neointimal hyperplasia [O-SES 4.9 mm3 (IQR 1.4-13.1) vs. BF-BES 7.1 mm3 (IQR 2.8-17.0), P = 0.18] did not differ significantly between the two stent groups. Complete coverage was not observed in any of the stents. The percentages of stents with malapposition did not differ significantly (O-SES 87.1% vs. BF-BES 71.4%, P = 0.14) whereas percentage of malapposed struts [O-SES 3.5% (IQR 0.8-5.5) vs. BF-BES 0.8% (IQR 0.0-1.8), P = 0.003] was lower in the BF-BES group.CONCLUSION: In patients with STEMI, the drug-coated BF-BES and the thin strut O-SES had similar vascular healing index at 1-month. However, the thin O-SES struts were more often malapposed.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of the dual therapy CD34 antibody-covered sirolimus-eluting Combo stent (DTS) and the sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent (SES) in patients with and without diabetes mellitus (DM) included in the Scandinavian Organization for Randomized Trials with Clinical Outcome (SORT OUT) X study.BACKGROUND: The incidence of target lesion failure (TLF) after treatment with modern drug-eluting stents has been reported to be significantly higher in patients with DM when compared to patients without DM. Thus, whether the results from the SORT OUT X study apply to patients with and without DM remains unknown.METHODS: In total 3146 patients were randomized to stent implantation with DTS (n = 1578; DM: n = 279) or SES (n = 1568; DM: n = 271). The primary end point, TLF, was a composite of cardiac death, target-lesion myocardial infarction (MI), or target lesion revascularization (TLR) within 1 year.RESULTS: At 1 year, the rate of TLF was increased in the DTS group compared to the SES group, both among patients with DM (9.3% vs. 4.8%; risk difference: 4.5%; incidence rate ratio: 1.99, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.02-3.90) and without DM (5.7% vs. 3.5%; incidence rate ratio: 1.67, 95% CI: 1.15-2.42). The differences were mainly explained by higher rates of TLR.CONCLUSION: Compared to the SES, the DTS was associated with an increased risk of TLF at 12 months in patients with and without DM. The differences were mainly explained by higher rates of TLR, whereas rates of cardiac death and target lesion MI did not differ significantly between the two stent groups in patients with or without DM.

Aims Stent implantation during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) occasionally results in flow disturbances and distal embolization, which may cause adverse clinical outcomes. Deferred stent implantation seems to reduce the impairment on myocardial function, although the mechanisms have not been clarified. We sought to evaluate whether deferred stenting could reduce flow disturbance in patients treated with primary PCI. Methods and results Patients with STEMI included in the DANAMI-3-DEFER trial were randomized to deferred versus immediate stent implantation. The primary and secondary outcomes of this substudy were the incidences of slow/no reflow and distal embolization. A total of 1205 patients were included. Deferred stenting (n = 594) resulted in lower incidences of distal embolization [odds ratio (OR) 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46–0.98, P = 0.040] and slow/no reflow (OR 0.60, 95%CI 0.37–0.97, P = 0.039). In high-risk subgroups, the protective effect was greatest in patients >65 years of age (slow/no reflow: OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.17–0.72, P = 0.004 and distal embolization: OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.18–0.63, P = 0.001), in patients presenting with occluded culprit artery at admission (slow/no reflow: OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.16–0.65, P = 0.001 and distal embolization: OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.31–0.96, P = 0.036) and in patients with thrombus grade >3 (slow/no reflow: OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.20–0.67, P = 0.001 and distal embolization: OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.24–0.64, P < 0.001) with a significant P for interaction for all. Conclusion Deferred stent implantation reduces the incidences of slow/no reflow and distal embolization, especially in older patients and in those with total coronary occlusion or high level of thrombus burden.

Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) is the most common valvular congenital anomaly and is apparent in nearly 50% of candidates for AV replacement. While transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a recommended treatment for patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS) at all surgical risk levels, experience with TAVI in severe bicuspid AS is limited. TAVI in BAV is still a challenge due to its association with multiple and complex anatomical considerations. A retrospective study has been conducted to investigate TAVI’s procedural and 30-day outcomes using the Myval transcatheter heart valve (THV) (Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. Vapi, Gujarat, India) in patients with severe bicuspid AS. Data were collected on 68 patients with severe bicuspid AS who underwent TAVI with the Myval THV. Baseline characteristics, procedural, 30-day echocardiographic and clinical outcomes were collected. The mean age and STS PROM score were 72.6 ± 9.4 and 3.54 ± 2.1. Procedures were performed via the transfemoral route in 98.5%. Major vascular complications (1.5%) and life-threatening bleeding (1.5%) occurred infrequently. No patient had coronary obstruction, second valve implantation or conversion to surgery. On 30-day echocardiography, the mean transvalvular gradient and effective orifice area were 9.8 ± 4.5 mmHg and 1.8 ± 0.4 cm2, respectively. None/trace aortic regurgitation occurred in 76.5%, mild AR in 20.5% and moderate AR in 3%. The permanent pacemaker implantation rate was 8.5% and 30-day all-cause death occurred in 3.0% of cases. TAVI with the Myval THV in selected BAV anatomy is associated with favorable short-term hemodynamic and clinical outcomes.

Introduction: Long low-flow times in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) are associated with poor outcome. Signs of life during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is a simple method to evaluate in the field, but little is known about its impact on survival in patients with long low-flow times. Hypothesis: Thirty-day survival in OHCA patients with long prehospital low-flow times is higher in patients with signs of life during CPR than in patients with no signs of life during CPR. Methods: Observational, retrospective, single center study of OHCA patients referred to a tertiary cardiac arrest center in the Central Demark Region from 2015-2018. Risk factors were assessed by univariate logistic regression. Comparisons were made by Kaplan-Meier survival curves and log-rank test. Results: In a cohort of 807 patients with OHCA, 30-day survival was seen in 364 (45%). Among patients discharged from hospital, favorable neurological outcome with CPC 1-2 was observed in 93%. Signs of life during CPR was present in 315 (39%) patients. Risk of 30-day mortality was significantly reduced in patients presenting signs of life during CPR (RR 0.25, 95% CI [0.20-0.30]). Poor survival was seen in patients with low-flow times exceeding 30 minutes compared to patients with shorter low-flow times, (11% versus 66%, p < 0.001). In patients with low-flow times > 30 min, the survival rate increased to 33 % in the presence of signs of life during CPR compared to only 3% in patients without signs of life during CPR, p < 0.001. Conclusions: In OHCA patients, low-flow times > 30 minutes were highly associated with poor survival, however signs of life during CPR predicts higher survival both in the overall population and in patients with long low-flow times. Thus, resuscitation efforts may not be futile in patients with long low-flow times presenting signs of life during CPR.

BACKGROUND: Subclinical leaflet thickening and reduced leaflet motion of bioprosthetic aortic valves have been documented by four-dimensional computed tomography (CT). Whether anticoagulation can reduce these phenomena after transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) is not known.METHODS: In a substudy of a large randomized trial, we randomly assigned patients who had undergone successful TAVR and who did not have an indication for long-term anticoagulation to a rivaroxaban-based antithrombotic strategy (rivaroxaban [10 mg] plus aspirin [75 to 100 mg] once daily) or an antiplatelet-based strategy (clopidogrel [75 mg] plus aspirin [75 to 100 mg] once daily). Patients underwent evaluation by four-dimensional CT at a mean (±SD) of 90±15 days after randomization. The primary end point was the percentage of patients with at least one prosthetic valve leaflet with grade 3 or higher motion reduction (i.e., involving >50% of the leaflet). Leaflet thickening was also assessed.RESULTS: A total of 231 patients were enrolled. At least one prosthetic valve leaflet with grade 3 or higher motion reduction was found in 2 of 97 patients (2.1%) who had scans that could be evaluated in the rivaroxaban group, as compared with 11 of 101 (10.9%) in the antiplatelet group (difference, -8.8 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -16.5 to -1.9; P = 0.01). Thickening of at least one leaflet was observed in 12 of 97 patients (12.4%) in the rivaroxaban group and in 33 of 102 (32.4%) in the antiplatelet group (difference, -20.0 percentage points; 95% CI, -30.9 to -8.5). In the main trial, the risk of death or thromboembolic events and the risk of life-threatening, disabling, or major bleeding were higher with rivaroxaban (hazard ratios of 1.35 and 1.50, respectively).CONCLUSIONS: In a substudy of a trial involving patients without an indication for long-term anticoagulation who had undergone successful TAVR, a rivaroxaban-based antithrombotic strategy was more effective than an antiplatelet-based strategy in preventing subclinical leaflet-motion abnormalities. However, in the main trial, the rivaroxaban-based strategy was associated with a higher risk of death or thromboembolic complications and a higher risk of bleeding than the antiplatelet-based strategy. (Funded by Bayer; GALILEO-4D ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02833948.).

Objectives The authors sought to compare the safety and efficacy of the biocompatible durable-polymer zotarolimus-eluting stent with the biodegradable-polymer biolimus-eluting stent in unselected coronary patients. Background Biodegradable-polymer biolimus-eluting stents are superior to first-generation durable-polymer drug-eluting stents in long-term randomized all-comer trials. Long-term data comparing them to second-generation durable-polymer drug-eluting stents are lacking. Methods The study was a randomized, multicenter, all-comer, noninferiority trial in patients with chronic stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes and at least 1 coronary artery lesion requiring treatment with a drug-eluting stent. Endpoints included major adverse cardiac events (MACE), a composite of safety (cardiac death and myocardial infarction not clearly attributable to a non-target lesion) and efficacy (target lesion revascularization); the individual endpoints of MACE; all-cause mortality; any myocardial infarction; target vessel revascularization; and definite or probable stent thrombosis at 36 months. Results From March 2011 to August 2012, 2,999 patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either the zotarolimus-eluting (1,502 patients) or the biolimus-eluting (1,497 patients) stent. At 3-year follow-up, MACE occurred in 128 (8.6%) patients assigned to the durable-polymer zotarolimus-eluting stent and in 144 (9.6%) assigned to the biodegradable-polymer biolimus-eluting stent (p = 0.36). Occurrence of cardiac death (2.7% vs. 3.4%), myocardial infarction not clearly attributable to a non-target lesion (2.7% vs. 2.5%), and target lesion revascularization (5.4% vs. 5.5%) did not differ significantly between the 2 groups. Definite very late stent thrombosis occurred in 6 (0.4%) patients assigned to the durable-polymer zotarolimus-eluting stent and in 10 (0.7%) assigned to the biodegradable-polymer biolimus-eluting stent (p = 0.33). Conclusions At 3-year follow-up, the durable-polymer zotarolimus-eluting stent and the biodegradable-polymer biolimus-eluting stent were similar in clinical outcome, with no significant difference in safety and efficacy outcomes, including stent thrombosis.

There are limited data on the incidence, clinical implications, and predisposing factors of transcatheter heart valve (THV) thrombosis following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).The authors assessed the incidence, potential predictors, and clinical implications of THV thrombosis as determined by contrast-enhanced multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) after TAVR.Among 460 consecutive patients who underwent TAVR with the Edwards Sapien XT or Sapien 3 (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, California) THV, 405 (88%) underwent MDCT in addition to transthoracic and transesophageal echocardiography 1 to 3 months post-TAVR. MDCT scans were evaluated for hypoattenuated leaflet thickening that indicated THV thrombosis.MDCT verified THV thrombosis in 28 of 405 (7%) patients. A total of 23 patients had subclinical THV thrombosis, whereas 5 (18%) patients experienced clinically overt obstructive THV thrombosis. THV thrombosis risk did not differ among different generations of THVs (8% vs. 6%; p = 0.42). The risk of THV thrombosis in patients who did not receive warfarin was higher compared with patients who received warfarin (10.7% vs. 1.8%; risk ratio [RR]: 6.09; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.86 to 19.84). A larger THV was associated with an increased risk of THV thrombosis (p = 0.03). In multivariable analysis, a 29-mm THV (RR: 2.89; 95% CI: 1.44 to 5.80) and no post-TAVR warfarin treatment (RR: 5.46; 95% CI: 1.68 to 17.7) independently predicted THV thrombosis. Treatment with warfarin effectively reverted THV thrombosis and normalized THV function in 85% of patients as documented by follow-up transesophageal echocardiography and MDCT.Incidence of THV thrombosis in this large study was 7%. A larger THV size may predispose to THV thrombosis, whereas treatment with warfarin appears to have a protective effect. Although often subclinical, THV thrombosis may have important clinical implications.

This study sought to compare the long-term effects of drug-eluting stent (DES) compared with bare-metal stent (BMS) implantation in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention.The randomized DEDICATION (Drug Elution and Distal Protection in Acute Myocardial Infarction) trial evaluated the outcome after DES compared with BMS implantation in patients with STEMI undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention.Patients with a high-grade stenosis/occlusion of a native coronary artery presenting with symptoms12 h and ST-segment elevation were enrolled after giving informed consent. Patients were randomly assigned to receive a DES or a BMS in the infarct-related lesion. Patients were followed for at least 5 years, and clinical endpoints were evaluated from population registries and hospital charts. The main endpoint was the occurrence of the first major adverse cardiac event (MACE), defined as cardiac death, nonfatal recurrent myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization.Complete clinical status was available in 623 patients (99.5%) at 5 years follow-up. The combined MACE rate was insignificantly lower in the DES group (16.9% vs. 23%), mainly driven by a lower need of repeat revascularization (p = 0.07). Whereas the number of deaths from all causes tended to be higher in the DES group (16.3% vs. 12.1%, p = 0.17), cardiac mortality was significantly higher (7.7% vs. 3.2%, p = 0.02). The 5-year stent thrombosis rates were generally low and similar between the DES and the BMS groups. No cardiac deaths occurring within 1 month could be clearly ascribed to stent thrombosis, whereas stent thrombosis was involved in 78% of later-occurring deaths.The 5-year MACE rate was insignificantly different, but the cardiac mortality was higher after DES versus BMS implantation in patients with STEMI. Stent thrombosis was the main cause of late cardiac deaths.

Background: The myocardial area at risk (MaR) has been estimated in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AM I) by using ST segment-based electrocardiographic (ECG) methods. As the process from ischemia to infarction progresses, the ST-segment deviation is typically replaced by QRS abnormalities causing a falsely low estimated total MaR if determined by using ST segment-based methods. The purpose of this study was to investigate if consideration of the abnormalities in the QRS complex, in addition to those in the ST segment, provides a more accurate estimated total MaR during anterior AMI than by considering the ST segment alone. Methods: Twenty-five patients with acute anterior ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) received technetium Tc 99m-sestamibi before percutaneous coronary intervention. Single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) was performed within 2 hours after treatment and was used as a criterion standard for the estimated total MaR. The ECG recorded at admission in the hospital was used for the ECG estimated total MaR. This included an ST-segment estimated ischemic component of the total MaR (Aldrich score) and an estimated infarcted component of the total MaR in the acute phase of AMI by QRS abnormalities (Selvester score). These scores were added for the combined ECG score. Results: The ischemic component of the total MaR estimated by the Aldrich score alone had no statistically significant correlation with SPECT (r = 0.21, P = .32). The infarcted component of the total MaR estimated by the Selvester score showed a significant correlation with SPECT (r = 0.49, P = .01). Each score gave a significant underestimated total MaR measured by SPECT (P

The purpose of this study was to compare long-term clinical outcomes after implantation of drug-eluting stents (DES) and bare-metal stents (BMS) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).The evidence of long-term efficacy and safety after implantation of DES in patients with complex lesions is scarce.We randomly assigned 626 patients with STEMI referred within 12 h to have a DES or a BMS implanted in the infarct-related lesion with or without distal protection during primary percutaneous coronary intervention.At 3 years, target lesion revascularization was 6.1% in the DES group compared with 16.3% in the BMS group (p0.001), and the rate of major adverse cardiac events was 11.5% versus 18.2%, respectively (p=0.02). Whereas all-cause mortality did not differ significantly, the rate of cardiac death was higher in the DES group, 6.1% versus 1.9% for the BMS group (p=0.01). The occurrence of reinfarction, stroke, and stent thrombosis was similar.Implantation of DES in patients with STEMI reduces the long-term rate of major adverse cardiac events compared with BMS, but patients with DES had a higher risk of cardiac death not attributed to myocardial infarction or stent thrombosis. (Drug Elution and Distal Protection During Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction [DEDICATION]; NCT00192868)

Objective Embolization of material from an infarct-related lesion during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) may result in an increased infarct size. We evaluated the effect of distal protection during PCI for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) on clinical outcome and myocardial function. Methods and results Patients with STEMI were randomly referred within 12 hours for PCI with (n = 312) or without distal protection (n = 314). Left ventricular (LV) contractile function was assessed with echocardiography 8 month after PCI. Global LV myocardial wall motion index (WMI) was calculated as the average wall motion score of all myocardial segments. Major adverse cardiac and cerebral events (MACCE) 8 months after PCI was 7.1 % after distal protection and 5.7 % after conventional treatment (p = 0.17). WMI improved by 4.1% at 8 months in patients treated with distal protection compared to patients receiving conventional PCI (p Conclusion Routine use of distal protection during primary PCI is associated with a significant improvement in LV contractile function, with no detectable impact on intermediate term clinical outcome.

Background— Implantation of drug-eluting stents (DES) limits the rate of coronary restenosis in most patients with coronary artery disease, but data are scarce with regard to their use in patients with ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction and in connection with distal protection of the microvascular perfusion during primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Methods and Results— We randomly assigned 626 patients referred within 12 hours from symptom onset of an ST-elevation myocardial infarction to have a DES or a bare metal stent implanted in the infarct-related lesion with or without distal protection during primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Quantitative coronary angiography was performed during the index treatment and 8 months later. The primary end point was loss of the lumen diameter in the infarct-related lesion induced by neointimal proliferation. Patients were comparable with regard to baseline demographic and angiographic characteristics. The mean late lumen loss was significantly lower in patients treated with a DES (0.06 mm; SD, 0.66 mm) than in patients who had a bare metal stent implanted (0.47 mm; SD, 0.69 mm; P P =0.03). Cardiac death occurred in 4.2% and 1.6% of the patients ( P =0.09) and stent thrombosis occurred in 2.0% and 2.6% ( P =0.72), respectively. Conclusion— Implantation of DES improves the angiographic outcome and need for repeat revascularization without increasing the short-term risk of stent thrombosis but has a tendency to increase cardiac death in patients with ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the use of distal protection during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) in native coronary vessels.Embolization of material from the infarct-related lesion during PCI may result in impaired myocardial perfusion and worsen the prognosis. Previous attempts to protect the microcirculation during primary PCI have had conflicting results.We randomly assigned 626 patients with STEMI referred within 12 h to have PCI performed with (n = 312) or without (n = 314) distal protection. The primary end point was complete (or=70%) ST-segment resolution detected by continuous ST-segment monitoring. Blood levels of troponin-T and creatine kinase-MB were monitored before and after the procedure, and echocardiographic determination of the left ventricular wall motion index (WMI) was performed before discharge.Patients were well matched in terms of demographic and angiographic baseline characteristics. There was no significant difference in the occurrence of the primary end point (76% vs. 72%, p = 0.29), no difference in maximum troponin-T (4.8 microg/l and 5.0 microg/l, p = 0.87) or maximum creatine kinase-MB (185 microg/l and 184 microg/l, p = 0.99), and no difference in median WMI (1.70 vs. 1.70, p = 0.35). The rate of major adverse cardiac and cerebral events (MACCE) 1 month after PCI was 5.4% with distal protection and 3.2% with conventional treatment (p = 0.17).The routine use of distal protection by a filterwire system during primary PCI does not seem to improve microvascular perfusion, limit infarct size, or reduce the occurrence of MACCE.