Ad J. van Boven

Facilitated PCI in Patients with ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction

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].)

Comparison of an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold with an everolimus-eluting metallic stent for the treatment of coronary artery stenosis (ABSORB II): a 3 year, randomised, controlled, single-blind, multicentre clinical trial

BACKGROUND No medium-term data are available on the random comparison between everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds and everolimus-eluting metallic stents. The study aims to demonstrate two mechanistic properties of the bioresorbable scaffold: increase in luminal dimensions as a result of recovered vasomotion of the scaffolded vessel. METHODS The ABSORB II trial is a prospective, randomised, active-controlled, single-blind, parallel two-group, multicentre clinical trial. We enrolled eligible patients aged 18-85 years with evidence of myocardial ischaemia and one or two de-novo native lesions in different epicardial vessels. We randomly assigned patients (2:1) to receive treatment with an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold (Absorb; Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA, USA) or treatment with an everolimus-eluting metallic stent (Xience; Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA, USA). Randomisation was stratified by diabetes status and number of planned target lesions. At 3 year follow-up, the primary endpoint was superiority of the Absorb bioresorbable scaffold versus the Xience metallic stent in angiographic vasomotor reactivity after administration of intracoronary nitrate. The co-primary endpoint is the non-inferiority of angiographic late luminal loss. For the endpoint of vasomotion, the comparison was tested using a two-sided t test. For the endpoint of late luminal loss, non-inferiority was tested using a one-sided asymptotic test, against a non-inferiority margin of 0·14 mm. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01425281. FINDINGS Between Nov 28, 2011, and June 4, 2013, we enrolled 501 patients and randomly assigned them to the Absorb group (335 patients, 364 lesions) or the Xience group (166 patients, 182 lesions). The vasomotor reactivity at 3 years was not statistically different (Absorb group 0·047 mm [SD 0·109] vs Xience group 0·056 mm [0·117]; psuperiority=0·49), whereas the late luminal loss was larger in the Absorb group than in the Xience group (0·37 mm [0·45] vs 0·25 mm [0·25]; pnon-inferiority=0·78). This difference in luminal dimension was confirmed by intravascular ultrasound assessment of the minimum lumen area (4·32 mm2 [SD 1·48] vs 5·38 mm2 [1·51]; p<0·0001). The secondary endpoints of patient-oriented composite endpoint, Seattle Angina Questionnaire score, and exercise testing were not statistically different in both groups. However, a device-oriented composite endpoint was significantly different between the Absorb group and the Xience group (10% vs 5%, hazard ratio 2·17 [95% CI 1·01-4·70]; log-rank test p=0·0425), mainly driven by target vessel myocardial infarction (6% vs 1%; p=0·0108), including peri-procedural myocardial infarction (4% vs 1%; p=0·16). INTERPRETATION The trial did not meet its co-primary endpoints of superior vasomotor reactivity and non-inferior late luminal loss for the Absorb bioresorbable scaffold with respect to the metallic stent, which was found to have significantly lower late luminal loss than the Absorb scaffold. A higher rate of device-oriented composite endpoint due to target vessel myocardial infarction, including peri-procedural myocardial infarction, was observed in the Absorb group. The patient-oriented composite endpoint, anginal status, and exercise testing, were not statistically different between both devices at 3 years. Future studies should investigate the clinical impact of accurate intravascular imaging in sizing the device and in optimising the scaffold implantation. The benefit and need for prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy after bioresorbable scaffold implantation could also become a topic for future clinical research. FUNDING Abbott Vascular.

Enoxaparin in Primary and Facilitated Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. A Formal Prospective Nonrandomized Substudy of the FINESSE Trial (Facilitated INtervention with Enhanced Reperfusion Speed to Stop Events)

OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to assess the risk-benefit of enoxaparin (Sanofi-Aventis, Paris, France) in primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). BACKGROUND Randomized studies have demonstrated the superiority of enoxaparin over unfractionated heparin (UFH) in acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) treated with fibrinolytics. METHODS In the FINESSE (Facilitated INtervention with Enhanced Reperfusion Speed to Stop Events) trial--a double-blind, placebo-controlled study-2,452 patients with STEMI were randomized to primary PCI or facilitated PCI with abciximab alone or with half-dose reteplase. In this prospective FINESSE substudy, centers pre-specified use of either enoxaparin (0.5 mg/kg intravenous [IV], 0.3 mg/kg subcutaneous [SC]) or UFH (40 U/kg IV, 3,000 U maximum) with PCI. A logistic-regression model and a propensity multivariate model, both adjusted for baseline variables, were used to evaluate primary safety and secondary efficacy end points for enoxaparin versus UFH. RESULTS Enoxaparin was administered to 759 patients and UFH to 1,693 patients. Nonintracranial Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) major/minor bleeding was not significantly different, but lower nonintracranial TIMI major bleeding was found with enoxaparin (2.6% vs. UFH 4.4%, logistic-regression adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.31 to 0.99, p = 0.045), whereas intracranial hemorrhage was similar (0.27% vs. 0.24%, adjusted OR: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.11 to 9.68, p = 0.980). Lower death, myocardial infarction, urgent revascularization, or refractory ischemia through 30 days was also associated with enoxaparin (5.3%) versus UFH (8.0%, adjusted OR: 0.47, 95% CI: 0.31 to 0.72, p = 0.0005) as was all-cause mortality through 90 days (3.8% vs. 5.6%, respectively, adjusted OR: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.35 to 0.99, p = 0.046). End points evaluating the net clinical benefit also significantly favored enoxaparin over UFH. CONCLUSIONS Enoxaparin seems to be associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular outcomes compared with UFH in patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI. Confirmation of these findings in a randomized study is warranted. (A Study of Abciximab and Reteplase When Administered Prior to Catheterization After a Myocardial Infarction [Finesse]; NCT00046228).

Evaluation of Infarct-Related Coronary Artery Patency and Microcirculatory Function After Facilitated Percutaneous Primary Coronary Angioplasty: The FINESSE-ANGIO (Facilitated Intervention With Enhanced Reperfusion Speed to Stop Events–Angiographic) Study

OBJECTIVES The FINESSE-ANGIO (Facilitated Intervention with Enhanced Reperfusion Speed to Stop Events-Angiographic) study evaluated acute treatment effects on infarct-related artery (IRA) patency and angiographic correlates of coronary microcirculatory function. BACKGROUND The FINESSE trial evaluated the effects on clinical outcomes of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) facilitated with pre-catheterization laboratory administration of abciximab with half-dose reteplase (combination-facilitated group), abciximab alone (abciximab-facilitated group), or with abciximab administered immediately before the procedure (primary PCI). METHODS The FINESSE-ANGIO substudy compared the effects of the 3 treatment strategies on patency (TIMI [Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction] flow grade 2/3) of the IRA at basal coronary angiography. The secondary efficacy end points were corrected TIMI frame count, percentage of patients achieving TIMI flow grade 3, and the percentage achieving myocardial blush grade 2/3 of the IRA at post-PCI angiography. All angiographies were evaluated at a central core laboratory. RESULTS Of the 2,452 FINESSE patients, 637 were included in the FINESSE-ANGIO substudy. Patients in the combination-facilitated group exhibited significantly higher rates of baseline IRA patency compared with the abciximab-facilitated and the primary PCI groups (76.1% vs. 43.7% and 32.7%, respectively; p < 0.0001 for both; p = 0.025 abciximab-facilitated vs. primary PCI). There were no significant differences in the post-PCI corrected TIMI frame count (17.1 ± 15.8, 17.4 ± 17.3, and 15.8 ± 14.1) or the rates of post-PCI TIMI flow grade 3 (79.8%, 77.7%, and 76.6%), myocardial blush grade 2/3 (85.6%, 79.5%, and 86.4%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS Pre-catheterization laboratory administration of abciximab alone and especially in combination with half-dose reteplase resulted in higher rates of IRA patency at baseline coronary angiography compared with no pre-treatment. However, post-procedural angiographic and microcirculatory variables were unaffected by facilitation therapy.

Incidence and Potential Mechanism(s) of Post-Procedural Rise of Cardiac Biomarker in Patients With Coronary Artery Narrowing After Implantation of an Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold or Everolimus-Eluting Metallic Stent.

OBJECTIVES This study sought to evaluate the mechanism of post-procedural cardiac biomarker (CB) rise following device implantation. BACKGROUND A fully bioresorbable Absorb scaffold, compared with everolimus-eluting metallic stents (EES), might be associated with a higher incidence of periprocedural myocardial injury. METHODS In 501 patients with stable or unstable angina randomized to either Absorb (335 patients) or EES (n = 166) in the ABSORB II trial, 3 types of CB (creatine kinase, creatine kinase-myocardial band, and troponin) were obtained before and after procedure. Per protocol, periprocedural myocardial infarction (PMI) was defined as creatine kinase rise >2× the upper limit of normal with creatine kinase-myocardial band rise. RESULTS Incidence of side branch occlusion and any anatomic complications assessed by angiography was similar between the 2 treatment arms (side branch occlusion: Absorb: 5.3% vs. Xience: 7.6%, p = 0.07; any anatomic complication: Absorb: 16.4% vs. EES: 19.9%, p = 0.39). Fourteen patients who presented with recent myocardial infarction at entry with normalized creatine kinase-myocardial band according to the protocol were excluded for post-CB analysis. The overall compliance for CB was 97.8%. The CB rise subcategorized in 7 different ranges was comparable between the 2 treatment arms. PMI rate was numerically higher in the Absorb arm according to the per-protocol definitions, and treatment with overlapping devices was the only independent determinant of per-protocol PMI (odds ratio: 5.07, 95% confidence interval: 1.78 to 14.41, p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS There were no differences in the incidence of CB rise and PMI between Absorb and EES. Device overlap might be a precipitating factor of myocardial injury. (ABSORB II Randomized Clinical Trial: A Clinical Evaluation to Compare the Safety, Efficacy, and Performance of Absorb Everolimus Eluting Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold System Against Xience Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Subjects With Ischemic Heart Disease Caused by De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions [ABSORB II]; NCT01425281).

Minimally invasive transaortic transcatheter aortic valve implantation of the CoreValve prosthesis: the direct aortic approach through a mini-sternotomy.

Transcatheter implantation of the CoreValve bioprosthesis (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA) can be performed surgically through a minimally invasive approach: using an upper-J mini-sternotomy to the second or third intercostal space, the ascending aorta is exposed at a convenient location. After placing two purse-string sutures on the ascending aorta at least 7 cm above the aortic valve annulus, the CoreValve delivery system is advanced under fluoroscopy to the optimal position and the valve is deployed. Because of the short distance between the access point and the aortic annulus, positioning of the valve can be done more accurately in comparison with the transfemoral approach. We report a brief description of this surgical technique, its indications and limitations and the short-term results of our first series.