Adrianus J. van Boven

Comparison of zotarolimus-eluting and everolimus-eluting coronary stents.

BACKGROUND New-generation coronary stents that release zotarolimus or everolimus have been shown to reduce the risk of restenosis. However, it is unclear whether there are differences in efficacy and safety between the two types of stents on the basis of prospectively adjudicated end points endorsed by the Food and Drug Administration. METHODS In this multicenter, noninferiority trial with minimal exclusion criteria, we randomly assigned 2292 patients to undergo treatment with coronary stents releasing either zotarolimus or everolimus. Twenty percent of patients were randomly selected for repeat angiography at 13 months. The primary end point was target-lesion failure, defined as a composite of death from cardiac causes, any myocardial infarction (not clearly attributable to a nontarget vessel), or clinically indicated target-lesion revascularization within 12 months. The secondary angiographic end point was the extent of in-stent stenosis at 13 months. RESULTS At least one off-label criterion for stent placement was present in 66% of patients. The zotarolimus-eluting stent was noninferior to the everolimus-eluting stent with respect to the primary end point, which occurred in 8.2% and 8.3% of patients, respectively (P<0.001 for noninferiority). There were no significant between-group differences in the rate of death from cardiac causes, any myocardial infarction, or revascularization. The rate of stent thrombosis was 2.3% in the zotarolimus-stent group and 1.5% in the everolimus-stent group (P=0.17). The zotarolimus-eluting stent was also noninferior regarding the degree (+/-SD) of in-stent stenosis (21.65+/-14.42% for zotarolimus vs. 19.76+/-14.64% for everolimus, P=0.04 for noninferiority). In-stent late lumen loss was 0.27+/-0.43 mm in the zotarolimus-stent group versus 0.19+/-0.40 mm in the everolimus-stent group (P=0.08). There were no significant between-group differences in the rate of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS At 13 months, the new-generation zotarolimus-eluting stent was found to be noninferior to the everolimus-eluting stent in a population of patients who had minimal exclusion criteria. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00617084.)

Second-generation everolimus-eluting stents versus first-generation sirolimus-eluting stents in acute myocardial infarction. 1-year results of the randomized XAMI (XienceV Stent vs. Cypher Stent in Primary PCI for Acute Myocardial Infarction) trial.

OBJECTIVES The goal of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of second-generation everolimus-eluting stents (EES) with first-generation sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) in primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute myocardial infarction (AMI). BACKGROUND Drug-eluting stents (DES) in AMI are still feared for possible late and very late stent thrombosis (ST). Newer-generation DES, with more hemocompatible polymers and improved healing, may show promise regarding increased efficacy of DES with improved safety. However, no randomized trials in AMI are available. METHODS A total of 625 patients with AMI were randomized (2:1) to receive EES or SES in the XAMI (XienceV Stent vs Cypher Stent in Primary PCI for Acute Myocardial Infarction) trial. Primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 1 year consisting of cardiac death, nonfatal AMI, or any target vessel revascularization. The study was powered for noninferiority of EES. Secondary endpoints comprised ST rates and MACE rate up to 3 years. RESULTS The MACE rate was 4.0% for EES and 7.7% for SES; the absolute difference was -3.7% (95% confidence interval: -8.28 to -0.03; p = 0.048) and relative risk was 0.52 (95% confidence interval: 0.27 to 1.00). One-year cardiac mortality was low at 1.5% for EES versus 2.7% for SES (p = 0.36), and 1-year incidence of definite and/or probable ST was 1.2% for EES versus 2.7% for SES (p = 0.21). CONCLUSIONS In this all-comer, randomized, multicenter AMI trial, second-generation EES was noninferior to SES, and superiority for MACE was suggested. ST rate in EES at 1-year was low, but long-term follow-up and larger studies will have to show whether very late ST rates will also be improved in newer DES. (XienceV Stent vs Cypher Stent in Primary PCI for Acute Myocardial Infarction [XAMI]; NTR1123).

The Prognostic Utility of the SYNTAX Score on 1-Year Outcomes After Revascularization With Zotarolimus- and Everolimus-Eluting Stents: A Substudy of the RESOLUTE All Comers Trial

OBJECTIVES This study assessed the ability of the SYNTAX score (SXscore) to stratify risk in patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using zotarolimus-eluting or everolimus-eluting stents. BACKGROUND The SXscore can identify patients treated with PCI who are at highest risk of adverse events. METHODS The SXscore was calculated prospectively in 2,033 of the 2,292 patients enrolled in the RESOLUTE All Comers study (RESOLUTE III All Comers Trial: A Randomized Comparison of a Zotarolimus-Eluting Stent With an Everolimus-Eluting Stent for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention). Clinical outcomes in terms of a patient-oriented composite endpoint (POCE) of all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), and repeat revascularization; the individual components of POCE; target lesion failure (TLF) (a composite of cardiac death, target-vessel MI, and clinically driven target lesion revascularization); and stent thrombosis were subsequently stratified according to SXscore tertiles: SXscore(LOW) ≤ 9 (n = 698), 9 17 (n = 659). RESULTS At 12-month follow-up, rates of POCE, MI, repeat revascularization, TLF, and the composite of death/MI were all significantly higher in patients in the highest SXscore tercile. Rates of stent thrombosis were all highest in the SXscore(HIGH) tertile (p > 0.05). After multivariate adjustment, the SXscore was identified as an independent predictor of POCE, MI, repeat revascularization, and TLF (p < 0.05 for all). At 12-month follow-up, the SXscore, ACEF score, and Clinical SXscore had C-statistics of 0.57, 0.78, and 0.67, respectively, for mortality and of 0.62, 0.56, 0.63, respectively, for POCE. No significant between-stent differences were observed for TLF or POCE in any of the SXscore tertiles. CONCLUSIONS The SYNTAX score is able to stratify risk amongst an all-comers population treated with PCI with second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES); however, improvements can be made with the inclusion of clinical variables. (RESOLUTE III All Comers Trial: A Randomized Comparison of a Zotarolimus-Eluting Stent With an Everolimus-Eluting Stent for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention; NCT00617084).

Safety and efficacy of everolimus-versus sirolimus-eluting stents: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 11 randomized trials

BACKGROUND While EES have proven superior to paclitaxel-eluting stents, it remains uncertain whether EES improve clinical outcomes compared to SES, which are the most efficacious among the first-generation drug-eluting stents. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing the efficacy and safety of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) versus sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS From online and offline search until December 2011, we identified 11 randomized trials (total 12,869 patients). The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events. RESULTS The risk of major adverse cardiac events did not differ significantly between the patients treated with EES versus SES [OR, 0.90 (95% CI, 0.77-1.04); P = .162]. However, we found a significant reduction in the risk of repeat revascularization in the EES arm [OR, 0.85 (95% CI, 0.71-1.00); P = .047]. There were no significant differences regarding the risk of cardiac death [OR, 0.97 (95% CI, 0.74-1.27); P = .834], or myocardial infarction [OR, 0.95 (95% CI, 0.75-1.20), P = .656]. The risk of definite or probable stent thrombosis tended to be lower [OR, 0.68 (95% CI, 0.45-1.02); P = .065], while definite ST was significantly lower [OR, 0.44 (95% CI, 0.25-0.80); P = .007] with EES. CONCLUSIONS In a large systematic overview of comparative trials involving percutaneous revascularization with drug-eluting stents, treatment with EES significantly reduced the risk of repeat revascularization and definite ST compared to SES. We found no significant differences in the risk of cardiac death or myocardial infarction.

Influence of Gender on Ischemic Times and Outcomes After ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction

Previous studies investigating the influence of gender on ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction have reported conflicting results. The aim of this study was to assess the influence of gender on ischemic times and outcomes after ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction in patients treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention in modern practice. The present multicenter registry included consecutive patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarctions treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention at 3 hospitals. Adjusted mortality rates were calculated using Cox proportional-hazards analyses. In total, 3,483 patients were included, of whom 868 were women (25%). Women were older, had a higher risk factor burden, and more frequently had histories of malignancy. Men more often had cardiac histories and peripheral vascular disease. Ischemic times were longer in women (median 192 minutes [interquartile range 141 to 286] vs 175 minutes [interquartile range 128 to 279] in men, p = 0.002). However, multivariate linear regression showed that this was due to age and co-morbidity. All-cause mortality was higher at 7 days (6.0% in women vs 3.0% in men, p <0.001) and at 1 year (9.9% in women vs 6.6% in men, p = 0.001). After adjustment, female gender predicted 7 day all-cause mortality (hazard ratio 1.61, 95% confidence interval 1.06 to 2.46) and cardiac mortality (hazard ratio 1.58, 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 2.42) but not 1-year mortality. Moreover, gender was an independent effect modifier for cardiogenic shock, leading to substantially worse outcomes in women. In conclusion, ischemic times remain longer in women because of age and co-morbidity. Female gender independently predicted early all-cause and cardiac mortality after primary percutaneous coronary intervention, and a strong interaction between gender and cardiogenic shock was observed.

Biomarkers for risk stratification of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention: Insights from the Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes trial

BACKGROUND The incremental prognostic value of admission measurements of biomarkers beyond clinical characteristics and extent of coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is unclear. METHODS Centrally analyzed plasma for biomarker measurements was available in 5,385 of the STEMI patients treated with PPCI in the PLATO trial. Extent of CAD was graded by operators in association with PPCI. We evaluated the prognostic value of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), and growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF-15) beyond clinical characteristics and extent of CAD using Cox proportional hazards analyses, C-index, and net reclassification improvement (NRI). Outcomes were cardiovascular death (CVD) and spontaneous myocardial infarction (MI). RESULTS Angiographic data on extent of CAD improved the prediction of CVD compared to clinical risk factors alone, increasing the C-index from 0.760 to 0.778, total NRI of 0.31. Biomarker information provided additional prognostic value for CVD beyond clinical risk factors and extent of CAD, C-indices ranging from 0.792 to 0.795 for all biomarkers, but with a higher NRI for NT-proBNP. Extent of CAD and high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T were not associated with spontaneous MI. The prediction of spontaneous MI beyond clinical characteristics and extent of CAD (C-index 0.647) was improved by both NT-proBNP (C-index 0.663, NRI 0.22) and GDF-15 (C-index 0.652, NRI 0.05). CONCLUSIONS Biomarker measurement on admission is feasible and provides incremental risk stratification in patients with STEMI treated with PPCI, with NT-proBNP and GDF-15 being most valuable due to the association with both CVD and spontaneous MI.

Two-Year Results of an Open-Label Randomized Comparison of Everolimus-Eluting Stents and Sirolimus-Eluting Stents

Background Second generation drug-eluting stents were developed to improve the safety and efficacy of first generation stents. So far, limited long term randomized data exist comparing the second generation everolimus-eluting stents (EES) with first generation sirolimus-eluting stents (SES). Methods A prospective, open-label, randomized, single center trial comparing EES and SES in all-comer patients. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiac mortality, myocardial infarction and target vessel revascularization. Secondary endpoints included individual components of the composite, along with target lesion revascularization and stent thrombosis. Results In total, 977 patients were randomized, of which 498 patients to EES and 479 to SES. Average age was 65.2±11.2 years and 71.6% of the population was male. Fifty percent of patients were treated for acute coronary syndrome, more often for ST-elevation myocardial infarctions in EES patients (13.7% vs. 9.2% in SES). In contrast, SES patients more often had prior interventions and showed more calcified lesions. Two-year follow-up was available in 98% of patients. The primary endpoint occurred in 10.7% of EES patients compared to 10.6% of SES patients (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.68–1.48). Additionally, secondary endpoints were similar between groups. The rate of stent thrombosis was low for both stent types. Conclusion In this all-comer population, there were no differences in endpoints between EES and SES during two-year follow-up. Stent thrombosis rates were low, supporting the safety of drug-eluting stent appliance in clinical practice. Trial registration TrialRegister.nl NTR3170

The incidence and relevance of site-reported vs. patient-reported angina: insights from the ABSORB II randomized trial comparing Absorb everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold with XIENCE everolimus-eluting metallic stent

Aims In the ABSORB II trial, comparing Absorb™ bioresorbable vascular scaffold with metallic XIENCE™ everolimus-eluting stent (EES), a difference was found in site-reported new or worsening angina using adverse event (AE) reporting. However, the clinical relevance of this site-reported angina is unclear. The aim of the present study was therefore to investigate the clinical relevance of site-reported angina by evaluating its relation with cardiac endpoints, cardiovascular resource utilization (including diagnostics and treatment), positive exercise stress tolerance tests (ETTs), and Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ). Methods and results Site-reported new or worsening angina was captured on cardiac AE forms. There was a wide variation in the total number of days with site-reported angina (overall interquartile range 35-279 days). Patients with site-reported angina showed higher rates of cardiovascular events [including the patient-oriented composite endpoint of all deaths, all myocardial infarctions (MI), or all revascularizations (21.1 vs. 4.2%, P < 0.0001), all MIs (2.3 vs. 0%, P = 0.03), and all revascularizations (21.1 vs. 0.7%, P < 0.0001)], cardiovascular resource utilization (including stress tests, anti-anginal medication, diagnostic angiographies, and hospitalization), and positive ETTs (51.9 vs. 14.9%, P < 0.001), compared with those without site-reported angina. Furthermore, an event-based analysis of the SAQ showed that patients with ongoing angina within the recall period of 4 weeks prior to the SAQ assessment have clinically and statistically significant decrements of >14 points in SAQ scores compared with those with no reported angina. Conclusions We showed that the site-reported angina through AE reporting may be clinically relevant because of their relation with cardiovascular events (mostly repeat revascularizations), cardiovascular resource utilization, ETT, and SAQ. Clinical Trial Registration https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01425281; Unique identifier: NCT01425281.