Giulio G. Stefanini

2014 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization The Task Force on Myocardial Revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) Developed with the special contribution of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI)

Authors/Task Force members: Stephan Windecker* (ESC Chairperson) (Switzerland), Philippe Kolh* (EACTS Chairperson) (Belgium), Fernando Alfonso (Spain), Jean-Philippe Collet (France), Jochen Cremer (Germany), Volkmar Falk (Switzerland), Gerasimos Filippatos (Greece), Christian Hamm (Germany), Stuart J. Head (The Netherlands), Peter Jüni (Switzerland), A. Pieter Kappetein (The Netherlands), Adnan Kastrati (Germany), Juhani Knuuti (Finland), Ulf Landmesser (Switzerland), Günther Laufer (Austria), Franz-Josef Neumann (Germany), Dimitrios J. Richter (Greece), Patrick Schauerte (Germany), Miguel Sousa Uva (Portugal), Giulio G. Stefanini (Switzerland), David Paul Taggart (UK), Lucia Torracca (Italy), Marco Valgimigli (Italy), William Wijns (Belgium), and Adam Witkowski (Poland).

2014 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization

Acute coronary syndromes Bare-metal stents Coronary artery bypass grafting Coronary artery disease Drug-eluting stents EuroSCORE Guidelines Heart Team Myocardial infarction Myocardial ischaemia Myocardial revascularization Medical therapy Percutaneous coronary intervention Recommendation Revascularisation Risk stratification Stents Stable angina Stable coronary artery disease ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction SYNTAX score

Long-term clinical outcomes of biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stents versus durable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents in patients with coronary artery disease (LEADERS): 4 year follow-up of a randomised non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND The effectiveness of durable polymer drug-eluting stents comes at the expense of delayed arterial healing and subsequent late adverse events such as stent thrombosis (ST). We report the 4 year follow-up of an assessment of biodegradable polymer-based drug-eluting stents, which aim to improve safety by avoiding the persistent inflammatory stimulus of durable polymers. METHODS We did a multicentre, assessor-masked, non-inferiority trial. Between Nov 27, 2006, and May 18, 2007, patients aged 18 years or older with coronary artery disease were randomly allocated with a computer-generated sequence to receive either biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stents (BES) or durable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (SES; 1:1 ratio). The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or clinically-indicated target vessel revascularisation (TVR); patients were followed-up for 4 years. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00389220. FINDINGS 1707 patients with 2472 lesions were randomly allocated to receive either biodegradable polymer BES (857 patients, 1257 lesions) or durable polymer SES (850 patients, 1215 lesions). At 4 years, biodegradable polymer BES were non-inferior to durable polymer SES for the primary endpoint: 160 (18·7%) patients versus 192 (22·6%) patients (rate ratios [RR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·66-1·00, p for non-inferiority <0·0001, p for superiority=0·050). The RR of definite ST was 0·62 (0·35-1·08, p=0·09), which was largely attributable to a lower risk of very late definite ST between years 1 and 4 in the BES group than in the SES group (RR 0·20, 95% CI 0·06-0·67, p=0·004). Conversely, the RR of definite ST during the first year was 0·99 (0·51-1·95; p=0·98) and the test for interaction between RR of definite ST and time was positive (p(interaction)=0·017). We recorded an interaction with time for events associated with ST but not for other events. For primary endpoint events associated with ST, the RR was 0·86 (0·41-1·80) during the first year and 0·17 (0·04-0·78) during subsequent years (p(interaction)=0·049). INTERPRETATION Biodegradable polymer BES are non-inferior to durable polymer SES and, by reducing the risk of cardiac events associated with very late ST, might improve long-term clinical outcomes for up to 4 years compared with durable polymer SES. FUNDING Biosensors Europe SA, Switzerland.

Biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents reduce the risk of stent thrombosis at 4 years in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a pooled analysis of individual patient data from the ISAR-TEST 3, ISAR-TEST 4, and LEADERS randomized trials

AIMS The efficacy of durable polymer drug-eluting stents (DES) is delivered at the expense of delayed healing of the stented vessel. Biodegradable polymer DES aim to avoid this shortcoming and may potentially improve long-term clinical outcomes, with benefit expected to accrue over time. We sought to compare long-term outcomes in patients treated with biodegradable polymer DES vs. durable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (SES). METHODS AND RESULTS We pooled individual patient data from three large-scale multicentre randomized clinical trials (ISAR-TEST 3, ISAR-TEST 4, and LEADERS) comparing biodegradable polymer DES with durable polymer SES and assessed clinical outcomes during follow-up through 4 years. The efficacy endpoint of interest was target lesion revascularization and the safety endpoint of interest was definite stent thrombosis. Out of 4062 patients included in the present analysis, 2358 were randomly assigned to treatment with biodegradable polymer DES (sirolimus-eluting, n= 1501; biolimus-eluting, n= 857) and 1704 patients to durable polymer SES. No heterogeneity across the trials was observed in analyses of the primary and secondary endpoints. At 4 years, the risk of target lesion revascularization was significantly lower among patients treated with biodegradable polymer DES vs. durable polymer SES (hazard ratio 0.82, 95% CI 0.68-0.98, P= 0.029). In addition, the risk of stent thrombosis was significantly reduced with biodegradable polymer DES vs. durable polymer SES (hazard ratio 0.56, 95% CI 0.35-0.90, P= 0.015), driven by a lower risk of very late stent thrombosis (hazard ratio 0.22, 95% CI 0.08-0.61, P= 0.004). In keeping with this, in landmark analysis between 1 and 4 years, the incidence of myocardial infarction was lower for patients treated with biodegradable polymer DES vs. durable polymer SES (hazard ratio 0.59, 95% CI 0.73-0.95, P= 0.031). CONCLUSION Biodegradable polymer DES improve safety and efficacy compared with durable polymer SES during long-term follow-up to 4 years.

Very Late Coronary Stent Thrombosis of a Newer-Generation Everolimus-Eluting Stent Compared With Early-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents A Prospective Cohort Study

Background— Early-generation drug-eluting stents releasing sirolimus (SES) or paclitaxel (PES) are associated with increased risk of very late stent thrombosis occurring >1 year after stent implantation. It is unknown whether the risk of very late stent thrombosis persists with newer-generation everolimus-eluting stents (EES). Methods and Results— We assessed the risk of stent thrombosis in a cohort of 12 339 patients with unrestricted use of drug-eluting stents (3819 SES, 4308 PES, 4212 EES). Results are incidence rates per 100 person-years after inverse probability of treatment weighting to adjust for group differences. During follow-up of up to 4 years, the overall incidence rate of definite stent thrombosis was lower with EES (1.4 per 100 person-years) compared with SES (2.9; hazard ratio, 0.41; 95% confidence interval, 0.27–0.62; P<0.0001) and PES (4.4; hazard ratio, 0.33; 95% confidence interval, 0.23–0.48; P<0.0001). The incidence rate per 100 person-years of early (0–30 days), late (31 days–1 year), and very late stent thrombosis amounted to 0.6, 0.1, and 0.6 among EES-treated patients; 1.0, 0.3, and 1.6 among SES-treated patients; and 1.3, 0.7, and 2.4 among PES-treated patients. Differences in favor of EES were most pronounced beyond 1 year, with a hazard ratio of 0.33 (EES versus SES; P=0.006) and 0.34 (EES versus PES; P<0.0001). There was a lower risk of cardiac death or myocardial with EES compared with PES (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.56–0.75; P<0.0001), which was directly related to the lower risk of stent thrombosis–associated events (EES versus PES: hazard ratio, 0.36; 95% confidence interval, 0.23–0.57). Conclusion— Current treatment with EES is associated with a lower risk of very late stent thrombosis compared with early-generation drug-eluting stents.

Revascularisation versus medical treatment in patients with stable coronary artery disease: Network meta-analysis

Objective To investigate whether revascularisation improves prognosis compared with medical treatment among patients with stable coronary artery disease. Design Bayesian network meta-analyses to combine direct within trial comparisons between treatments with indirect evidence from other trials while maintaining randomisation. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies A strategy of initial medical treatment compared with revascularisation by coronary artery bypass grafting or Food and Drug Administration approved techniques for percutaneous revascularization: balloon angioplasty, bare metal stent, early generation paclitaxel eluting stent, sirolimus eluting stent, and zotarolimus eluting (Endeavor) stent, and new generation everolimus eluting stent, and zotarolimus eluting (Resolute) stent among patients with stable coronary artery disease. Data sources Medline and Embase from 1980 to 2013 for randomised trials comparing medical treatment with revascularisation. Main outcome measure All cause mortality. Results 100 trials in 93 553 patients with 262 090 patient years of follow-up were included. Coronary artery bypass grafting was associated with a survival benefit (rate ratio 0.80, 95% credibility interval 0.70 to 0.91) compared with medical treatment. New generation drug eluting stents (everolimus: 0.75, 0.59 to 0.96; zotarolimus (Resolute): 0.65, 0.42 to 1.00) but not balloon angioplasty (0.85, 0.68 to 1.04), bare metal stents (0.92, 0.79 to 1.05), or early generation drug eluting stents (paclitaxel: 0.92, 0.75 to 1.12; sirolimus: 0.91, 0.75 to 1.10; zotarolimus (Endeavor): 0.88, 0.69 to 1.10) were associated with improved survival compared with medical treatment. Coronary artery bypass grafting reduced the risk of myocardial infarction compared with medical treatment (0.79, 0.63 to 0.99), and everolimus eluting stents showed a trend towards a reduced risk of myocardial infarction (0.75, 0.55 to 1.01). The risk of subsequent revascularisation was noticeably reduced by coronary artery bypass grafting (0.16, 0.13 to 0.20) followed by new generation drug eluting stents (zotarolimus (Resolute): 0.26, 0.17 to 0.40; everolimus: 0.27, 0.21 to 0.35), early generation drug eluting stents (zotarolimus (Endeavor): 0.37, 0.28 to 0.50; sirolimus: 0.29, 0.24 to 0.36; paclitaxel: 0.44, 0.35 to 0.54), and bare metal stents (0.69, 0.59 to 0.81) compared with medical treatment. Conclusion Among patients with stable coronary artery disease, coronary artery bypass grafting reduces the risk of death, myocardial infarction, and subsequent revascularisation compared with medical treatment. All stent based coronary revascularisation technologies reduce the need for revascularisation to a variable degree. Our results provide evidence for improved survival with new generation drug eluting stents but no other percutaneous revascularisation technology compared with medical treatment.

Percutaneous coronary interventional strategies for treatment of in-stent restenosis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents is the standard of care for treatment of native coronary artery stenoses, but optimum treatment strategies for bare metal stent and drug-eluting stent in-stent restenosis (ISR) have not been established. We aimed to compare and rank percutaneous treatment strategies for ISR. METHODS We did a network meta-analysis to synthesise both direct and indirect evidence from relevant trials. We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase for randomised controlled trials published up to Oct 31, 2014, of different PCI strategies for treatment of any type of coronary ISR. The primary outcome was percent diameter stenosis at angiographic follow-up. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42014014191. FINDINGS We deemed 27 trials eligible, including 5923 patients, with follow-up ranging from 6 months to 60 months after the index intervention. Angiographic follow-up was available for 4975 (84%) of 5923 patients 6-12 months after the intervention. PCI with everolimus-eluting stents was the most effective treatment for percent diameter stenosis, with a difference of -9·0% (95% CI -15·8 to -2·2) versus drug-coated balloons (DCB), -9·4% (-17·4 to -1·4) versus sirolimus-eluting stents, -10·2% (-18·4 to -2·0) versus paclitaxel-eluting stents, -19·2% (-28·2 to -10·4) versus vascular brachytherapy, -23·4% (-36·2 to -10·8) versus bare metal stents, -24·2% (-32·2 to -16·4) versus balloon angioplasty, and -31·8% (-44·8 to -18·6) versus rotablation. DCB were ranked as the second most effective treatment, but without significant differences from sirolimus-eluting (-0·2% [95% CI -6·2 to 5·6]) or paclitaxel-eluting (-1·2% [-6·4 to 4·2]) stents. INTERPRETATION These findings suggest that two strategies should be considered for treatment of any type of coronary ISR: PCI with everolimus-eluting stents because of the best angiographic and clinical outcomes, and DCB because of its ability to provide favourable results without adding a new stent layer. FUNDING None.

Comparison of drug-eluting stents with bare metal stents in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

AIMS To evaluate safety and effectiveness of early generation drug-eluting stents (DES) compared with bare-metal stents (BMS) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and to determine whether benefits and risks vary over time. METHODS AND RESULTS We performed a meta-analysis of 15 randomized controlled trials enrolling a total of 7867 patients comparing first-generation FDA-approved DES with BMS in patients with STEMI. Random effect models were used to assess differences in outcomes between DES and BMS among different time periods with regard to the pre-specified primary outcomes stent thrombosis (ST) and target vessel revascularization (TVR). The overall risk of definite ST was similar for DES and BMS [risk ratio (RR) = 1.08, 95% CI 0.82-1.43]. However, there were time-dependent effects, with a RR of 0.80 during the first year (95% CI 0.58-1.12) and 2.10 during subsequent years (95% CI 1.20-3.69), with a positive test for interaction between RR of ST and time (P for interaction = 0.009). Results were similar for definite or probable ST (P for interaction = 0.015). In the overall analysis, TVR was performed less frequently in patients with DES when compared with BMS (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.43-0.61), with a greater benefit in the first year (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.38-0.55) when compared with subsequent years (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.59-0.94; P for interaction = 0.007). CONCLUSION An early benefit of early generation DES in primary PCI for STEMI with a reduction in TVR and a trend towards less definite ST is offset in subsequent years by an increased risk of very late ST.

Safety and efficacy of drug-eluting stents in women: a patient-level pooled analysis of randomised trials

BACKGROUND The safety and efficacy of drug-eluting stents (DES) in the treatment of coronary artery disease have been assessed in several randomised trials. However, none of these trials were powered to assess the safety and efficacy of DES in women because only a small proportion of recruited participants were women. We therefore investigated the safety and efficacy of DES in female patients during long-term follow-up. METHODS We pooled patient-level data for female participants from 26 randomised trials of DES and analysed outcomes according to stent type (bare-metal stents, early-generation DES, and newer-generation DES). The primary safety endpoint was a composite of death or myocardial infarction. The secondary safety endpoint was definite or probable stent thrombosis. The primary efficacy endpoint was target-lesion revascularisation. Analysis was by intention to treat. FINDINGS Of 43,904 patients recruited in 26 trials of DES, 11,557 (26·3%) were women (mean age 67·1 years [SD 10·6]). 1108 (9·6%) women received bare-metal stents, 4171 (36·1%) early-generation DES, and 6278 (54·3%) newer-generation DES. At 3 years, estimated cumulative incidence of the composite of death or myocardial infarction occurred in 132 (12·8%) women in the bare-metal stent group, 421 (10·9%) in the early-generation DES group, and 496 (9·2%) in the newer-generation DES group (p=0·001). Definite or probable stent thrombosis occurred in 13 (1·3%), 79 (2·1%), and 66 (1·1%) women in the bare-metal stent, early-generation DES, and newer-generation DES groups, respectively (p=0·01). The use of DES was associated with a significant reduction in the 3 year rates of target-lesion revascularisation (197 [18·6%] women in the bare-metal stent group, 294 [7·8%] in the early-generation DES group, and 330 [6·3%] in the newer-generation DES group, p<0·0001). Results did not change after adjustment for baseline characteristics in the multivariable analysis. INTERPRETATION The use of DES in women is more effective and safe than is use of bare-metal stents during long-term follow-up. Newer-generation DES are associated with an improved safety profile compared with early-generation DES, and should therefore be thought of as the standard of care for percutaneous coronary revascularisation in women. FUNDING Women in Innovation Initiative of the Society of Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions.

Report of a European Society of Cardiology-European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions task force on the evaluation of coronary stents in Europe: executive summary

The evaluation for European Union market approval of coronary stents falls under the Medical Device Directive that was adopted in 1993. Specific requirements for the assessment of coronary stents are laid out in supplementary advisory documents. In response to a call by the European Commission to make recommendations for a revision of the advisory document on the evaluation of coronary stents (Appendix 1 of MEDDEV 2.7.1), the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) established a Task Force to develop an expert advisory report. As basis for its report, the ESC-EAPCI Task Force reviewed existing processes, established a comprehensive list of all coronary drug-eluting stents that have received a CE mark to date, and undertook a systematic review of the literature of all published randomized clinical trials evaluating clinical and angiographic outcomes of coronary artery stents between 2002 and 2013. Based on these data, the TF provided recommendations to inform a new regulatory process for coronary stents. The main recommendations of the task force include implementation of a standardized non-clinical assessment of stents and a novel clinical evaluation pathway for market approval. The two-stage clinical evaluation plan includes recommendation for an initial pre-market trial with objective performance criteria (OPC) benchmarking using invasive imaging follow-up leading to conditional CE-mark approval and a subsequent mandatory, large-scale randomized trial with clinical endpoint evaluation leading to unconditional CE-mark. The data analysis from the systematic review of the Task Force may provide a basis for determination of OPC for use in future studies. This paper represents an executive summary of the Task Forces report.