Hiroki Shiomi

Comparison of Everolimus-Eluting and Sirolimus-Eluting Coronary Stents 1-Year Outcomes from the Randomized Evaluation of Sirolimus-Eluting Versus Everolimus-Eluting Stent Trial (RESET)

Background— Several recent randomized trials comparing everolimus-eluting stent (EES) and sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) reported similar outcomes. However, only 1 trial was powered for a clinical end point, and no trial was powered for evaluating target-lesion revascularization. Methods and Results— Randomized Evaluation of Sirolimus-eluting versus Everolimus-eluting stent Trial is a prospective multicenter randomized open-label trial comparing EES with SES in Japan. The trial was powered for evaluating noninferiority of EES relative to SES in terms of target-lesion revascularization. From February and July 2010, 3197 patients were randomly assigned to receive either EES (1597 patients) or SES (1600 patients). At 1 year, the primary efficacy end point of target-lesion revascularization occurred in 65 patients (4.3%) in the EES group and in 76 patients (5.0%) in the SES group, demonstrating noninferiority of EES to SES ( P noninferiority<0.0001, and P superiority=0.34). Cumulative incidence of definite stent thrombosis was low and similar between the 2 groups (0.32% versus 0.38%, P =0.77). An angiographic substudy enrolling 571 patients (EES, 285 patients and SES, 286 patients) demonstrated noninferiority of EES relative to SES regarding the primary angiographic end point of in-segment late loss (0.06±0.37 mm versus 0.02±0.46 mm, P noninferiority<0.0001, and P superiority=0.24) at 278±63 days after index stent implantation. Conclusions— One-year clinical and angiographic outcome after EES implantation was noninferior to and not different from that after SES implantation in a stable coronary artery disease population with relatively less complex coronary anatomy. One-year clinical outcome after both EES and SES use was excellent with a low rate of target-lesion revascularization and a very low rate of stent thrombosis. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: . Unique identifier: [NCT01035450][1]. # Clinical Perspective {#article-title-27} [1]: /lookup/external-ref?link_type=CLINTRIALGOV&access_num=NCT01035450&atom=%2Fcirculationaha%2F126%2F10%2F1225.atomBackground— Several recent randomized trials comparing everolimus-eluting stent (EES) and sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) reported similar outcomes. However, only 1 trial was powered for a clinical end point, and no trial was powered for evaluating target-lesion revascularization. Methods and Results— Randomized Evaluation of Sirolimus-eluting versus Everolimus-eluting stent Trial is a prospective multicenter randomized open-label trial comparing EES with SES in Japan. The trial was powered for evaluating noninferiority of EES relative to SES in terms of target-lesion revascularization. From February and July 2010, 3197 patients were randomly assigned to receive either EES (1597 patients) or SES (1600 patients). At 1 year, the primary efficacy end point of target-lesion revascularization occurred in 65 patients (4.3%) in the EES group and in 76 patients (5.0%) in the SES group, demonstrating noninferiority of EES to SES (Pnoninferiority<0.0001, and Psuperiority=0.34). Cumulative incidence of definite stent thrombosis was low and similar between the 2 groups (0.32% versus 0.38%, P=0.77). An angiographic substudy enrolling 571 patients (EES, 285 patients and SES, 286 patients) demonstrated noninferiority of EES relative to SES regarding the primary angiographic end point of in-segment late loss (0.06±0.37 mm versus 0.02±0.46 mm, Pnoninferiority<0.0001, and Psuperiority=0.24) at 278±63 days after index stent implantation. Conclusions— One-year clinical and angiographic outcome after EES implantation was noninferior to and not different from that after SES implantation in a stable coronary artery disease population with relatively less complex coronary anatomy. One-year clinical outcome after both EES and SES use was excellent with a low rate of target-lesion revascularization and a very low rate of stent thrombosis. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01035450.

Incidence, Risk Factors, and Clinical Sequelae of Angiographic Peri-Stent Contrast Staining After Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Implantation

Background— We have noted abnormal angiographic findings—at the sites of drug-eluting stent implantation, suggesting contrast staining outside the stent struts—that do not fulfill the classic definition of coronary artery aneurysm. We propose a new term, peri-stent contrast staining (PSS), for these abnormal angiographic findings and assess their incidence, risk factors, and clinical sequelae. Methods and Results— Peri-stent contrast staining was defined as contrast staining outside the stent contour extending to ≥20% of the stent diameter. The study population consisted of 3081 lesions (1998 patients) that were treated exclusively with sirolimus-eluting stents and were evaluated by follow-up angiography within 12 months after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation in a single center. Late acquired PSS was observed in 58 lesions (1.9%) in 49 patients (2.5%). Independent risk factors of PSS included chronic total occlusion, whereas negative risk factors for PSS were left circumflex coronary artery lesion and in-stent restenosis lesion. Stent fracture was more frequently observed in lesions with PSS than in lesions without PSS (43.1% versus 5.4%, P<0.0001). Excluding 269 lesions with target-lesion revascularization within 12 months, the study population for long-term follow-up consisted of 51 lesions (42 patients) with PSS and 2761 lesions (1751 patients) without PSS. Cumulative incidence of target-lesion revascularization and definite very late stent thrombosis at 3 years in the PSS group was higher than that in the non-PSS group (15.0% versus 6.5%, and 8.2% versus 0.2%, respectively). Conclusions— Peri-stent contrast staining found within 12 months after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation appeared to be associated with subsequent target-lesion revascularization and very late stent thrombosis.

Association of onset to balloon and door to balloon time with long term clinical outcome in patients with ST elevation acute myocardial infarction having primary percutaneous coronary intervention: observational study.

Objective To evaluate the relation of symptom onset to balloon time and door to balloon time with long term clinical outcome in patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) having primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Design Observation of large cohort of patients with acute myocardial infarction. Setting 26 tertiary hospitals in Japan. Participants 3391 patients with STEMI who had primary percutaneous coronary intervention within 24 hours of symptom onset. Main outcome measures Composite of death and congestive heart failure, compared by onset to balloon time and door to balloon time. Results Compared with an onset to balloon time greater than 3 hours, a time of less than 3 hours was associated with a lower incidence of a composite of death and congestive heart failure (13.5% (123/964) v 19.2% (429/2427), P<0.001; relative risk reduction 29.7%). After adjustment for confounders, a short onset to balloon time was independently associated with a lower risk of the composite endpoint (adjusted hazard ratio 0.70, 95% confidence interval 0.56 to 0.88; P=0.002). However, no significant difference was found in the incidence of a composite of death and congestive heart failure between the two groups of patients with short (≤90 minutes) and long (>90 minutes) door to balloon time (16.7% (270/1671) v 18.4% (282/1720), P=0.54; relative risk reduction 9.2%). After adjustment for confounders, no significant difference was seen in the risk of the composite endpoint between the two groups of patients with short and long door to balloon time (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.98, 0.78 to 1.24: P=0.87). A door to balloon time of less than 90 minutes was associated with a lower incidence of a composite of death and congestive heart failure in patients who presented within 2 hours of symptom onset (11.9% (74/883) v 18.1% (147/655), P=0.01; relative risk reduction 34.3%) but not in patients who presented later (19.7% (196/788) v 18.7% (135/1065), P=0.44; −5.3%). Short door to balloon time was independently associated with a lower risk of a composite of death and congestive heart failure in patients with early presentation (adjusted hazard ratio 0.58, 0.38 to 0.87; P=0.009) but not in patients with delayed presentation (1.57, 1.12 to 2.18; P=0.008). A significant interaction was seen between door to balloon time and time to presentation (interaction P=0.01). Conclusions Short onset to balloon time was associated with better 3 year clinical outcome in patients with STEMI having primary percutaneous coronary intervention, whereas the benefit of short door to balloon time was limited to patients who presented early. Efforts to minimise onset to balloon time, including reduction of patient related delay, should be recommended to improve clinical outcome in STEMI patients.

Initial Surgical Versus Conservative Strategies in Patients With Asymptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis.

BACKGROUND Current guidelines generally recommend watchful waiting until symptoms emerge for aortic valve replacement (AVR) in asymptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). OBJECTIVES The study sought to compare the long-term outcomes of initial AVR versus conservative strategies following the diagnosis of asymptomatic severe AS. METHODS We used data from a large multicenter registry enrolling 3,815 consecutive patients with severe AS (peak aortic jet velocity >4.0 m/s, or mean aortic pressure gradient >40 mm Hg, or aortic valve area <1.0 cm(2)) between January 2003 and December 2011. Among 1,808 asymptomatic patients, the initial AVR and conservative strategies were chosen in 291 patients, and 1,517 patients, respectively. Median follow-up was 1,361 days with 90% follow-up rate at 2 years. The propensity score-matched cohort of 582 patients (n = 291 in each group) was developed as the main analysis set for the current report. RESULTS Baseline characteristics of the propensity score-matched cohort were largely comparable, except for the slightly younger age and the greater AS severity in the initial AVR group. In the conservative group, AVR was performed in 41% of patients during follow-up. The cumulative 5-year incidences of all-cause death and heart failure hospitalization were significantly lower in the initial AVR group than in the conservative group (15.4% vs. 26.4%, p = 0.009; 3.8% vs. 19.9%, p < 0.001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS The long-term outcome of asymptomatic patients with severe AS was dismal when managed conservatively in this real-world analysis and might be substantially improved by an initial AVR strategy. (Contemporary Outcomes After Surgery and Medical Treatment in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis Registry; UMIN000012140).

Two-year clinical, angiographic, and serial optical coherence tomographic follow-up after implantation of an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold and an everolimus-eluting metallic stent: insights from the randomised ABSORB Japan trial.

AIMS We sought to investigate two-year clinical and serial optical coherence tomography (OCT) outcomes after implantation of a fully bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) or a cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stent (CoCr-EES). METHODS AND RESULTS In the ABSORB Japan trial, 400 patients were randomised in a 2:1 ratio to BVS (N=266) or CoCr-EES (N=134). A pre-specified OCT subgroup (N=125, OCT-1 group) underwent angio-graphy and OCT post procedure and at two years. Overall, the two-year TLF rates were 7.3% and 3.8% in the BVS and CoCr-EES arms (p=0.18), respectively. Very late scaffold thrombosis (VLST) beyond one year was observed in 1.6% (four cases: all in non-OCT-1 subgroups) of the BVS arm, while there was no VLST in the CoCr-EES arm. In three cases, OCT at the time of or shortly after VLST demonstrated strut discontinuities, malapposition and/or uncovered struts. However, the vessel healing by two-year OCT was nearly complete in both BVS and CoCr-EES arms with almost fully covered struts, and minimal malapposition. The flow area by two-year OCT was smaller in the BVS arm than in the CoCr-EES arm, mainly due to tissue growth inside the device. However, there were no differences between the BVS and CoCr-EES with regard to the quality of homogenous tissues growing inside the devices. CONCLUSIONS The rate of TLF was numerically higher in the BVS arm than in the CoCr-EES arm, although this difference was not statistically significant. VLST was observed only in the BVS arm at a rate of 1.6% between one and two years. Further studies are mandatory to investigate the risk of BVS relative to metallic stents for VLST, and the underlying mechanisms of BVS VLST.

Late Adverse Events After Implantation of Sirolimus-Eluting Stent and Bare-Metal Stent Long-Term (5–7 Years) Follow-Up of the Coronary Revascularization Demonstrating Outcome Study-Kyoto Registry Cohort-2

Background—Late adverse events such as very late stent thrombosis (VLST) or late target-lesion revascularization (TLR) after first-generation sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) implantation have not been yet fully characterized at long term in comparison with those after bare-metal stent (BMS) implantation. Methods and Results—Among 13 058 consecutive patients undergoing first percutaneous coronary intervention in the Coronary REvascularization Demonstrating Outcome study-Kyoto registry Cohort-2, 5078 patients were treated with SES only, and 5392 patients were treated with BMS only. During 7-year follow-up, VLST and late TLR beyond 1 year after SES implantation occurred constantly and without attenuation at 0.24% per year and at 2.0% per year, respectively. Cumulative 7-year incidence of VLST was significantly higher in the SES group than that in the BMS group (1.43% versus 0.68%, P<0.0001). However, there was no excess of all-cause death beyond 1 year in the SES group as compared with that in the BMS group (20.8% versus 19.6%, P=0.91). Cumulative incidences of late TLR (both overall and clinically driven) were also significantly higher in the SES group than in the BMS group (12.0% versus 4.1%, P<0.0001 and 8.5% versus 2.6%, P<0.0001, respectively), leading to late catch-up of the SES group to the BMS group regarding TLR through the entire 7-year follow-up (18.8% versus 25.2%, and 10.6% versus 10.2%, respectively). Clinical presentation as acute coronary syndrome was more common at the time of late SES TLR compared with early SES TLR (21.2% and 10.0%). Conclusions—Late catch-up phenomenon regarding stent thrombosis and TLR was significantly more pronounced with SES than that with BMS. This limitation should remain the target for improvements of DES technology.

Duration of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy and Long-Term Clinical Outcome After Coronary Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation Landmark Analyses From the CREDO-Kyoto PCI/CABG Registry Cohort-2

Background— Optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation has not been yet fully elucidated. Methods and Results— We assessed the influence of prolonged thienopyridine therapy on clinical outcomes with landmark analysis at 4 and 13 months after DES implantation. Among 6802 patients with at least 1 DES implantation in the CREDO-Kyoto Registry Cohort-2, 6309 patients (on thienopyridine, 5438 patients; off thienopyridine, 871 patients) and 5901 patients (on thienopyridine, 4098 patients; off thienopyridine, 1803 patients) were eligible for the 4- and 13-month landmark analyses, respectively. The majority of patients had stable coronary artery disease (73%) and received sirolimus-eluting stents (93%), and approximately 90% of thienopyridine was ticlopidine. Patients taking thienopyridine had more complex comorbidities and more complex lesion and procedural characteristics as compared with patients not taking thienopyridine. After adjusting for confounders, thienopyridine use was not associated with decreased risk for death/myocardial infarction/stroke (hazard ratio [HR], 1.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.89–1.43, P=0.32 in the 4-month landmark analysis; HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.90–1.45, P=0.29 in the 13-month landmark analysis, respectively), whereas the risk for GUSTO moderate/severe bleeding tended to be higher in patients taking thienopyridine (HR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.00–2.23, P=0.049 in the 4-month landmark analysis; HR, 1.44; 95% CI, 0.99–2.09, P=0.057 in the 13-month landmark analysis, respectively). Conclusions— Prolonged thienopyridine therapy beyond 4 and 13 months appeared not to be associated with reduction in ischemic events but to be associated with a trend toward increased bleeding. Optimal duration of DAPT after DES implantation might be shorter than the currently recommended 1-year interval.

Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Balloon Angioplasty for Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Restenosis: Insights From the j-Cypher Registry

Background— Optimal treatment strategies for restenosis of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) have not been adequately addressed yet. Methods and Results— During the 3-year follow-up of 12 824 patients enrolled in the j-Cypher registry, 1456 lesions in 1298 patients underwent target-lesion revascularization (TLR). Excluding 362 lesions undergoing TLR for stent thrombosis or TLR using treatment modalities other than SES or balloon angioplasty (BA), 1094 lesions with SES-associated restenosis in 990 patients treated with either SES (537 lesions) or BA (557 lesions) constituted the study population for the analysis of recurrent TLR and stent thrombosis after the first TLR. Excluding 24 patients with both SES- and BA-treated lesions, 966 patients constituted the analysis set for the mortality outcome. Cumulative incidence of recurrent TLR in the SES-treated restenosis lesions was significantly lower than that in the BA-treated restenosis lesions (23.8% versus 37.7% at 2 years after the first TLR; P<0.0001). Among 33 baseline variables evaluated, only hemodialysis was identified to be the independent risk factor for recurrent TLR by a multivariable logistic regression analysis. After adjusting for confounders, repeated SES implantation was associated with a strong treatment effect in preventing recurrent TLR over BA (odds ratio, 0.44; 95% confidence interval, 0.32 to 0.61; P<0.0001). The 2-year mortality and stent thrombosis rates between the SES- and the BA-treated groups were 10.4% versus 10.8% (P=0.4) and 0.6% versus 0.6%, respectively. Conclusions— Repeated implantation of SES for SES-associated restenosis is more effective in preventing recurrent TLR than treatment with BA, without evidence of safety concerns.

Two-Year Outcome of a Randomized Trial Comparing Second-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents Using Biodegradable or Durable Polymer

Recent network meta-analyses have raised concerns about the safety of biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents (BP-DES) compared with durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP-EES).1- 3 The NOBORI Biolimus-Eluting vs XIENCE/PROMUS Everolimus-Eluting Stent Trial (NEXT) is a 98-center, randomized, open-label, noninferiority trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stents (BP-BES) vs DP-EES.4

Long-Term Clinical Outcomes After Everolimus- and Sirolimus-Eluting Coronary Stent Implantation Final 3-Year Follow-Up of the Randomized Evaluation of Sirolimus-Eluting Versus Everolimus-Eluting Stent Trial

Background—Long-term clinical outcomes of everolimus-eluting stent (EES) compared with sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) have not been evaluated fully yet, especially whether EES implantation could positively affect late adverse events reported after SES implantation occurring >1 year. Methods and Results—In this all-comer prospective multicenter randomized open-label trial, 3196 patients were assigned randomly to implant either EES (n=1596) or SES (n=1600). At 3 years, EES was noninferior to SES on the primary safety end point (all-cause death or myocardial infarction; 10.1% versus 11.5%; noninferiority P <0.001; and superiority P=0.19). Cumulative incidence of definite stent thrombosis was low and was not significantly different between the 2 groups (0.5% versus 0.6%; P=0.81). There was no significant difference in the efficacy end point of target-lesion revascularization between the EES and SES groups (6.6% versus 7.9%; P=0.16). However, the cumulative incidence of target-lesion failure (cardiac death/target-vessel myocardial infarction/ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization) was significantly lower in the EES group than in the SES group (8.8% versus 11.4%; P=0.01). By a landmark analysis at 1 year, the cumulative incidence of very late stent thrombosis and late target-lesion revascularization was not significantly different between the 2 groups (0.2% versus 0.2%; P=0.99 and 2.2% versus 2.9%; P=0.21, respectively). Conclusions—The efficacy and safety outcomes for this trial after EES implantation remained comparable with those after SES implantation through 3-year follow-up. However, improvement of clinical outcome after EES implantation compared with SES implantation was suggested by the significantly lower cumulative incidences of target-lesion failure, which has been the most widely used primary end point in the stent-versus-stent trials. Clinical Trial Registration—URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01035450.