J. (Hans) W. Louwerenburg

Third-generation zotarolimus-eluting and everolimus-eluting stents in all-comer patients requiring a percutaneous coronary intervention (DUTCH PEERS): a randomised, single-blind, multicentre, non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND Third-generation, permanent-polymer-based drug-eluting stents with novel, flexible designs might be more easily delivered than previous generations of stents in complex coronary lesions, but might be less longitudinally stable. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy in all-comer patients of two third-generation stents that are often used clinically, but that have not yet been compared, and one of which has not previously been assessed in a randomised trial. METHODS In this investigator-initiated, single-blind, multicentre, randomised, two-arm, non-inferiority trial, patients aged 18 years and older who required a percutaneous coronary intervention with implantation of a drug-eluting stent were recruited from four study sites in the Netherlands. We randomly assigned patients by independently managed computer-generated allocation sequences in a 1:1 ratio to receive either cobalt-chromium-based zotarolimus-eluting stents (Resolute Integrity, Medtronic, Santa Rosa, CA, USA) or platinum-chromium-based everolimus-eluting stents (Promus Element, Boston Scientific, Natick, MA, USA). Patients and analysts were masked to the allocated stent, but treating clinicians were not. The primary endpoint of target-vessel failure was a composite of safety (cardiac death or target-vessel-related myocardial infarction) and efficacy (target-vessel revascularisation) at 12 months, analysed by intention to treat (with a non-inferiority margin of 3·6%). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01331707. FINDINGS Between Nov 25, 2010, and May 24, 2012, 1811 eligible all-comer patients, with 2371 target lesions, were enrolled in the study. 370 (20%) patients presented with ST-elevation myocardial infarction and 447 (25%) with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction. 906 patients were assigned to receive zotarolimus-eluting stents and 905 to receive everolimus-eluting stents. Ease of stent delivery was shown by very low numbers of patients requiring treatment other than their assigned study treatment (six [1%] in the zotarolimus-eluting stent group vs five [1%] in the everolimus-eluting stent group; p=0·22). 12-month follow-up results were available for 1810 patients (one patient in the zotarolimus-eluting stent group withdrew consent). The primary endpoint was met by 55 (6%) of 905 patients in the zotarolimus-eluting stent group and 47 (5%) of 905 in the everolimus-eluting stent group. The zotarolimus-eluting stent was non-inferior to the everolimus-eluting stent (absolute risk difference 0·88%, 95% CI -1·24% to 3·01%; upper limit of one-sided 95% CI 2·69%; non-inferiority p=0·006). We noted no significant between-group differences in individual components of the primary endpoint. Definite stent thrombosis occurred in three (0·3%) patients in the zotarolimus-eluting stent group and six (0·7%) patients in the everolimus-eluting stent group (p=0·34). Longitudinal stent deformation was seen only in the everolimus-eluting stent group (nine [1·0%] of 905 vs 0 of 906, p=0·002; nine of 1591 [0·6%] everolimus-eluting stents implanted became deformed), but was not associated with any adverse events. INTERPRETATION Both stents were similarly efficacious and safe, and provided excellent clinical outcomes, especially in view of the large number of patients who presented with acute myocardial infarctions. FUNDING Boston Scientific, Medtronic.

Clinical Events and Patient-Reported Chest Pain in All-Comers Treated With Resolute Integrity and Promus Element Stents : 2-Year Follow-Up of the DUTCH PEERS (DUrable Polymer-Based STent CHallenge of Promus ElemEnt Versus ReSolute Integrity) Randomized Trial (TWENTE II)

OBJECTIVES This study assessed clinical events and patient-reported chest pain 2 years after treatment of all-comers with Resolute Integrity zotarolimus-eluting stents (Medtronic Vascular, Santa Rosa, California) and Promus Element everolimus-eluting stents (Boston Scientific, Natick, Massachusetts). BACKGROUND For both drug-eluting stents (DES), no all-comer outcome data from >12 months of follow-up have been published. Although there is increasing interest in patient-reported chest pain following stenting, data with novel DES are scarce. METHODS The DUTCH PEERS multicenter trial (TWENTE II) (DUrable Polymer-Based STent CHallenge of Promus ElemEnt Versus ReSolute Integrity) Randomized Trial [TWENTE II]) randomized 1,811 all-comer patients to treatment with 1 type of DES. Monitoring and event adjudication were performed by independent contract research organizations. RESULTS The 2-year follow-up of 1,810 patients (99.9%) was available. The primary composite endpoint target vessel failure occurred in 8.6% and 7.8% of patients treated with zotarolimus- and everolimus-eluting stents, respectively (p = 0.55). Rates of components of target vessel failure were: cardiac death (2.4% vs. 1.9%, p = 0.42); target vessel-related myocardial infarction (2.4% vs. 1.8%, p = 0.33); clinically-indicated target vessel revascularization (4.6% vs. 4.9%, p = 0.83). At 1- and 2-year follow-up, >80% of patients were free from chest pain (no between-stent difference). In addition, >87% of patients were either free from chest pain or experienced pain only at maximal physical exertion, but not during normal daily activities. Patients with chest pain after 12 months at no more than moderate physical effort had a higher risk of target vessel revascularization during the following year (hazard ratio: 1.89 [95% confidence interval: 1.05 to 3.39], p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS During the second year of follow-up, the incidence of adverse clinical endpoints remained similar and low for both DES. The vast majority of patients were free from chest pain.

Comparison of Frequency of Periprocedural Myocardial Infarction in Patients With and Without Diabetes Mellitus to Those With Previously Unknown but Elevated Glycated Hemoglobin Levels (from the TWENTE Trial)

In patients without a history of diabetes mellitus, increased levels of glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) are associated with higher cardiovascular risk. The relation between undetected diabetes and clinical outcome after percutaneous coronary intervention is unknown. To investigate whether these patients may have an increased risk of periprocedural myocardial infarction (PMI), the most frequent adverse event after percutaneous coronary intervention, we assessed patients of the TWENTE trial (a randomized, controlled, second-generation drug-eluting stent trial) in whom HbA1c data were available. Patients were classified as known diabetics or patients without a history of diabetes who were subdivided into undetected diabetics (HbA1c ≥6.5%) and nondiabetics (HbA1c <6.5%). Systematic measurement of cardiac biomarkers and electrocardiographic assessment were performed. One-year clinical outcome was also compared. Of 626 patients, 44 (7%) were undetected diabetics, 181 (29%) were known diabetics, and 401 (64%) were nondiabetics. In undetected diabetics the PMI rate was higher than in nondiabetics (13.6% vs 3.7%, p = 0.01) and known diabetics (13.6% vs 6.1%, p = 0.11). Multivariate analysis adjusting for covariates confirmed a significantly higher PMI risk in undetected diabetics compared to nondiabetics (odds ratio 6.13, 95% confidence interval 2.07 to 18.13, p = 0.001) and known diabetics (odds ratio 3.73, 95% confidence interval 1.17 to 11.89, p = 0.03). After 1 year, target vessel MI rate was significantly higher in undetected diabetics (p = 0.02) than in nondiabetics, which was related mainly to differences in PMI. Target vessel failure was numerically larger in unknown diabetics than in nondiabetics, but this difference did not reach statistical significance (13.6% vs 8.0%, p = 0.25). In conclusion, undetected diabetics were shown to have an increased risk of PMI.

TWENTE Study: The Real-World Endeavor Resolute Versus Xience V Drug-Eluting Stent Study in Twente: study design, rationale and objectives

Background. New-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) may solve several problems encountered with first-generation DES, but there is a lack of prospective head-to-head comparisons between new-generation DES. In addition, the outcome of regulatory trials may not perfectly reflect the outcome in ‘real world’ patients.Objectives. To compare the efficacy and safety of two new-generation DES in a ‘real world’ patient population.Methods. A prospective, randomised, single-blinded clinical trial to evaluate clinical outcome after Endeavor Resolute vs. Xience V stent implantation. The primary endpoint is target vessel failure at one-year follow-up. In addition, the study comprises a two-year and an open-label five-year follow-up. (Neth Heart J 2010;18:360-4.)

Three-year clinical outcome after treatment of chronic total occlusions with second-generation drug-eluting stents in the TWENTE trial

To compare long‐term outcome of patients treated for chronic total occlusion (CTO) lesions versus patients treated for non‐CTO lesions only.

Women treated with second-generation zotarolimus-eluting resolute stents and everolimus-eluting xience V stents: insights from the gender-stratified, randomized, controlled TWENTE trial

Women are underrepresented in clinical research, and few data are available from randomized head‐to‐head comparisons of second‐generation drug‐eluting stents (DES) in female patients. Aim of this study was to assess safety and efficacy of two second‐generation DES in women. In TWENTE—a prospective, randomized, comparative DES trial—“real‐world” patients were stratified for gender before randomization for Resolute or Xience V stents.

Sex Difference in Chest Pain After Implantation of Newer Generation Coronary Drug-Eluting Stents: A Patient-Level Pooled Analysis From the TWENTE and DUTCH PEERS Trials

OBJECTIVES This study sought to assess sex differences in chest pain after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with newer generation drug-eluting stents (DES). BACKGROUND Sex-based data on chest pain after PCI with DES are scarce. METHODS The authors performed a patient-level pooled analysis of the TWENTE and DUTCH PEERS randomized trials, in which patients were treated with newer generation permanent polymer-coated DES. At 1 and 2 years, clinical follow-up was available in 99.8% and patient-reported chest pain data in 94.1% and 93.6%, respectively. RESULTS Among all 3,202 patients, the 871 (27.2%) women were older (67.5 ± 10.2 years vs. 62.8 ± 10.6 years; p < 0.001) and had more cardiovascular risk factors: diabetes (24.2% vs. 17.8%; p < 0.001), hypertension (63.6% vs. 51.6%; p < 0.001), and positive family history (54.5% vs. 50.1%; p = 0.03). At 1- and 2-year follow-up, women reported more clinically relevant chest pain (16.3% vs. 10.5%; p < 0.001, and 17.2% vs. 11.1%; p < 0.001, respectively). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that female sex independently predicted clinically relevant chest pain at 1- and 2-year follow-up both during daily activities and at minimum physical exertion/at rest (1 year adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 1.7; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.2 to 2.4; p = 0.002; and adjusted OR: 1.8; 95% CI: 1.3 to 2.5; p < 0.001; 2-year adjusted OR: 1.8; 95% CI: 1.3 to 2.6; p < 0.001; and adjusted OR: 1.7; 95% CI: 1.3 to 2.3; p = 0.001). Nevertheless, the 2-year rates of death, myocardial infarction, revascularization, stent thrombosis, and various composite clinical endpoints were similar for both sexes. CONCLUSIONS Although the incidence of adverse cardiovascular events was low and similar for both sexes, women showed a statistically significantly higher prevalence of clinically relevant chest pain, which might be largely related to mechanisms other than epicardial coronary obstruction.

Coronary artery dominance and the risk of adverse clinical events following percutaneous coronary intervention: insights from the prospective, randomised TWENTE trial

AIMS To investigate the prognostic value of coronary dominance for various adverse clinical events following the implantation of drug-eluting stents. METHODS AND RESULTS We assessed two-year follow-up data of 1,387 patients from the randomised TWENTE trial. Based on the origin of the posterior descending coronary artery, coronary circulation was categorised into left and non-left dominance (i.e., right and balanced). Target vessel-related myocardial infarction (MI) was defined according to the updated Academic Research Consortium (ARC) definition (2x upper reference limit of creatine kinase [CK], confirmed by CK-MB elevation), and periprocedural MI (PMI) as MI ≤48 hours following PCI. One hundred and thirty-six patients (9.8%) had left and 1,251 (90.2%) non-left dominance. Target lesions were more frequently located in dominant arteries (p<0.005). Left dominance was associated with more severe calcifications (p=0.006) and more bifurcation lesions (p=0.031). Non-left dominance tended to be less frequent in men (p=0.09). Left coronary dominance was associated with more target vessel-related MI (14 [10.3%] vs. 62 [5.0%], p=0.009). Left dominance independently predicted PMI (adjusted HR 2.19, 95% CI: 1.15-4.15, p=0.017), while no difference in other clinical endpoints was observed between dominance groups. CONCLUSIONS In the population of the TWENTE trial, we observed a higher incidence of periprocedural myocardial infarction in patients who had left coronary dominance.

Complex patients treated with zotarolimus-eluting resolute and everolimus-eluting xience V stents in the randomized TWENTE trial : Comparison of 2-year clinical outcome

To assess the differences in clinical outcome between complex patients treated with Resolute zotarolimus‐eluting stents (ZES) versus Xience V everolimus‐eluting stents (EES).

Clinical outcome following second-generation drug-eluting stent use for off-label versus on-label indications: Insights from the two-year outcome of the TWENTE trial

AIMS Drug-eluting stents (DES) were first used on-label - in simple patients with low clinical risk and easily accessible lesions. Currently, DES are increasingly used off-label - in complex patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) with historically higher event risk. Therefore, our aim was to investigate whether patients with off-label indications for DES use had similar outcomes compared to patients who were treated for on-label indications only. We analysed two-year follow-up data of 1,387 TWENTE trial patients, treated with second-generation everolimus-eluting XIENCE V or zotarolimus-eluting Resolute stents, and compared off-label vs. on-label DES use with regard to the following clinical endpoints: cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), periprocedural MI (≤48 hrs), and target vessel revascularisation (TVR). Patients with off-label DES use (n=1,033; 74.5%) had more diabetes (22.9% vs. 17.5%; p=0.032), previous MI (35.9% vs. 22.3%; p<0.001), type B2/C lesions (84.7% vs. 62.7%; p<0.001), and acute coronary syndromes (57.8% vs. 33.3%; p<0.001). Nevertheless, cardiac death and TVR rates were similar to those of patients with on-label DES use (p>0.8). Following off-label DES use, there was a higher incidence of PMI (5.0% vs. 1.4%; p=0.003), of which only 1.1% reached creatine kinase levels >5x the upper limit of normal (ULN). Despite differences in risk profile, patients with off-label DES use did not differ from patients with on-label DES use in clinical endpoints other than periprocedural MI. These largely positive findings underline the favourable safety profile of second-generation DES.