Jens Aarøe

Randomized Study on Simple Versus Complex Stenting of Coronary Artery Bifurcation Lesions: The Nordic Bifurcation Study

Background— The optimal stenting strategy in coronary artery bifurcation lesions is unknown. In the present study, a strategy of stenting both the main vessel and the side branch (MV+SB) was compared with a strategy of stenting the main vessel only, with optional stenting of the side branch (MV), with sirolimus-eluting stents. Methods and Results— A total of 413 patients with a bifurcation lesion were randomized. The primary end point was a major adverse cardiac event: cardiac death, myocardial infarction, target-vessel revascularization, or stent thrombosis after 6 months. At 6 months, there were no significant differences in rates of major adverse cardiac events between the groups (MV+SB 3.4%, MV 2.9%; P=NS). In the MV+SB group, there were significantly longer procedure and fluoroscopy times, higher contrast volumes, and higher rates of procedure-related increases in biomarkers of myocardial injury. A total of 307 patients had a quantitative coronary assessment at the index procedure and after 8 months. The combined angiographic end point of diameter stenosis >50% of main vessel and occlusion of the side branch after 8 months was found in 5.3% in the MV group and 5.1% in the MV+SB group (P=NS). Conclusions— Independent of stenting strategy, excellent clinical and angiographic results were obtained with percutaneous treatment of de novo coronary artery bifurcation lesions with sirolimus-eluting stents. The simple stenting strategy used in the MV group was associated with reduced procedure and fluoroscopy times and lower rates of procedure-related biomarker elevation. Therefore, this strategy can be recommended as the routine bifurcation stenting technique.

Effect of fish oil on heart rate variability in survivors of myocardial infarction: a double blind randomised controlled trial

Marine n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids may protect against ischaemic heart disease.1 In the diet and reinfarction trial patients with an acute myocardial infarction advised to eat fish rich in n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids had a 29% reduction in two year all cause mortality compared with controls.2 The authors hypothesised that dietary n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids might reduce malignant ventricular arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death, as reported in animals.3 We investigated a possible antiarrhythmic effect of dietary n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids in survivors of myocardial infarction. Patients were eligible for study if they had been discharged from the department of cardiology at Aalborg Hospital between November 1991 and August 1993 after a myocardial infarction and had a ventricular ejection fraction below 0.40. We excluded patients aged over 75, patients with pacemakers or permanent tachyarrhythmias, and those with serious non-cardiac disease. Eighty one patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria and 55 gave informed consent to a double blind placebo controlled trial. Patients were randomly …

Complete revascularisation versus treatment of the culprit lesion only in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease (DANAMI-3—PRIMULTI): an open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND Patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary disease have a worse prognosis compared with individuals with single-vessel disease. We aimed to study the clinical outcome of patients with STEMI treated with fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided complete revascularisation versus treatment of the infarct-related artery only. METHODS We undertook an open-label, randomised controlled trial at two university hospitals in Denmark. Patients presenting with STEMI who had one or more clinically significant coronary stenosis in addition to the lesion in the infarct-related artery were included. After successful percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the infarct-related artery, patients were randomly allocated (in a 1:1 ratio) either no further invasive treatment or complete FFR-guided revascularisation before discharge. Randomisation was done electronically via a web-based system in permuted blocks of varying size by the clinician who did the primary PCI. All patients received best medical treatment. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, non-fatal reinfarction, and ischaemia-driven revascularization of lesions in non-infarct-related arteries and was assessed when the last enrolled patient had been followed up for 1 year. Analysis was on an intention-to-treat basis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01960933. FINDINGS From March, 2011, to February, 2014, we enrolled 627 patients to the trial; 313 were allocated no further invasive treatment after primary PCI of the infarct-related artery only and 314 were assigned complete revascularization guided by FFR values. Median follow-up was 27 months (range 12–44 months). Events comprising the primary endpoint were recorded in 68 (22%) patients who had PCI of the infarct-related artery only and in 40 (13%) patients who had complete revascularisation (hazard ratio 0∙56, 95% CI 0∙38–0∙83; p=0∙004). INTERPRETATION In patients with STEMI and multivessel disease, complete revascularisation guided by FFR measurements significantly reduces the risk of future events compared with no further invasive intervention after primary PCI. This effect is driven by significantly fewer repeat revascularisations, because all-cause mortality and non-fatal reinfarction did not differ between groups. Thus, to avoid repeat revascularisation, patients can safely have all their lesions treated during the index admission. Future studies should clarify whether complete revascularization should be done acutely during the index procedure or at later time and whether it has an effect on hard endpoints. FUNDING Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation and Danish Council for Strategic Research.

Efficacy and safety of zotarolimus-eluting and sirolimus-eluting coronary stents in routine clinical care (SORT OUT III): a randomised controlled superiority trial.

BACKGROUND In low-risk patients, the zotarolimus-eluting stent has been shown to reduce rates of restenosis without increasing the risk of stent thrombosis. We compared the efficacy and safety of the zotarolimus-eluting stent versus the sirolimus-eluting stent in patients with coronary artery disease who were receiving routine clinical care with no direct follow-up. METHODS We did a single-blind, all-comer superiority trial in adult patients with chronic stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes, and at least one target lesion. Patients were treated at one of five percutaneous coronary intervention centres between January, 2006, and August, 2007. Computer-generated block randomisation and a telephone allocation service were used to randomly assign patients to receive the zotarolimus-eluting or the sirolimus-eluting stent. Data for follow-up were obtained from national Danish administrative and health-care registries. The primary endpoint was a composite of major adverse cardiac events within 9 months: cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularisation. Intention-to-treat analyses were done at 9-month and 18-month follow-up. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00660478. FINDINGS 1162 patients (1619 lesions) were assigned to receive the zotarolimus-eluting stent, and 1170 patients (1611 lesions) to receive the sirolimus-eluting stent. 67 patients (72 lesions) had stent failure, and six patients were lost to follow-up. All randomly assigned patients were included in analyses at 9-month follow-up; 2200 patients (94%) had completed 18-month follow-up by the time of our assessment. At 9 months, the primary endpoint had occurred in a higher proportion of patients treated with the zotarolimus-eluting stent than in those treated with the sirolimus-eluting stent (72 [6%] vs 34 [3%]; HR 2.15, 95% CI 1.43-3.23; p=0.0002). At 18-month follow-up, this difference was sustained (113 [10%] vs 53 [5%]; 2.19, 1.58-3.04; p<0.0001). For patients receiving the zotarolimus-eluting stent and those receiving the sirolimus-eluting stent, all cause-mortality was similar at 9-month follow-up (25 [2%] vs 18 [2%]; 1.40, 0.76-2.56; p=0.28), but was significantly different at 18-month follow-up (51 [4%] vs 32 [3%]; 1.61, 1.03-2.50; p=0.035). INTERPRETATION The sirolimus-eluting stent is superior to the zotarolimus-eluting stent for patients receiving routine clinical care. FUNDING Cordis and Medtronic.

Randomized Comparison of Final Kissing Balloon Dilatation Versus No Final Kissing Balloon Dilatation in Patients With Coronary Bifurcation Lesions Treated With Main Vessel Stenting The Nordic-Baltic Bifurcation Study III

Background— It is unknown whether the preferred 1-stent bifurcation stenting approach with stenting of the main vessel (MV) and optional side branch stenting using drug-eluting stents should be finalized by a kissing balloon dilatation (FKBD). Therefore, we compared strategies of MV stenting with and without FKBD. Methods and Results— We randomized 477 patients with a bifurcation lesion to FKBD (n=238) or no FKBD (n=239) after MV stenting. The primary end point was major adverse cardiac events: cardiac death, non–procedure-related index lesion myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization, or stent thrombosis within 6 months. The 6-month major adverse cardiac event rates were 2.1% and 2.5% (P=1.00) in the FKBD and no-FKBD groups, respectively. Procedure and fluoroscopy times were longer and more contrast media was needed in the FKBD group than in the no-FKBD group. Three hundred twenty-six patients had a quantitative coronary assessment. At 8 months, the rate of binary (re)stenosis in the entire bifurcation lesion (MV and side branch) was 11.0% versus 17.3% (P=0.11), in the MV was 3.1% versus 2.5% (P=0.68), and in the side branch was 7.9% versus 15.4% (P=0.039) in the FKBD versus no-FKBD groups, respectively. In patients with true bifurcation lesions, the side branch restenosis rate was 7.6% versus 20.0% (P=0.024) in the FKBD and no-FKBD groups, respectively. Conclusions— MV stenting strategies with and without FKBD were associated with similar clinical outcomes. FKBD reduced angiographic side branch (re)stenosis, especially in patients with true bifurcation lesions. The simple no-FKBD procedures resulted in reduced use of contrast media and shorter procedure and fluoroscopy times. Long-term data on stent thrombosis are needed. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00914199.

Fish Consumption, n-3 Fatty Acids in Cell Membranes, and Heart Rate Variability in Survivors of Myocardial Infarction With Left Ventricular Dysfunction

To elucidate a possible antiarrhythmic effect of long-chained n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids, heart rate variability was assessed in 52 patients with a previous myocardial infarction and left ventricular dysfunction. The content of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids in platelets was closely associated with the patients fish-consuming habits, and a significant positive correlation was observed between the n-3 fatty acid docosahexaenoic acid and heart rate variability.

Comparison of Paclitaxel- and Sirolimus-Eluting Stents in Everyday Clinical Practice: The SORT OUT II Randomized Trial

CONTEXT Approval of drug-eluting coronary stents was based on results of relatively small trials of selected patients; however, in routine practice, stents are used in a broader spectrum of patients. OBJECTIVE To compare the first 2 commercially available drug-eluting stents-sirolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting-for prevention of symptom-driven clinical end points, using a study design reflecting everyday clinical practice. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS Randomized, blinded trial conducted August 2004 to January 2006 at 5 university hospitals in Denmark. Patients were 2098 men and women (mean [SD] age, 63.6 [10.8] years) treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and randomized to receive either sirolimus-eluting (n = 1065) or paclitaxel-eluting (n = 1033) stents. Indications for PCI included ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), non-STEMI or unstable angina pectoris, and stable angina. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary end point was a composite clinical end point of major adverse cardiac events, defined as either cardiac death, acute myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization, or target vessel revascularization. Secondary end points included individual components of the composite end point, all-cause mortality, and stent thrombosis. RESULTS The sirolimus- and the paclitaxel-eluting stent groups did not differ significantly in major adverse cardiac events (98 [9.3%] vs 114 [11.2%]; hazard ratio, 0.83 [95% confidence interval, 0.63-1.08]; P = .16) or in any of the secondary end points. The stent thrombosis rates were 27 (2.5%) and 30 (2.9%) (hazard ratio, 0.87 [95% confidence interval, 0.52-1.46]; P = .60), respectively. CONCLUSION In this practical randomized trial, there were no significant differences in clinical outcomes between patients receiving sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00388934.

Biolimus-eluting biodegradable polymer-coated stent versus durable polymer-coated sirolimus-eluting stent in unselected patients receiving percutaneous coronary intervention (SORT OUT V): a randomised non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND Third-generation biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents might reduce the risk of stent thrombosis compared with first-generation permanent polymer drug-eluting stents. We aimed to further investigate the effects of a biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stent compared with a durable polymer-coated sirolimus-eluting stent in a population-based setting. METHODS This randomised, multicentre, all-comer, non-inferiority trial was undertaken at three sites across western Denmark. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with chronic stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes, and at least one coronary artery lesion (>50% diameter stenosis). We randomly assigned patients (1:1) using an independently managed computer-generated allocation sequence to receive either a biolimus-eluting biodegradable polymer stent (Nobori, Terumo, Tokyo, Japan) or a sirolimus-eluting permanent polymer stent (Cypher Select Plus, Cordis, Johnson & Johnson, Warren, NJ, USA). The primary endpoint was a composite of safety (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, definite stent thrombosis) and efficacy (target vessel revascularisation) at 9 months, analysed by intention to treat (non-inferiority margin of 0·02). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01254981. FINDINGS From July, 2009, to January, 2011, we assigned 1229 patients (1532 lesions) to receive the biolimus-eluting stent and 1239 (1555 lesions) to receive the sirolimus-eluting stent. One patient was lost to follow-up because of emigration. Intention-to-treat analysis showed that 50 (4·1%) patients who were assigned the biolimus-eluting stent and 39 (3·1%) who were assigned the sirolimus-eluting stent met the primary endpoint (risk difference 0·9% [upper limit of one-sided 95% CI 2·1%]; p(non-inferiority)=0·06). Significantly more patients in the biolimus-eluting stent group had definite stent thrombosis at 12 months than did those in the sirolimus-eluting stent group (9 [0·7%] vs 2 [0·2%], risk difference 0·6% [95% CI 0·0-1·1]; p=0·034). Per-protocol analysis showed that 45 (3·8%) of 1193 patients who received a biolimus-eluting stent and 39 (3·2%) of 1208 who received a sirolimus-eluting stent met the primary endpoint (risk difference 0·5% [upper limit of one-sided 95% CI 1·8%]; p(non-inferiority)=0·03). INTERPRETATION At 1 year follow-up, the biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting Nobori stent did not improve clinical results compared with a first-generation sirolimus-eluting stent. We will need to obtain long-term data before we can make recommendations for the role of this biolimus-eluting stent in routine clinical practice. FUNDING Terumo and Cordis (Johnson & Johnson).

Randomized Comparison of Everolimus-Eluting and Sirolimus-Eluting Stents in Patients Treated With Percutaneous Coronary Intervention The Scandinavian Organization for Randomized Trials With Clinical Outcome IV (SORT OUT IV)

Background —Among drug-eluting stents released to date, the sirolimus-eluting stent has demonstrated the least amount of late lumen loss, but its efficacy and safety have not been compared head-to-head with the next-generation everolimus-eluting stent. Methods and Results —The S candinavian O rganization for R andomized T rials with Clinical O utcome IV trial was a randomized multicenter, single-blind, all-comer, two-arm, non-inferiority trial comparing the everolimus-eluting stent with the sirolimus-eluting stent in patients with coronary artery disease. The primary end point was a composite of safety (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, definite stent thrombosis) and efficacy (target vessel revascularization) parameters. The non-inferiority criterion was a risk difference of 0.015. Intention-to-treat analyses were done at 9-month and 18-month follow-up. 1,390 patients were assigned to receive the everolimus-eluting stent, and 1,384 patients were assigned to receive the sirolimus-eluting stent. At 9-month follow-up, 68 \[4.9%] patients treated with the everolimus-eluting stent versus 72 [5.2%] patients treated with the sirolimus-eluting stent experienced the primary end point (hazard ratio (HR) =0.94; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.67-1.31) ( p for non-inferiority=0.01). At 18-month follow-up, this differential remained: 99 [7.2%] patients treated with the everolimus-eluting stent versus 105 [7.6%\] (HR=0.94, 95% CI: 0.71-1.23). At 9-month follow-up, rate of definite stent thrombosis was higher in the sirolimus-eluting group (2 [0.1%] patients versus 9 [0.7%] patients, (HR=0.22, 95% CI:0.05-1.02)).At 18-monthfollow-up, this difference was sustained (3 [0.2%] patients versus 12 [0.9%] patients; (HR=0.25, 95% CI:0.07-0.88). Conclusions —The everolimus-eluting stent was found to be non-inferior to the sirolimus-eluting stent. Clinical Trial Registration Information —ClinicalTrials.gov; [NCT00552877][1] [1]: /lookup/external-ref?link_type=CLINTRIALGOV&access_num=NCT00552877&atom=%2Fcirculationaha%2Fearly%2F2012%2F02%2F03%2FCIRCULATIONAHA.111.063644.atomBackground— Among drug-eluting stents released to date, the sirolimus-eluting stent has demonstrated the least amount of late lumen loss, but its efficacy and safety have not been compared head-to-head with the next-generation everolimus-eluting stent. Methods and Results— The Scandinavian Organization for Randomized Trials with Clinical Outcome IV (SORT OUT IV) trial was a randomized multicenter, single-blind, all-comer, 2-arm, noninferiority trial comparing the everolimus-eluting stent with the sirolimus-eluting stent in patients with coronary artery disease. The primary end point was a composite of safety (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, definite stent thrombosis) and efficacy (target vessel revascularization) parameters. The noninferiority criterion was a risk difference of 0.015. Intention-to-treat analyses were done at 9- and 18-month follow-ups. A total of 1390 patients were assigned to receive the everolimus-eluting stent and 1384 patients to the sirolimus-eluting stent. At the 9-month follow-up, 68 patients (4.9%) treated with the everolimus-eluting stent compared with 72 patients (5.2%) treated with the sirolimus-eluting stent experienced the primary end point (hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.67–1.31; P for noninferiority=0.01). At the 18-month follow-up, this differential remained: 99 patients (7.2%) treated with the everolimus-eluting stent versus 105 (7.6%) treated with the sirolimus-eluting stent (hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.71–1.23). At the 9-month follow-up, the rate of definite stent thrombosis was higher in the sirolimus-eluting group (2 patients [0.1%] versus 9 patients [0.7%]; hazard ratio, 0.22; 95% confidence interval, 0.05–1.02). At the 18-month follow-up, this difference was sustained (3 patients [0.2%] versus 12 patients [0.9%]; hazard ratio, 0.25; 95% confidence interval, 0.07–0.88). Conclusion— The everolimus-eluting stent was found to be noninferior to the sirolimus-eluting stent. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00552877.

Safety in simple versus complex stenting of coronary artery bifurcation lesions. The Nordic Bifurcation Study 14-month follow-up results

AIMS The risk of stent thrombosis has been reported to increase with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) complexity. The present study reports the pre-specified secondary endpoint of a 14-month stent thrombosis and major adverse cardiac events in patients stented with a simple versus a complex bifurcation technique using sirolimus eluting stents (SES). METHODS AND RESULTS A total of 413 patients with a coronary bifurcation lesion were randomised to a simple treatment strategy; stenting of main vessel and optional stenting of side branch (MV group), or to a complex stenting strategy; stenting of both main vessel and side branch (MV+SB group). Mortality data were available in all patients and 14-month clinical follow-up data in 395 (96%) of the patients. After 14 months, the rates of definite, probable and possible stent thrombosis (ARC criteria) were 1.0% vs. 0.5%, 1.0% vs. 0% and 0.5% vs. 0% (ns) in the MV and in the MV+SB groups, respectively. Rates of MACE were 9.5% in the MV group and 8.2% in the MV+SB group (ns). Total death was seen in 2.4% vs. 1.0% and non-PCI related myocardial infarction in 2.0% vs. 1.0% in the MV and the MV+SB groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS After 14 months, two months after recommended cessation of dual antiplatelet therapy, the rates of stent thrombosis and major adverse cardiac events were low and independent of treatment complexity in patients treated with SES for coronary artery bifurcation lesions.