Salvatore Brugaletta

Radial versus femoral access in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing invasive management: a randomised multicentre trial

BACKGROUND It is unclear whether radial compared with femoral access improves outcomes in unselected patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing invasive management. METHODS We did a randomised, multicentre, superiority trial comparing transradial against transfemoral access in patients with acute coronary syndrome with or without ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction who were about to undergo coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to radial or femoral access with a web-based system. The randomisation sequence was computer generated, blocked, and stratified by use of ticagrelor or prasugrel, type of acute coronary syndrome (ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, troponin positive or negative, non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome), and anticipated use of immediate percutaneous coronary intervention. Outcome assessors were masked to treatment allocation. The 30-day coprimary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events, defined as death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, and net adverse clinical events, defined as major adverse cardiovascular events or Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) major bleeding unrelated to coronary artery bypass graft surgery. The analysis was by intention to treat. The two-sided α was prespecified at 0·025. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01433627. FINDINGS We randomly assigned 8404 patients with acute coronary syndrome, with or without ST-segment elevation, to radial (4197) or femoral (4207) access for coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention. 369 (8·8%) patients with radial access had major adverse cardiovascular events, compared with 429 (10·3%) patients with femoral access (rate ratio [RR] 0·85, 95% CI 0·74-0·99; p=0·0307), non-significant at α of 0·025. 410 (9·8%) patients with radial access had net adverse clinical events compared with 486 (11·7%) patients with femoral access (0·83, 95% CI 0·73-0·96; p=0·0092). The difference was driven by BARC major bleeding unrelated to coronary artery bypass graft surgery (1·6% vs 2·3%, RR 0·67, 95% CI 0·49-0·92; p=0·013) and all-cause mortality (1·6% vs 2·2%, RR 0·72, 95% CI 0·53-0·99; p=0·045). INTERPRETATION In patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing invasive management, radial as compared with femoral access reduces net adverse clinical events, through a reduction in major bleeding and all-cause mortality. FUNDING The Medicines Company and Terumo.

Everolimus-eluting stent versus bare-metal stent in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (EXAMINATION): 1 year results of a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND Everolimus-eluting stent (EES) reduces the risk of restenosis in elective percutaneous coronary intervention. However, the use of drug-eluting stent in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is still controversial. Data regarding the performance of second-generation EES in this setting are scarce. We report the 1-year result of the EXAMINATION (clinical Evaluation of the Xience-V stent in Acute Myocardial INfArcTION) trial, comparing EES with bare-metal stents (BMS) in patients with STEMI. METHODS This multicentre, prospective, randomised, all-comer controlled trial was done in 12 medical centres in three countries. Between Dec 31, 2008, and May 15, 2010, we recruited patients with STEMI up to 48 h after the onset of symptoms requiring emergent percutaneous coronary intervention. Patients were randomly assigned (ratio 1:1) to receive EES or BMS. Randomisation was in blocks of four or six patients, stratified by centre and centralised by telephone. Patients were masked to treatment. The primary endpoint was the patient-oriented combined endpoint of all-cause death, any recurrent myocardial infarction, and any revascularisation at 1 year and was analysed by intention to treat. The secondary endpoints of the study included the device-oriented combined endpoint of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction or target lesion revascularisation, and rates of all cause or cardiac death, recurrent myocardial infarction, target lesion or target vessel revascularisation, stent thrombosis, device and procedure success, and major and minor bleeding. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00828087. FINDINGS Of the 1504 patients randomised, 1498 patients were randomly assigned to receive EES (n=751) or BMS (n=747). The primary endpoint was similar in both groups (89 [11·9%] of 751 patients in the EES group vs 106 [14·2%] of 747 patients in the BMS group; difference -2·34 [95% CI -5·75 to 1·07]; p=0·19). Device-oriented endpoint (44 [5·9%] in the EES group vs 63 [8·4%] in the BMS group; difference -2·57 [95% CI -5·18 to 0·03]; p=0·05) did not differ between groups, although rates of target lesion and vessel revascularisation were significantly lower in the EES group (16 [2·1%] vs 37 [5·0%], p=0·003, and 28 [3·7%] vs 51 [6·8%], p=0·0077, respectively). Rates of all cause (26 [3·5%] for EES vs 26 [3·5%] for BMS, p=1·00) or cardiac death (24 [3·2%] for EES vs 21 [2·8%] for BMS, p=0·76) or myocardial infarction (10 [1·3%] vs 15 [2·0%], p=0·32) did not differ between groups. Stent thrombosis rates were significantly lower in the EES group (4 [0·5%] patients with definite stent thrombosis in the EES group vs 14 [1·9%] in the BMS group and seven [0·9%] patients with definite or probable stent thrombosis in the EES group vs 19 [2·5%] in the BMS group, both p=0·019). Although device success rate was similar between groups, procedure success rate was significantly higher in the EES group (731 [97·5%] vs 705 [94·6%]; p=0·0050). Finally, Bleeding rates at 1 year were comparable between groups (29 [3·9%] patients in the EES group vs 39 [5·2%] in the BMS group; p=0·19). INTERPRETATION The use of EES compared with BMS in the setting of STEMI did not lower the patient-oriented endpoint. However, at the stent level both rates of target lesion revascularisation and stent thrombosis were reduced in recipients of EES. FUNDING Spanish Heart Foundation.

Use of the Instantaneous Wave-free Ratio or Fractional Flow Reserve in PCI

Background Coronary revascularization guided by fractional flow reserve (FFR) is associated with better patient outcomes after the procedure than revascularization guided by angiography alone. It is unknown whether the instantaneous wave‐free ratio (iFR), an alternative measure that does not require the administration of adenosine, will offer benefits similar to those of FFR. Methods We randomly assigned 2492 patients with coronary artery disease, in a 1:1 ratio, to undergo either iFR‐guided or FFR‐guided coronary revascularization. The primary end point was the 1‐year risk of major adverse cardiac events, which were a composite of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization. The trial was designed to show the noninferiority of iFR to FFR, with a margin of 3.4 percentage points for the difference in risk. Results At 1 year, the primary end point had occurred in 78 of 1148 patients (6.8%) in the iFR group and in 83 of 1182 patients (7.0%) in the FFR group (difference in risk, ‐0.2 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], ‐2.3 to 1.8; P<0.001 for noninferiority; hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.33; P=0.78). The risk of each component of the primary end point and of death from cardiovascular or noncardiovascular causes did not differ significantly between the groups. The number of patients who had adverse procedural symptoms and clinical signs was significantly lower in the iFR group than in the FFR group (39 patients [3.1%] vs. 385 patients [30.8%], P<0.001), and the median procedural time was significantly shorter (40.5 minutes vs. 45.0 minutes, P=0.001). Conclusions Coronary revascularization guided by iFR was noninferior to revascularization guided by FFR with respect to the risk of major adverse cardiac events at 1 year. The rate of adverse procedural signs and symptoms was lower and the procedural time was shorter with iFR than with FFR. (Funded by Philips Volcano; DEFINE‐FLAIR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02053038.)

Long-Term (>10 Years) Clinical Outcomes of First-in-Human Biodegradable Poly-l-Lactic Acid Coronary Stents Igaki-Tamai Stents

Background— The purpose of this study was to evaluate the long-term safety of the Igaki-Tamai stent, the first-in-human fully biodegradable coronary stent made of poly-l-lactic acid. Methods and Results— Between September 1998 and April 2000, 50 patients with 63 lesions were treated electively with 84 Igaki-Tamai stents. Overall clinical follow-up (>10 years) of major adverse cardiac events and rates of scaffold thrombosis was analyzed together with the results of angiography and intravascular ultrasound. Major adverse cardiac events included all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization/target vessel revascularization. During the overall clinical follow-up period (121±17 months), 2 patients were lost to follow-up. There were 1 cardiac death, 6 noncardiac deaths, and 4 myocardial infarctions. Survival rates free of all-cause death, cardiac death, and major adverse cardiac events at 10 years were 87%, 98%, and 50%, respectively. The cumulative rates of target lesion revascularization (target vessel revascularization) were 16% (16%) at 1 year, 18% (22%) at 5 years, and 28% (38%) at 10 years. Two definite scaffold thromboses (1 subacute, 1 very late) were recorded. The latter case was related to a sirolimus-eluting stent, which was implanted for a lesion proximal to an Igaki-Tamai stent. From the analysis of intravascular ultrasound data, the stent struts mostly disappeared within 3 years. The external elastic membrane area and stent area did not change. Conclusion— Acceptable major adverse cardiac events and scaffold thrombosis rates without stent recoil and vessel remodeling suggested the long-term safety of the Igaki-Tamai stent.

Everolimus-eluting bioresorbable stent vs. durable polymer everolimus-eluting metallic stent in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: results of the randomized ABSORB ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction-TROFI II trial.

Abstract Aims Patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) feature thrombus-rich lesions with large necrotic core, which are usually associated with delayed arterial healing and impaired stent-related outcomes. The use of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (Absorb) has the potential to overcome these limitations owing to restoration of native vessel lumen and physiology at long term. The purpose of this randomized trial was to compare the arterial healing response at short term, as a surrogate for safety and efficacy, between the Absorb and the metallic everolimus-eluting stent (EES) in patients with STEMI. Methods and results ABSORB-STEMI TROFI II was a multicentre, single-blind, non-inferiority, randomized controlled trial. Patients with STEMI who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention were randomly allocated 1:1 to treatment with the Absorb or EES. The primary endpoint was the 6-month optical frequency domain imaging healing score (HS) based on the presence of uncovered and/or malapposed stent struts and intraluminal filling defects. Main secondary endpoint included the device-oriented composite endpoint (DOCE) according to the Academic Research Consortium definition. Between 06 January 2014 and 21 September 2014, 191 patients (Absorb [n = 95] or EES [n = 96]; mean age 58.6 years old; 17.8% females) were enrolled at eight centres. At 6 months, HS was lower in the Absorb arm when compared with EES arm [1.74 (2.39) vs. 2.80 (4.44); difference (90% CI) −1.06 (−1.96, −0.16); Pnon-inferiority <0.001]. Device-oriented composite endpoint was also comparably low between groups (1.1% Absorb vs. 0% EES). One case of definite subacute stent thrombosis occurred in the Absorb arm (1.1% vs. 0% EES; P = ns). Conclusion Stenting of culprit lesions with Absorb in the setting of STEMI resulted in a nearly complete arterial healing which was comparable with that of metallic EES at 6 months. These findings provide the basis for further exploration in clinically oriented outcome trials.

Endothelial-dependent vasomotion in a coronary segment treated by ABSORB everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold system is related to plaque composition at the time of bioresorption of the polymer: indirect finding of vascular reparative therapy?

AIMS To analyse the vasoreactivity of a coronary segment, previously scaffolded by the ABSORB bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) device, in relationship to its intravascular ultrasound-virtual histology (IVUS-VH) composition and reduction in greyscale echogenicity of the struts. Coronary segments, transiently scaffolded by a polymeric device, may in the long-term recover a normal vasomotor tone. Recovery of a normal endothelial-dependent vasomotion may be enabled by scaffold bioresorption, composition of the underlying tissue, or a combination of both mechanisms. METHODS AND RESULTS All patients from the ABSORB Cohort A and B trials, who underwent a vasomotion test and IVUS-VH investigation at 12 and 24 months, were included. Acetylcholine (Ach) and nitroglycerin were used to test either the endothelial-dependent or -independent vasomotion of the treated segment. Changes in polymeric strut echogenicity-a surrogate for bioresorption-IVUS-VH composition of the tissue underneath the scaffold and their relationship with the pharmacologically induced vasomotion were all evaluated. Overall, 26 patients underwent the vasomotion test (18 at 12 and 8 at 24 months). Vasodilatory response to Ach was quantitatively associated with larger reductions over time in polymeric strut echogenicity (y= -0.159x- 6.85; r= -0.781, P< 0.001). Scaffolded segments with vasoconstriction to Ach had larger vessel areas (14.37 ± 2.50 vs. 11.85 ± 2.54 mm(2), P= 0.030), larger plaque burden (57.31 ± 5.96 vs. 49.09 ± 9.10%, P= 0.018), and larger necrotic core (NC) areas [1.39 (+1.14, +1.74) vs. 0.78 mm(2) (+0.20, +0.98), P= 0.006] compared with those with vasodilation. CONCLUSION Vasodilatory response to Ach, in coronary segments scaffolded by the ABSORB BVS device, is associated with a reduction in echogenicity of the scaffold over time, and a low amount of NC. In particular, the latter finding resembles the behaviour of a native coronary artery not caged by an intracoronary device.

Absorb Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold Versus Everolimus-Eluting Metallic Stent in ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: 1-Year Results of a Propensity Score Matching Comparison: The BVS-EXAMINATION Study (Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold-A Clinical Evaluation of Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stents in the Treatment of Patients With ST-segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction)

OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study was to compare the 1-year outcome between bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) and everolimus-eluting metallic stent (EES) in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients. BACKGROUND The Absorb BVS (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, California) is a polymeric scaffold approved for treatment of stable coronary lesions. Limited and not randomized data are available on its use in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients. METHODS This study included 290 consecutive STEMI patients treated by BVS, compared with either 290 STEMI patients treated with EES or 290 STEMI patients treated with bare-metal stents (BMS) from the EXAMINATION (A Clinical Evaluation of Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stents in the Treatment of Patients With ST-segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction) trial, by applying propensity score matching. The primary endpoint was a device-oriented endpoint (DOCE), including cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization, at 1-year follow-up. Device thrombosis, according to the Academic Research Consortium criteria, was also evaluated. RESULTS The cumulative incidence of DOCE did not differ between the BVS and EES or BMS groups either at 30 days (3.1% vs. 2.4%, hazard ratio [HR]: 1.31 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.48 to 3.52], p = 0.593; vs. 2.8%, HR: 1.15 [95% CI: 0.44 to 2.30], p = 0.776, respectively) or at 1 year (4.1% vs. 4.1%, HR: 0.99 [95% CI: 0.23 to 4.32], p = 0.994; vs. 5.9%, HR: 0.50 [95% CI: 0.13 to 1.88], p = 0.306, respectively). Definite/probable BVS thrombosis rate was numerically higher either at 30 days (2.1% vs. 0.3%, p = 0.059; vs. 1.0%, p = 0.324, respectively) or at 1 year (2.4% vs. 1.4%, p = 0.948; vs. 1.7%, p = 0.825, respectively), as compared with EES or BMS. CONCLUSIONS At 1-year follow-up, STEMI patients treated with BVS showed similar rates of DOCE compared with STEMI patients treated with EES or BMS, although rate of scaffolds thrombosis, mostly clustered in the early phase, was not negligible. Larger studies with longer follow-up are needed to confirm our findings.

Contemporary practice and technical aspects in coronary intervention with bioresorbable scaffolds: a European perspective

AIMS Next to patient characteristics, the lack of a standardised approach for bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) implantation is perceived as a potential explanation for the heterogeneous results reported so far. To provide some guidance, we sought to find a consensus on the best practices for BVS implantation and management across a broad array of patient and lesion scenarios. METHODS AND RESULTS Fourteen European centres with a high volume of BVS procedures combined their efforts in an informal collaboration. To get the most objective snapshot of different practices among the participating centres, a survey with 45 multiple choice questions was prepared and conducted. The results of the survey represented a basis for the technical advice provided in the document, whereas areas of controversy are highlighted. CONCLUSIONS Consensus criteria for patient and lesion selection, BVS implantation and optimisation, use of intravascular imaging guidance, approach to multiple patient and lesion scenarios, and management of complications, were identified.

Circumferential evaluation of the neointima by optical coherence tomography after ABSORB bioresorbable vascular scaffold implantation: can the scaffold cap the plaque?

OBJECTIVE To quantify the circumferential healing process at 6 and 12 months following scaffold implantation. BACKGROUND The healing process following stent implantation consists of tissue growing on the top of and in the space between each strut. With the ABSORB bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS), the outer circumference of the scaffold is detectable by optical coherence tomography (OCT), allowing a more accurate and complete evaluation of the intra-scaffold neointima. METHODS A total of 58 patients (59 lesions), who received an ABSORB BVS 1.1 implantation and a subsequent OCT investigation at 6 (n=28 patients/lesions) or 12 (n=30 patients with 31 lesions) months follow-up were included in the analysis. The thickness of the neointima was calculated circumferentially in the area between the abluminal side of the scaffold and the lumen by means of an automated detection algorithm. The symmetry of the neointima thickness in each cross section was evaluated as the ratio between minimum and maximum thickness. RESULTS The neointima area was not different between 6 and 12 months follow-up (1.57±0.42 mm(2) vs. 1.64±0.77 mm(2); p=0.691). No difference was also found in the mean thickness of the neointima (median [IQR]) between the two follow-up time points (210 μm [180-260]) vs. 220 μm [150-260]; p=0.904). However, the symmetry of the neointima thickness was higher at 12 than at 6 months follow-up (0.23 [0.13-0.28] vs. 0.16 [0.08-0.21], p=0.019). CONCLUSIONS A circumferential evaluation of the healing process following ABSORB implantation is feasible, showing the formation of a neointima layer, that resembles a thick fibrous cap, known for its contribution to plaque stability.

Background, Incidence, and Predictors of Antiplatelet Therapy Discontinuation During the First Year After Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation

Background— Predictors of antiplatelet therapy discontinuation (ATD) during the first year after drug-eluting stent implantation are poorly known. Methods and Results— This was a prospective study with 3-, 6-, 9-, and 12-month follow-up of patients receiving at least 1 drug-eluting stent between January and April 2008 in 29 hospitals. Individual- and hospital-level predictors of ATD were assessed by hierarchical-multinomial regression analysis. ATD could be assessed in 1622 candidates for follow-up (82.5%). A total of 234 patients (14.4%) interrupted at least 1 antiplatelet therapy drug, predominantly clopidogrel (n=182, 11.8%). Bleeding events or invasive procedures led to ATD in 109 patients. This was predicted by renal impairment (odds ratio [OR] 2.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.48 to 5.34), prior major hemorrhage (OR 3.77, 95% CI 1.41 to 10.03), and peripheral arterial disease (OR 1.78, 95% CI 1.01 to 3.15). Medical decisions led to ATD in 70 patients; this was predicted by long-term use of anticoagulant therapy (OR 3.88, 95% CI 1.26 to 11.98), undergoing the procedure in a private hospital (OR 13.3, 95% CI 1.69 to 105), and not receiving instructions about medication (OR 2.8, 95% CI 1.23 to 6.36). Thirty-nine patients interrupted ATD on their own initiative, mainly immigrants (OR 3.78, 95% CI 1.2 to 11.98) and consumers of psychotropic drugs (OR 2.58, 95% CI 1.3 to 5.12). Conclusions— ATD during the first year after drug-eluting stent implantation is based mainly on patient decision or a medical decision not associated with major bleeding events or major surgical procedures. Individual- and hospital-level variables are important to predict ATD.