Yoshito Yamamoto

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.

Non-invasive estimation of human left ventricular end-diastolic pressure

Sato et al. (Electronic Letters 32, 949-950, 1996) reported that one can obtain a non-invasive estimate of left ventricular (LV) pressure at around end-diastole in an isolated canine preparation. In this study we examined whether this method can be applied to humans. Using the method proposed by Kanai et al. (IEEE. Trans. UFFC, 43, 791-810,1996), we detected small amplitude LV vibration from an ultrasonic pulse Doppler signal reflected from the interventricular septum in five patients (44-63 y.o., male;4, female;1). We measured the oscillation frequency of the LV wall through the wavelet transform of small amplitude LV vibration, and calculated LV pressure at around end-diastole from the values of oscillation frequency, internal radius and wall thickness using Mirskys equation. The estimated LV pressures at around end-diastole were similar to end-diastolic pressure measured directly by cardiac catheterization. These results show the possibility that this method allows for the non-invasive estimate of LV pressure at around end-diastole, and furthermore provides the basis for future clinical applicability of this technique.

Immunohistochemical Analysis of Platelet-derived Growth Factor-B Expression in Myocardial Tissues In Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy

Intimal and/or medial hyperplasia of intramyocardial small vessels is thought to be one of the causes of myocardial ischemia in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). However, the pathogenesis of such vascular lesions in HCM is not yet known. To evaluate the pathogenic role of platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF-B) and basic fibroblast growth factor (b-FGF), which have a potential to induce cellular and molecular changes observed in the vessels in HCM, we examined the expression of these molecules and PDGF receptors in cardiac tissues from six patients with HCM and seven controls using immunohistochemistry. The percentage of PDGF-B positive cells in the myocyte population in HCM was significantly higher than that in controls (52.6 +/- 16.2 (mean +/- SD) vs. 21.6 +/- 9.6, p < 0.01). PDGF-B was also observed in vascular regions in HCM (61.1 +/- 25.5% of arterioles) but not in controls. There were no significant differences in the expression of b-FGF and PDGF receptors in the myocyte and non-myocyte populations and the vascular regions between the HCM and control groups. Our study revealed that the expression of PDGF-B protein was up-regulated in HCM, suggesting the contribution of this molecule to the development of intramyocardial vasculopathy.

Comparison of Everolimus-Eluting and Sirolimus-Eluting Coronary Stents

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.

Comparison of Everolimus-Eluting and Sirolimus-Eluting Coronary StentsClinical Perspective

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.