Long-term outcomes after coronary intervention with biodegradable polymer stents in patients with acute coronary syndromes.

BACKGROUND: Patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) may have worse outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention compared to patients without ACS. AIMS: To compare 5-year efficacy and safety outcomes in patients with and without ACS treated with biodegradable polymers, the ultrathin strut sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent (O-SES) or the biolimus-eluting Nobori stent (N-BES). METHODS: The Scandinavian Organisation for Randomized Trials with Clinical Outcome VII is a randomized trial comparing O-SES and N-BES in an all-comer setting. Of 2525 patients, 1329 (53%) patients had ACS and 1196 (47%) patients were without ACS. Endpoints were target lesion failure (TLF) (a composite of cardiac death, target lesion myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization) and definite stent thrombosis within 5 years. RESULTS: At 5-year follow-up, TLF did not differ significantly between patients with and without ACS (12.3% vs. 13.2%; rate ratio (RR) 1.00; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.70-1.44), whereas the risk of definite stent thrombosis was increased in patients with ACS (2.3% vs. 1.3; RR: 2.01 [95% CI: 1.01-3.98]). In patients with ACS, the rate of TLF was similar between O-SES and N-BES (12.4% vs. 12.3%; RR: 1.02; 95% CI: 0.74-1.40). The reduced risk of definite stent thrombosis in O-SES treated ACS patients within the first year (0.2% vs. 1.6%; RR: 0.12; 95% CI: 0.02-0.93) was not maintained after 5 years (1.8% vs. 2.7%; RR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.37-1.63). CONCLUSION: Patients with ACS had an increased risk of stent thrombosis regardless of the stent type used. Long-term outcomes were similar for ACS patients treated with O-SES or N-BES at 5 years.

Dual-therapy CD34 antibody-covered sirolimus-eluting COMBO stents versus sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stents in patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention: the three-year outcomes of the SORT OUT X randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Target lesion failure (TLF) remains an issue with contemporary drug-eluting stents. The dual-therapy sirolimus-eluting and CD34 antibody-coated COMBO stent (DTS) was designed to improve early healing. AIMS: We aimed to compare the 3-year outcomes of the DTS and the sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent (SES) in all-comer patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS: The SORT OUT X trial is a prospective multicentre randomised clinical trial with a registry-based follow-up comparing DTS and SES. The primary endpoint, TLF, is a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction or target lesion revascularisation (TLR). RESULTS: A total of 3,146 patients were randomised to treatment with the DTS (1,578 patients) or the SES (1,568 patients). At 3 years, an intention-to-treat analysis showed that 155 patients (9.8%) who were assigned the DTS and 118 patients (7.5%) who were assigned the SES met the primary endpoint (incidence rate ratio for TLF=1.33, 95% confidence interval: 1.04-1.70; p=0.02). This difference was caused by a significantly higher TLF rate in the DTS group compared to the SES group within the first year, which was mainly explained by a higher incidence of TLR in the DTS group compared to the SES group. Of note, the TLF rates were almost identical from 1 year to 3 years in both stent groups. CONCLUSIONS: At 3 years, the SES was superior to the DTS, mainly because the DTS was associated with an increased risk of TLF within the first year but not from 1 to 3 years. CLINICALTRIALS: gov: NCT03216733.

Impact of Percutaneous Intervention Compared to Pharmaceutical Therapy on Complex Arrhythmias in Patients With Chronic Total Coronary Occlusion. Rationale and Design of the CTO-ARRHYTHMIA Study.

Chronic total coronary occlusions (CTO) occur in up to 50 % of patients with coronary artery disease by angiography. In CTO-patients, clinically significant arrhythmia is potentially important and insufficiently investigated. Therefore, the purpose of the CTO-ARRHYTHMIA study was to investigate the incidence of loop recorder detected clinically significant arrhythmias and the effect on arrhythmias of revascularization by CTO-PCI. The study is an independent sub-study of the NOrdic-Baltic Randomized Registry Study for Evaluation of PCI in Chronic Total Coronary Occlusion (NOBLE-CTO); ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03392415. NOBLE-CTO prospectively collects procedural data, quality of life measures, echocardiographic and cardiac MRI findings before and after treatment as well as clinical outcomes in all CTO patients that may be treated by PCI.

Five-Year Clinical Outcome of the Biodegradable Polymer Ultrathin Strut Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Compared to the Biodegradable Polymer Biolimus-Eluting Stent in Patients Treated With Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: From the SORT OUT VII Trial.

BACKGROUND: Biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents were developed to improve safety and efficacy outcomes for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. However, few long-term follow-up efficacy studies are available. The study sought to investigate 5-year results from the SORT OUT VII trial (Scandinavian Organization for Randomized Trials With Clinical Outcome) comparing the biodegradable polymer ultrathin-strut sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent (O-SES) versus the biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting Nobori stent (N-BES). METHODS: This registry-based, randomized, multicenter, single-blinded, noninferiority trial compared O-SES and N-BES in an all-comer population. The composite primary end point, target lesion failure, consisted of cardiac death, myocardial infarction related to the target lesion, or target lesion revascularization within 1 year. Follow-up was extended to 5 years. RESULTS: Five-year follow-up was completed for 2521 patients (99.8%). Five-year target lesion failure did not differ between O-SES (12.4%) and N-BES (13.1%; rate ratio [RR], 0.94 [95% CI, 0.75-1.18]). Cardiac death (RR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.67-1.34]), target myocardial infarction (RR, 1.14 [95% CI, 0.76-1.71]), target lesion revascularization (RR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.67-1.21]), and definite stent thrombosis rates (RR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.41-1.33]) did not differ significantly between the 2 stents. Within the first year, definite ST was significantly lower for O-SES (0.4%) compared to N-BES (1.2%; RR, 0.33 [95% CI, 0.12-0.92]), but no difference was from 1 through 5 years: O-SES 1.2% and N-BES 0.9% (RR, 1.28 [95% CI, 0.58-2.82]). CONCLUSIONS: Five years after treatment with biodegradable polymer stents, target lesion failure did not differ among O-SES and N-BES. Definite stent thrombosis was less often seen within the first year in the O-SES but the difference was not maintained after 5 years. REGISTRATION: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01879358.

Impact of acute coronary syndrome on clinical outcomes after revascularization with the dual-therapy CD34 antibody-covered sirolimus-eluting Combo stent and the sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of the dual-therapy CD34 antibody-covered sirolimus-eluting Combo stent (DTS) and the sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent (O-SES) in patients with and without acute coronary syndrome (ACS) included in the SORT OUT X study. BACKGROUND: The incidence of target lesion failure (TLF) after treatment with modern drug-eluting stents has been reported to be significantly higher in patients with ACS when compared to patients without ACS. Whether the results from the SORT OUT X study apply to patients with and without ACS remains unknown. METHODS: In total, 3146 patients were randomized to stent implantation with DTS (n = 1578; ACS: n = 856) or O-SES (n = 1568; ACS: n = 854). The primary end point, TLF, was a composite of cardiac death, target-lesion myocardial infarction (MI), or target lesion revascularization (TLR) within 1 year. RESULTS: At 1 year, the rate of TLF was higher in the DTS group compared to the O-SES group, both among patients with ACS (6.7% vs. 4.1%; incidence rate ratio: 1.65 [95% confidence interval, CI: 1.08-2.52]) and without ACS (6.0% vs. 3.2%; incidence rate ratio: 1.88 [95% CI: 1.13-3.14]). The differences were mainly explained by higher rates of TLR, whereas rates of cardiac death and target lesion MI did not differ significantly between the two stent groups in patients with or without ACS CONCLUSION: Compared to the O-SES, the DTS was associated with a higher risk of TLF at 12 months in patients with and without ACS. The differences were mainly explained by higher rates of TLR.

Care of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: an international analysis of quality indicators in the acute coronary syndrome STEMI Registry of the EURObservational Research Programme and ACVC and EAPCI Associations of the European Society of Cardiology in 11 462 patients.

AIMS: To use quality indicators to study the management of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) in different regions. METHODS AND RESULTS: Prospective cohort study of STEMI within 24 h of symptom onset (11 462 patients, 196 centres, 26 European Society of Cardiology members, and 3 affiliated countries). The median delay between arrival at a percutaneous cardiovascular intervention (PCI) centre and primary PCI was 40 min (interquartile range 20-74) with 65.8% receiving PCI within guideline recommendation of 60 min. A third of patients (33.2%) required transfer from their initial hospital to one that could perform emergency PCI for whom only 27.2% were treated within the quality indicator recommendation of 120 min. Radial access was used in 56.6% of all primary PCI, but with large geographic variation, from 76.4 to 9.1%. Statins were prescribed at discharge to 98.7% of patients, with little geographic variation. Of patients with a history of heart failure or a documented left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40%, 84.0% were discharged on an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker and 88.7% were discharged on beta-blockers. CONCLUSION: Care for STEMI shows wide geographic variation in the receipt of timely primary PCI, and is in contrast with the more uniform delivery of guideline-recommended pharmacotherapies at time of hospital discharge.

Angiographic outcome in patients treated with deferred stenting after ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction-results from DANAMI-3-DEFER.

AIMS: Stent implantation during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) occasionally results in flow disturbances and distal embolization, which may cause adverse clinical outcomes. Deferred stent implantation seems to reduce the impairment on myocardial function, although the mechanisms have not been clarified. We sought to evaluate whether deferred stenting could reduce flow disturbance in patients treated with primary PCI. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with STEMI included in the DANAMI-3-DEFER trial were randomized to deferred versus immediate stent implantation. The primary and secondary outcomes of this substudy were the incidences of slow/no reflow and distal embolization. A total of 1205 patients were included. Deferred stenting (n = 594) resulted in lower incidences of distal embolization [odds ratio (OR) 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46-0.98, P = 0.040] and slow/no reflow (OR 0.60, 95%CI 0.37-0.97, P = 0.039). In high-risk subgroups, the protective effect was greatest in patients >65 years of age (slow/no reflow: OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.17-0.72, P = 0.004 and distal embolization: OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.18-0.63, P = 0.001), in patients presenting with occluded culprit artery at admission (slow/no reflow: OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.16-0.65, P = 0.001 and distal embolization: OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.31-0.96, P = 0.036) and in patients with thrombus grade >3 (slow/no reflow: OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.20-0.67, P = 0.001 and distal embolization: OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.24-0.64, P < 0.001) with a significant P for interaction for all. CONCLUSION: Deferred stent implantation reduces the incidences of slow/no reflow and distal embolization, especially in older patients and in those with total coronary occlusion or high level of thrombus burden.

Impact of diabetes on clinical outcomes after revascularization with the dual therapy CD34 antibody-covered sirolimus-eluting Combo stent and the sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of the dual therapy CD34 antibody-covered sirolimus-eluting Combo stent (DTS) and the sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent (SES) in patients with and without diabetes mellitus (DM) included in the Scandinavian Organization for Randomized Trials with Clinical Outcome (SORT OUT) X study. BACKGROUND: The incidence of target lesion failure (TLF) after treatment with modern drug-eluting stents has been reported to be significantly higher in patients with DM when compared to patients without DM. Thus, whether the results from the SORT OUT X study apply to patients with and without DM remains unknown. METHODS: In total 3146 patients were randomized to stent implantation with DTS (n = 1578; DM: n = 279) or SES (n = 1568; DM: n = 271). The primary end point, TLF, was a composite of cardiac death, target-lesion myocardial infarction (MI), or target lesion revascularization (TLR) within 1 year. RESULTS: At 1 year, the rate of TLF was increased in the DTS group compared to the SES group, both among patients with DM (9.3% vs. 4.8%; risk difference: 4.5%; incidence rate ratio: 1.99, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.02-3.90) and without DM (5.7% vs. 3.5%; incidence rate ratio: 1.67, 95% CI: 1.15-2.42). The differences were mainly explained by higher rates of TLR. CONCLUSION: Compared to the SES, the DTS was associated with an increased risk of TLF at 12 months in patients with and without DM. The differences were mainly explained by higher rates of TLR, whereas rates of cardiac death and target lesion MI did not differ significantly between the two stent groups in patients with or without DM.

Clinical outcomes of no stenting in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing deferred primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

BACKGROUND: ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is treated with stenting, but the underlying stenosis is often not severe, and stenting may potentially be omitted. AIMS: The aim of the study was to investigate outcomes of patients with STEMI treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) without stenting. METHODS: Patients were identified through the DANAMI-3-DEFER study. Stenting was omitted in the patients with stable flow after initial PCI and no significant residual stenosis on the deferral procedure, who were randomised to deferred stenting. These patients were compared to patients randomised to conventional PCI treated with immediate stenting. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, recurrent myocardial infarction (MI), and target vessel revascularisation (TVR). RESULTS: Of 603 patients randomised to deferred stenting, 84 were treated without stenting, and in patients randomised to conventional PCI (n=612), 590 were treated with immediate stenting. Patients treated with no stenting had a median stenosis of 40%, median vessel diameter of 2.9 mm, and median lesion length of 11.4 mm. During a median follow-up of 3.4 years, the composite endpoint occurred in 14% and 16% in the no and immediate stenting groups, respectively (unadjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.48-1.60; p=0.66). The association remained non-significant after adjusting for confounders (adjusted HR 0.53, 95% CI: 0.22-1.24; p=0.14). The rates of TVR and recurrent MI were 2% vs 4% (p=0.70) and 4% vs 6% (p=0.43), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with STEMI, with no significant residual stenosis and stable flow after initial PCI, treated without stenting, had comparable event rates to patients treated with immediate stenting.

Effectiveness and Safety of Ticagrelor Implementation in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Cohort Study in Western Denmark.

BACKGROUND: Ticagrelor was introduced in Denmark in 2011 after randomised data showed its superiority over clopidogrel for patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). We assessed the effectiveness and safety of ticagrelor implementation in ACS patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS: We identified PCI-treated ACS patients in Western Denmark who redeemed a P2Y12 inhibitor prescription within 14 days. Using Danish health registries, 1-year outcomes were compared before (2007-2010) and after (2012-2015) introduction of ticagrelor. Outcomes were MACE (death, myocardial infarction, and ischaemic stroke) and hospitalisation for bleeding. Inverse probability of treatment weights were used to estimate weighted incidence rate ratios (wIRRs). FINDINGS: We included 14,450 patients; 7,102 were treated in the earlier time period (99·9% clopidogrel) and 7,348 in the later time period (87·8% ticagrelor). Ticagrelor implementation was not associated with a clinically relevant difference in 1-year risk of MACE with 413 events in the ticagrelor period vs. 424 events in the clopidogrel period (cumulative incidence percentage [CIP] 5·6% vs. 6·0%; wIRR 1·06, 95% CI 0·92-1·22). The 1-year risk of bleeding was also similar between groups with 335 bleedings requiring hospitalisation in the ticagrelor period vs. 309 events in the clopidogrel period (CIP 4·6% vs. 4·4%; wIRR 1·05, 95% CI 0·89-1·23). Results were robust in patients above and below 70 years of age. INTERPRETATION: Implementation of ticagrelor was not associated with changes in risks of ischaemic or bleeding events in Danish PCI-treated ACS patients.

Impact of diabetes on 1-year clinical outcome in patients undergoing revascularization with the BioFreedom stents or the Orsiro stents from the SORT OUT IX trial.

This sub-study of the SORT OUT IX trial sought to compare clinical outcomes between patients with diabetes randomized to implantation of either the polymer-free biolimus A9-coated BioFreedom stent (BF-BES) or the ultra-thin strut, biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent (O-SES). Patients with diabetes have an increased risk of target lesion failure (TLF) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The impact of different stent types in patients with diabetes is still discussed. A total of 607 of the 3151 patients (19.3%) enrolled in the SORT OUT IX study had diabetes. Randomization was stratified by patients with/without diabetes; 304 received BF-BES and 303 O-SES. The primary endpoint was TLF, which was a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (not related to other than the index lesion) and target lesion revascularization (TLR) within 1 year. After 1 year, patients with diabetes had higher TLF (7.2% vs. 3.7%, incidence rate ratio [IRR]: 1.65; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.08-2.50), than patients without diabetes. TLF did not differ significantly between BF-BES and O-SES in patients with diabetes (8.2% vs. 6.3%, IRR: 1.17; 95% CI: 0.63-2.20). In patients with diabetes, cardiac death occurred in 2.3% of BF-BES and in 3.6% of O-SES (IRR: 0.58; 95% CI: 0.23-1.45) and TLR occurred in 5.3% and 2.3% of BF-BES and O-SES, respectively (IRR: 2.12; 95% CI: 0.81-5.56). Definite stent thrombosis rates of 1.3% were found in both stent types. Patients with diabetes had higher 1-year TLF rate after PCI compared to patients without diabetes, whereas TLF did not differ significantly between the two stent types BF-BES and O-SES in patients with diabetes.

Polymer-free biolimus-coated stents versus ultrathin-strut biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents: two-year outcomes of the randomised SORT OUT IX trial.

BACKGROUND: For patients with high bleeding risk, the BioFreedom stent is safer and more effective than a bare metal stent. However, at the one-year follow-up of the SORT OUT IX trial, the BioFreedom stent did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority for target lesion failure (TLF) when compared with the Orsiro stent and had a higher incidence of target lesion revascularisation (TLR). AIMS: The aim of the study was to compare the two-year outcomes following coronary implantation of the BioFreedom or the Orsiro stents in all-comer patients. METHODS: The Scandinavian Organization for Randomized Trials with Clinical Outcome (SORT OUT) IX trial is a prospective, multicentre, randomised clinical trial comparing the BioFreedom and the Orsiro stents. The primary endpoint, TLF, was a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI; not related to other lesions) and TLR. RESULTS: A total of 1,572 patients were randomised to treatment with the BioFreedom stent and 1,579 patients with the Orsiro stent. At two-year follow-up, TLF was 7.8% in the BioFreedom and 6.3% in the Orsiro stent groups (rate ratio [RR] 1.23, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.94-1.61). Risks of cardiac death, MI and definite stent thrombosis did not differ significantly between the groups, whereas more patients in the BioFreedom group had TLR (5.1% vs 2.6%; RR 1.98, 95% CI: 1.26-2.89) attributable to a higher risk of TLR within the first year (3.5% vs 1.3%; RR 2.77, 95% CI: 1.66-4.62). CONCLUSIONS: At two years, there were no significant differences between the BioFreedom and Orsiro stents for TLF. TLR was significantly higher with the BioFreedom stent due to higher risk of TLR within the first year.

Cardiovascular risk in patients with and without diabetes presenting with chronic coronary syndrome in 2004-2016.

BACKGROUND: It was recently shown that new-onset diabetes patients without previous cardiovascular disease have experienced a markedly reduced risk of adverse cardiovascular events from 1996 to 2011. However, it remains unknown if similar improvements are present following the diagnosis of chronic coronary syndrome. The purpose of this study was to examine the change in cardiovascular risk among diabetes patients with chronic coronary syndrome from 2004 to 2016. METHODS: We included patients with documentation of coronary artery disease by coronary angiography between 2004 and 2016 in Western Denmark. Patients were stratified by year of index coronary angiography (2004-2006, 2007-2009, 2010-2012, and 2013-2016) and followed for two years. The main outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) defined as myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, or death. Analyses were performed separately in patients with and without diabetes. We estimated two-year risk of each outcome and adjusted incidence rate ratios (aIRR) using patients examined in 2004-2006 as reference. RESULTS: Among 5931 patients with diabetes, two-year MACE risks were 8.4% in 2004-2006, 8.5% in 2007-2009, and then decreased to 6.2% in 2010-2012 and 6.7% in 2013-2016 (2013-2016 vs 2004-2006: aIRR 0.70, 95% CI 0.53-0.93). In comparison, 23,540 patients without diabetes had event rates of 6.3%, 5.2%, 4.2%, and 3.9% for the study intervals (2013-2016 vs 2004-2006: aIRR 0.57, 95% CI 0.48-0.68). CONCLUSIONS: Between 2004 and 2016, the two-year relative risk of MACE decreased by 30% in patients with diabetes and chronic coronary syndrome, but slightly larger absolute and relative reductions were observed in patients without diabetes.

Reperfusion therapies and in-hospital outcomes for ST-elevation myocardial infarction in Europe: the ACVC-EAPCI EORP STEMI Registry of the European Society of Cardiology.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to determine the contemporary use of reperfusion therapy in the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) member and affiliated countries and adherence to ESC clinical practice guidelines in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). METHODS AND RESULTS: Prospective cohort (EURObservational Research Programme STEMI Registry) of hospitalized STEMI patients with symptom onset <24 h in 196 centres across 29 countries. A total of 11 462 patients were enrolled, for whom primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (total cohort frequency: 72.2%, country frequency range 0-100%), fibrinolysis (18.8%; 0-100%), and no reperfusion therapy (9.0%; 0-75%) were performed. Corresponding in-hospital mortality rates from any cause were 3.1%, 4.4%, and 14.1% and overall mortality was 4.4% (country range 2.5-5.9%). Achievement of quality indicators for reperfusion was reported for 92.7% (region range 84.8-97.5%) for the performance of reperfusion therapy of all patients with STEMI <12 h and 54.4% (region range 37.1-70.1%) for timely reperfusion. CONCLUSIONS: The use of reperfusion therapy for STEMI in the ESC member and affiliated countries was high. Primary PCI was the most frequently used treatment and associated total in-hospital mortality was below 5%. However, there was geographic variation in the use of primary PCI, which was associated with differences in in-hospital mortality.

Randomized Clinical Comparison of the Dual-Therapy CD34 Antibody-Covered Sirolimus-Eluting Combo Stent With the Sirolimus-Eluting Orsiro Stent in Patients Treated With Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: The SORT OUT X Trial.

BACKGROUND: Target lesion failure remains an issue with contemporary drug-eluting stents. Thus, the dual-therapy sirolimus-eluting and CD34+ antibody-coated Combo stent (DTS) was designed to further improve early healing. This study aimed to investigate whether the DTS is noninferior to the sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent (SES) in an all-comers patient population. METHODS: The SORT OUT X (Combo Stent Versus Orsiro Stent) trial, was a large-scale, randomized, multicenter, single-blind, 2-arm, noninferiority trial with registry-based follow-up. The primary end point target lesion failure was a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization within 12 months, analyzed using intention-to-treat. The trial was powered for assessing target lesion failure noninferiority of the DTS compared with the SES with a predetermined noninferiority margin of 0.021. RESULTS: A total of 3146 patients were randomized to treatment with the DTS (1578 patients; 2008 lesions) or SES (1568 patients; 1982 lesions). At 12 months, intention-to-treat analysis showed that 100 patients (6.3%) assigned the DTS and 58 patients (3.7%) assigned the SES met the primary end point (absolute risk difference, 2.6% [upper limit of 1-sided 95% CI, 4.1%]; P (noninferiority)=0.76). The SES was superior to the DTS (incidence rate ratios for target lesion failure, 1.74 [95% CI, 1.26-2.41]; P=0.00086). The difference was explained mainly by a higher incidence of target lesion revascularization in the DTS group compared with the SES group (53 [3.4%] vs. 24 [1.5%]; incidence rate ratio, 2.22 [95% CI, 1.37-3.61]; P=0.0012). CONCLUSIONS: The DTS did not confirm noninferiority to the SES for target lesion failure at 12 months in an all-comer population. The SES was superior to the DTS mainly because the DTS was associated with an increased risk of target lesion revascularization. However, rates of death, cardiac death, and myocardial infarction at 12 months did not differ significantly between the 2 stent groups. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03216733.

Invasive aortic pulse pressure is not superior to cuff pulse pressure in cardiovascular risk prediction.

OBJECTIVE: Aortic pulse pressure (PP) represents the hemodynamic cardiac and cerebral burden more directly than cuff PP. The objective of this study was to investigate whether invasively measured aortic PP confers additional prognostic value beyond cuff PP for cardiovascular events and death. With increasing age, cuff PP progressively underestimates aortic PP. Whether the prognostic association between cuff PP and outcomes is age-dependent remains to be elucidated. METHODS: Cuff PP and invasively measured aortic PP were recorded in 21 908 patients (mean age 63 years, 58% men, 14% with diabetes) with stable angina pectoris undergoing elective coronary angiography during January 2001--December 2012. Multivariate Cox models were used to assess the association with incident myocardial infarction, stroke, and death. Discrimination was assessed using Harrell's C-index. RESULTS: During a median follow-up period of 3.7 years (range 0.1-10.8 years), 422 strokes, 511 myocardial infarctions, and 1530 deaths occurred. Both cuff and aortic PP were associated with stroke, myocardial infarction, and death in crude analyses. However, only cuff PP remained associated with stroke (hazard ratio per 10 mmHg, 1.06 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01--1.12)] and myocardial infarction [hazard ratio per 10 mmHg 1.05 (95% CI 1.01--1.11)] in multivariate Cox models. Both cuff and aortic PP lost significance as predictors of death in multivariate models. Age did not modify the prognostic association between cuff PP and stroke, myocardial infarction, and death. CONCLUSION: Invasively measured aortic PP did not add prognostic information about cardiovascular outcomes and death beyond cuff PP in patients with stable angina pectoris.

Risk of Myocardial Infarction in Patients Without Angiographic Coronary Artery Disease Compared With the General Population.

We examined the 10-year risk of myocardial infarction (MI) and death in patients without obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) compared with the general population. We conducted a cohort study of every patient without obstructive CAD by coronary angiography (CAG) between 2003 and 2016 in Western Denmark. Patients were matched by gender and age with individuals from the general population of Western Denmark with no history of CAD. End points were MI and death. Ten-year risk differences in cumulative incidence proportions were computed, accounting for the competing risk of death in the case of MI. Unadjusted and adjusted incidence rate ratios (aIRRs) were estimated using conditional Poisson regression. We included 46,467 patients and 234,654 individuals from the general population. Median follow-up was 7.7 years. The 10-year cumulative incidence of MI was 2.40% (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.24 to 2.57) in patients without obstructive CAD in the CAG and 2.70% (95% CI 2.62 to 2.78) in the general population, with a reduced absolute 10-year risk (risk difference -0.30%, 95% CI -0.49 to -0.12) and a reduced aIRR (aIRR 0.70, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.77). Ten-year mortality was higher in patients without obstructive CAD in the CAG (21.44%, 95% CI 20.99 to 21.89) compared with the general population (17.25%, 95% CI 17.06 to 17.44). However, mortality rates were similar after adjustment (aIRR 1.00, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.02). In conclusion, the absence of obstructive CAD according to CAG is associated with a lower risk of MI than in the general population, and similar 10-year mortality.

Diabetes is not a risk factor for myocardial infarction in patients without coronary artery disease: A study from the Western Denmark Heart Registry.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes is considered a risk factor for myocardial infarction. However, we have previously found that diabetes was not a short-term risk factor for myocardial infarction in the absence of obstructive coronary artery disease. METHODS: We conducted a cohort study of patients undergoing coronary angiography from 2003 to 2012 and followed them by cross-linking Danish health registries. Patients were stratified according to coronary artery disease and diabetes. Endpoints included myocardial infarction, cardiac death, all-cause death and coronary revascularization. RESULTS: 86,202 patients were included in total (diabetes: n = 12,652). Median follow-up was 8.8 years. Using patients with neither coronary artery disease nor diabetes as reference (cumulative myocardial infarction incidence 2.6%), the risk of myocardial infarction was low and not substantially increased for patients with diabetes alone (3.2%; hazard ratio 1.202, 95% confidence interval 0.996-1.451), was increased for patients with coronary artery disease alone (9.3%; hazard ratio 2.75, 95% confidence interval 2.52-3.01) and was highest for patients with both coronary artery disease and diabetes (12.3%; hazard ratio 3.79, 95% confidence interval 3.43-4.20). Similar associations were observed for cardiac death and coronary revascularization. CONCLUSION: Diabetes patients without coronary artery disease by coronary angiography have a low risk of myocardial infarction, not substantially increased compared to patients with neither coronary artery disease nor diabetes. In the presence of coronary artery disease, however, diabetes increases the risk of myocardial infarction.

Randomized Comparison of the Polymer-Free Biolimus-Coated BioFreedom Stent With the Ultrathin Strut Biodegradable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Orsiro Stent in an All-Comers Population Treated With Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: The SORT OUT IX Trial.

BACKGROUND: In patients with increased bleeding risk, the biolimus A9-coated BioFreedom stent, a stainless steel drug-coated stent free from polymer, has shown superiority compared with a bare-metal stent. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the BioFreedom stent is noninferior to a modern ultrathin strut biodegradable polymer cobalt-chromium sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent in an all-comers patient population treated with percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS: The SORT OUT IX trial (Scandinavian Organization for Randomized Trials With Clinical Outcome IX), was a large-scale, registry-based, randomized, multicenter, single-blind, 2-arm, noninferiority trial. The primary end point, major adverse cardiovascular events, was defined as the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction not related to any segment other than the target lesion, or target lesion revascularization within 1 year, analyzed by intention-to-treat. The trial was powered to assess noninferiority for major adverse cardiovascular events of the BioFreedom stent compared with the Orsiro stent with a predetermined noninferiority margin of 0.021. RESULTS: Between December 14, 2015 and April 21, 2017, 3151 patients were assigned to treatment with the BioFreedom stent (1572 patients, 1966 lesions) or to the Orsiro stent (1579 patients, 1985 lesions). Five patients were lost to follow-up because of emigration (99.9% follow-up rate). Mean age was 66.3±10.9, diabetes mellitus was seen in 19.3% of patients, and 53% of the patients had acute coronary syndromes. At 1 year, intention-to-treat analysis showed that 79 (5.0%) patients, who were assigned the BioFreedom stent, and 59 (3.7%), who were assigned the Orsiro stent, met the primary end point (absolute risk difference 1.29% [upper limit of one-sided 95% CI 2.50%]; Pnoninferiority=0.14). Significantly more patients in the BioFreedom stent group had target lesion revascularization than those in the Orsiro stent group (55 [3.5%] vs 20 [1.3%], rate ratio 2.77 [95% CI, 1.66-4.62]; P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The biolimus A9-coated BioFreedom polymer-free stent did not meet criteria for noninferiority for major adverse cardiovascular events at 12 months when compared with the ultrathin strut biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent in an all-comers population Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02623140.

Clinical outcomes three-year after revascularization with biodegradable polymer stents: ultrathin-strut sirolimus-eluting stent versus biolimus-eluting stent: from the Scandinavian organization for randomized trials with clinical outcome VII trial.

BACKGROUND: Drug-eluting stents with biodegradable polymers have been designed to improve safety and efficacy. However, drug-eluting stents with biodegradable polymers may not be a class effect, as stent strut thickness, polymer coating, and drug resorption differ between these groups of stents. Twelve months results of Scandinavian Organization for Randomized Trials With Clinical Outcome VII showed that ultrathin-strut sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent was noninferior to the biolimus-eluting Nobori stent. The sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent was associated with a reduced risk of definite stent thrombosis. METHODS: The Scandinavian Organization for Randomized Trials With Clinical Outcome VII trial is a prospective multicenter randomized clinical trial comparing sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent and biolimus-eluting Nobori stent in all-comers patients. The endpoint target lesion failure was a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (not related to other than index lesion) and target lesion revascularization. RESULTS: A total of 1261 patients were randomized to treatment with sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent and 1264 patients to biolimus-eluting Nobori stent and followed for 3 years. At 3-year the target lesion failure was comparable for sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent (9.0%) and the biolimus-eluting Nobori stent (9.1%), (rate ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.77-1.29). Cardiac death (sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent 3.0% vs. biolimus-eluting Nobori stent 2.6% [rate ratio, 1.16; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-1.86]), target lesion revascularization (sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent 5.2% vs. biolimus-eluting Nobori stent 5.9% [rate ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval, 0.64-1.25]), myocardial infarction (sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent 4.7% vs. biolimus-eluting Nobori stent 4.5% [rate ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-1.50]), and definite stent thrombosis (sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent 1.0% vs. biolimus-eluting Nobori stent 1.7% [rate ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.30-1.18]) did not differ significantly between the two groups. CONCLUSION: At 3-year follow-up, target lesion failure did not differ among ultrathin-strut sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent and biolimus-eluting Nobori stent with biodegradable polymers.