Standardized Definitions for Cardiogenic Shock Research and Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices: Scientific Expert Panel From the Shock Academic Research Consortium (SHARC).

The Shock Academic Research Consortium is a multi-stakeholder group, including representatives from the US Food and Drug Administration and other government agencies, industry, and payers, convened to develop pragmatic consensus definitions useful for the evaluation of clinical trials enrolling patients with cardiogenic shock, including trials evaluating mechanical circulatory support devices. Several in-person and virtual meetings were convened between 2020 and 2022 to discuss the need for developing the standardized definitions required for evaluation of mechanical circulatory support devices in clinical trials for cardiogenic shock patients. The expert panel identified key concepts and topics by performing literature reviews, including previous clinical trials, while recognizing current challenges and the need to advance evidence-based practice and statistical analysis to support future clinical trials. For each category, a lead (primary) author was assigned to perform a literature search and draft a proposed definition, which was presented to the subgroup. These definitions were further modified after feedback from the expert panel meetings until a consensus was reached. This manuscript summarizes the expert panel recommendations focused on outcome definitions, including efficacy and safety.

Outcomes of Vascular Closure Device Use After Transfemoral Coronary Intervention: Insights From the EXCEL Trial.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the safety and efficacy of using vascular closure devices (VCDs) in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for left main coronary artery disease (LM-CAD). BACKGROUND: VCDs provide rapid hemostasis for patients undergoing PCI with transfemoral access (TFA); however, the safety and efficacy of VCDs continues to be debated. METHODS: We analyzed data from the EXCEL trial in patients with LM-CAD in whom PCI was performed via TFA with vs without VCD. The primary endpoint was a composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke. Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 2-5 bleeding at 30 days was also assessed. Propensity-score matching analysis was used. RESULTS: Among 694 patients with LM-CAD undergoing TFA-PCI, 423 (61.0%) received VCDs (collagen plug, 320 [75.7%]; suture mediated, 55 [13.0%]; others, 48 [11.3%]). Patients with and without VCD use had similar 30-day rates of BARC type 2-5 bleeding (5.0% vs 6.7%, respectively; P=.30) and BARC type 3-5 bleeding (2.1% vs 3.7%, respectively; P=.20). There were no significant differences in the rates of death, MI, or stroke in patients with and without VCD use at 30 days (4.7% vs 4.1%, respectively; P=.74) or at 5 years (20.3% vs 24.2%, respectively; P=.16). These results were similar after adjustment. CONCLUSION: In the EXCEL trial, LM-CAD PCI via TFA using VCD was associated with similar 30-day rates of bleeding and comparable early and late major adverse cardiovascular events compared with manual compression.

Antithrombotic regimens for percutaneous coronary intervention of the left main coronary artery: The EXCEL trial.

OBJECTIVES: We compared the effect of bivalirudin or heparin and use or nonuse of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPI) on the outcome of left main coronary artery (LMCA) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the randomized EXCEL trial. BACKGROUND: The optimal antithrombotic regimen to support PCI of the LMCA remains controversial because of low representation of this subset in clinical trials. METHODS: The PCI cohort (n = 928) in EXCEL was divided according to bivalirudin versus heparin antithrombin treatment and compared for the primary composite endpoint of death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke at 30 days and 5 years. RESULTS: Bivalirudin was used in 319 patients (34.4%). The composite endpoint at 30 days occurred in 7.2% versus 3.8% bivalirudin and heparin patients, respectively, p = .02; at 5 years, the composite endpoint occurred in 26.3% versus 19.9% bivalirudin and heparin patients, respectively, p = .02. Major bleeding was more frequent in bivalirudin patients (4.1% versus 1.3%, p = .008). There were no differences in stent thrombosis between the groups. Bivalirudin use was an independent predictor of the 30-day composite endpoint (OR 2.88, 95% CI 1.28-6.48, p = .01) but not of the 5-year composite endpoint (OR 1.30, 95% CI 0.84-2.02, p = .23). GPI use was infrequent (n = 67, 7.2%) and was not associated with adverse outcomes. CONCLUSION: Among patients undergoing LMCA PCI in the EXCEL trial, procedural use of bivalirudin was associated with greater rates of periprocedural MI and the 30-day composite endpoint without reducing bleeding complications. Five-year outcomes were similar. GPIs were used infrequently and were not associated with clinical outcomes.

Long-term outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention for in-stent restenosis among Medicare beneficiaries.

BACKGROUND: In-stent restenosis (ISR) is highly prevalent and leads to repeat revascularisation. Long-term implications of ISR are poorly understood. AIMS: This study aimed to evaluate the long-term outcomes of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ISR. METHODS: National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI records for individuals aged ≥65 years undergoing PCI from July 2009 to December 2014 were linked to Medicare claims. Baseline characteristics and long-term rates of death, myocardial infarction (MI), repeat revascularisation including target vessel revascularisation (TVR), and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) were compared between ISR PCI versus de novo lesion PCI. RESULTS: Of 653,304 individuals, 10.2% underwent ISR PCI and 89.8% underwent de novo lesion PCI. The median duration of follow-up was 825 days (quartile 1: 352 days-quartile 3: 1,379 days). The frequency of MACCE (55.6% vs 45.0%; p<0.001), all-cause mortality (27.8% vs 25.5%; p<0.001), MI (19.0% vs 12.3%; p<0.001), repeat revascularisation (31.9% vs 18.6%; p<0.001), TVR (22.4% vs 8.0%; p<0.001), and stroke (8.8% vs 8.3%; p=0.005) was higher after ISR PCI. After multivariable adjustment, ISR PCI remained associated with worse long-term outcomes than after de novo lesion PCI (hazard ratio [HR] for MACCE 1.24 [95% CI: 1.22, 1.26], mortality 1.07 [95% CI: 1.05, 1.09], MI 1.44 [95% CI: 1.40, 1.48], repeat revascularisation 1.55 [95% CI: 1.51, 1.59], and TVR 2.50 [95% CI: 2.42, 2.58]). CONCLUSIONS: ISR PCI was common and was associated with a significantly higher risk of recurrent long-term major ischaemic events compared to patients undergoing de novo lesion PCI. There remains a need for new strategies to minimise ISR.

Implications of Alternative Definitions of Peri-Procedural Myocardial Infarction After Coronary Revascularization.

BACKGROUND: Varying definitions of procedural myocardial infarction (PMI) are in widespread use. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine the rates and clinical relevance of PMI using different definitions in patients with left main coronary artery disease randomized to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery in the EXCEL (Evaluation of XIENCE versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization) trial. METHODS: The pre-specified protocol definition of PMI (PMIProt) required a large elevation of creatine kinase-MB (CK-MB), with identical threshold for both procedures. The Third Universal Definition of MI (types 4a and 5) (PMIUD) required lesser biomarker elevations but with supporting evidence of myocardial ischemia, different after PCI and CABG. For the PMIUD, troponins were used preferentially (available in 49.5% of patients), CK-MB otherwise. The multivariable relationship between each PMI type and 5-year mortality was determined. RESULTS: PMIProt occurred in 34 of 935 (3.6%) patients after PCI and 56 of 923 (6.1%) patients after CABG (difference -2.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -4.4% to -0.5%; p = 0.015). The corresponding rates of PMIUD were 37 (4.0%) and 20 (2.2%), respectively (difference 1.8%; 95% CI: 0.2% to 3.4%; p = 0.025). Both PMIProt and PMIUD were associated with 5-year cardiovascular mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 2.18 [95% CI: 1.13 to 4.23] and 2.87 [95% CI: 1.44 to 5.73], respectively). PMIProt was associated with a consistent hazard of cardiovascular mortality after both PCI and CABG (pinteraction = 0.86). Conversely, PMIUD was strongly associated with cardiovascular mortality after CABG (adjusted HR: 11.94; 95% CI: 4.84 to 29.47) but not after PCI (adjusted HR: 1.14; 95% CI: 0.35 to 3.67) (pinteraction = 0.004). Results were similar for all-cause mortality and with varying PMIUD biomarker definitions. Only large biomarker elevations (CK-MB ≥10× upper reference limit and troponin ≥70× upper reference limit) were associated with mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The rates of PMI after PCI and CABG vary greatly with different definitions. In the EXCEL trial, the pre-specified PMIProt was associated with similar hazard after PCI and CABG, whereas PMIUD was strongly associated with mortality after CABG but not after PCI. (EXCEL Clinical Trial [EXCEL]; NCT01205776).

Randomized Comparison Between Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffold and Metallic Stent: Multimodality Imaging Through 3 Years.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate the vascular responses and fates of the scaffold after bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) implantation using multimodality imaging. BACKGROUND: Serial comprehensive image assessments after BVS implantation in the context of a randomized trial have not yet been reported. METHODS: In the ABSORB Japan trial, 400 patients were randomized to a BVS (n = 266) or a cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stent (n = 134). Through 3 years, patients underwent serial angiography and intravascular ultrasound or optical coherence tomography (OCT). RESULTS: Luminal dimension at 3 years was consistently smaller with the BVS than with the cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stent (mean angiographic minimal luminal diameter 2.04 ± 0.63 mm vs. 2.40 ± 0.56 mm, mean difference -0.37 mm [95% confidence interval: -0.50 to -0.24 mm]; p < 0.001), mainly because of smaller device area (6.13 ± 2.03 mm2 vs. 7.15 ± 2.16 mm2, mean difference -1.04 mm2 [95% confidence interval: -1.66 to -0.42 mm2]; p < 0.001), and larger neointimal area (2.10 ± 0.61 mm2 vs. 1.86 ± 0.64 mm2, mean difference 0.24 mm2 [95% confidence interval: 0.06 to 0.43 mm2]; p = 0.01) by OCT. BVS-treated vessels did not show previously reported favorable vessel responses, such as positive vessel remodeling, late luminal enlargement, and restoration of vasomotion, although the OCT-based healing score was on average zero (interquartile range: 0.00 to 0.00). At 3 years, intraluminal scaffold dismantling (ISD) was observed in 14% of BVS. On serial OCT, ISD was observed in 6 lesions at 2 years, where the struts had been fully apposed at post-procedure, while ISD was observed in 12 lesions at 3 years, where 8 lesions were free from ISD on 2-year OCT. In 5 cases of very late scaffold thrombosis, strut discontinuities were detected in all 4 cases with available OCT immediately before reintervention. CONCLUSIONS: In this multimodality serial imaging study, luminal dimension at 3 years was smaller with the BVS than with the cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stent. ISD, suspected to be one of the mechanisms of very late BVS thrombosis, was observed in a substantial proportion of cases at 3 years, which developed between post-procedure and 2 years and even beyond 2 years. (AVJ-301 Clinical Trial: A Clinical Evaluation of AVJ-301 [Absorb™ BVS] in Japanese Population [ABSORB JAPAN]; NCT01844284).

Mortality After Repeat Revascularization Following PCI or CABG for Left Main Disease: The EXCEL Trial.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate the incidence and impact on mortality of repeat revascularization after index percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD). BACKGROUND: The impact on mortality of the need of repeat revascularization following PCI or CABG in patients with unprotected LMCAD is unknown. METHODS: All patients with LMCAD and site-assessed low or intermediate SYNTAX (Synergy Between PCI With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery) scores randomized to PCI (n = 948) or CABG (n = 957) in the EXCEL (Evaluation of XIENCE Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization) trial were included. Repeat revascularization events were adjudicated by an independent clinical events committee. The effect of repeat revascularization on mortality through 3-year follow-up was examined in time-varying Cox regression models. RESULTS: During 3-year follow-up, there were 346 repeat revascularization procedures among 185 patients. PCI was associated with higher rates of any repeat revascularization (12.9% vs. 7.6%; hazard ratio: 1.73; 95% confidence interval: 1.28 to 2.33; p = 0.0003). Need for repeat revascularization was independently associated with increased risk for 3-year all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio: 2.05; 95% confidence interval: 1.13 to 3.70; p = 0.02) and cardiovascular mortality (adjusted hazard ratio: 4.22; 95% confidence interval: 2.10 to 8.48; p < 0.0001) consistently after both PCI and CABG (pint = 0.85 for both endpoints). Although target vessel revascularization and target lesion revascularization were both associated with an increased risk for mortality, target vessel non-target lesion revascularization and non-target vessel revascularization were not. CONCLUSIONS: In the EXCEL trial, repeat revascularization during follow-up was performed less frequently after CABG than PCI and was associated with increased mortality after both procedures. Reducing the need for repeat revascularization may further improve long-term survival after percutaneous or surgical treatment of LMCAD. (EXCEL Clinical Trial; NCT01205776).

Procedural characteristics and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for left main trifurcation disease: the EXCEL trial.

AIMS: Limited data exist regarding procedural and clinical outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with trifurcation disease of the distal left main (LM) coronary artery. We therefore aimed to examine the procedural methods and early and late outcomes among patients undergoing distal LM trifurcation versus bifurcation PCI in the EXCEL trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with distal LM bifurcation disease randomised to PCI with everolimus-eluting stents in the EXCEL trial were categorised into those with and without trifurcation involvement. Angiographic and procedural characteristics in addition to clinical events up to five-year follow-up after PCI were compared. Among 605 patients with site-reported distal LM disease, 61 patients (10.1%) were identified with trifurcation anatomy. The five-year primary composite endpoint of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke occurred in 16.6% of patients with trifurcation disease compared with 22.5% of patients with distal bifurcation disease only (p=0.32). Ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularisation rates were also similar (11.9% vs 12.0%, p=0.94). No significant differences in definite or probable stent thrombosis were observed between treatment groups (1.7% vs 2.3%, p=0.76). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the greater inherent complexity, procedural and long-term clinical outcomes following PCI of distal LM trifurcations with everolimus-eluting stents in a modest-sized cohort from the EXCEL trial were similar compared with treatment of distal LM bifurcation disease without trifurcations. These findings support PCI as a treatment strategy for selected patients with distal LM trifurcation disease. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01205776.

Five-Year Outcomes after PCI or CABG for Left Main Coronary Disease.

BACKGROUND: Long-term outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with contemporary drug-eluting stents, as compared with coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG), in patients with left main coronary artery disease are not clearly established. METHODS: We randomly assigned 1905 patients with left main coronary artery disease of low or intermediate anatomical complexity (according to assessment at the participating centers) to undergo either PCI with fluoropolymer-based cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents (PCI group, 948 patients) or CABG (CABG group, 957 patients). The primary outcome was a composite of death, stroke, or myocardial infarction. RESULTS: At 5 years, a primary outcome event had occurred in 22.0% of the patients in the PCI group and in 19.2% of the patients in the CABG group (difference, 2.8 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.9 to 6.5; P = 0.13). Death from any cause occurred more frequently in the PCI group than in the CABG group (in 13.0% vs. 9.9%; difference, 3.1 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.2 to 6.1). In the PCI and CABG groups, the incidences of definite cardiovascular death (5.0% and 4.5%, respectively; difference, 0.5 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.4 to 2.5) and myocardial infarction (10.6% and 9.1%; difference, 1.4 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.3 to 4.2) were not significantly different. All cerebrovascular events were less frequent after PCI than after CABG (3.3% vs. 5.2%; difference, -1.9 percentage points; 95% CI, -3.8 to 0), although the incidence of stroke was not significantly different between the two groups (2.9% and 3.7%; difference, -0.8 percentage points; 95% CI, -2.4 to 0.9). Ischemia-driven revascularization was more frequent after PCI than after CABG (16.9% vs. 10.0%; difference, 6.9 percentage points; 95% CI, 3.7 to 10.0). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with left main coronary artery disease of low or intermediate anatomical complexity, there was no significant difference between PCI and CABG with respect to the rate of the composite outcome of death, stroke, or myocardial infarction at 5 years. (Funded by Abbott Vascular; EXCEL ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01205776.).

Clinical Outcomes Before and After Complete Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffold Resorption: Five-Year Follow-Up From the ABSORB III Trial.

BACKGROUND: The Absorb everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) provides early drug delivery and mechanical support similar to those of metallic drug-eluting stents, followed by complete resorption in ≈3 years with recovery of vascular structure and function. The ABSORB III trial demonstrated noninferior rates of target lesion failure (cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization) at 1 year with BVS compared with cobalt chromium everolimus-eluting stents. Between 1 and 3 years and cumulative to 3 years, adverse event rates (particularly target vessel myocardial infarction and scaffold thrombosis) were increased after BVS. We sought to assess clinical outcomes after BVS through 5 years, including beyond the 3-year time point of complete scaffold resorption. METHODS: Clinical outcomes from ABSORB III were analyzed by randomized device (intention to treat) cumulative to 5 years and between 3 and 5 years. RESULTS: Rates of target lesion failure, target vessel myocardial infarction, and scaffold thrombosis were increased through the 5-year follow-up with BVS compared with everolimus-eluting stents. However, between 3 and 5 years, reductions in the relative hazards of the BVS compared with everolimus-eluting stents were observed, particularly for target lesion failure (hazard ratio, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.55-1.24] versus 1.35 [95% CI, 1.02-1.78]; Pint=0.052) and scaffold thrombosis (hazard ratio, 0.26 [95% CI, 0.02-2.87] versus 3.23 [95% CI, 1.25-8.30]; Pint=0.056) compared with the 0- to 3-year time period. CONCLUSIONS: In the ABSORB III trial, cumulative 5-year adverse event rates were increased after BVS compared with everolimus-eluting stents. However, the period of excess risk for BVS ended at 3 years, coincident with complete scaffold resorption. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01751906.

Time-Varying Outcomes With the Absorb Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold During 5-Year Follow-up: A Systematic Meta-analysis and Individual Patient Data Pooled Study.

Importance: Bioresorbable scaffolds were designed to provide clinical benefits after their complete bioresorption. Prior studies demonstrated early risks with the Absorb polymeric bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS). Whether this risk profile changes over time during the course of its bioresorption is unknown. Objective: To examine outcomes of the first-generation BVS before and after 3 years, the point of its complete bioresorption in animals. Data Sources: We searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane database, conference proceedings, and public websites for relevant studies. Study Selection: Eligible studies were randomized clinical trials of BVS vs metallic drug-eluting stents in patients with coronary artery disease with at least 5-year follow-up. Four trials of BVS vs everolimus-eluting stents (EES) with 3384 patients met criteria. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Individual patient data from the 4 trials were pooled, and summary-level meta-analysis was performed. Main Outcomes and Measures: The major effectiveness and safety measures were target lesion failure (TLF; cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization) and device thrombosis. Outcomes were examined through 5-year follow-up and between 0 to 3 and 3 to 5 years. Results: Mean age for the 3384 patients was 62.8 years; 2452 patients were men (72.5%), and diabetes was present in 1020 patients (30.2%). Through 5-year follow-up, treatment with BVS compared with EES was associated with higher rates of TLF (14.9% vs 11.6%; HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.03-1.54; P = .03) and device thrombosis (2.5% vs 0.8%; HR, 2.87; 95% CI, 1.46-5.65; P = .002). Target lesion failure occurred in 11.6% of BVS-treated patients vs 7.9% of EES-treated patients between 0 to 3 years (HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.12-1.80), and 4.3% of BVS-treated patients vs 4.5% of EES-treated patients between 3 to 5 years (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.64-1.31) (P for interaction = .046). Device thrombosis occurred in 2.4% of BVS-treated patients vs 0.6% of EES-treated patients between 0 to 3 years (HR, 3.86; 95% CI, 1.75-8.50) and 0.1% of BVS-treated patients vs 0.3% of EES-treated patients between 3 to 5 years (HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.07-2.70) (P for interaction = .03). These results were consistent by spline analysis and after multiple imputation and multivariable analysis. Conclusions and Relevance: The period of excess risk for the first-generation Absorb BVS ends at 3 years. These data provide mechanistic insights into the timing of adverse events after BVS and identify the hurdles to be overcome for bioresorbable technology to be accepted as a valid alternative for patients with coronary artery disease. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT01751906, NCT01844284, NCT01923740, and NCT01425281.

Bypass Surgery or Stenting for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease in Patients With Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: The randomized EXCEL (Evaluation of XIENCE versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization) trial reported a similar rate of the 3-year composite primary endpoint of death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke in patients with left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD) and site-assessed low or intermediate SYNTAX scores treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Whether these results are consistent in high-risk patients with diabetes, who have fared relatively better with CABG in most prior trials, is unknown. OBJECTIVES: In this pre-specified subgroup analysis from the EXCEL trial, the authors sought to examine the effect of diabetes in patients with LMCAD treated with PCI versus CABG. METHODS: Patients (N = 1,905) with LMCAD and site-assessed low or intermediate CAD complexity (SYNTAX scores ≤32) were randomized 1:1 to PCI with everolimus-eluting stents versus CABG, stratified by the presence of diabetes. The primary endpoint was the rate of a composite of all-cause death, stroke, or MI at 3 years. Outcomes were examined in patients with (n = 554) and without (n = 1,350) diabetes. RESULTS: The 3-year composite primary endpoint was significantly higher in diabetic compared with nondiabetic patients (20.0% vs. 12.9%; p < 0.001). The rate of the 3-year primary endpoint was similar after treatment with PCI and CABG in diabetic patients (20.7% vs. 19.3%, respectively; hazard ratio: 1.03; 95% confidence interval: 0.71 to 1.50; p = 0.87) and nondiabetic patients (12.9% vs. 12.9%, respectively; hazard ratio: 0.98; 95% confidence interval: 0.73 to 1.32; p = 0.89). All-cause death at 3 years occurred in 13.6% of PCI and 9.0% of CABG patients (p = 0.046), although no significant interaction was present between diabetes status and treatment for all-cause death (p = 0.22) or other endpoints, including the 3-year primary endpoint (p = 0.82) or the major secondary endpoints of death, MI, or stroke at 30 days (p = 0.61) or death, MI, stroke, or ischemia-driven revascularization at 3 years (p = 0.65). CONCLUSIONS: In the EXCEL trial, the relative 30-day and 3-year outcomes of PCI with everolimus-eluting stents versus CABG were consistent in diabetic and nondiabetic patients with LMCAD and site-assessed low or intermediate SYNTAX scores.(Evaluation of XIENCE versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization [EXCEL]; NCT01205776).

Impact of large periprocedural myocardial infarction on mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting for left main disease: an analysis from the EXCEL trial.

AIMS: The prognostic implications of periprocedural myocardial infarction (PMI) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) remain controversial. We examined the 3-year rates of mortality among patients with and without PMI undergoing left main coronary artery intervention randomized to PCI with everolimus-eluting stents vs. CABG in the large-scale, multicentre, prospective, randomized EXCEL trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: By protocol, PMI was defined using an identical threshold for PCI and CABG [creatinine kinase-MB (CK-MB) elevation >10× the upper reference limit (URL) within 72 h post-procedure, or >5× URL with new Q-waves, angiographic vessel occlusion, or loss of myocardium on imaging]. Cox proportional hazards modelling was performed controlling for age, sex, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, left ventricular ejection fraction, SYNTAX score, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). A total of 1858 patients were treated as assigned by randomization. Periprocedural MI occurred in 34/935 (3.6%) of patients in the PCI group and 56/923 (6.1%) of patients in the CABG group [odds ratio 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40-0.93; P = 0.02]. Periprocedural MI was associated with SYNTAX score, COPD, cross-clamp duration and total procedure duration, and not using antegrade cardioplegia. By multivariable analysis, PMI was associated with cardiovascular death and all-cause death at 3 years [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 2.63, 95% CI 1.19-5.81; P = 0.02 and adjusted HR 2.28, 95% CI 1.22-4.29; P = 0.01, respectively]. The effect of PMI was consistent for PCI and CABG for cardiovascular death (Pinteraction = 0.56) and all-cause death (Pinteraction = 0.59). Peak post-procedure CK-MB ≥10× URL strongly predicted mortality, whereas lesser degrees of myonecrosis were not associated with prognosis. CONCLUSION: In the EXCEL trial, PMI was more common after CABG than PCI, and was strongly associated with increased 3-year mortality after controlling for potential confounders. Only extensive myonecrosis (CK-MB ≥10× URL) was prognostically important.

Outcomes Among Patients Undergoing Distal Left Main Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

BACKGROUND: Distal left main (LM) coronary artery bifurcation disease increases percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) procedural complexity and is associated with worse outcomes than isolated ostial/shaft disease. The optimal treatment strategy for distal LM disease is undetermined. We sought to determine whether outcomes after PCI of LM distal bifurcation lesions are influenced by treatment with a provisional 1-stent versus planned 2-stent technique, and if so, whether such differences are conditioned by the complexity of the LM bifurcation lesion. METHODS AND RESULTS: The clinical and angiographic characteristics, procedural methods and outcomes, and clinical events through 3-year follow-up were compared in patients undergoing distal LM PCI with a 1-stent provisional versus planned 2-stent technique in the EXCEL trial (Evaluation of XIENCE Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization). Among 529 patients undergoing planned distal LM PCI, 344 (65.0%) and 185 (35.0%) were treated with intended 1-stent provisional and planned 2-stent techniques, respectively. The primary composite end point rate of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 3 years was significantly lower in patients treated with the provisional 1-stent versus planned 2-stent method (14.1% versus 20.7%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.35-0.88; P=0.01), driven by differences in cardiovascular death (3.3% versus 8.3%, P=0.01) and myocardial infarction (7.7% versus 12.8%, P=0.06). The 3-year rate of ischemia-driven revascularization of the LM complex was also lower in the provisional group (7.2% versus 16.3%, P=0.001). In 342 patients with distal LM bifurcation disease that did not involve both major side branch vessels, the 3-year primary end point was lower with a provisional 1-stent versus planned 2-stent technique (13.8% versus 23.3%, P=0.04), whereas no significant difference was present in 182 patients with distal LM bifurcation disease that did involve both side branch vessels (14.3% versus 19.2%, P=0.36). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with distal LM bifurcation disease in the EXCEL trial randomized to PCI, 3-year adverse outcomes were worse with planned 2-stent treatment compared with a provisional 1-stent approach, a difference that was confined to patients without major involvement of both LM side branch vessels. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01205776.

Left Main Revascularization With PCI or CABG in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease: EXCEL Trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimal revascularization strategy for patients with left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: This study investigated the comparative effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery in patients with LMCAD and low or intermediate anatomical complexity according to baseline renal function from the multicenter randomized EXCEL (Evaluation of XIENCE Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization) trial. METHODS: CKD was defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 ml/min/1.73 m2 using the CKD Epidemiology Collaboration equation. Acute renal failure (ARF) was defined as a serum creatinine increase ≥5.0 mg/dl from baseline or a new requirement for dialysis. The primary composite endpoint was the composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke at 3-year follow-up. RESULTS: CKD was present in 361 of 1,869 randomized patients (19.3%) in whom baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate was available. Patients with CKD had higher 3-year rates of the primary endpoint compared with those without CKD (20.8% vs. 13.5%; hazard ratio [HR]: 1.60; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.22 to 2.09; p = 0.0005). ARF within 30 days occurred more commonly in patients with compared with those without CKD (5.0% vs. 0.8%; p < 0.0001), and was strongly associated with the 3-year risk of death, stroke, or MI (50.7% vs. 14.4%; HR: 4.59; 95% CI: 2.73 to 7.73; p < 0.0001). ARF occurred less commonly after revascularization with PCI compared with CABG both in patients with CKD (2.3% vs. 7.7%; HR: 0.28; 95% CI: 0.09 to 0.87) and in those without CKD (0.3% vs. 1.3%; HR: 0.20; 95% CI: 0.04 to 0.90; pinteraction = 0.71). There were no significant differences in the rates of the primary composite endpoint after PCI and CABG in patients with CKD (23.4% vs. 18.1%; HR: 1.25; 95% CI: 0.79 to 1.98) and without CKD (13.4% vs. 13.5%; HR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.73 to 1.27; pinteraction = 0.38). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with CKD undergoing revascularization for LMCAD in the EXCEL trial had increased rates of ARF and reduced event-free survival. ARF occurred less frequently after PCI compared with CABG. There were no significant differences between PCI and CABG in terms of death, stroke, or MI at 3 years in patients with and without CKD. (EXCEL Clinical Trial [EXCEL]; NCT01205776).

Outcomes After Coronary Stenting or Bypass Surgery for Men and Women With Unprotected Left Main Disease: The EXCEL Trial.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to assess outcomes after coronary artery bypass grafting surgery (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) according to sex in a large randomized trial of patients with unprotected left main disease. BACKGROUND: In the SYNTAX (Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery) trial, sex had a significant interaction effect with revascularization strategy, and women had an overall higher mortality when treated with PCI than CABG. METHODS: The EXCEL (Evaluation of XIENCE Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization) trial was a multinational randomized trial that compared PCI with everolimus-eluting stents and CABG in patients with unprotected left main disease. The primary endpoint was the composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 3 years. RESULTS: Of 1,905 patients randomized, 1,464 (76.9%) were men and 441 (23.1%) were women. Compared with men, women were older; had higher prevalence rates of hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes; and were less commonly smokers but had lower coronary anatomic burden and complexity (mean SYNTAX score 24.2 vs. 27.2, p < 0.001). By multivariate analysis, sex was not independently associated with either the primary endpoint (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.10; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.82 to 1.48; p = 0.53) or all-cause death (HR: 1.39; 95% CI: 0.92 to 2.10; p = 0.12) at 3 years. At 30 days, all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke had occurred in 8.9% of woman treated with PCI, 6.2% of women treated with CABG, 3.6% of men treated with PCI, and 8.4% of men treated with CABG (p for interaction = 0.003). The 3-year rate of the composite primary endpoint was 19.7% in women treated with PCI, 14.6% in women treated with CABG, 13.8% in men treated with PCI, and 14.7% in men treated with CABG (p for interaction = 0.06). These differences were driven by higher periprocedural rates of myocardial infarction in women after PCI and in men after CABG. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with unprotected left main disease in the EXCEL trial, sex was not an independent predictor of adverse outcomes after revascularization. However, women undergoing PCI had a trend toward worse outcomes, a finding related to associated comorbidities and increased periprocedural complications. Further studies are required to determine the optimal revascularization modality in women with complex coronary artery disease.

Sex disparities in acute myocardial infarction care and outcomes.

AIM: We investigated sex-based and regional outcomes after contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with the Xience V stent in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). METHODS AND RESULTS: This patient level pooled analysis includes three multi-center, prospective post-market registries performed in the US, Japan, and China. A total of 1,938 patients treated with Xience V stents in the setting of AMI were enrolled. Compared to men, women had higher major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (14.1% vs. 9.8% P < 0.01, RR 1.4, 95% CI 1.1-1.4) and all-cause mortality (10% vs. 6.2% P < 0.01, RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.14-2.27) at one year, without any significant difference in device specific outcomes of target vessel failure (TVF). US patients compared to the patients from China and Japan had increased MACE (female: 18% vs. 7.1%, P = 0.0012, male: 15.7% vs. 4.1%, P < 0.0001). Multivariable analysis demonstrated that major bleeding was the strongest predictor of MACE (OR 10.51, 95%CI 4.01-27.50, P < 0.0001), MI (OR 4.26, 95%CI 1.37-13.29, P = 0.012), and all-cause death (OR 5.3, 95%CI 2.32-12.13, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Women with AMI who underwent PCI with XIENCE DES have higher all-cause mortality at one year in compared to men. Region based outcomes demonstrated increased MACE among US patients compared to the patients from China and Japan. After adjusting for differences in demographics, major bleeding, rather than female sex, predicted the higher observed all-cause mortality.

Three-Year Outcomes With the Absorb Bioresorbable Scaffold: Individual-Patient-Data Meta-Analysis From the ABSORB Randomized Trials.

BACKGROUND: The Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) completely resorbs within 3 years after coronary artery implantation. The safety and effectiveness of BVS through this critical 3-year period have not been characterized. METHODS: We performed an individual-patient-data pooled meta-analysis of the 4 randomized ABSORB trials in which 3389 patients with coronary artery disease were randomly assigned to everolimus-eluting Absorb BVS (n=2164) or cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents (n=1225). The primary efficacy outcome measure was target lesion failure (cardiac mortality, target vessel myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization), and the primary safety outcome measure was device thrombosis. RESULTS: BVS compared with cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents resulted in higher 3-year rates of target lesion failure (11.7% versus 8.1%; risk ratio [RR], 1.38; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.10-1.73; P=0.006), driven by greater target vessel myocardial infarction (7.8% versus 4.2%; RR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.26-2.35; P=0.0006) and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (6.6% versus 4.4%; RR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.05-1.98; P=0.02), with comparable cardiac mortality (1.1% versus 1.1%; RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.47-1.88; P=0.85). Device thrombosis rates through 3 years were also higher with BVS (2.4% versus 0.6%; RR, 3.71; 95% CI, 1.70-8.11; P=0.001). Between 1 and 3 years, target lesion failure rates (6.1% versus 3.9%; P=0.02) and device thrombosis rates (1.1% versus 0.0%; P<0.0001) were higher with BVS than cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents. CONCLUSIONS: In the present individual-patient-data pooled meta-analysis of the ABSORB trials, BVS was associated with increased rates of target lesion failure and device thrombosis between 1 and 3 years and cumulatively through 3 years of follow-up compared with everolimus-eluting stents. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifiers: NCT01751906, NCT01844284, NCT01923740, and NCT01425281.

3-Year Clinical Outcomes With Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Coronary Scaffolds: The ABSORB III Trial.

BACKGROUND: The Absorb everolimus-eluting poly-L-lactic acid-based bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) provides early drug delivery and mechanical support functions similar to metallic drug-eluting stents (DES), followed by complete bioresorption in approximately 3 years with recovery of vascular structure and function. The ABSORB III trial demonstrated noninferior rates of target lesion failure (cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction [TVMI], or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization) at 1 year in 2,008 patients with coronary artery disease randomized to BVS versus cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents (EES). OBJECTIVES: This study sought to assess clinical outcomes through 3 years following BVS implantation. METHODS: Clinical outcomes from the ABSORB III trial were analyzed by randomized treatment assignment cumulative through 3 years, and between 1 and 3 years. RESULTS: The primary composite endpoint of target lesion failure through 3 years occurred in 13.4% of BVS patients and 10.4% of EES patients (p = 0.06), and between 1 and 3 years in 7.0% versus 6.0% of patients, respectively (p = 0.39). TVMI through 3 years was increased with BVS (8.6% vs. 5.9%; p = 0.03), as was device thrombosis (2.3% vs. 0.7%; p = 0.01). In BVS-assigned patients, treatment of very small vessels (those with quantitatively determined reference vessel diameter <2.25 mm) was an independent predictor of 3-year TLF and scaffold thrombosis. CONCLUSIONS: In the ABSORB III trial, 3-year adverse event rates were higher with BVS than EES, particularly TVMI and device thrombosis. Longer-term clinical follow-up is required to determine whether bioresorption of the polymeric scaffold will influence patient prognosis. (ABSORB III Randomized Controlled Trial [RCT] [ABSORB-III]; NCT01751906).