The impact of pre-procedure heart rate on adverse clinical outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: Results from a 2-year follow-up of the GLOBAL LEADERS trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The prognostic impact of pre-procedure heart rate (PHR) following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has not yet been fully investigated. This post-hoc analysis sought to assess the impact of PHR on medium-term outcomes among patients having PCI, who were enrolled in the "all-comers" GLOBAL LEADERS trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: The primary endpoint (composite of all-cause death or new Q-wave myocardial infarction [MI]) and key secondary safety endpoint (bleeding according to Bleeding Academic Research Consortium [BARC] type 3 or 5) were assessed at 2 years. PHR was available in 15,855 patients, and when evaluated as a continuous variable (5 bpm increase) and following adjustment using multivariate Cox regression, it significantly correlated with the primary endpoint (hazard ratio [HR] 1.06, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-1.09, p < 0.001). Using dichotomous cut-off criteria, a PHR>67 bpm was associated with increased all-cause mortality (HR 1.38, 95%CI 1.13-1.69, p = 0.002) and more frequent new Q-wave MI (HR 1.41, 95%CI 1.02-1.93, p = 0.037). No significant association was found between PHR and BARC 3 or 5 bleeding (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.99-1.09, p = 0.099). There was no interaction with the primary (p-inter = 0.236) or secondary endpoint (p-inter = 0.154) when high and low PHR was analyzed according to different antiplatelet strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Elevated PHR was an independent predictor of all-cause mortality at 2 years following PCI in the "all-comer" GLOBAL LEADERS trial. The prognostic value of increased PHR on outcomes was not affected by the different antiplatelet strategies in this trial.

Safety and efficacy of a sirolimus-eluting coronary stent with ultra-thin strut for treatment of atherosclerotic lesions (TALENT): a prospective multicentre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Supraflex is a sirolimus-eluting stent with a biodegradable polymer coating and ultra-thin struts. We aimed to compare Supraflex with the standard of care, Xience, an everolimus-eluting stent with a durable polymer coating, regarding clinical outcomes with a randomised trial in an all-comer population. METHODS: We did a prospective, randomised, single-blind, multicentre study (TALENT) across 23 centres in Europe (the Netherlands, Poland, the UK, Spain, Bulgaria, Hungary, and Italy). Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older, had one or more coronary artery stenosis of 50% or greater in a native coronary artery, saphenous venous graft, or arterial bypass conduit, and had a reference vessel diameter of 2·25-4·50 mm. Patients underwent percutaneous coronary intervention in an all-comer manner. We randomly assigned patients (1:1) to implantation of either a sirolimus-eluting stent with a biodegradable polymer coating and ultra-thin struts (Supraflex) or an everolimus-eluting stent with a durable polymer coating (Xience). Randomisation was done by local investigators by use of a web-based software with random blocks according to centre. The primary endpoint was a non-inferiority comparison of a device-oriented composite endpoint-cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically indicated target lesion revascularisation-between groups at 12 months after the procedure, assessed in an intention-to-treat population. On assumption of 1-year composite endpoint prevalence of 8·3%, a margin of 4·0% was defined for non-inferiority of the Supraflex group compared with the Xience group. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02870140. FINDINGS: Between Oct 21, 2016, and July 3, 2017, 1435 patients with 1046 lesions were randomly assigned to Supraflex, of whom 720 received the index procedure, and 715 patients with 1030 lesions were assigned to Xience, all receiving the index procedure. At 12 months, the primary endpoint had occurred in 35 patients (4·9 %) in the Supraflex group and in 37 patients (5·3%) in the Xience group (absolute difference -0·3% [one-sided 95% upper confidence bound 1·6%], pnon-inferiority<0·0001). Definite or probable stent thrombosis prevalence, a safety indicator, was low in both groups and did not differ between them. INTERPRETATION: The Supraflex stent was non-inferior to the Xience stent for a device-oriented composite clinical endpoint at 12 months in an all-comer population. Supraflex seems a safe and effective alternative drug-eluting stent to other stents in clinical practice. FUNDING: European Cardiovascular Research Institute.