Comparison of a Drug-Free Early Programmed Dismantling PDLLA Bioresorbable Scaffold and a Metallic Stent in a Porcine Coronary Artery Model at 3-Year Follow-Up.

BACKGROUND: Arterial Remodeling Technologies bioresorbable scaffold (ART-BRS), composed of l- and d-lactyl units without drug, has shown its safety in a porcine coronary model at 6 months. However, long-term performance remains unknown. The aim of this study was to evaluate the ART-BRS compared to a bare metal stent (BMS) in a healthy porcine coronary model for up to 3 years. METHODS AND RESULTS: Eighty-two ART-BRS and 66 BMS were implanted in 64 Yucatan swine, and animals were euthanatized at intervals of 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, 24, and 36 months to determine the vascular response using quantitative coronary angiography, optical coherence tomography, light and scanning electron microscopy, and molecular weight analysis. Lumen enlargement was observed in ART-BRS as early as 3 months, which progressively increased up to 18 months, whereas BMS showed no significant difference over time. Percentage area stenosis by optical coherence tomography was greater in ART-BRS than in BMS at 1 and 3 months, but this relationship reversed beyond 3 months. Inflammation peaked at 6 months and thereafter continued to decrease up to 36 months. Complete re-endothelialization was observed at 1 month following implantation in both ART-BRS and BMS. Scaffold dismantling started at 3 months, which allowed early vessel enlargement, and bioresorption was complete by 24 months. CONCLUSIONS: ART-BRS has the unique quality of early programmed dismantling accompanied by vessel lumen enlargement with mild to moderate inflammation. The main distinguishing feature of the ART-BRS from other scaffolds made from poly-l-lactic acid may result in early and long-term vascular restoration.

Protection Against Cerebral Embolism During Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND: Neurological complications after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) may be reduced with transcatheter cerebral embolic protection (TCEP). OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of TCEP during TAVR. METHODS: Nineteen centers randomized 363 patients undergoing TAVR to a safety arm (n = 123), device imaging (n = 121), and control imaging (n = 119). The primary safety endpoint consisted of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) at 30 days, and the primary efficacy endpoint was reduction in new lesion volume in protected brain territories on magnetic resonance imaging scans at 2 to 7 days. Patients underwent neurocognitive assessments, and the debris captured was analyzed. RESULTS: The rate of MACCE (7.3%) was noninferior to the performance goal (18.3%, pnoninferior < 0.001) and not statistically different from that of the control group (9.9%; p = 0.41). New lesion volume was 178.0 mm3 in control subjects and 102.8 mm3 in the device arm (p = 0.33). A post hoc multivariable analysis identified pre-existing lesion volume and valve type as predictors of new lesion volume. Strokes at 30 days were 9.1% in control subjects and 5.6% in patients with devices (p = 0.25) Neurocognitive function was similar in control subjects and patients with devices, but there was a correlation between lesion volume and neurocognitive decline (p = 0.0022). Debris found within filters in 99% of patients included thrombus, calcification, valve tissue, artery wall, and foreign material. CONCLUSIONS: TCEP was safe, captured embolic debris in 99% of patients, and did not change neurocognitive function. Reduction in new lesion volume on magnetic resonance scans was not statistically significant. (Cerebral Protection in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement [SENTINEL]; NCT02214277).

The incidence and relevance of site-reported vs. patient-reported angina: insights from the ABSORB II randomized trial comparing Absorb everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold with XIENCE everolimus-eluting metallic stent.

AIMS: In the ABSORB II trial, comparing Absorb™ bioresorbable vascular scaffold with metallic XIENCE™ everolimus-eluting stent (EES), a difference was found in site-reported new or worsening angina using adverse event (AE) reporting. However, the clinical relevance of this site-reported angina is unclear. The aim of the present study was therefore to investigate the clinical relevance of site-reported angina by evaluating its relation with cardiac endpoints, cardiovascular resource utilization (including diagnostics and treatment), positive exercise stress tolerance tests (ETTs), and Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ). METHODS AND RESULTS: Site-reported new or worsening angina was captured on cardiac AE forms. There was a wide variation in the total number of days with site-reported angina (overall interquartile range 35-279 days). Patients with site-reported angina showed higher rates of cardiovascular events [including the patient-oriented composite endpoint of all deaths, all myocardial infarctions (MI), or all revascularizations (21.1 vs. 4.2%, P < 0.0001), all MIs (2.3 vs. 0%, P = 0.03), and all revascularizations (21.1 vs. 0.7%, P < 0.0001)], cardiovascular resource utilization (including stress tests, anti-anginal medication, diagnostic angiographies, and hospitalization), and positive ETTs (51.9 vs. 14.9%, P < 0.001), compared with those without site-reported angina. Furthermore, an event-based analysis of the SAQ showed that patients with ongoing angina within the recall period of 4 weeks prior to the SAQ assessment have clinically and statistically significant decrements of >14 points in SAQ scores compared with those with no reported angina. CONCLUSIONS: We showed that the site-reported angina through AE reporting may be clinically relevant because of their relation with cardiovascular events (mostly repeat revascularizations), cardiovascular resource utilization, ETT, and SAQ. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01425281; Unique identifier: NCT01425281.

TransRadial Education and Therapeutics (TREAT): shifting the balance of safety and efficacy of antithrombotic agents in percutaneous coronary intervention: a report from the Cardiac Safety Research Consortium.

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is an integral part of the treatment of coronary artery disease. The most common complication of PCI, bleeding, typically occurs at the vascular access site and is associated with short-term and long-term morbidity and mortality. Periprocedural bleeding also represents the primary safety concern of concomitant antithrombotic therapies essential for PCI success. Use of radial access for PCI reduces procedural bleeding and hence may change the risk profile and net clinical benefit of these drugs. This new drug-device safety interaction creates opportunities to advance the safe and effective use of antithrombotic agents during PCI. In June 2010 and March 2011, leaders from government, academia, professional societies, device manufacturing, and pharmaceutical industries convened for 2 think tank meetings. Titled TREAT I and II, these forums examined approaches to improve the overall safety of PCI by optimizing strategies for antithrombotic drug use and radial artery access. This article summarizes the content and proceedings of these sessions.

Randomized comparison of everolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents: two-year clinical follow-up from the Clinical Evaluation of the Xience V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Patients with de novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions (SPIRIT) III trial.

BACKGROUND: In the prospective randomized Clinical Evaluation of the Xience V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Patients with de novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions (SPIRIT) III trial, an everolimus-eluting stent (EES) compared with a widely used paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) resulted in a statistically significant reduction in angiographic in-segment late loss at 8 months and noninferior rates of target vessel failure (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization) at 1 year. The safety and efficacy of EES after 1 year have not been reported. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 1002 patients with up to 2 de novo native coronary artery lesions (reference vessel diameter, 2.5 to 3.75 mm; lesion length < or =28 mm) were randomized 2:1 to EES versus PES. Antiplatelet therapy consisted of aspirin indefinitely and a thienopyridine for > or =6 months. Between 1 and 2 years, patients treated with EES compared with PES tended to have fewer episodes of protocol-defined stent thrombosis (0.2% versus 1.0%; P=0.10) and myocardial infarctions (0.5% versus 1.7%; P=0.12), with similar rates of cardiac death (0.3% versus 0.3%; P=1.0) and target vessel revascularization (2.9% versus 3.0%; P=1.0). As a result, at the completion of the 2-year follow-up, treatment with EES compared with PES resulted in a significant 32% reduction in target vessel failure (10.7% versus 15.4%; hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.48 to 0.98; P=0.04) and a 45% reduction in major adverse cardiac events (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization; 7.3% versus 12.8%; hazard ratio, 0.55; 95% confidence interval, 0.36 to 0.83; P=0.004). Among the 360 patients who discontinued clopidogrel or ticlopidine after 6 months, stent thrombosis subsequently developed in 0.4% of EES patients versus 2.6% of PES patients (P=0.10). CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated with EES rather than PES experienced significantly improved event-free survival at a 2-year follow-up in the SPIRIT III trial, with continued divergence of the hazard curves for target vessel failure and major adverse cardiac events between 1 and 2 years evident. The encouraging trends toward fewer stent thrombosis episodes after 6 months in EES-treated patients who discontinued a thienopyridine and after 1 year in all patients treated with EES rather than PES deserve further study.