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.

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.

Everolimus-Eluting Versus Biolimus-Eluting Coronary Stent Implantation in Patients With and Without Diabetes Mellitus.

Diabetes mellitus is associated with a higher risk of target lesion revascularization after percutaneous coronary intervention. We compared clinical outcomes in patients with and without diabetes mellitus, treated with everolimus-eluting stents (EES; Synergy; Boston Scientific, Marlborough, Massachusetts) or biolimus-eluting stents (BES; BioMatrix NeoFlex; Biosensors Interventional Technologies Pte Ltd., Singapore). In total, 2,764 patients were randomized to stent implantation with EES (n = 1,385, diabetes: n = 250) or the BES (n = 1,379, diabetes: n = 262), stratified by gender and diabetes. The primary end point, target lesion failure (TLF), was a composite of cardiac death, target-lesion myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization at 12 months. Secondary end points included individual components of TLF, all-cause death, and stent thrombosis. TLF was 2.1% lower in the EES versus the BES groups in patients with diabetes (3.6% vs 5.7%; rate ratios 0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.27 to 1.41) and similar in patients without diabetes (4.1% vs 4.0%; rate ratios 0.99, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.51). In patients with diabetes, the point estimates of the individual components of TLF also favored the EES but CIs were wide. No interaction between stent type and presence of diabetes was found. The current subgroup analysis found that a thin-strut EES as compared with a thicker strut BES had a numerically lower TLF rate in patients with diabetes, but the subgroup analysis was underpowered for definite conclusions.

Comparison of Durable-Polymer Zotarolimus-Eluting and Biodegradable-Polymer Biolimus-Eluting Coronary Stents in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: 3-Year Clinical Outcomes in the Randomized SORT OUT VI Trial.

OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to compare the safety and efficacy of the biocompatible durable-polymer zotarolimus-eluting stent with the biodegradable-polymer biolimus-eluting stent in unselected coronary patients. BACKGROUND: Biodegradable-polymer biolimus-eluting stents are superior to first-generation durable-polymer drug-eluting stents in long-term randomized all-comer trials. Long-term data comparing them to second-generation durable-polymer drug-eluting stents are lacking. METHODS: The study was a randomized, multicenter, all-comer, noninferiority trial in patients with chronic stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes and at least 1 coronary artery lesion requiring treatment with a drug-eluting stent. Endpoints included major adverse cardiac events (MACE), a composite of safety (cardiac death and myocardial infarction not clearly attributable to a non-target lesion) and efficacy (target lesion revascularization); the individual endpoints of MACE; all-cause mortality; any myocardial infarction; target vessel revascularization; and definite or probable stent thrombosis at 36 months. RESULTS: From March 2011 to August 2012, 2,999 patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either the zotarolimus-eluting (1,502 patients) or the biolimus-eluting (1,497 patients) stent. At 3-year follow-up, MACE occurred in 128 (8.6%) patients assigned to the durable-polymer zotarolimus-eluting stent and in 144 (9.6%) assigned to the biodegradable-polymer biolimus-eluting stent (p = 0.36). Occurrence of cardiac death (2.7% vs. 3.4%), myocardial infarction not clearly attributable to a non-target lesion (2.7% vs. 2.5%), and target lesion revascularization (5.4% vs. 5.5%) did not differ significantly between the 2 groups. Definite very late stent thrombosis occurred in 6 (0.4%) patients assigned to the durable-polymer zotarolimus-eluting stent and in 10 (0.7%) assigned to the biodegradable-polymer biolimus-eluting stent (p = 0.33). CONCLUSIONS: At 3-year follow-up, the durable-polymer zotarolimus-eluting stent and the biodegradable-polymer biolimus-eluting stent were similar in clinical outcome, with no significant difference in safety and efficacy outcomes, including stent thrombosis.

Deferred versus conventional stent implantation in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (DANAMI 3-DEFER): an open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite successful treatment of the culprit artery lesion by primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with stent implantation, thrombotic embolisation occurs in some cases, which impairs the prognosis of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). We aimed to assess the clinical outcomes of deferred stent implantation versus standard PCI in patients with STEMI. METHODS: We did this open-label, randomised controlled trial at four primary PCI centres in Denmark. Eligible patients (aged >18 years) had acute onset symptoms lasting 12 h or less, and ST-segment elevation of 0·1 mV or more in at least two or more contiguous electrocardiographic leads or newly developed left bundle branch block. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), via an electronic web-based system with permuted block sizes of two to six, to receive either standard primary PCI with immediate stent implantation or deferred stent implantation 48 h after the index procedure if a stabilised flow could be obtained in the infarct-related artery. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, hospital admission for heart failure, recurrent infarction, and any unplanned revascularisation of the target vessel within 2 years' follow-up. Patients, investigators, and treating clinicians were not masked to treatment allocation. We did analysis by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01435408. FINDINGS: Between March 1, 2011, and Feb 28, 2014, we randomly assigned 1215 patients to receive either standard PCI (n=612) or deferred stent implantation (n=603). Median follow-up time was 42 months (IQR 33-49). Events comprising the primary endpoint occurred in 109 (18%) patients who had standard PCI and in 105 (17%) patients who had deferred stent implantation (hazard ratio 0·99, 95% CI 0·76-1·29; p=0·92). Procedure-related myocardial infarction, bleeding requiring transfusion or surgery, contrast-induced nephopathy, or stroke occurred in 28 (5%) patients in the conventional PCI group versus 27 (4%) patients in the deferred stent implantation group, with no significant differences between groups. INTERPRETATION: In patients with STEMI, routine deferred stent implantation did not reduce the occurrence of death, heart failure, myocardial infarction, or repeat revascularisation compared with conventional PCI. Results from ongoing randomised trials might shed further light on the concept of deferred stenting in this patient population. FUNDING: Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation, and Danish Council for Strategic Research.

Differential clinical outcomes after 1 year versus 5 years in a randomised comparison of zotarolimus-eluting and sirolimus-eluting coronary stents (the SORT OUT III study): a multicentre, open-label, randomised superiority trial.

BACKGROUND: In head-to-head comparisons of coronary drug-eluting stents, the primary endpoint is traditionally assessed after 9-12 months. However, the optimum timepoint for this assessment remains unclear. In this study, we assessed clinical outcomes at up to 5 years' follow-up in patients who received two different types of drug-eluting stents. METHODS: We undertook this multicentre, open-label, randomised superiority trial at five percutaneous coronary intervention centres in Denmark. We randomly allocated 2332 eligible adult patients (≥18 years of age) with an indication for drug-eluting stent implantation to the zotarolimus-eluting Endeavor Sprint stent (Medtronic, Santa Rosa, CA, USA) or the sirolimus-eluting Cypher Select Plus stent (Cordis, Johnson & Johnson, Warren, NJ, USA). Randomisation of participants was achieved by computer-generated block randomisation and a telephone allocation service. The primary endpoint of the SORT OUT III study was a composite of major adverse cardiac events-cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularisation-at 9 months' follow-up. In this study, endpoints included the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events and definite stent thrombosis at follow-up times of up to 5 years. Analysis was by intention to treat. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00660478. FINDINGS: We randomly allocated 1162 patients to receive the zotarolimus-eluting stent and 1170 to the sirolimus-eluting stent. At 5-year follow-up, rates of major adverse cardiac events were similar in patients treated with both types of stents (zotarolimus-eluting stents 197/1162 [17.0%] vs sirolimus-eluting stents 182/1170 [15.6%]; odds ratio [OR] 1.10, 95% CI 0.88-1.37; p=0.40). This finding was indicative of the directly contrasting results for rates of major adverse cardiac events at 1-year follow up (zotarolimus 93/1162 [8.0%] vs sirolimus 46/1170 [3.9%]; OR 2.13, 95% CI 1.48-3.07; p<0.0001) compared with those at follow-up between 1 and 5 years (104 [9.0%] vs 136 [11.6%]; OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.59-1.02; p=0.071). At 1-year follow-up, definite stent thrombosis was more frequent after implantation of the zotarolimus-eluting stent (13/1162 [1.1%]) than the sirolimus-eluting stent (4/1170 [0.3%]; OR 3.34, 95% CI 1.08-10.3; p=0.036), whereas the opposite finding was recorded for between 1 and 5 years' follow-up (zotarolimus-eluting stent 1/1162 [0.1%] vs sirolimus-eluting stent 21/1170 [1.8%], OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.01-0.36; p=0.003). 26 of 88 (30%) target lesion revascularisations in the zotarolimus-eluting stent group occurred between 1 and 5 years' follow-up, whereas 54 of 70 (77%) of those in the sirolimus-eluting stent group occurred during this follow-up period. INTERPRETATION: The superiority of sirolimus-eluting stents compared with zotarolimus-eluting stents at 1-year follow-up was lost after 5 years. The traditional 1-year primary endpoint assessment therefore might be insufficient to predict 5-year clinical outcomes in patients treated with coronary drug-eluting stent implantation. FUNDING: Cordis and Medtronic.

3-Year clinical outcomes in the randomized SORT OUT III superiority trial comparing zotarolimus- and sirolimus-eluting coronary stents.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to examine the 3-year clinical outcomes in patients treated with the Endeavor (Medtronic, Santa Rosa, California) zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) or the Cypher (Cordis, Johnson & Johnson, Warren, New Jersey) sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) in routine clinical practice. BACKGROUND: The long-term clinical outcome in patients treated with ZES in comparison with SES is unclear. METHODS: The authors randomized 2,332 patients to ZES (n = 1,162) or SES (n = 1,170) implantation. Endpoints included major adverse cardiac events (MACE), a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization; the individual endpoints of MACE; and definite stent thrombosis. RESULTS: At 3-year follow-up, the MACE rate was higher in patients treated with ZES than in patients treated with SES (148 [12.9%] vs. 116 [10.1%]; hazard ratio [HR]: 1.33, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.04 to 1.69; p = 0.022). Target vessel revascularization was more frequent in the ZES group compared with the SES group (103 [9.1%] vs. 76 [6.7%]; HR: 1.40, 95% CI: 1.04 to 1.89; p = 0.025), whereas the occurrence of myocardial infarction (3.8% vs. 3.3%) and cardiac death (2.8% vs. 2.8%) did not differ significantly. Although the rate of definite stent thrombosis was similar at 3-year follow-up (1.1% vs. 1.4%), very late (12 to 36 months) definite stent thrombosis occurred in 0 (0%) patients in the ZES group versus 12 (1.1%) patients in the SES group (p = 0.0005). CONCLUSIONS: Although the 3-year MACE rate is higher in patients treated with ZES versus SES, our data highlight a late safety problem concerning definite stent thrombosis with the use of SES. This finding underscores the importance of long-term follow-up in head-to-head comparisons of drug-eluting stents. (Randomized Clinical Comparison of the Endeavor and the Cypher Coronary Stents in Non-selected Angina Pectoris Patients [SORT OUT III]; NCT00660478).

System delay and timing of intervention in acute myocardial infarction (from the Danish Acute Myocardial Infarction-2 [DANAMI-2] trial).

The interval from the first alert of the healthcare system to the initiation of reperfusion therapy (system delay) is associated with mortality in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI). The importance of system delay in patients treated with fibrinolysis versus pPCI has not been assessed. We obtained data on system delay from the Danish Acute Myocardial Infarction-2 study, which randomized 1,572 patients to fibrinolysis or pPCI. The study end points were 30-day and 8-year mortality. The short system delays were associated with reduced absolute mortality in both the fibrinolysis group (<1 hour, 5.6%; 1 to 2 hours, 6.9%; 2 to 3 hours, 9.5%; and >3 hours, 11.5%; test for trend, p = 0.08) and pPCI group (<1 hour, not assessed; 1 to 2 hours, 2.6%; 2 to 3 hours, 7.5%; >3 hours, 7.7%; test for trend, p = 0.02). The lowest 30-day mortality was obtained with pPCI and a system delay of 1 to 2 hours (vs fibrinolysis within <1 hour, adjusted hazard ratio 0.33; 95% confidence interval 0.10 to 1.10; p = 0.07; vs fibrinolysis within 1 to 2 hours, adjusted hazard ratio 0.37; 95% confidence interval 0.14 to 0.95; p = 0.04). pPCI and system delay >3 hours was associated with a similar 30-day and 8-year mortality as fibrinolysis within 1 to 2 hours. In conclusion, short system delays are associated with reduced mortality in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction treated with fibrinolysis as well as pPCI. pPCI performed with a system delay of <2 hours is associated with lower mortality than fibrinolysis performed with a faster or similar system delay.

A comparison of coronary angioplasty with fibrinolytic therapy in acute myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: For the treatment of myocardial infarction with ST-segment elevation, primary angioplasty is considered superior to fibrinolysis for patients who are admitted to hospitals with angioplasty facilities. Whether this benefit is maintained for patients who require transportation from a community hospital to a center where invasive treatment is available is uncertain. METHODS: We randomly assigned 1572 patients with acute myocardial infarction to treatment with angioplasty or accelerated treatment with intravenous alteplase; 1129 patients were enrolled at 24 referral hospitals and 443 patients at 5 invasive-treatment centers. The primary study end point was a composite of death, clinical evidence of reinfarction, or disabling stroke at 30 days. RESULTS: Among patients who underwent randomization at referral hospitals, the primary end point was reached in 8.5 percent of the patients in the angioplasty group, as compared with 14.2 percent of those in the fibrinolysis group (P=0.002). The results were similar among patients who were enrolled at invasive-treatment centers: 6.7 percent of the patients in the angioplasty group reached the primary end point, as compared with 12.3 percent in the fibrinolysis group (P=0.05). Among all patients, the better outcome after angioplasty was driven primarily by a reduction in the rate of reinfarction (1.6 percent in the angioplasty group vs. 6.3 percent in the fibrinolysis group, P<0.001); no significant differences were observed in the rate of death (6.6 percent vs. 7.8 percent, P=0.35) or the rate of stroke (1.1 percent vs. 2.0 percent, P=0.15). Ninety-six percent of patients were transferred from referral hospitals to an invasive-treatment center within two hours. CONCLUSIONS: A strategy for reperfusion involving the transfer of patients to an invasive-treatment center for primary angioplasty is superior to on-site fibrinolysis, provided that the transfer takes two hours or less.