Long-term outcomes of routine versus provisional T-stenting for de novo coronary bifurcation lesions: five-year results of the Bifurcations Bad Krozingen I study.

AIMS: Previously, we reported that the nine-month angiographic result after treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions with provisional T-stenting was not significantly different from that with routine T-stenting. To compare long-term clinical outcomes of the two stenting strategies, we extended the follow-up of our study on bifurcation stenting. METHODS AND RESULTS: One hundred and one patients with coronary bifurcation lesions had been randomly assigned to provisional T-stenting and 101 to routine T-stenting, using sirolimus-eluting stents. We performed complete five-year follow-up. The primary efficacy endpoint was the incidence of target lesion revascularisation (TLR), and the primary safety endpoint was the incidence of definite/probable stent thrombosis (ST). We also monitored death, myocardial infarction (MI) and MACE (composite of death, MI and TLR). The cumulative five-year incidence of TLR in the provisional T-stenting arm was not significantly different from that in the routine T-stenting arm (16.2% vs. 16.3%, p=0.97). The same was true for MACE (22.8% vs. 22.9%, p=0.91), the composite of death and MI (9.9% vs. 13.9%, p=0.40), and ST (2.0% vs. 5.1%; p=0.25). CONCLUSIONS: During five-year follow-up, routine T-stenting offered no advantage over provisional T-stenting with respect to TLR or MACE. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00288535

ISAR-REACT 3A: a study of reduced dose of unfractionated heparin in biomarker negative patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

AIMS: Although a 140 U/kg dose of unfractionated heparin (UFH) was comparable with bivalirudin in terms of net clinical outcome in the Intracoronary Stenting and Antithrombotic Regimen: Rapid Early Action for Coronary Treatment (ISAR-REACT) 3 trial, it was associated with a higher risk of bleeding. We designed this study to assess whether a reduction in the UFH dose from 140 to 100 U/kg is associated with improved net clinical outcome. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 2505 biomarker negative patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) after clopidogrel pre-treatment received a single bolus of 100 U/kg UFH. The primary endpoint was net clinical outcome-a quadruple endpoint of death, myocardial infarction, urgent target-vessel revascularization within 30 days, or in-hospital REPLACE 2 defined major bleeding. The primary comparison was with the historical UFH group of ISAR-REACT 3 (2281 patients). In a second analysis, we checked for non-inferiority against the historical bivalirudin arm of ISAR-REACT 3 (2289 patients). The incidence of the primary endpoint was 7.3% in the lower UFH dose group compared with 8.7% in the higher UFH dose group [hazard ratio (HR) 0.81; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67-1.00; P = 0.045]. The incidence of major bleeding was 3.6% in the lower UFH dose group and 4.6% in the higher UFH dose group (HR 0.79; 95% CI 0.59-1.05; P = 0.11). The lower UFH dose met the criterion of non-inferiority compared with bivalirudin (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In biomarker negative patients undergoing PCI after clopidogrel loading, a reduced dose of 100 U/kg UFH provided net clinical benefit compared with the historical control of 140 U/kg UFH in the ISAR-REACT 3 trial. The benefit was mostly driven by reduction in bleeding. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION: URL www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier NCT00735280.

A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled multicenter clinical trial to evaluate the effects of the angiotensin II receptor blocker candesartan cilexetil on intimal hyperplasia after coronary stent implantation.

BACKGROUND: Preclinical data suggest beneficial effects of angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) on neointima formation after vascular injury. Preliminary clinical data, however, revealed conflicting results. The AACHEN trial was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical multicenter trial to evaluate the effects of candesartan cilexetil on intimal hyperplasia after coronary stent implantation. METHODS: A total of 120 patients (61 +/- 9 years, 83% male) were randomized to receive either 32 mg candesartan cilexetil (active) or placebo starting 7 to 14 days before elective coronary stent implantation. A follow-up angiography including intravascular ultrasound assessment of the target lesion was performed 24 +/- 2 weeks after stent implantation. The primary end point was defined as the difference in neointimal area between groups as assessed by intravascular ultrasound. Secondary end points included differences in angiographic parameters (ie, restenosis rate) and incidence of major cardiac events. RESULTS: The mean stent length measured 15.0 +/- 4.9 mm in the active and 14.6 +/- 5.7 mm in the placebo group (P = .81). There was no significant difference in neointimal area between groups (2.1 +/- 1.0 vs 2.1 +/- 1.5 mm2, P = 1.00), nor were there differences in angiographic end point parameters. Major cardiac event rates were not significantly different between treatment groups (8% vs 11%, P = .75). CONCLUSIONS: High-dose candesartan cilexetil therapy in patients with symptomatic coronary artery disease undergoing coronary stent implantation does not reduce clinical event rates, restenosis rates, or neointimal proliferation after elective stent implantation.