Polymer-based or polymer-free stents in patients at high bleeding risk

BACKGROUND Polymer-free drug-coated stents provide superior clinical outcomes to bare-metal stents in patients at high bleeding risk who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and are treated with 1 month of dual antiplatelet therapy. Data on the use of polymer-based drug-eluting stents, as compared with polymer-free drug-coated stents, in such patients are limited. METHODS In an international, randomized, single-blind trial, we compared polymer-based zotarolimus-eluting stents with polymer-free umirolimus­coated stents in patients at high bleeding risk. After PCI, patients were treated with 1 month of dual antiplatelet therapy, followed by single antiplatelet therapy. The primary outcome was a safety composite of death from cardiac causes, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis at 1 year. The principal secondary outcome was target-lesion failure, an effectiveness composite of death from cardiac causes, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically indicated target-lesion revascularization. Both outcomes were powered for noninferiority. RESULTS A total of 1996 patients at high bleeding risk were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive zotarolimus-eluting stents (1003 patients) or polymer-free drugcoated stents (993 patients). At 1 year, the primary outcome was observed in 169 of 988 patients (17.1%) in the zotarolimus-eluting stent group and in 164 of 969 (16.9%) in the polymer-free drug-coated stent group (risk difference, 0.2 percentage points; upper boundary of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval [CI], 3.5; noninferiority margin, 4.1; P=0.01 for noninferiority). The principal secondary outcome was observed in 174 patients (17.6%) in the zotarolimus-eluting stent group and in 169 (17.4%) in the polymer-free drug-coated stent group (risk difference, 0.2 percentage points; upper boundary of the one-sided 97.5% CI, 3.5; noninferiority margin, 4.4; P=0.007 for noninferiority). CONCLUSIONS Among patients at high bleeding risk who received 1 month of dual antiplatelet therapy after PCI, use of polymer-based zotarolimus-eluting stents was noninferior to use of polymer-free drug-coated stents with regard to safety and effectiveness composite outcomes. (Funded by Medtronic; ONYX ONE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03344653.). (AU)

Initial experience with the balloon expandable Edwards-SAPIEN Transcatheter Heart Valve in Australia and New Zealand: the SOURCE ANZ registry: outcomes at 30 days and one year.

BACKGROUND: We report the findings of the SOURCE-ANZ registry of the clinical outcomes of the Edwards SAPIEN™ Transcatheter Heart Valve (THV) in the Australian and New Zealand (ANZ) clinical environment. METHODS: This single arm registry of select patients treated in eight centres, represent the initial experience within ANZ with the balloon expandable Edwards SAPIEN THV delivered by transfemoral (TF) and transapical (TA) access. RESULTS: The total enrolment for the study was 132 patients, 63 patients treated by TF, 56 by TA, and 2 patients were withdrawn from the study. The mean ages: 83.7 (TF) and 81.7 (TA), female: 34.3% (TF) and 61.3% (TA), logistic EuroSCORE: 26.8% (TF) and 28.8% (TA), and with procedural success (successful implant without conversion to surgery or death): 92.4% (TF) and 87.1% (TA) (p=0.32). Outcomes were not significantly different between TF and TA implants. These included one year mortality of 13.6% (TF) and 21.7% (TA) (p=0.24), MACCE: 16.7% (TF) and 28.3% (TA) (p=0.12), pacemaker: 4.6% (TF) and 8.3% (TA) (p=0.39), and VARC major vascular complication of 4.6% (TF) and 5.0% (TA) (p=0.91). CONCLUSION: TAVI in the ANZ clinical environment has demonstrated excellent outcomes for both the TA and TF approaches in highly selected patients. These results are consistent with those demonstrated in European, Canadian registries and the pivotal US clinical trials. ACTRN12611001026910.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation: know the differences between the currently available technologies.

This follow-on article (see below) comparing the differences between the Edwards-Sapien valve (ESV) and the Medtronic CoreValve (MCV) discusses transcatheter valve technologies from the point of view of a world-renowned team of cardiac experts led by Dr Sanjeevan Pasupati from Waikato Hospital, New Zealand, which has deployed both the ESV and the MCV technology since 2008.