Publications by authors named "Sjoerd H Hofma"

46 Publications

Long-Term Clinical Outcomes of Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffolds Versus Everolimus-Eluting Stents: Final 5-Year Results of the AIDA Randomized Clinical Trial.

EuroIntervention 2021 Aug 31. Epub 2021 Aug 31.

Amsterdam UMC, Heart Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Background: Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) related events have been reported between 1 and 3 years - the period of active scaffold bioresorption. Data on the performance of Absorb BVS in daily clinical practice beyond this time point is scarce.

Aims: This report provides the final five-year clinical follow-up of the Absorb BVS in comparison with Xience everolimus-eluting stent (EES). In addition, we evaluated the effect of prolonged dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) administration on events in the scaffold group.

Methods: AIDA was a multicentre, investigator-initiated, non-inferiority trial, in which 1,845 unselected patients with coronary artery disease were randomly assigned to either Absorb BVS (n=924) or Xience EES (n=921). Target vessel failure (TVF), composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction or target vessel revascularisation, was the primary endpoint. Scaffold thrombosis cases were matched with controls and tested for effect of prolonged DAPT.

Results: Through 5 years follow-up, there was no difference in TVF between Absorb BVS (17.7%) and Xience EES (16.1%) (hazard ratio 1.31, 95% CI 0.90-1.41, p=0.302). Definite or probable device thrombosis (DT) occurred in 43 patients (4.8%) of the scaffold group compared to 13 patients (1.5%) of the stent group (hazard ratio 3.32; 95% CI 1.78-6.17; p<0.001). DT between 3- and 4-years occurred six times in Absorb-arm versus three in Xience-arm. Between 4- and 5-years the incidence was 3 versus 2, respectively. Of those three DT in scaffold group, two occurred in Xience EES treated lesions. The odds ratio of scaffold thrombosis in patients on DAPT compared to off DAPT throughout 5-year follow-up was 0.36 (95% CI 0.15-0.86).

Conclusions: The excess risk of Absorb BVS on late adverse events, in particular device thrombosis, in routine PCI continues up to 4-years and seems to plateau afterwards.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.4244/EIJ-D-21-00419DOI Listing
August 2021

Clopidogrel in noncarriers of CYP2C19 loss-of-function alleles versus ticagrelor in elderly patients with acute coronary syndrome: A pre-specified sub analysis from the POPular Genetics and POPular Age trials CYP2C19 alleles in elderly patients.

Int J Cardiol 2021 Jul 20;334:10-17. Epub 2021 Apr 20.

Department of Cardiology, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, the Netherlands; Cardiovascular Research Institute Maastricht (CARIM), Maastricht, the Netherlands. Electronic address:

Background: Patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) who are carrying CYP2C19 loss-of-function alleles derive less benefit from clopidogrel treatment. Despite this, in elderly patients, clopidogrel might be preferred over more potent P2Y inhibitors due to a lower bleeding risk. Whether CYP2C19 genotype-guided antiplatelet treatment in the elderly could be of benefit has not been studied specifically.

Methods: Patients aged 70 years and older with known CYP2C19*2 and *3 genotype were identified from the POPular Genetics and POPular Age trials. Noncarriers of loss-of-function alleles treated with clopidogrel were compared to patients, irrespective of CYP2C19 genotype, treated with ticagrelor and to clopidogrel treated carriers of loss-of-function alleles. We assessed net clinical benefit (all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke and Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes (PLATO) major bleeding), atherothrombotic outcomes (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke) and bleeding outcomes (PLATO major and minor bleeding).

Results: A total of 991 patients were assessed. There was no significant difference in net clinical benefit (17.2% vs. 15.1%, adjusted hazard ratio (adjHR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77-1.44), atherothrombotic outcomes (9.7% vs. 9.2%, adjHR 1.00, 95%CI 0.66-1.50), and bleeding outcomes (17.7% vs. 19.8%, adjHR 0.80, 95%CI 0.62-1.12) between clopidogrel in noncarriers of loss-of-function alleles and ticagrelor respectively.

Conclusion: In ACS patients aged 70 years and older, there was no significant difference in net clinical benefit and atherothrombotic outcomes between noncarriers of a loss-of-function allele treated with clopidogrel and patients treated with ticagrelor. The bleeding rate was numerically; though not statistically significant, lower in patients using clopidogrel.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2021.04.029DOI Listing
July 2021

Three-year clinical outcomes of the absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold compared to Xience everolimus-eluting stent in routine PCI in patients with diabetes mellitus-AIDA sub-study.

Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2021 10 29;98(4):713-720. Epub 2020 Oct 29.

Heart Center; department of Clinical and Experimental Cardiology, Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Background: In this prespecified AIDA-trial sub-study we investigate the clinical performance of absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) compared to Xience everolimus-eluting stent (EES) in routine percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) at complete 3-year follow-up.

Methods And Results: All 1,845 randomized patients were subdivided by medical history with DM or without DM. Of the 924 Absorb BVS patients, 171 (18.5%) patients had DM, of which 65 (38.0%) were treated with insulin (iTDM). Of the 921 Xience EES patients, 153 (16.6%) patients had DM, of which 45 (29.4%) were insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (iTDM). Target vessel failure (TVF), composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization, occurred in 18.7% of diabetic patients treated with Absorb patients versus in 18.0% patients treated with Xience EES (p = .840). In nondiabetics the rates of TVF were 12.3% in Absorb BVS versus 11.0% in Xience EES (p = .391). Definite/probable device thrombosis occurred more frequently in Absorb BVS compared to Xience EES in both diabetic and nondiabetic patients (4.8% versus 0.7%; p = .028 and 3.2% vs. 0.5%; p < .001, respectively).

Conclusions: In routine PCI practice, both Absorb BVS and Xience EES have worse clinical outcomes in diabetic patients as compared to nondiabetic patients. Throughout all clinical presentations, Absorb BVS was associated with higher rates of device thrombosis at 3-year follow-up.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ccd.29329DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8518754PMC
October 2021

Final 3-Year Outcomes of MiStent Biodegradable Polymer Crystalline Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Xience Permanent Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stent: Insights From the DESSOLVE III All-Comers Randomized Trial.

Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2020 06 29;13(6):e008737. Epub 2020 May 29.

The Lambe Institute for Translational Medicine and Curam, National University of Ireland Galway (W.W.).

Background: Numerous randomized clinical trials have demonstrated the superiority of thin-strut biodegradable polymer second-generation drug-eluting stent to the first-generation drug-eluting stent and the noninferiority to the thin-strut second-generation permanent polymer drug-eluting stent. Data on long-term clinical outcomes with a novel ultrathin drug-eluting stent, to date, are limited.

Methods: The DESSOLVE III trial (Multicenter Randomized Study of the MiStent Sirolimus Eluting Absorbable Polymer Stent System for Revascularization of Coronary Arteries; n=1398) is a prospective, multicenter, single-blinded, all-comers, randomized controlled trial (NCT02385279), allocating in a 1:1 ratio to either ultrathin-strut biodegradable polymer MiStent sirolimus-eluting stent or to thin-strut permanent polymer Xience everolimus-eluting stent. The primary end point was device-oriented composite end point, defined as the composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically indicated target lesion revascularization. The secondary end point was patient-oriented composite end point, defined as the composite of all-cause mortality, any myocardial infarction, or any revascularization.

Results: At 3 years, follow-up data were available in 1381 patients (98.8%). The primary end point of device-oriented composite end point occurred in 10.5% for MiStent sirolimus-eluting stent and in 11.5% for Xience everolimus-eluting stent (=0.55). Rates of cardiac death (3.9% versus 3.8%; =0.88), target vessel myocardial infarction (3.2% versus 2.5%; =0.43), and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization (5.2% versus 6.5%; =0.30) did not differ significantly between the 2 devices. The rate of definite or probable stent thrombosis was infrequent and similar between the 2 arms (1.2% versus 1.5%; =0.64). The 90-day landmark analysis showed no significant difference in device-oriented composite end point between the 2 groups after polymer degradation of MiStent. The risk of patient-oriented composite end point was comparable between the 2 groups (22.7% versus 22.9%; =0.34).

Conclusions: In the DESSOLVE III trial, early safety and efficacy with MiStent sirolimus-eluting bioabsorbable polymer-coated stent are confirmed at a longer term follow-up when compared with Xience everolimus-eluting permanent polymer-coated stent in a large all-comers population. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02385279.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.119.008737DOI Listing
June 2020

The influence of implantation techniques on lesion oriented-outcomes in Absorb BVS and Xience EES lesions treated in routine clinical practice at complete three year follow-up: AIDA trial QCA substudy.

Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 2020 Apr 2;36(4):565-575. Epub 2020 Jan 2.

Department of Clinical and Experimental Cardiology, Heart Center, Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

It has been hypothesized that dedicated optimized Absorb BVS implantation techniques might mitigate the risk of adverse events such as target vessel failure and device thrombosis. In this explorative AIDA trial QCA substudy, we sought to investigate the influence of implantation techniques on lesion-oriented outcomes in both the Absorb BVS and Xience EES arm at complete 3-year follow-up. The current analysis includes 2152 study lesions treated with at least one study device, of which the baseline angiogram was suited for offline QCA analysis, including Dmax analysis. The lesion-oriented composite outcome (LOCE) of this analysis was a composite of definite device thrombosis, target lesion revascularization and target-vessel myocardial infarction. In Absorb BVS, the Lesion-oriented composite endpoint (LOCE) occurred numerically less in correctly QCA sized vessels when compared to incorrectly sized vessels 8.5% (58/696) versus 11.1% (39/358), p = 0.151. In Xience EES, LOCE had occurred more frequently in incorrectly sized devices according to device diameter/RVD matching; 2.2% (4/187) in correctly sized devices versus 7.1% (63/911) in incorrectly sized devices (p = 0.014). In this AIDA trial QCA substudy, rates of LOCE were significantly lower in Xience EES treated lesions in which devices were correctly sized according to the definitions of device diameter/RVD matching.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10554-019-01756-wDOI Listing
April 2020

Efficacy and Safety of Stents in ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction.

J Am Coll Cardiol 2019 11;74(21):2572-2584

Cardiovascular Center Aalst, OLV Clinic, Aalst, Belgium; Cardialysis Clinical Trials Management and Core Laboratories, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Electronic address:

Background: To date, no specific drug-eluting stent (DES) has fully proven its superiority over others in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of coronary artery stents in STEMI patients in a patient-level network meta-analysis.

Methods: Eligible studies were dedicated randomized controlled trials comparing different stents in STEMI patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with at least 12 months of clinical follow-up. Of 19 studies identified from the published data, individual patient data were collected in 15 studies with 10,979 patients representing 87.7% of patients in the overall network of evidence. The primary endpoint was the composite of cardiac death, reinfarction, or target lesion revascularization.

Results: Overall, 8,487 (77.3%) of 10,979 STEMI patients were male and the mean age was 60.7 years. At a median follow-up of 3 years, compared with bare-metal stents (BMS), patients treated with paclitaxel-, sirolimus-, everolimus-, or biolimus-eluting stents had a significantly lower risk of the primary endpoint (adjusted hazard ratios [HRs]: 0.74 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.63 to 0.88], 0.65 [95% CI: 0.49 to 0.85], 0.70 [95% CI: 0.53 to 0.91], and 0.66 [95% CI: 0.49 to 0.88], respectively). The risk of primary endpoint was not different between patients treated with BMS and zotarolimus-eluting stents (adjusted HR: 0.83 [95% CI: 0.51 to 1.38]). Among patients treated with DES, no significant difference in the risk of the primary outcome was demonstrated. Treatment with second-generation DES was associated with significantly lower risk of definite or probable stent thrombosis compared with BMS (adjusted HR: 0.61 [95% CI: 0.42 to 0.89]) and first-generation DES (adjusted HR: 0.56 [95% CI: 0.36 to 0.88]).

Conclusions: In STEMI patients, DES were superior to BMS with respect to long-term efficacy. No difference in long-term efficacy and safety was observed among specific DES. Second-generation were superior to first-generation DES in reducing stent thrombosis. (Clinical Outcomes After Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention [PCI] Using Contemporary Drug-Eluting Stent [DES]: Evidence From the Individual Patient Data Network Meta-Analysis; CRD42018104053).
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2019.09.038DOI Listing
November 2019

A paradox in sex-specific clinical outcomes after bioresorbable scaffold implantation: 2-year results from the AIDA trial.

Int J Cardiol 2020 02 30;300:93-98. Epub 2019 Aug 30.

Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of Clinical and Experimental Cardiology, Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Electronic address:

Background: Females are underrepresented in clinical trials evaluating new stent technologies whilst results may differ between the sexes. Females are known to have smaller, more tortuous coronary arteries and have generally more comorbidities. On the other hand, they may have smaller plaque burden. This subgroup-analysis sought to assess sex-specific outcomes after Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) or XIENCE everolimus-eluting stent (EES) implantation.

Methods: The AIDA trial was an investigator-initiated, non-inferiority, all-comers trial, in which 1845 patients were randomly assigned to either Absorb BVS or XIENCE EES. Baseline clinical, angiography and procedural variables, as well as 2-year clinical outcomes were analyzed by sex and device modality.

Results: Of the 1845 randomized patients, 475 (25.7%) were females. The 2-year rates of target vessel failure (TVF) with Absorb BVS versus XIENCE EES in females were 6.4% versus 10.6% (HR 0.59; 95% CI: 0.31-1.11; p = 0.10) and in males 12.7% versus 9.7% (HR 1.34; 95% CI: 0.98-1.85; p = 0.07). Males treated with Absorb BVS were at higher risk for TVF compared to females treated with Absorb BVS (HR 2.06; 95% CI 1.21-3.53; p = 0.007). Definite/probable device thrombosis occurred in females with Absorb BVS versus XIENCE EES in 1.6% versus 1.4% (HR 1.15; 95% CI: 0.26-5.12; p = 0.86) and in males 3.9% versus 0.7% (HR 5.55; 95% CI: 2.11-14.35; p < 0.001). A statistical significant interaction between sex and device was present for TVF (p = 0.02), but was not seen for definite/probable device thrombosis (p = 0.08).

Conclusions: In this subgroup analysis, Absorb BVS used in routine practice tends to result in better clinical outcomes in females compared to males.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2019.08.045DOI Listing
February 2020

Outcomes of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds versus everolimus-eluting stents by coronary complexity: a sub-analysis of the AIDA trial.

EuroIntervention 2020 12 4;16(11):e904-e912. Epub 2020 Dec 4.

Amsterdam UMC and AMC Heart Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Aims: We aimed to evaluate the impact of the complexity of coronary disease as assessed by the SYNTAX score (SXscore) on the clinical outcomes in the AIDA trial.

Methods And Results: In the AIDA trial, we compared Absorb versus XIENCE in routine clinical practice. Clinical outcomes were stratified by SXscore tertiles: SXlow (SXscore ≤8), SXmid (SXscore >8 and ≤15) and SXhigh (>15). The SXscore was available in 1,661 of the 1,845 (90%) patients. The event rate of TVF was numerically lower in Absorb compared to XIENCE (3.7% versus 5.6%; p=0.257) in the SXlow tertile, numerically higher in Absorb in the SXmid tertile (11.4% versus 9.3%, p=0.421) and similar in the SXhigh tertile (15.5% versus 15.6%; p=0.960). The rates of definite/probable device thrombosis in Absorb versus XIENCE were significantly higher in the SXmid tertile (3.3% versus 0.8%, p=0.043) and in the SXhigh tertile (3.7% versus 0.8%, p=0.006).

Conclusions: We found no significantly different rates of TVF between Absorb and XIENCE patients. Absorb-treated patients in the SXmid and SXhigh tertiles had an increased risk of device thrombosis when compared to XIENCE-treated patients. The rates of device thrombosis in the SXlow tertile, while still higher for Absorb, are more acceptable than in the SXmid and SXhigh score tertiles.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.4244/EIJ-D-18-00884DOI Listing
December 2020

Clinical outcomes at 2 years of the Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold versus the Xience drug-eluting metallic stent in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome versus stable coronary disease-AIDA trial substudy.

Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2020 01 9;95(1):89-96. Epub 2019 Apr 9.

Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Heart Center, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Background: Patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) might represent a specific subgroup, in which bioresorbable scaffold implantation in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), might lead to better outcomes when compared to conventional treatment with metallic drug eluting stents. In this prespecified subgroup analysis of the Amsterdam Investigator-Initiated Absorb Strategy All-Comers (AIDA) trial, we evaluated the clinical outcomes of Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) versus Xience everolimus eluting stent (EES) treated patients presenting either with or without ACS.

Methods And Results: We classified AIDA patients on the basis of clinical presentation of ACS or of no-ACS. The rate of the 2-year primary endpoint of target vessel failure (TVF) was similar after treatment with Absorb BVS or Xience EES in ACS patients (10.2% versus 9.0% respectively; P = 0.49) and in no-ACS patients (11.7% versus 10.7%, respectively; P = 0.67) Definite or probable device thrombosis occurred more frequently with Absorb BVS compared to Xience EES in ACS patients (4.3% versus 1.7%, respectively, P = 0.03) as well as in no-ACS patients (2.4% versus 0.2%, respectively; P = 0.002). There were no statistically significant interactions between clinical presentation and randomized device modality for TVF (P = 0.80) and for the endpoint of definite or probable device thrombosis (P = 0.17).

Conclusion: In the AIDA trial, the 2-year outcomes of PCI with Absorb BVS versus Xience EES were consistent in ACS and no-ACS patients: similar rates for TVF and consistently higher rates of definite or probable stent thrombosis under Absorb BVS versus Xience EES. There were no statistically significant interactions between clinical presentation and randomized device modality.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ccd.28193DOI Listing
January 2020

The relationship of pre-procedural Dmax based sizing to lesion level outcomes in Absorb BVS and Xience EES treated patients in the AIDA trial.

Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 2019 Jul 25;35(7):1189-1198. Epub 2019 Mar 25.

Heart Center, Department of Clinical and Experimental Cardiology, Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Due to expansion limits of the Absorb bioresorbable scaffold a meticulous implantation with correct sizing is required. We sought to investigate the clinical outcomes based on the sizing of the device related to the maximal lumen diameter measured by quantitative coronary angiography in Absorb BVS and Xience EES treated lesions in the AIDA trial. Sizing of Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) and Xience everolimus eluting stent (EES) was graded according to the definitions of device non-oversize and device oversize on pre-procedural angiography. Lesion-oriented outcomes (LOCE) (device thrombosis, TLR and TVMI) that occurred during 2 years follow-up were related to device non-oversized or oversized status. In the Absorb BVS group, LOCE occurred in 48 (7.4%) lesions in the oversized group and in 32 (8.2%) lesions in the non-oversized group (HR 0.91; 95% CI 0.58-1.42; p = 0.681), whereas TLR occurred in 34 (5.3%) lesions and in 23 lesions (5.9%), respectively (HR 0.89; 95% CI 0.52-1.51; p = 0.666). Definite scaffold thrombosis occurred in 11 (1.7%) device oversized treated lesions against 16 (4.1%) device non-oversized treated lesions (HR 0.41; 95% CI 0.19-0.89; p = 0.020). There were no differences in event rates between oversized and non-oversized groups in lesions treated with Xience EES. There was no significant difference in LOCE between oversized and non-oversized treated Absorb BVS and Xience EES treated lesions. Non-oversized Absorb BVS implantation was associated with a higher risk of scaffold thrombosis at complete 2 years follow-up. The majority of very late scaffold thrombosis occurred in properly sized devices.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10554-019-01576-yDOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6598967PMC
July 2019

Complete two-year follow-up with formal non-inferiority testing on primary outcomes of the AIDA trial comparing the Absorb bioresorbable scaffold with the XIENCE drug-eluting metallic stent in routine PCI.

EuroIntervention 2018 Jul 20;14(4):e426-e433. Epub 2018 Jul 20.

AMC Heartcenter, Academic Medical Center - University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Aims: The aim of this report of the AIDA trial is to provide full two-year outcomes for the primary endpoint of target vessel failure (TVF) and an update on device thrombosis.

Methods And Results: AIDA was a single-blind, multicentre, investigator-initiated, non-inferiority, randomised (1:1) clinical trial. At complete two-year follow-up, the primary endpoint of TVF had occurred in 100 patients in the Absorb BVS arm versus 90 patients in the XIENCE EES arm (HR 1.12, 95% CI: 0.94-1.49; psuperiority=0.436). Estimated two-year Kaplan-Meier event rates of TVF were 11.0% and 9.9%, respectively (95% CI: -0.9%-3.0%; pnon-inferiority=0.003). Definite or probable device thrombosis at two years occurred in 30 patients in the Absorb BVS arm and in eight patients in the XIENCE EES arm. Kaplan-Meier estimates of device thrombosis were 3.3% in the Absorb BVS arm and 0.9% in the XIENCE EES arm (HR 5.22, 95% CI: 2.00-13.59; p<0.001).

Conclusions: AIDA formally met its criterion for non-inferiority of Absorb BVS versus XIENCE EES in terms of the combined endpoint of TVF. The Absorb BVS, however, was associated with higher rates of scaffold thrombosis and target vessel myocardial infarction at complete two-year follow-up.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.4244/EIJ-D-18-00335DOI Listing
July 2018

A sirolimus-eluting bioabsorbable polymer-coated stent (MiStent) versus an everolimus-eluting durable polymer stent (Xience) after percutaneous coronary intervention (DESSOLVE III): a randomised, single-blind, multicentre, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial.

Lancet 2018 02 5;391(10119):431-440. Epub 2017 Dec 5.

National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK. Electronic address:

Background: MiStent is a drug-eluting stent with a fully absorbable polymer coating containing and embedding a microcrystalline form of sirolimus into the vessel wall. It was developed to overcome the limitation of current durable polymer drug-eluting stents eluting amorphous sirolimus. The clinical effect of MiStent sirolimus-eluting stent compared with a durable polymer drug-eluting stents has not been investigated in a large randomised trial in an all-comer population.

Methods: We did a randomised, single-blind, multicentre, phase 3 study (DESSOLVE III) at 20 hospitals in Germany, France, Netherlands, and Poland. Eligible participants were any patients aged at least 18 years who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention in a lesion and had a reference vessel diameter of 2·50-3·75 mm. We randomly assigned patients (1:1) to implantation of either a sirolimus-eluting bioresorbable polymer stent (MiStent) or an everolimus-eluting durable polymer stent (Xience). Randomisation was done by local investigators via web-based software with random blocks according to centre. The primary endpoint was a non-inferiority comparison of a device-oriented composite endpoint (DOCE)-cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically indicated target lesion revascularisation-between the groups at 12 months after the procedure assessed by intention-to-treat. A margin of 4·0% was defined for non-inferiority of the MiStent group compared with the Xience group. All participants were included in the safety analyses. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02385279.

Findings: Between March 20, and Dec 3, 2015, we randomly assigned 1398 patients with 2030 lesions; 703 patients with 1037 lesions were assigned to MiStent, of whom 697 received the index procedure, and 695 patients with 993 lesions were asssigned to Xience, of whom 690 received the index procedure. At 12 months, the primary endpoint had occurred in 40 patients (5·8%) in the sirolimus-eluting stent group and in 45 patients (6·5%) in the everolimus-eluting stent group (absolute difference -0·8% [95% CI -3·3 to 1·8], p=0·0001). Procedural complications occurred in 12 patients (1·7%) in the sirolimus-eluting stent group and ten patients (1·4%) in the everolimus-eluting stent group; no clinical adverse events could be attributed to these dislodgements through a minimum of 12 months of follow-up. The rate of stent thrombosis, a safety indicator, did not differ between groups and was low in both treatment groups.

Interpretation: The sirolimus-eluting bioabsorbable polymer stent was non-inferior to the everolimus-eluting durable polymer stent for a device-oriented composite clinical endpoint at 12 months in an all-comer population. MiStent seems a reasonable alternative to other stents in clinical practice.

Funding: The European Cardiovascular Research Institute, Micell Technologies (Durham, NC, USA), and Stentys (Paris, France).
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)33103-3DOI Listing
February 2018

Effect of Post-Dilatation Following Primary PCI With Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffold Versus Everolimus-Eluting Metallic Stent Implantation: An Angiographic and Optical Coherence Tomography TROFI II Substudy.

JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2017 09;10(18):1867-1877

Department of Cardiology, Bern University Hospital, Bern, Switzerland.

Objectives: This study sought to investigate the effect of post-dilatation on angiographic and intracoronary imaging parameters in the setting of primary percutaneous coronary intervention comparing the everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold (BRS) with the everolimus-eluting metallic stent (EES).

Background: Routine post-dilatation of BRS has been suggested to improve post-procedural angiographic and subsequent device-related clinical outcomes.

Methods: In the ABSORB STEMI TROFI II trial, 191 patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction were randomly assigned to treatment with BRS (n = 95) or EES (n = 96). Minimal lumen area and healing score as assessed by optical coherence tomography at 6 months were compared between BRS- and EES-treated patients stratified according to post-dilatation status.

Results: Primary percutaneous coronary intervention with post-dilatation was performed in 48 (50.5%) BRS- and 25 (25.5%) EES-treated lesions. There were no differences in baseline characteristics and post-procedural minimal lumen diameter between groups. In the BRS group, lesions with post-dilatation were associated with a trend toward a smaller minimal lumen area at 6 months (5.07 ± 1.68 mm vs. 5.72 ± 1.77 mm; p = 0.09) and significantly larger angiographic late lumen loss (0.28 ± 0.34 mm vs. 0.12 ± 0.25 mm; p = 0.02), whereas no difference was observed in the EES arm (5.46 ± 2.18 mm vs. 5.55 ± 1.77 mm; p = 0.85). The neointimal healing score was low and comparable between groups with and without post-dilation (BRS: 1.55 ± 2.61 vs. 1.92 ± 2.17; p = 0.48; EES: 2.50 ± 3.33 vs. 2.90 ± 4.80; p = 0.72).

Conclusions: In the setting of selected patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention with BRS or EES, post-dilatation did not translate into larger lumen area or improved arterial healing at follow-up. (ABSORB STEMI: The TROFI II; NCT01986803).
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2017.07.035DOI Listing
September 2017

Everolimus eluting stent vs first generation drug-eluting stent in primary angioplasty: A pooled patient-level meta-analysis of randomized trials.

Int J Cardiol 2017 Oct 13;244:121-127. Epub 2017 Jun 13.

Department of Cardiology, UMC St Radboud, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Background: Several concerns have emerged about the higher risk of very late stent thrombosis (ST) with first generation drug-eluting stent (DES) especially among STEMI patients. Newer generation DES has demonstrated to reduce ST at mid-term follow-up. Therefore, the aim of the present study is to perform an individual patient's data meta-analysis of trials comparing 1st generation DES vs. 2nd generation DES (everolimus-eluting stent, EES) in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for STEMI.

Methods: We performed a formal search of electronic databases (MEDLINE and CENTRAL) and scientific session presentations from January 2010 to June 2016. We included all completed randomized trials comparing 1st vs. EES for patient presenting with STEMI.

Results: Individual patients data were obtained from 3 trials, including a total of 1581 patients (686 or 43.4% randomized to 1st generation DES and 895 or 56.4% randomized to EES). At long-term follow-up (1584±588days), EES did not significantly reduce mortality (7.8.% vs 11.7%, HR [95%CI]=0.77 [0.52, 1.13], p=0.18, p=0.93), cardiac mortality (6.2% vs 7.6%, HR [95%CI]=0.90 [0.56, 1.44], p=0.65, p=0.85), and reinfarction (8.1% versus 11.2%, respectively; HR [95%CI]=0.74 [0.51, 1.07], p=0.11, p=0.52). However, EES significantly reduced the occurrence of ST (3.4% versus 6.1% respectively, HR [95%CI]=0.56 [0.32, 0.97], p=0.04, p=0.42) and target vessel revascularization (TVR) (14.2% versus 20.1%; HR [95%CI]=0.63 [0.42, 0.96], p=0.03, p=0.55). Landmark analysis showed more consistent benefits in ST with EES within 1year, whereas benefits in TVR were mostly observed later than 1year.

Conclusions: The present pooled patient-level meta-analysis demonstrates that among STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI, EES as compared to 1st generation DES is associated with a significant reduction in ST and TVR at long-term follow-up.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2017.06.022DOI Listing
October 2017

Biodegradable Polymer Biolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stents in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: Final 5-Year Report From the COMPARE II Trial (Abluminal Biodegradable Polymer Biolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stent).

JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2017 06 31;10(12):1215-1221. Epub 2017 May 31.

Department of Cardiology, Maasstad Hospital, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

Objectives: This analysis investigates the 5-year outcomes of the biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stent (BP-BES) and durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent (DP-EES) in an all-comers population undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

Background: Recent 1- and 3-year results from randomized trials have indicated similar safety and efficacy outcomes of BP-BES and DP-EES. Whether benefits of the biodegradable polymer device arise over longer follow-up is unknown. Moreover, in-depth, prospective, long-term follow-up data on metallic drug-eluting stents with durable or biodegradable polymers are scarce.

Methods: The COMPARE II trial (Abluminal Biodegradable Polymer Biolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stent) was a prospective, randomized, multicenter, all-comers trial in which 2,707 patients were randomly allocated (2:1) to BP-BES or DP-EES. The pre-specified endpoint at 5 years was major adverse cardiac events, a composite of cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization.

Results: Five-year follow-up was available in 2,657 patients (98%). At 5 years, major adverse cardiac events occurred in 310 patients (17.3%) in the BP-BES group and 142 patients (15.6%) in the DP-EES group (p = 0.26). The rate of the combined safety endpoint all-cause death or myocardial infarction was 15.0% in the BP-BES group versus 14.8% in the DP-EES group (p = 0.90), whereas the efficacy measure target vessel revascularization was 10.6% versus 9.0% (p = 0.18), respectively. Interestingly, definite stent thrombosis rates did not differ between groups (1.5% for BP-BES vs. 0.9% for DP-EES; p = 0.17).

Conclusions: The 5-year analysis comparing biodegradable polymer-coated BES and the durable polymer-coated EES confirms the initial early- and mid-term results regarding similar safety and efficacy outcomes in this all-comers percutaneous coronary intervention population.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2017.02.029DOI Listing
June 2017

Bioresorbable Scaffolds versus Metallic Stents in Routine PCI.

N Engl J Med 2017 06 29;376(24):2319-2328. Epub 2017 Mar 29.

From the AMC Heartcenter, Academic Medical Center-University of Amsterdam (J.J.W., R.P.K., J.E., I.M.D., R.Y.G.T., K.T.K., J.B., M.M.V., R.J.W., J.J.P., J.G.P.T., J.P.S.H.), and the Department of Cardiology, Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis (R.J.S.), Amsterdam, the Department of Cardiology, Medical Center Leeuwarden, Leeuwarden (S.H.H.), the Department of Cardiology, Tergooi Hospital, Blaricum (E.K.A.), and the Department of Cardiology, Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Dordrecht (A.J.IJ.) - all in the Netherlands.

Background: Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds were developed to overcome the shortcomings of drug-eluting stents in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We performed an investigator-initiated, randomized trial to compare an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold with an everolimus-eluting metallic stent in the context of routine clinical practice.

Methods: We randomly assigned 1845 patients undergoing PCI to receive either a bioresorbable vascular scaffold (924 patients) or a metallic stent (921 patients). The primary end point was target-vessel failure (a composite of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or target-vessel revascularization). The data and safety monitoring board recommended early reporting of the study results because of safety concerns. This report provides descriptive information on end-point events.

Results: The median follow-up was 707 days. Target-vessel failure occurred in 105 patients in the scaffold group and in 94 patients in the stent group (2-year cumulative event rates, 11.7% and 10.7%, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85 to 1.48; P=0.43); event rates were based on Kaplan-Meier estimates in time-to-event analyses. Cardiac death occurred in 18 patients in the scaffold group and in 23 patients in the stent group (2-year cumulative event rates, 2.0% and 2.7%, respectively), target-vessel myocardial infarction occurred in 48 patients in the scaffold group and in 30 patients in the stent group (2-year cumulative event rates, 5.5% and 3.2%), and target-vessel revascularization occurred in 76 patients in the scaffold group and in 65 patients in the stent group (2-year cumulative event rates, 8.7% and 7.5%). Definite or probable device thrombosis occurred in 31 patients in the scaffold group as compared with 8 patients in the stent group (2-year cumulative event rates, 3.5% vs. 0.9%; hazard ratio, 3.87; 95% CI, 1.78 to 8.42; P<0.001).

Conclusions: In this preliminary report of a trial involving patients undergoing PCI, there was no significant difference in the rate of target-vessel failure between the patients who received a bioresorbable scaffold and the patients who received a metallic stent. The bioresorbable scaffold was associated with a higher incidence of device thrombosis than the metallic stent through 2 years of follow-up. (Funded by Abbott Vascular; AIDA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01858077 .).
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1614954DOI Listing
June 2017

Evaluation of vascular healing of polymer-free sirolimus-eluting stents in native coronary artery stenosis: a serial follow-up at three and six months with optical coherence tomography imaging.

EuroIntervention 2016 Aug 5;12(5):e574-83. Epub 2016 Aug 5.

Thoraxcenter, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Aims: Our aim was to assess vascular response after polymer-free sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) implantation by using an optical coherence tomography (OCT)-derived vascular healing score (HS), quantifying the deficiency of healing.

Methods And Results: In a prospective, multicentre, single-arm, open-label study, OCT examinations were performed at three months in 45 patients (47 lesions). Per protocol, 24 lesions which had not reached adequate vascular healing according to study criteria were scheduled for OCT examination at six months. The HS was calculated at two time points. Serial OCT imaging demonstrated that the proportion of covered stent struts increased from a median of 87.1% at three months to 98.6% at six months (p<0.001). The neointimal thickness increased from a median of 82.8 µm to 112.2 µm (p<0.001), whereas the median percentages of malapposed struts were 0.2% and 0.0% at the two respective time points. Neointimal volume obstruction increased from 6.3% to 12.8%, and the HS decreased from a median of 28.1 at three months to 2.4 at six months.

Conclusions: In patients who had inadequate vascular healing three months after polymer-free SES implantation, serial OCT showed almost complete vascular healing at six months.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.4244/EIJV12I5A97DOI Listing
August 2016

Everolimus-eluting bioresorbable stent vs. durable polymer everolimus-eluting metallic stent in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: results of the randomized ABSORB ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction-TROFI II trial.

Eur Heart J 2016 Jan 23;37(3):229-40. Epub 2015 Sep 23.

European Cardiovascular Research Institute (ECRI), Rotterdam, The Netherlands International Center for Circulatory Health, NHLI, Imperial College, London, UK

Aims: Patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) feature thrombus-rich lesions with large necrotic core, which are usually associated with delayed arterial healing and impaired stent-related outcomes. The use of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (Absorb) has the potential to overcome these limitations owing to restoration of native vessel lumen and physiology at long term. The purpose of this randomized trial was to compare the arterial healing response at short term, as a surrogate for safety and efficacy, between the Absorb and the metallic everolimus-eluting stent (EES) in patients with STEMI.

Methods And Results: ABSORB-STEMI TROFI II was a multicentre, single-blind, non-inferiority, randomized controlled trial. Patients with STEMI who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention were randomly allocated 1:1 to treatment with the Absorb or EES. The primary endpoint was the 6-month optical frequency domain imaging healing score (HS) based on the presence of uncovered and/or malapposed stent struts and intraluminal filling defects. Main secondary endpoint included the device-oriented composite endpoint (DOCE) according to the Academic Research Consortium definition. Between 06 January 2014 and 21 September 2014, 191 patients (Absorb [n = 95] or EES [n = 96]; mean age 58.6 years old; 17.8% females) were enrolled at eight centres. At 6 months, HS was lower in the Absorb arm when compared with EES arm [1.74 (2.39) vs. 2.80 (4.44); difference (90% CI) -1.06 (-1.96, -0.16); Pnon-inferiority < 0.001]. Device-oriented composite endpoint was also comparably low between groups (1.1% Absorb vs. 0% EES). One case of definite subacute stent thrombosis occurred in the Absorb arm (1.1% vs. 0% EES; P = ns).

Conclusion: Stenting of culprit lesions with Absorb in the setting of STEMI resulted in a nearly complete arterial healing which was comparable with that of metallic EES at 6 months. These findings provide the basis for further exploration in clinically oriented outcome trials.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehv500DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4712350PMC
January 2016

Arterial healing following primary PCI using the Absorb everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold (Absorb BVS) versus the durable polymer everolimus-eluting metallic stent (XIENCE) in patients with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction: rationale and design of the randomised TROFI II study.

EuroIntervention 2016 Jul;12(4):482-9

Bern University Hospital, Bern, Switzerland.

Aims: The Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (Absorb BVS) provides similar clinical outcomes compared with a durable polymer-based everolimus-eluting metallic stent (EES) in stable coronary artery disease patients. ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) lesions have been associated with delayed arterial healing and impaired stent-related outcomes. The purpose of the present study is to compare directly the arterial healing response, angiographic efficacy and clinical outcomes between the Absorb BVS and metallic EES.

Methods And Results: A total of 191 patients with acute STEMI were randomly allocated to treatment with the Absorb BVS or a metallic EES 1:1. The primary endpoint is the neointimal healing (NIH) score, which is calculated based on a score taking into consideration the presence of uncovered and malapposed stent struts, intraluminal filling defects and excessive neointimal proliferation, as detected by optical frequency domain imaging (OFDI) six months after the index procedure. The study will provide 90% power to show non-inferiority of the Absorb BVS compared with the EES.

Conclusions: This will be the first randomised study investigating the arterial healing response following implantation of the Absorb BVS compared with the EES. The healing response assessed by a novel NIH score in conjunction with results on angiographic efficacy parameters and device-oriented events will elucidate disease-specific applications of bioresorbable scaffolds.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.4244/EIJY15M08_03DOI Listing
July 2016

Long-term clinical outcomes of biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stents versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents in patients with coronary artery disease: three-year follow-up of the COMPARE II (Abluminal biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stent versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent) trial.

EuroIntervention 2015 Jul;11(3):272-9

Department of Cardiology, Maasstad Hospital, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Aims: The aim of this analysis was to compare the long-term safety and efficacy of the biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stent (BES) with that of the durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent (EES).

Methods And Results: The COMPARE II study was a prospective, randomised, multicentre, all-comers trial in which 2,707 patients were randomly allocated (2:1) to BES or EES. The pre-specified endpoint at three years was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), a composite of cardiac death, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), or target vessel revascularisation (TVR). Moreover, the combined endpoint all-cause death or MI was analysed as a safety, and TVR as an efficacy measure. Three-year follow-up was available in 2,683 patients (99.1%). At three years, MACE occurred in 213 patients (11.9%) in the BES group and in 101 patients (11.1 %) in the EES group (p=0.57). The rate of the combined safety endpoint all-cause death or MI was 9.3% in the BES group vs. 8.4% (p=0.52), while the efficacy measure TVR was 7.6% in BES vs. 6.5% (p=0.27). Interestingly, definite stent thrombosis rates did not differ between groups (1.2% for BES vs. 0.8%, p=0.33).

Conclusions: At three-year follow-up, MACE as well as safety and efficacy measures including stent thrombosis were not statistically different between the biodegradable polymer-coated BES and the durable polymer-coated EES. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01233453.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.4244/EIJV11I3A53DOI Listing
July 2015

Long-term follow-up of second-generation everolimus-eluting stents versus first-generation sirolimus-eluting stents in acute myocardial infarction: three-year results of the XAMI trial.

EuroIntervention 2015 Mar;10(11):1280-3

Medical Center Leeuwarden, Leeuwarden, The Netherlands.

Aims: Evaluation of the long-term safety and efficacy of second-generation everolimus-eluting stents (EES) versus first-generation sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients.

Methods And Results: Six hundred and twenty-five patients were randomised (2:1) to EES or SES in the multicentre XAMI (XienceV stent vs. Cypher stent in Primary PCI for Acute Myocardial Infarction) trial. The primary endpoint was cardiac death, non-fatal AMI or any target vessel revascularisation (TVR) at one year, with a planned follow-up of three years. At three-year follow-up, the primary endpoint was 8.0% for EES and 10.5% for SES (p=0.30). Cardiac death was low and comparable in both groups (EES: 2.5% versus SES: 2.7%; p=0.86), as was definite/probable stent thrombosis (EES: 2.3% versus SES 3.2%; p=0.60).

Conclusions: The event rate at three years in this all-comer, randomised, multicentre AMI trial was low, including stent thrombosis, with no significant difference between first- and second-generation DES. Registration of trial:http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=1123 Candidate number: 2869; NTR number: NTR1123.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.4244/EIJY15M01_03DOI Listing
March 2015

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation using a direct aortic approach: a single-centre Heart Team experience.

Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2014 Nov 29;19(5):777-81. Epub 2014 Jul 29.

Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Erasmus Medisch Centrum, Rotterdam, Netherlands.

Objectives: The transaortic (TAo) approach has been introduced as an alternative to transapical and transaxillary aortic valve implantation for patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis in whom a transfemoral approach is not feasible. However, only very limited data from a minimal number of specialized centres are available on this approach. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the early postoperative 30-day outcomes of the direct aortic approach performed by a single-centre multidisciplinary Heart Team.

Methods: Between May 2011 and July 2013, 159 patients underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) at our institution; of which, 44 were believed to benefit most from the TAo as assessed by a multidisciplinary Heart Team. All patients underwent an upper 'J' median hemi-sternotomy through a 6-cm incision. The evaluation of early operative results was made according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC) consensus criteria. These include device success endpoints and combined safety endpoints at 30 days.

Results: The mean age of the patients was 78 years, the mean logistic EuroSCORE was 25.9 ± 14.4% and the mean Society of the Thoracic Surgeons score 5.8 ± 4.5%. Seventeen patients (39%) underwent redo operations; 4 (9%) received a transcatheter valve in a degenerated bioprosthesis. The procedure was performed using the Medtronic CoreValve Revalving system in 36 patients, with the Edwards SAPIEN XT in 7 cases and the St Jude Medical Portico valve in 1. Device success was achieved in 90.8% of the cases. Complications included; major stroke (n = 1), re-exploration for cardiac tamponade (n = 3), transient renal failure requiring temporary haemodialysis (n = 1) and permanent pacemaker implantation (n = 5). There were no myocardial infarctions. The total 30-day mortality rate was 6.8% (3 patients). Postoperative intensive care unit stay was 2.6 ± 3.6 days, and the mean hospitalization was 12 ± 9.6 days.

Conclusions: The TAo TAVI approach is feasible and offers a safe alternative for patients in whom a transfemoral approach is not feasible or desirable.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/icvts/ivu247DOI Listing
November 2014

Outcome after ST elevation myocardial infarction in patients with cancer treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

Am J Cardiol 2013 Dec 21;112(12):1867-72. Epub 2013 Sep 21.

Department of Cardiology, Medical Center Leeuwarden, Leeuwarden, The Netherlands; Department of Cardiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands. Electronic address:

The simultaneous occurrence of cancer and coronary heart disease is increasing in the Western world. Nevertheless, the influence of cancer on ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has not been investigated extensively. This multicenter registry included patients with STEMI treated with primary PCI from 2006 to 2009. Patients were stratified according to history of cancer, and primary focus lay on all-cause and cardiac mortalities during 1-year follow-up. Adjusted effect sizes were calculated using Cox proportional hazard models. In total, 208 patients had a history of cancer (diagnosed ≤6 months ago in 20.7%, 6 months to 3 years ago in 21.7%, and >3 years ago in 57.6%) and 3,215 patients had no history of cancer. Chemotherapy had been administered previously to 23% of patients with cancer. Patients with cancer were older, more frequently women, and more commonly known with previous myocardial infarction or anemia. Reperfusion rates were similar after PCI. Patients with cancer showed greater all-cause (17.4% vs 6.5% in other patients) and cardiac mortalities at 1 year (10.7% vs 5.4% in other patients) because of high early cardiac death (23.8%) in recently diagnosed patients with cancer. After adjustment, a recent cancer diagnosis predicted cardiac mortality at 7 days (hazard ratio 3.34, 95% confidence interval 1.57 to 7.08). The adverse prognosis was partly explained by anemia and occurrence of cardiogenic shock, whereas outcome was independent of cancer treatment. In conclusion, patients with cancer showed greater mortality after STEMI. A cancer diagnosis in the 6 months before primary PCI was strongly associated with early cardiac mortality.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2013.08.019DOI Listing
December 2013

Tools and Techniques--Clinical: the transaortic approach through a mini-sternotomy using the self-expandable CoreValve Revalving System.

EuroIntervention 2013 Sep;9(5):648-9

Medisch Centrum Leeuwarden, Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Leeuwarden, The Netherlands.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.4244/EIJV9I5A103DOI Listing
September 2013

Two-year results of an open-label randomized comparison of everolimus-eluting stents and sirolimus-eluting stents.

PLoS One 2014 3;8(6):e64424. Epub 2013 Jun 3.

Medical Center Leeuwarden, Leeuwarden, The Netherlands.

Background: Second generation drug-eluting stents were developed to improve the safety and efficacy of first generation stents. So far, limited long term randomized data exist comparing the second generation everolimus-eluting stents (EES) with first generation sirolimus-eluting stents (SES).

Methods: A prospective, open-label, randomized, single center trial comparing EES and SES in all-comer patients. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiac mortality, myocardial infarction and target vessel revascularization. Secondary endpoints included individual components of the composite, along with target lesion revascularization and stent thrombosis.

Results: In total, 977 patients were randomized, of which 498 patients to EES and 479 to SES. Average age was 65.2 ± 11.2 years and 71.6% of the population was male. Fifty percent of patients were treated for acute coronary syndrome, more often for ST-elevation myocardial infarctions in EES patients (13.7% vs. 9.2% in SES). In contrast, SES patients more often had prior interventions and showed more calcified lesions. Two-year follow-up was available in 98% of patients. The primary endpoint occurred in 10.7% of EES patients compared to 10.6% of SES patients (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.68-1.48). Additionally, secondary endpoints were similar between groups. The rate of stent thrombosis was low for both stent types.

Conclusion: In this all-comer population, there were no differences in endpoints between EES and SES during two-year follow-up. Stent thrombosis rates were low, supporting the safety of drug-eluting stent appliance in clinical practice.

Trial Registration: TrialRegister.nl NTR3170.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0064424PLOS
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3670908PMC
January 2015

Safety and efficacy of everolimus- versus sirolimus-eluting stents: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 11 randomized trials.

Am Heart J 2013 Feb 27;165(2):241-50.e4. Epub 2012 Dec 27.

Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, South Korea.

Background: While EES have proven superior to paclitaxel-eluting stents, it remains uncertain whether EES improve clinical outcomes compared to SES, which are the most efficacious among the first-generation drug-eluting stents. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing the efficacy and safety of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) versus sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

Methods: From online and offline search until December 2011, we identified 11 randomized trials (total 12,869 patients). The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events.

Results: The risk of major adverse cardiac events did not differ significantly between the patients treated with EES versus SES [OR, 0.90 (95% CI, 0.77-1.04); P = .162]. However, we found a significant reduction in the risk of repeat revascularization in the EES arm [OR, 0.85 (95% CI, 0.71-1.00); P = .047]. There were no significant differences regarding the risk of cardiac death [OR, 0.97 (95% CI, 0.74-1.27); P = .834], or myocardial infarction [OR, 0.95 (95% CI, 0.75-1.20), P = .656]. The risk of definite or probable stent thrombosis tended to be lower [OR, 0.68 (95% CI, 0.45-1.02); P = .065], while definite ST was significantly lower [OR, 0.44 (95% CI, 0.25-0.80); P = .007] with EES.

Conclusions: In a large systematic overview of comparative trials involving percutaneous revascularization with drug-eluting stents, treatment with EES significantly reduced the risk of repeat revascularization and definite ST compared to SES. We found no significant differences in the risk of cardiac death or myocardial infarction.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2012.08.007DOI Listing
February 2013

Influence of gender on ischemic times and outcomes after ST-elevation myocardial infarction.

Am J Cardiol 2013 Feb 15;111(3):312-8. Epub 2012 Nov 15.

Leiden University Medical Center, The Netherlands.

Previous studies investigating the influence of gender on ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction have reported conflicting results. The aim of this study was to assess the influence of gender on ischemic times and outcomes after ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction in patients treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention in modern practice. The present multicenter registry included consecutive patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarctions treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention at 3 hospitals. Adjusted mortality rates were calculated using Cox proportional-hazards analyses. In total, 3,483 patients were included, of whom 868 were women (25%). Women were older, had a higher risk factor burden, and more frequently had histories of malignancy. Men more often had cardiac histories and peripheral vascular disease. Ischemic times were longer in women (median 192 minutes [interquartile range 141 to 286] vs 175 minutes [interquartile range 128 to 279] in men, p = 0.002). However, multivariate linear regression showed that this was due to age and co-morbidity. All-cause mortality was higher at 7 days (6.0% in women vs 3.0% in men, p <0.001) and at 1 year (9.9% in women vs 6.6% in men, p = 0.001). After adjustment, female gender predicted 7 day all-cause mortality (hazard ratio 1.61, 95% confidence interval 1.06 to 2.46) and cardiac mortality (hazard ratio 1.58, 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 2.42) but not 1-year mortality. Moreover, gender was an independent effect modifier for cardiogenic shock, leading to substantially worse outcomes in women. In conclusion, ischemic times remain longer in women because of age and co-morbidity. Female gender independently predicted early all-cause and cardiac mortality after primary percutaneous coronary intervention, and a strong interaction between gender and cardiogenic shock was observed.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2012.10.007DOI Listing
February 2013

Second-generation everolimus-eluting stents versus first-generation sirolimus-eluting stents in acute myocardial infarction. 1-year results of the randomized XAMI (XienceV Stent vs. Cypher Stent in Primary PCI for Acute Myocardial Infarction) trial.

J Am Coll Cardiol 2012 Jul;60(5):381-7

Medical Center Leeuwarden,Henri Dunantweg 2, Leeuwarden, the Netherlands.

Objectives: The goal of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of second-generation everolimus-eluting stents (EES) with first-generation sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) in primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute myocardial infarction (AMI).

Background: Drug-eluting stents (DES) in AMI are still feared for possible late and very late stent thrombosis (ST). Newer-generation DES, with more hemocompatible polymers and improved healing, may show promise regarding increased efficacy of DES with improved safety. However, no randomized trials in AMI are available.

Methods: A total of 625 patients with AMI were randomized (2:1) to receive EES or SES in the XAMI (XienceV Stent vs Cypher Stent in Primary PCI for Acute Myocardial Infarction) trial. Primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 1 year consisting of cardiac death, nonfatal AMI, or any target vessel revascularization. The study was powered for noninferiority of EES. Secondary endpoints comprised ST rates and MACE rate up to 3 years.

Results: The MACE rate was 4.0% for EES and 7.7% for SES; the absolute difference was -3.7% (95% confidence interval: -8.28 to -0.03; p = 0.048) and relative risk was 0.52 (95% confidence interval: 0.27 to 1.00). One-year cardiac mortality was low at 1.5% for EES versus 2.7% for SES (p = 0.36), and 1-year incidence of definite and/or probable ST was 1.2% for EES versus 2.7% for SES (p = 0.21).

Conclusions: In this all-comer, randomized, multicenter AMI trial, second-generation EES was noninferior to SES, and superiority for MACE was suggested. ST rate in EES at 1-year was low, but long-term follow-up and larger studies will have to show whether very late ST rates will also be improved in newer DES. (XienceV Stent vs Cypher Stent in Primary PCI for Acute Myocardial Infarction [XAMI]; NTR1123).
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2012.01.073DOI Listing
July 2012
-->