One-year clinical outcomes of everolimus- versus sirolimus-eluting stents in patients with acute myocardial infarction

EROSION Study (Effective Anti-Thrombotic Therapy Without Stenting: Intravascular Optical Coherence Tomography-Based Management in Plaque Erosion): A 1-Year Follow-Up Report

BACKGROUND

The initial EROSION study (Effective Anti-Thrombotic Therapy Without Stenting: Intravascular Optical Coherence Tomography-Based Management in Plaque Erosion) demonstrated that patients with acute coronary syndrome caused by plaque erosion might be stabilized with aspirin and ticagrelor without stenting for ≤1 month. However, a long-term evaluation of outcomes is lacking. The aim of this study was to assess whether the initial benefit of noninterventional therapy for patients with acute coronary syndrome caused by plaque erosion is maintained for ≤1 year.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Among 53 patients who completed clinical follow-up, 49 underwent repeat optical coherence tomography imaging at 1 year. Median residual thrombus volume decreased significantly from 1 month to 1 year (0.3 mm³ (0.0-2.0 mm³] versus 0.1 mm³ [0.0-2.0 mm³]; P=0.001). Almost half of the patients (46.9%) had no residual thrombus at 1 year. Minimal effective flow area remained unchanged (2.1 mm² [1.5-3.8 mm²] versus 2.1 mm² [1.6-4.0 mm²]; P=0.152). Among 53 patients, 49 (92.5%) remained free from major adverse cardiovascular event for ≤1 year: 3 (5.7%) patients required revascularization because of exertional angina and 1 (1.9%) patient had gastrointestinal bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

One-year follow-up optical coherence tomography demonstrated a further decrease in thrombus volume between 1-month and 1-year follow-up. A majority (92.5%) of patients with acute coronary syndrome caused by plaque erosion managed with aspirin and ticagrelor without stenting remained free of major adverse cardiovascular event for ≤1 year.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02041650.

One-year clinical outcomes of different coronary drug eluting stents-Data from a prospective registry

We compared one-year clinical outcomes of different drug eluting stents (DES) used in a prospective observation registry maintained in two hospitals over three years. The primary endpoint was combination of all-cause mortality, stent thrombosis and revascularization. There was no significant difference among different DES. We grouped DES into well-evaluated Imported DES (Imported group), which used to be expensive prior to price control and economical Indian DES (Indigenous group) that lack supportive clinical trials. One-year follow-up data was available in 99% of Indigenous group (n=1856) and 98.5% of Imported group (n=1539). After propensity score matching, there were 1310 matched pairs. There was no significant difference between two groups in the primary end-point or each of the components.

Prospective randomized comparison of clinical and angiographic outcomes between everolimus-eluting vs. zotarolimus-eluting stents for treatment of coronary restenosis in drug-eluting stents: intravascular ultrasound volumetric analysis (RESTENT-ISR trial)

AIMS

At present no proven standard treatment for drug-eluting stent (DES) restenosis is available, and the efficacy and safety of everolimus-eluting stent (EES) and zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) for DES restenosis are limited. The purpose of this prospective, randomized 9-month intracoronary ultrasound (IVUS) and 3-year clinical follow-up study was to compare the effects of EESs and ZESs on neointima volume and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) such as death, myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR) and stent thrombosis in DES restenosis patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients were eligible for this study if they were between 40 and 75 years old with in-stent restenosis >50% by quantitative coronary angiographic analysis in DES or within 5 mm of the stent edges with signs of ischaemia. Eligible patients (n = 304, 146 women and 158 men) were randomly assigned to receive either EES (158 patients) or ZES (146 patients). The primary endpoint of the study was to compare neointima volume between the EES and ZES groups at the 9-month follow-up IVUS. MACEs, including death, non-fatal MI, stent thrombosis and the need for repeated TLR within 3 years, were noted. The 9-month angiographic and IVUS follow-up showed no significant differences in late lumen loss (0.40 ± 0.56 vs. 0.45 ± 0.61 mm, P = 0.57, respectively) and neointima volume (0.51 ± 0.48 vs. 0.56 ± 0.54 mm³/1 mm, P = 0.47, respectively) in the EES and the ZES groups. Composite MACEs such as death, MI, stent thrombosis and TLR during 3-year follow-up were comparable between the two groups [15.8% (n = 25) in the EES group and 22.6% (n = 33) in the ZES group, P = 0.276], independent of de novo DES type, sex, age, body mass index, presence of diabetes, hypertension and dyslipidaemia.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with first- and second-generation DES restenosis, both EES and ZES implantation were effective and safe in reducing neointima volume and late loss with a comparable rate of MACEs independent of cardiovascular risk factors.