Faculty Bibliography

AIMS/OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to report whether the superiority of the everolimus-eluting stent (EES) vs. the paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) at one-year follow-up in the Taxus Element versus Xience Prime in a Diabetic Population (TUXEDO)-India trial was sustained at longer-term follow-up. METHODS AND RESULTS/RESULTS:One thousand eight hundred and thirty (1,830) patients with diabetes mellitus and coronary artery disease were randomised to EES vs. PES. Follow-up data up to two years were available in 1,701 (92.9%) patients. The primary endpoint was target vessel failure (TVF), defined as the composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction (TV-MI), or ischaemia-driven target vessel revascularisation (TVR). Treatment with EES had a lower two-year rate of TVF (4.3% vs. 6.6%, p=0.03). Of the secondary endpoints, EES significantly reduced any MI (1.6% vs. 3.5%, p=0.01), TV-MI (0.7% vs. 3.1%, p=0.0001), ST (0.4% vs. 2.2%, p=0.001), cardiac death or target vessel MI (2.9% vs. 4.8%, p=0.04) and TLR (1.9% vs. 3.7%, p=0.02), compared with PES. Between one year and two years, no significant differences in the clinical outcomes were observed (pinteraction >0.05). CONCLUSIONS:In this adequately powered trial, the benefits of EES vs. PES in a diabetic population seen at one year were maintained at two years.

Significant progress has been made in the percutaneous coronary intervention technique from the days of balloon angioplasty to modern-day metallic drug-eluting stents (DES). Although metallic stents solve a temporary problem of acute recoil following balloon angioplasty, they leave behind a permanent problem implicated in very late events (in addition to neoatherosclerosis). BRS were developed as a potential solution to this permanent problem, but the promise of these devices has been tempered by clinical trials showing increased risk of safety outcomes, both early and late. This is not too dissimilar to the challenges seen with first-generation DES in which refinement of deployment technique, prolongation of dual antiplatelet therapy, and technical iteration mitigated excess risk of very late stent thrombosis, making DES the treatment of choice for coronary artery disease. This white paper discusses the factors potentially implicated in the excess risks, including the scaffold consideration and deployment technique, and outlines patient and lesion selection, implantation technique, and dual antiplatelet therapy considerations to potentially mitigate this excess risk with the first-generation thick strut Absorb scaffold (Abbott Vascular, Abbott Park, Illinois). It remains to be seen whether these considerations together with technical iterations will ultimately close the gap between scaffolds and metal stents for short-term events while at the same time preserving options for future revascularization once the scaffold bioresorbs.

Chelation therapy, typically used to remove heavy metal toxins, has also been controversially used as a treatment for coronary artery disease. The first Trial to Assess Chelation Therapy (TACT) aimed to provide evidence on chelation therapy's potential for benefit or harm. Although TACT had some significant results, the trial does not provide enough evidence to recommend routine chelation therapy and has limitations. The second TACT was recently funded reigniting a discussion about the value of chelation therapy, its efficacy, and allocation of research resources. Despite limited evidence, patients continue to pursue chelation therapy as a treatment for coronary artery disease. As the medical community has a responsibility to understand all treatments patients pursue, it is important to comprehensively appraise chelation therapy for cardiovascular disease. Understanding the background of heavy metal toxicity, the putative target of chelation therapy, on the cardiovascular system is important to contextualize the role of chelation therapy in cardiovascular disease prevention. We review the clinical evidence of heavy metal toxicity and cardiovascular disease, and available clinical trial data on use of chelation therapy to minimize the cardiovascular burden of heavy metal toxicity.