Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND: Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) have been shown to be non-inferior to second generation drug eluting stents in recent clinical trials. However, the trials were not powered for individual endpoints and there is concern for increased device thrombosis with BVS. METHODS: We performed a systematic search for randomized clinical trials of BVS versus EES. Efficacy outcomes were target lesion revascularization (TLR) and target vessel revascularization (TVR). Safety outcomes were death, myocardial infarction (MI), and device thrombosis. Meta-regression analyses were performed to evaluate the association of device thrombosis with clinical characteristics (percent patients with acute coronary syndrome) and device deployment characteristics (percent with post stent balloon dilation). RESULTS: We identified six RCTs that enrolled 3738 patients. When compared with EES, BVS was associated with similar risk of TLR (RR=1.06; 95% CI 0.73-1.54), TVR (RR=1.00; 95% CI 0.74-1.35), death (RR=1.11; 95% CI 0.53-2.33) and cardiovascular death (RR=1.39; 95% CI 0.43-4.43) but numerically higher MI (RR=1.35; 95% CI 0.98-1.86) and definite or probable device thrombosis (RR=2.11; 95% CI 0.99-4.47). In a sensitivity analysis using the Peto odds ratio method, the risk of definite or probable device thrombosis was significantly increased (OR=2.08; 95% CI 1.06-4.08; P=0.03), although this did not reach statistical significance in four other models. The risk of definite or probable device thrombosis with BVS was reduced in trials where more post stent balloon dilation was used and in patients without acute coronary syndrome. Moreover, trial sequential analysis showed that the cumulative z-curve crossed the conventional boundary and not the trial sequential boundary, indicating lack of robust data to support increased definite or probable device thrombosis with BVS. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with noncomplex obstructive coronary disease, BVS are comparable to EES for most efficacy and safety outcomes except for a numerical increase in device thrombosis and MI. The risk of the latter outcomes was mitigated in trials where more post stent balloon dilation was used and in patients without acute coronary syndrome. Moreover, with only 3738 patients, the trials are underpowered to detect a difference in rare events such as device thrombosis.

IMPORTANCE: Prior studies have shown that patients with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) have a higher risk of cardiovascular events. However, this finding is controversial, as other studies have shown that the increased risk of cardiovascular events disappears after risk adjustment. In addition, the choice of a drug-eluting stent (limus- vs taxol-eluting) in ITDM is controversial, with studies showing worse outcomes with an everolimus-eluting stent compared with a paclitaxel-eluting stent. OBJECTIVES: To assess the outcomes of patients with ITDM vs non-ITDM who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention and to assess the efficacy and safety of an everolimus-eluting stent vs a paclitaxel-eluting stent based on insulin use status. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A prespecified analysis was conducted of the Taxus Element vs Xience Prime in a Diabetic Population (TUXEDO) clinical trial, which enrolled 1830 patients with ITDM and non-ITDM from June 23, 2011, to March 12, 2014. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either a paclitaxel-eluting stent or an everolimus-eluting stent. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was target vessel failure, defined as the composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization at 1 year after the intervention. RESULTS: Among the 1830 patients (1377 male) in the TUXEDO trial, 747 patients (40.8%) were receiving insulin (ITDM group). Compared with the 1083 patients with non-ITDM, those with ITDM had a significant increase in target vessel failure (42 [5.6%] vs 36 [3.3%]; P = .02), death or myocardial infarction (43 [5.8%] vs 35 [3.2%]; P = .009), death (26 [3.5%] vs 18 [1.7%]; P = .01), and subacute stent thrombosis (8 [1.1%] vs 3 [0.3%]; P = .03). However, in a propensity score-adjusted analysis to account for baseline differences between the 2 groups, the differences in outcomes were no longer significant. In patients with ITDM, everolimus-eluting stents reduced the rate of target vessel failure (13 of 382 [3.4%] vs 29 of 365 [7.9%]; P = .007), major adverse cardiac events (15 of 382 [3.9%] vs 30 of 365 [8.2%]; P = .01), myocardial infarction (5 of 382 [1.3%] vs 16 of 365 [4.4%]; P = .01), stent thrombosis (2 of 382 [0.5%] vs 11 of 365 [3.0%]; P = .009), target lesion revascularization (4 of 382 [1.0%] vs 19 of 365 [5.2%]; P = .001), and target vessel revascularization (4 of 382 [1.0%] vs 19 of 365 [5.2%]; P = .001) when compared with paclitaxel-eluting stents. The results largely trended in the same direction in patients with non-ITDM (P > .05 for the interaction). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Patients with ITDM had a significant increase in the risk of cardiovascular events in unadjusted models that was largely attenuated after propensity score adjustment. Everolimus-eluting stents reduced the rate of cardiovascular events, including stent thrombosis, when compared with paclitaxel-eluting stents in patients with ITDM. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ctri.nic.in Identifier: CTRI/2011/06/001830.

Despite the high cardiovascular risk associated with chronic kidney disease, a recent systematic review confirmed that patients with kidney disease remain underrepresented in cardiovascular trials. Two ongoing trials are assessing the risk:benefit of aggressive evaluation and intervention for ischemic heart disease in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease.

BACKGROUND: -Guidelines recommend coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) over percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for multivessel disease and severe left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction. However, CABG has not been compared with PCI in such patients in randomized trials. METHODS AND RESULTS: -Patients with multivessel disease and severe LV systolic dysfunction (ejection fraction