http://repub.eur.nl/res/aut/10037/ List of Publications en http://repub.eur.nl/static-eur/img/logo.png http://repub.eur.nl http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/34611/ 2011-11-01T00:00:00Z Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of reference vessel diameter (RVD) and lesion length (LL) on the relative safety and efficacy of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES). Background: Lesion length and RVD are well-known predictors of adverse events after percutaneous coronary intervention. Methods: Patient-level data were pooled from the randomized SPIRIT (Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System) II, III, IV and COMPARE (Second-generation everolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents in real-life practice) trials. Quantitative angiographic core laboratory data were available for 6,183 patients randomized to EES (n = 3,944) or PES (n = 2,239). Long lesions and small vessels were defined as LL >median (13.4 mm) and RVD ≤median (2.65 mm), respectively. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (consisting of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization) were assessed at 2 years, according to stent type in 3 groups: short lesions in large vessels (group A, n = 1,297); long lesions or small vessels but not both (group B, n = 2,981); and long lesions in small vessels (group C, n = 1,905). Results: The pooled 2-year MACE rates were 5.6%, 8.2%, and 10.4% in Groups A, B, and C, respectively (p < 0.0001). There was no significant interaction between lesion group and stent type (p = 0.64), indicating lower MACE with EES compared with PES regardless of LL and RVD. However, the absolute difference was largest in Groups B and C. In Group A, 2-year MACE rates were not significantly different between EES and PES (4.8% vs. 7.0%, respectively, p = 0.11). In contrast, EES was associated with lower 2-year rates of MACE in Group B (6.6% vs. 11.2%, p < 0.01) and in Group C (9.1% vs. 12.7%, p = 0.008) as well as lower rates of myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization, and stent thrombosis. Multivariable analysis confirmed EES versus PES as an independent predictor of freedom from MACE in Groups B and C. Conclusions: Patients with short lesions in large vessels have low rates of MACE at 2 years after treatment with either EES or PES. In higher-risk patients with long lesions and/or small vessels, EES results in significant improvements in both clinical safety and efficacy outcomes. (A Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Patients With de Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions; NCT00180310; SPIRIT III: A Clinical Evaluation of the Investigational Device XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System [EECSS] in the Treatment of Subjects With de Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions; NCT00180479; SPIRIT IV Clinical Trial: Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Subjects With de Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions; NCT00307047; A Randomized Controlled Trial of Everolimus-eluting Stents and Paclitaxel-eluting Stents for Coronary Revascularization in Daily Practice: The COMPARE Trial; NCT01016041) http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/23598/ 2011-01-20T00:00:00Z BACKGROUND: Atherosclerotic plaques that lead to acute coronary syndromes often occur at sites of angiographically mild coronary-artery stenosis. Lesion-related risk factors for such events are poorly understood. METHODS: In a prospective study, 697 patients with acute coronary syndromes underwent three-vessel coronary angiography and gray-scale and radiofrequency intravascular ultrasonographic imaging after percutaneous coronary intervention. Subsequent major adverse cardiovascular events (death from cardiac causes, cardiac arrest, myocardial infarction, or rehospitalization due to unstable or progressive angina) were adjudicated to be related to either originally treated (culprit) lesions or untreated (nonculprit) lesions. The median follow-up period was 3.4 years. RESULTS: The 3-year cumulative rate of major adverse cardiovascular events was 20.4%. Events were adjudicated to be related to culprit lesions in 12.9% of patients and to nonculprit lesions in 11.6%. Most nonculprit lesions responsible for follow-up events were angiographically mild at baseline (mean [±SD] diameter stenosis, 32.3±20.6%). However, on multivariate analysis, nonculprit lesions associated with recurrent events were more likely than those not associated with recurrent events to be characterized by a plaque burden of 70% or greater (hazard ratio, 5.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.51 to 10.11; P<0.001) or a minimal luminal area of 4.0 mm2 or less (hazard ratio, 3.21; 95% CI, 1.61 to 6.42; P = 0.001) or to be classified on the basis of radiofrequency intravascular ultrasonography as thin-cap fibroatheromas (hazard ratio, 3.35; 95% CI, 1.77 to 6.36; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In patients who presented with an acute coronary syndrome and underwent percutaneous coronary intervention, major adverse cardiovascular events occurring during follow-up were equally attributable to recurrence at the site of culprit lesions and to nonculprit lesions. Although nonculprit lesions that were responsible for unanticipated events were frequently angiographically mild, most were thin-cap fibroatheromas or were characterized by a large plaque burden, a small luminal area, or some combination of these characteristics, as determined by gray-scale and radiofrequency intravascular ultrasonography. http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/28715/ 2010-12-01T00:00:00Z Objectives: The purpose of this study was to investigate long-term 3-year clinical outcomes of an everolimus-eluting stent (EES) versus a paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES). Background Compared with PES, EES reduced target vessel failure and major adverse cardiac events at 2 years. Whether the benefits of EES are sustained at 3 years has not been reported. Methods In the SPIRIT II (A Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Patients With De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions) and SPIRIT III (A Clinical Evaluation of the Investigational Device XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System [EECSS] in the Treatment of Subjects With De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions) trials, 1,302 patients were randomly assigned to EES (n = 892) or PES (n = 410). We report the 3-year clinical follow-up of this patient-level pooled analysis. Results At 3 years, EES compared with PES resulted in a significant reduction in myocardial infarction (3.8% vs. 6.7%; relative risk [RR]: 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.34 to 0.94; p = 0.04), and target lesion revascularization (6.8% vs. 12.7%; RR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.37 to 0.77; p = 0.001). Everolimus-eluting stents resulted in a significant reduction in target vessel failure (13.7% vs. 19.5%; RR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.54 to 0.92; p = 0.01), and major adverse cardiac events (9.1% vs. 16.3%; RR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.41 to 0.76; p = 0.0004). The cumulative rates of Academic Research Consortiumdefined definite or probable stent thrombosis were 1.2% in EES patients and 1.9% in PES patients (RR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.25 to 1.68; p = 0.43). Conclusions In this patient-level pooled analysis, EES compared with PES resulted in a significant and persistent reduction in target vessel failure and major adverse cardiac events at 3 years due to fewer myocardial infarction and ischemic target lesion revascularization events, which is consistent with superior safety and efficacy of the EES platform. (A Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Patients With De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions [SPIRIT II]; NCT00180310) (SPIRIT III: A Clinical Evaluation of the Investigational Device XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System [EECSS] in the Treatment of Subjects With De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions [SPIRIT III]; NCT00180479) http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/35429/ 2007-05-01T00:00:00Z BACKGROUND - Although most clinical trials of coronary stents have measured nominally identical safety and effectiveness end points, differences in definitions and timing of assessment have created confusion in interpretation. METHODS AND RESULTS - The Academic Research Consortium is an informal collaboration between academic research organizations in the United States and Europe. Two meetings, in Washington, DC, in January 2006 and in Dublin, Ireland, in June 2006, sponsored by the Academic Research Consortium and including representatives of the US Food and Drug Administration and all device manufacturers who were working with the Food and Drug Administration on drug-eluting stent clinical trial programs, were focused on consensus end point definitions for drug-eluting stent evaluations. The effort was pursued with the objective to establish consistency among end point definitions and provide consensus recommendations. On the basis of considerations from historical legacy to key pathophysiological mechanisms and relevance to clinical interpretability, criteria for assessment of death, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization, and stent thrombosis were developed. The broadly based consensus end point definitions in this document may be usefully applied or recognized for regulatory and clinical trial purposes. CONCLUSION - Although consensus criteria will inevitably include certain arbitrary features, consensus criteria for clinical end points provide consistency across studies that can facilitate the evaluation of safety and effectiveness of these devices. http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/9362/ 2000-01-01T00:00:00Z BACKGROUND: Treatment of in-stent restenosis presents a critical limitation of intracoronary stent implantation. Ionizing radiation has been shown to decrease neointimal formation within stents in animal models and in initial clinical trials. We studied the effects of intracoronary gamma-radiation therapy versus placebo on the clinical and angiographic outcomes of patients with in-stent restenosis. METHODS AND RESULTS: One hundred thirty patients with in-stent restenosis underwent successful coronary intervention and were then blindly randomized to receive either intracoronary gamma-radiation with (192)Ir (15 Gy) or placebo. Four independent core laboratories blinded to the treatment protocol analyzed the angiographic and intravascular ultrasound end points of restenosis. Procedural success and in-hospital and 30-day complications were similar among the groups. At 6 months, patients assigned to radiation therapy required less target lesion revascularization and target vessel revascularization (9 [13.8%] and 17 [26.2%], respectively) compared with patients assigned to placebo (41 [63.1%, P=0.0001] and 44 [67.7%, P=0.0001], respectively). Binary angiographic restenosis was lower in the irradiated group (19% versus 58% for placebo, P=0.001). Freedom from major cardiac events was lower in the radiation group (29.2% versus 67.7% for placebo, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Intracoronary gamma-radiation used as adjunct therapy for patients with in-stent restenosis significantly reduces both angiographic and clinical restenosis.