Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung, Basel Cardiovascular Research Foundation, and B Braun Medical AG.

No abstract

No abstract

The treatment of coronary small vessel disease (SVD) remains an unresolved issue. Drug‐eluting stents (DES) have limited efficacy due to increased rates of instent‐restenosis, mainly caused by late lumen loss. Drug‐coated balloons (DCB) are a promising technique because native vessels remain structurally unchanged. Basel Stent Kosten‐Effektivitäts Trial: Drug‐Coated Balloons vs. Drug‐Eluting Stents in Small Vessel Interventions (BASKET‐SMALL 2) is a multicenter, randomized, controlled, noninferiority trial of DCB vs DES in native SVD for clinical endpoints. Seven hundred fifty‐eight patients with de novo lesions in vessels <3 mm in diameter and an indication for percutaneous coronary intervention such as stable angina pectoris, silent ischemia, or acute coronary syndromes are randomized 1:1 to angioplasty with DCB vs implantation of a DES after successful initial balloon angioplasty. The primary endpoint is the combination of cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and target‐vessel revascularization up to 1 year. Secondary endpoints include stent thrombosis, Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 3 to 5 bleeding, and long‐term outcome up to 3 years. Based on clinical endpoints after 1 year, we plan to assess the noninferiority of DCB compared to DES in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for SVD. Results will be available in the second half of 2018. This study will compare DCB and DES regarding long‐term safety and efficacy for the treatment of SVD in a large all‐comer population.

Background: Patients at high-bleeding risk (HBR) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention represent a challenging patient population. The use of drug-coated balloon (DCB) allows shorter duration of dual antiplatelet therapy compared with drug-eluting stents (DES) and reduces thrombotic risk due to the absence of a permanent implant. The present analysis aimed to investigate if the effect of DCB versus DES differed between patients with and without HBR treated with percutaneous coronary intervention in small coronary arteries. Methods: This prespecified subgroup analysis of a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial included 758 patients with de novo lesions in coronary vessels <3 mm and an indication for percutaneous coronary intervention, randomized to DCB (n=382) or second-generation DES (n=376). Patients were followed over 3 years for major adverse cardiac events. Results: Of the 758 patients randomized, 155 (20%) had HBR; these patients had higher mortality at 3 years (hazard ratio [95% CI], 3.09 [1.78–5.36]; P <0.001). Rates of major bleeding events were overall low but tended to be lower after DCB versus DES (1.6% versus 3.7%; P =0.064), were similar in patients with HBR (4.5% versus 3.4%) but less frequent in DCB-versus DES-treated patients without HBR (0.9% versus 3.8%). There was no difference in major adverse cardiac events between DCB and DES regardless of bleeding risk (HBR, hazard ratio: 1.16 [0.51–2.62]; P =0.719 versus non-HBR, 0.96 [0.62–1.49]; P =0.863). Conclusions: DCBs were similarly safe and effective as current-generation DES in the treatment of coronary arteries <3 mm, regardless of bleeding risk. In patients treated with DCB, there was a trend towards a reduction of severe bleeding events at 3 years. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT01574534.

Background Efficacy data on drug‐eluting stents (DES) versus bare‐metal stents (BMS) in saphenous vein grafts are controversial. We aimed to compare DES with BMS among patients undergoing saphenous vein grafts intervention regarding long‐term outcome. Methods and Results In this multinational trial, patients were randomized to paclitaxel‐eluting or BMS. The primary end point was major adverse cardiac events (cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and target‐vessel revascularization at 1 year. Secondary end points included major adverse cardiac events and its individual components at 5‐year follow‐up. One hundred seventy‐three patients were included in the trial (89 DES versus 84 BMS). One‐year major adverse cardiac event rates were lower in DES compared with BMS (2.2% versus 16.0%, hazard ratio, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.03–0.64, P =0.01), which was mainly driven by a reduction of subsequent myocardial infarctions and need for target‐vessel revascularization. Five‐year major adverse cardiac event rates remained lower in the DES compared with the BMS arm (35.5% versus 56.1%, hazard ratio, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.23–0.68, P <0.001). A landmark‐analysis from 1 to 5 years revealed a persistent benefit of DES over BMS (hazard ratio, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.13–0.74, P =0.007) in terms of target‐vessel revascularization. More patients in the BMS group underwent multiple target‐vessel revascularization procedures throughout the study period compared with the DES group (DES 1.1% [n=1] versus BMS 9.5% [n=8], P =0.013). Enrollment was stopped before the target sample size of 240 patients was reached. Conclusions In this randomized controlled trial with prospective long‐term follow‐up of up to 5 years, DES showed a better efficacy than BMS with sustained benefits over time. DES may be the preferred strategy in this patient population. Registration URL: https://www.clini​caltr​ials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT00595647.

No abstract

Objectives To evaluate the impact of diabetes mellitus on 3 year clinical outcome in patients undergoing drug-coated balloon (DCB) or drug-eluting stent (DES) treatment for de-novo lesions. Background For the treatment of de-novo coronary small vessel disease DCB are non-inferior to DES regarding clinical outcome up to 3 years. Methods In this prespecified analysis of a multicenter, randomized, non-inferiority trial, including 758 patients with de-novo lesions in coronary vessels &lt;3mm who were randomized 1:1 to DCB (n=382) or DES (n=376) and followed over 3 years for major adverse cardiac events (MACE: cardiac death, non-fatal myocardial infarction [MI], and target-vessel revascularization [TVR]), outcome was analyzed regarding the presence or absence of diabetes mellitus. Results In non-diabetic patients (n=506) rates of MACE (13.0% vs. 11.5%, hazard ratio [HR] 1.24, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.73–2.09, p=0.43), cardiac death (2.8% vs. 2.9%, HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.32–2.92, p=0.96), non-fatal MI (5.1% vs. 4.8%, HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.44–2.28, p=0.99), and TVR (8.8% vs. 6.1%, HR 1.64, 95% CI 0.83–3.25, p=0.16) were similar in DCB and DES. In diabetic patients (n=252) rates of MACE (19.3% vs. 22.2%, HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.45–1.48, p=0.51), cardiac death (8.8% vs. 5.9%, HR 2.01, 95% CI 0.76–5.31, p=0.16), non-fatal MI (7.1% vs. 9.8%, HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.21–1.49, p=0.24) were similar in DCB and DES, whereas TVR was significantly lower with DCB compared to DES (9.1% vs. 15.0%, HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.17–0.94, p=0.036). In addition, need for TVR was highest in diabetic patients treated with DES (Picture 1). Conclusions The rates of MACE are similar in DCB and DES in de-novo coronary lesions of diabetic and non-diabetic patients. In diabetic patients the need for TVR was significantly lower with DCB compared to DES. FUNDunding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: Foundation. Main funding source(s): Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung, Basel Cardiovascular Research Foundation, and B Braun Medical AG. Picture 1