Displaying all 2 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Urban P, Meredith IT, Abizaid A, Pocock SJ, Carrié D, Naber C, et al.
    N Engl J Med, 2015 Nov 19;373(21):2038-47.
    PMID: 26466021 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1503943
    BACKGROUND: Patients at high risk for bleeding who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) often receive bare-metal stents followed by 1 month of dual antiplatelet therapy. We studied a polymer-free and carrier-free drug-coated stent that transfers umirolimus (also known as biolimus A9), a highly lipophilic sirolimus analogue, into the vessel wall over a period of 1 month.
    METHODS: In a randomized, double-blind trial, we compared the drug-coated stent with a very similar bare-metal stent in patients with a high risk of bleeding who underwent PCI. All patients received 1 month of dual antiplatelet therapy. The primary safety end point, tested for both noninferiority and superiority, was a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis. The primary efficacy end point was clinically driven target-lesion revascularization.
    RESULTS: We enrolled 2466 patients. At 390 days, the primary safety end point had occurred in 112 patients (9.4%) in the drug-coated-stent group and in 154 patients (12.9%) in the bare-metal-stent group (risk difference, -3.6 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -6.1 to -1.0; hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.91; P<0.001 for noninferiority and P=0.005 for superiority). During the same time period, clinically driven target-lesion revascularization was needed in 59 patients (5.1%) in the drug-coated-stent group and in 113 patients (9.8%) in the bare-metal-stent group (risk difference, -4.8 percentage points; 95% CI, -6.9 to -2.6; hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.69; P<0.001).
    CONCLUSIONS: Among patients at high risk for bleeding who underwent PCI, a polymer-free umirolimus-coated stent was superior to a bare-metal stent with respect to the primary safety and efficacy end points when used with a 1-month course of dual antiplatelet therapy. (Funded by Biosensors Europe; LEADERS FREE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01623180.).
  2. Seki R, Collison D, Ikeda K, Sonck J, Munhoz D, Bertolone DT, et al.
    PMID: 39342486 DOI: 10.1002/ccd.31222
    BACKGROUND: Angiography-derived fractional flow reserve (virtual FFR) has shown excellent diagnostic performance compared with wire-based FFR. However, virtual FFR pullback curves have not been validated yet.

    OBJECTIVES: To validate the accuracy of virtual FFR pullback curves compared to wire-based FFR pullbacks and to assess their clinical utility using patient-reported outcomes.

    METHODS: Pooled analysis of two prospective studies, including patients with hemodynamically significant (FFR ≤ 0.80) coronary artery disease (CAD). Virtual and wire-based FFR pullbacks were compared to assess the accuracy of virtual pullbacks to characterize CAD as focal or diffuse. Pullbacks were analyzed visually and quantitatively using the pullback pressure gradient (PPG). Patients underwent PCI, and the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) was administered at 3-month follow-up.

    RESULTS: A total of 298 patients (300 vessels) with both virtual and wire-based pullbacks who underwent PCI were included in the analysis. The mean age was 61.8 ± 8.8, and 15% were female. The agreement on the visual adjudication of the CAD pattern was fair (Cohen's Kappa: 0.31, 95% confidence interval: 0.18-0.45). The mean PPG were 0.65 ± 0.18 from virtual pullbacks and 0.65 ± 0.13 from wire-based pullbacks (r = 0.68, mean difference 0, limits of agreement -0.27 to 0.28). At follow-up, patients with high virtual PPG (>0.67) had higher SAQ angina frequency scores (i.e., less angina) than those with low virtual PPG (SAQ scores 92.0 ± 14.3 vs. 85.5 ± 23.1, p = 0.022).

    CONCLUSION: Virtual FFR pullback curves showed moderate agreement with wire-based FFR pullbacks. Nonetheless, patients with focal disease based on virtual PPG reported greater improvement in angina after PCI.

Related Terms
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator ([email protected])

External Links