Alexandra J. Lansky

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.

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 mm(2) 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. (Funded by Abbott Vascular and Volcano; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00180466.).

BACKGROUND: In some randomized trials comparing revascularization strategies for patients with diabetes, coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) has had a better outcome than percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We sought to discover whether aggressive medical therapy and the use of drug-eluting stents could alter the revascularization approach for patients with diabetes and multivessel coronary artery disease. METHODS: In this randomized trial, we assigned patients with diabetes and multivessel coronary artery disease to undergo either PCI with drug-eluting stents or CABG. The patients were followed for a minimum of 2 years (median among survivors, 3.8 years). All patients were prescribed currently recommended medical therapies for the control of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, systolic blood pressure, and glycated hemoglobin. The primary outcome measure was a composite of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. RESULTS: From 2005 through 2010, we enrolled 1900 patients at 140 international centers. The patients' mean age was 63.1±9.1 years, 29% were women, and 83% had three-vessel disease. The primary outcome occurred more frequently in the PCI group (P=0.005), with 5-year rates of 26.6% in the PCI group and 18.7% in the CABG group. The benefit of CABG was driven by differences in rates of both myocardial infarction (P<0.001) and death from any cause (P=0.049). Stroke was more frequent in the CABG group, with 5-year rates of 2.4% in the PCI group and 5.2% in the CABG group (P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: For patients with diabetes and advanced coronary artery disease, CABG was superior to PCI in that it significantly reduced rates of death and myocardial infarction, with a higher rate of stroke. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; FREEDOM ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00086450.).

BACKGROUND: As compared with thrombolytic therapy, primary percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) in acute myocardial infarction reduces the rates of death, reinfarction, and stroke, but recurrent ischemia, restenosis, and reocclusion of the infarct-related artery remain problematic. When used in combination with PTCA, coronary stenting and platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors may further improve outcomes. METHODS: Using a 2-by-2 factorial design, we randomly assigned 2082 patients with acute myocardial infarction to undergo PTCA alone (518 patients), PTCA plus abciximab therapy (528), stenting alone with the MultiLink stent (512), or stenting plus abciximab therapy (524). RESULTS: Normal flow was restored in the target vessel in 94.5 to 96.9 percent of patients and did not vary according to the reperfusion strategy. At six months, the primary end point - a composite of death, reinfarction, disabling stroke, and ischemia-driven revascularization of the target vessel - had occurred in 20.0 percent of patients after PTCA, 16.5 percent after PTCA plus abciximab, 11.5 percent after stenting, and 10.2 percent after stenting plus abciximab (P<0.001). There were no significant differences among the groups in the rates of death, stroke, or reinfarction; the difference in the incidence of the primary end point was due entirely to differences in the rates of target-vessel revascularization (ranging from 15.7 percent after PTCA to 5.2 percent after stenting plus abciximab, P<0.001). The rate of angiographically established restenosis was 40.8 percent after PTCA and 22.2 percent after stenting (P<0.001), and the respective rates of reocclusion of the infarcted-related artery were 11.3 percent and 5.7 percent (P=0.01), both independent of abciximab use. CONCLUSIONS: At experienced centers, stent implantation (with or without abciximab therapy) should be considered the routine reperfusion strategy.