The EXAMINATION trial (Everolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Bare-Metal Stents in ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction): 2-year results from a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

This study sought to assess the 2-year outcomes of the population included in the EXAMINATION (Everolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Bare-Metal Stents in ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction) trial beyond the 1-year prescription period of dual antiplatelet therapy. The EXAMINATION trial compared the performance of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) versus bare-metal stents (BMS) in an all-comer ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) population. This was a multicenter, multinational, prospective, randomized, single-blind, controlled trial in patients with STEMI. The primary endpoint, which was the combined endpoint of all-cause death, any recurrent myocardial infarction, and any revascularization, and the endpoints target lesion revascularization and stent thrombosis were assessed at 2 years. Between December 31, 2008, and May 15, 2010, 1,498 patients were randomized to receive EES (n = 751) or BMS (n = 747). Compliance with dual antiplatelet regimen was reduced at 2 years to a similar degree (17.3% vs. 17.2%, p = 0.91). At 2 years, the primary endpoint occurred in 108 (14.4%) patients of the EES group and in 129 (17.3%) patients of the BMS group (p = 0.11). Rate of target lesion revascularization was significantly lower in the EES group than in the BMS group (2.9% vs. 5.6%; p = 0.009). Rates of definite and definite or probable stent thrombosis were also significantly reduced in the EES group (0.8% vs. 2.1%; p = 0.03, and 1.3% vs. 2.8%; p = 0.04, respectively). The 2-year follow-up of the EXAMINATION trial confirms the safety and efficacy of the EES compared with BMS in the setting of STEMI. Specifically, both rates of target lesion revascularization and stent thrombosis were reduced in recipients of EES without any signs of late attrition for either of these endpoints. (A Clinical Evaluation of Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stents in the Treatment of Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: EXAMINATION Study; NCT00828087).

Sabaté M ，Brugaletta S ，Cequier A ，Iñiguez A ，Serra A ，Hernádez-Antolín R ，Mainar V ，Valgimigli M ，Tespili M ，den Heijer P ，Bethencourt A ，Vázquez N ，Backx B ，Serruys PW ... -  《-》

Two-year outcomes after first- or second-generation drug-eluting or bare-metal stent implantation in all-comer patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a pre-specified analysis from the PRODIGY study (PROlonging Dual Antiplatelet Treatment

This study sought to assess device-specific outcomes after implantation of bare-metal stents (BMS), zotarolimus-eluting Endeavor Sprint stents (ZES-S), paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES), or everolimus-eluting stents (EES) (Medtronic Cardiovascular, Santa Rosa, California) in all-comer patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Few studies have directly compared second-generation drug-eluting stents with each other or with BMS. We randomized 2,013 patients to BMS, ZES-S, PES, or EES implantation. At 30 days, each stent group received up to 6 or 24 months of clopidogrel therapy. The key efficacy endpoint was the 2-year major adverse cardiac event (MACE) including any death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization, whereas the cumulative rate of definite or probable stent thrombosis (ST) was the key safety endpoint. Clinical follow-up at 2 years was complete for 99.7% of patients. The MACE rate was lowest in EES (19.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 16.0 to 22.8), highest in BMS (32.1%; 95% CI: 28.1 to 36.3), and intermediate in PES (26.2%; 95% CI: 22.5 to 30.2) and ZES-S (27.8%; 95% CI: 24.1 to 31.9) groups (chi-square test = 18.9, p = 0.00029). The 2-year incidence of ST in the EES group (1%; 95% CI: 0.4 to 2.2) was similar to that in the ZES-S group (1.4%; 95% CI: 0.7 to 2.8), whereas it was lower compared with the PES (4.6%, 95% CI: 3.1 to 6.8) and BMS (3.6%; 95% CI: 2.4 to 5.6) groups (chi-square = 16.9; p = 0.0001). Our study shows that cumulative MACE rate, encompassing both safety and efficacy endpoints, was lowest for EES, highest for BMS, and intermediate for PES and ZES-S groups. EES outperformed BMS also with respect to the safety endpoints with regard to definite or probable and definite, probable, or possible ST. (PROlonging Dual antiplatelet treatment after Grading stent-induced Intimal hyperplasia studY [PRODIGY]; NCT00611286).

Valgimigli M ，Tebaldi M ，Borghesi M ，Vranckx P ，Campo G ，Tumscitz C ，Cangiano E ，Minarelli M ，Scalone A ，Cavazza C ，Marchesini J ，Parrinello G ，PRODIGY Investigators ... -  《-》

Comparison of newer-generation drug-eluting with bare-metal stents in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a pooled analysis of the EXAMINATION (clinical Evaluation of the Xience-V stent in Acute Myocardial INfArcTION) and COMFO

This study sought to study the efficacy and safety of newer-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) compared with bare-metal stents (BMS) in an appropriately powered population of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Among patients with STEMI, early generation DES improved efficacy but not safety compared with BMS. Newer-generation DES, everolimus-eluting stents, and biolimus A9-eluting stents, have been shown to improve clinical outcomes compared with early generation DES. Individual patient data for 2,665 STEMI patients enrolled in 2 large-scale randomized clinical trials comparing newer-generation DES with BMS were pooled: 1,326 patients received a newer-generation DES (everolimus-eluting stent or biolimus A9-eluting stent), whereas the remaining 1,329 patients received a BMS. Random-effects models were used to assess differences between the 2 groups for the device-oriented composite endpoint of cardiac death, target-vessel reinfarction, and target-lesion revascularization and the patient-oriented composite endpoint of all-cause death, any infarction, and any revascularization at 1 year. Newer-generation DES substantially reduce the risk of the device-oriented composite endpoint compared with BMS at 1 year (relative risk [RR]: 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.43 to 0.79; p = 0.0004). Similarly, the risk of the patient-oriented composite endpoint was lower with newer-generation DES than BMS (RR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.63 to 0.96; p = 0.02). Differences in favor of newer-generation DES were driven by both a lower risk of repeat revascularization of the target lesion (RR: 0.33; 95% CI: 0.20 to 0.52; p < 0.0001) and a lower risk of target-vessel infarction (RR: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.14 to 0.92; p = 0.03). Newer-generation DES also reduced the risk of definite stent thrombosis (RR: 0.35; 95% CI: 0.16 to 0.75; p = 0.006) compared with BMS. Among patients with STEMI, newer-generation DES improve safety and efficacy compared with BMS throughout 1 year. It remains to be determined whether the differences in favor of newer-generation DES are sustained during long-term follow-up.

Sabaté M ，Räber L ，Heg D ，Brugaletta S ，Kelbaek H ，Cequier A ，Ostojic M ，Iñiguez A ，Tüller D ，Serra A ，Baumbach A ，von Birgelen C ，Hernandez-Antolin R ，Roffi M ，Mainar V ，Valgimigli M ，Serruys PW ，Jüni P ，Windecker S ... -  《-》

Everolimus-eluting stent versus bare-metal stent in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (EXAMINATION): 1 year results of a randomised controlled trial.

Everolimus-eluting stent (EES) reduces the risk of restenosis in elective percutaneous coronary intervention. However, the use of drug-eluting stent in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is still controversial. Data regarding the performance of second-generation EES in this setting are scarce. We report the 1-year result of the EXAMINATION (clinical Evaluation of the Xience-V stent in Acute Myocardial INfArcTION) trial, comparing EES with bare-metal stents (BMS) in patients with STEMI. This multicentre, prospective, randomised, all-comer controlled trial was done in 12 medical centres in three countries. Between Dec 31, 2008, and May 15, 2010, we recruited patients with STEMI up to 48 h after the onset of symptoms requiring emergent percutaneous coronary intervention. Patients were randomly assigned (ratio 1:1) to receive EES or BMS. Randomisation was in blocks of four or six patients, stratified by centre and centralised by telephone. Patients were masked to treatment. The primary endpoint was the patient-oriented combined endpoint of all-cause death, any recurrent myocardial infarction, and any revascularisation at 1 year and was analysed by intention to treat. The secondary endpoints of the study included the device-oriented combined endpoint of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction or target lesion revascularisation, and rates of all cause or cardiac death, recurrent myocardial infarction, target lesion or target vessel revascularisation, stent thrombosis, device and procedure success, and major and minor bleeding. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00828087. Of the 1504 patients randomised, 1498 patients were randomly assigned to receive EES (n=751) or BMS (n=747). The primary endpoint was similar in both groups (89 [11·9%] of 751 patients in the EES group vs 106 [14·2%] of 747 patients in the BMS group; difference -2·34 [95% CI -5·75 to 1·07]; p=0·19). Device-oriented endpoint (44 [5·9%] in the EES group vs 63 [8·4%] in the BMS group; difference -2·57 [95% CI -5·18 to 0·03]; p=0·05) did not differ between groups, although rates of target lesion and vessel revascularisation were significantly lower in the EES group (16 [2·1%] vs 37 [5·0%], p=0·003, and 28 [3·7%] vs 51 [6·8%], p=0·0077, respectively). Rates of all cause (26 [3·5%] for EES vs 26 [3·5%] for BMS, p=1·00) or cardiac death (24 [3·2%] for EES vs 21 [2·8%] for BMS, p=0·76) or myocardial infarction (10 [1·3%] vs 15 [2·0%], p=0·32) did not differ between groups. Stent thrombosis rates were significantly lower in the EES group (4 [0·5%] patients with definite stent thrombosis in the EES group vs 14 [1·9%] in the BMS group and seven [0·9%] patients with definite or probable stent thrombosis in the EES group vs 19 [2·5%] in the BMS group, both p=0·019). Although device success rate was similar between groups, procedure success rate was significantly higher in the EES group (731 [97·5%] vs 705 [94·6%]; p=0·0050). Finally, Bleeding rates at 1 year were comparable between groups (29 [3·9%] patients in the EES group vs 39 [5·2%] in the BMS group; p=0·19). The use of EES compared with BMS in the setting of STEMI did not lower the patient-oriented endpoint. However, at the stent level both rates of target lesion revascularisation and stent thrombosis were reduced in recipients of EES. Spanish Heart Foundation.

Sabate M ，Cequier A ，Iñiguez A ，Serra A ，Hernandez-Antolin R ，Mainar V ，Valgimigli M ，Tespili M ，den Heijer P ，Bethencourt A ，Vazquez N ，Gómez-Hospital JA ，Baz JA ，Martin-Yuste V ，van Geuns RJ ，Alfonso F ，Bordes P ，Tebaldi M ，Masotti M ，Silvestro A ，Backx B ，Brugaletta S ，van Es GA ，Serruys PW ... -  《-》

Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold versus everolimus-eluting metallic stent in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: 1-year results of a propensity score matching comparison: the BVS-EXAMINATION Study (bioresorbable vascular scaffold-a clinical

The purpose of this study was to compare the 1-year outcome between bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) and everolimus-eluting metallic stent (EES) in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients. The Absorb BVS (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, California) is a polymeric scaffold approved for treatment of stable coronary lesions. Limited and not randomized data are available on its use in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients. This study included 290 consecutive STEMI patients treated by BVS, compared with either 290 STEMI patients treated with EES or 290 STEMI patients treated with bare-metal stents (BMS) from the EXAMINATION (A Clinical Evaluation of Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stents in the Treatment of Patients With ST-segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction) trial, by applying propensity score matching. The primary endpoint was a device-oriented endpoint (DOCE), including cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization, at 1-year follow-up. Device thrombosis, according to the Academic Research Consortium criteria, was also evaluated. The cumulative incidence of DOCE did not differ between the BVS and EES or BMS groups either at 30 days (3.1% vs. 2.4%, hazard ratio [HR]: 1.31 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.48 to 3.52], p = 0.593; vs. 2.8%, HR: 1.15 [95% CI: 0.44 to 2.30], p = 0.776, respectively) or at 1 year (4.1% vs. 4.1%, HR: 0.99 [95% CI: 0.23 to 4.32], p = 0.994; vs. 5.9%, HR: 0.50 [95% CI: 0.13 to 1.88], p = 0.306, respectively). Definite/probable BVS thrombosis rate was numerically higher either at 30 days (2.1% vs. 0.3%, p = 0.059; vs. 1.0%, p = 0.324, respectively) or at 1 year (2.4% vs. 1.4%, p = 0.948; vs. 1.7%, p = 0.825, respectively), as compared with EES or BMS. At 1-year follow-up, STEMI patients treated with BVS showed similar rates of DOCE compared with STEMI patients treated with EES or BMS, although rate of scaffolds thrombosis, mostly clustered in the early phase, was not negligible. Larger studies with longer follow-up are needed to confirm our findings.

Brugaletta S ，Gori T ，Low AF ，Tousek P ，Pinar E ，Gomez-Lara J ，Scalone G ，Schulz E ，Chan MY ，Kocka V ，Hurtado J ，Gomez-Hospital JA ，Münzel T ，Lee CH ，Cequier A ，Valdés M ，Widimsky P ，Serruys PW ，Sabaté M ... -  《-》