To evaluate whether the improved outcomes with newer generation drug-eluting stents (DES) utilising thin-strut stents are consistent among different patient and angiographic subgroups.Clinical outcomes over three years were collected in the SPIRIT III trial comparing the XIENCE V® everolimus-eluting stents (EES) (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA, USA) to the TAXUS® paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) (Boston Scientific, Natick, MA, USA). Potential predictors of adverse clinical outcomes were assessed using demographic, clinical, and procedural variables by logistic and Cox regression analyses. For three-year target vessel failure, the independent predictors identified by Cox regression were number of vessels treated (HR=2.19 [1.50, 3.19], p<0.0001), HbA1c (%) (HR=1.17 [1.05, 1.29], p=0.004), total cholesterol (>200 mg/dl) (HR=1.63 [1.13, 2.36], p=0.009), and female gender (HR=1.42 [1.01, 2.01], p=0.05). Logistic regression analysis identified the same predictors except for the female gender. The clinical results with EES compared to PES were consistent among the multiple subgroups examined with the possible exception of patients with diabetes.Clinical factors and stent type were the most important multivariable predictors of adverse clinical outcomes in this contemporary trial of first versus second generation DES. The benefit of the EES compared to the PES was consistent across a wide range of patient and angiographic subgroups with the possible exception of patients with diabetes.
Recent studies have suggested that EES may reduce ST compared to PES, but no individual trial has been adequately powered for this endpoint. The incidence of stent thrombosis, as well as the impact of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) discontinuation during the first two years following everolimus-eluting stent (EES) and paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) deployment were therefore analysed from a pooled, patient-level database derived from four randomised clinical trials.Data from the SPIRIT II, SPIRIT III, SPIRIT IV and COMPARE trials (n=6,789 patients) were analysed. Two-year ST rates were determined using time-to-event methods and compared with the log-rank test. ST rates were also determined after DAPT discontinuation. EES compared to PES significantly reduced the two-year rates of ST (0.7% versus 2.3%, p=0.0001), including the interval rates of ST up to 30 days (0.2% versus 1.0%, p<0.0001), between 31 days and one year (0.2% versus 0.6%, p=0.02), and after one year (0.3% versus 0.8%, p=0.001). EES also reduced the two-year composite rate of cardiac death or MI (4.0% versus 6.6%, p=0.0001). Increased rates of ST after DAPT discontinuation beyond six months were observed in the PES cohort, but not in the EES cohort.In this large pooled analysis from four randomised trials, treatment with EES compared to PES significantly reduced the rates of ST through two years of follow-up, with a concomitant reduction in cardiac death or MI. DAPT discontinuation beyond six months may be safe with EES.
Background: The MOMENTUM 3 trial compares the centrifugal HeartMate 3 (HM3) with the axial HeartMate II (HMII) continuous-flow left ventricular assist system in patients with advanced heart failure, irrespective of the intended goal of therapy. The trial’s 2-year clinical outcome (n=366) demonstrated superiority of the HM3 for the primary end point (survival free of a disabling stroke or reoperation to replace or remove a malfunctioning pump). This analysis evaluates health resource use and cost implications of the observed differences between the 2 devices while patients were enrolled in the trial. Methods: We analyzed all hospitalizations and their associated costs occurring after discharge from the implant hospitalization until censoring (study withdrawal, heart transplantation, and pump exchange with a nonstudy device or death). Each adjudicated episode of hospital-based care was used to calculate costs (device-attributable and non–device-attributable event costs), estimated by using trial data and payer administrative claims databases. Cost savings stratified by subgroups (study outcome [transplant, death, or ongoing on device], intended goal of therapy, type of insurance, or sex) were also assessed. Results: In 366 randomly assigned patients, 361 comprised the as-treated group (189 in the HM3 group and 172 in the HMII group), of whom 337 (177 in the HM3 group and 160 in the HMII group) were successfully discharged following implantation. The HM3 arm experienced fewer total hospitalizations per patient-year (HM3: 2.1±0.2 versus HMII: 2.7±0.2; P =0.015) and 8.3 fewer hospital days per patient-year on average (HM3: 17.1 days versus HMII: 25.5 days; P =0.003). These differences were driven by patients hospitalized for suspected pump thrombosis (HM3: 0.6% versus HMII: 12.5%; P <0.001) and stroke (HM3: 2.8% versus HMII: 11.3%; P =0.002). Controlled for time spent in the study (average cumulative cost per patient-year), postdischarge HM3 arm costs were 51% lower than with the HMII (HM3: $37 685±4251 versus HMII: $76 599±11 889, P <0.001) and similar in either bridge to transplant or destination therapy intent. Conclusions: In this 2-year outcome economic analysis of the MOMENTUM 3 trial, the HM3 demonstrated a reduction in rehospitalizations, hospital days spent during rehospitalizations, and a significant cost savings following discharge in comparison with the HMII left ventricular assist system, irrespective of the intended goal of therapy. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT02224755.
Abstract Aims During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, important changes in heart failure (HF) event rates have been widely reported, but few data address potential causes for these changes; several possibilities were examined in the GUIDE-HF study. Methods and results From 15 March 2018 to 20 December 2019, patients were randomized to haemodynamic-guided management (treatment) vs. control for 12 months, with a primary endpoint of all-cause mortality plus HF events. Pre-COVID-19, the primary endpoint rate was 0.553 vs. 0.682 events/patient-year in the treatment vs. control group [hazard ratio (HR) 0.81, P = 0.049]. Treatment difference was no longer evident during COVID-19 (HR 1.11, P = 0.526), with a 21% decrease in the control group (0.536 events/patient-year) and no change in the treatment group (0.597 events/patient-year). Data reflecting provider-, disease-, and patient-dependent factors that might change the primary endpoint rate during COVID-19 were examined. Subject contact frequency was similar in the treatment vs. control group before and during COVID-19. During COVID-19, the monthly rate of medication changes fell 19.2% in the treatment vs. 10.7% in the control group to levels not different between groups (P = 0.362). COVID-19 was infrequent and not different between groups. Pulmonary artery pressure area under the curve decreased −98 mmHg-days in the treatment group vs. −100 mmHg-days in the controls (P = 0.867). Patient compliance with the study protocol was maintained during COVID-19 in both groups. Conclusion During COVID-19, the primary event rate decreased in the controls and remained low in the treatment group, resulting in an effacement of group differences that were present pre-COVID-19. These outcomes did not result from changes in provider- or disease-dependent factors; pulmonary artery pressure decreased despite fewer medication changes, suggesting that patient-dependent factors played an important role in these outcomes. Clinical Trials.gov: NCT03387813
In an early analysis of this trial, use of a magnetically levitated centrifugal continuous-flow circulatory pump was found to improve clinical outcomes, as compared with a mechanical-bearing axial continuous-flow pump, at 6 months in patients with advanced heart failure.