| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
- Byrne, Robert A., et al.
(författare)
-
Report of a European Society of Cardiology-European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions task force on the evaluation of coronary stents in Europe : executive summary
- 2015
-
Ingår i: European Heart Journal. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0195-668X .- 1522-9645. ; 36:38, s. 2608-2620
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The evaluation for European Union market approval of coronary stents falls under the Medical Device Directive that was adopted in 1993. Specific requirements for the assessment of coronary stents are laid out in supplementary advisory documents. In response to a call by the European Commission to make recommendations for a revision of the advisory document on the evaluation of coronary stents (Appendix 1 of MEDDEV 2.7.1), the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) established a Task Force to develop an expert advisory report. As basis for its report, the ESC-EAPCI Task Force reviewed existing processes, established a comprehensive list of all coronary drug-eluting stents that have received a CE mark to date, and undertook a systematic review of the literature of all published randomized clinical trials evaluating clinical and angiographic outcomes of coronary artery stents between 2002 and 2013. Based on these data, the TF provided recommendations to inform a new regulatory process for coronary stents. The main recommendations of the task force include implementation of a standardized non-clinical assessment of stents and a novel clinical evaluation pathway for market approval. The two-stage clinical evaluation plan includes recommendation for an initial pre-market trial with objective performance criteria (OPC) benchmarking using invasive imaging follow-up leading to conditional CE-mark approval and a subsequent mandatory, large-scale randomized trial with clinical endpoint evaluation leading to unconditional CE-mark. The data analysis from the systematic review of the Task Force may provide a basis for determination of OPC for use in future studies. This paper represents an executive summary of the Task Force's report.
|
|
| 8. |
- Byrne, Robert A, et al.
(författare)
-
Report of an ESC-EAPCI Task Force on the evaluation and use of bioresorbable scaffolds for percutaneous coronary intervention : executive summary
- 2018
-
Ingår i: European Heart Journal. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0195-668X .- 1522-9645. ; 39:18, s. 1591-1601
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- A previous Task Force of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) provided a report on recommendations for the non-clinical and clinical evaluation of coronary stents. Following dialogue with the European Commission, the Task Force was asked to prepare an additional report on the class of devices known as bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS). Five BRS have CE-mark approval for use in Europe. Only one device-the Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold-has published randomized clinical trial data and this data show inferior outcomes to conventional drug-eluting stents (DES) at 2-3 years. For this reason, at present BRS should not be preferred to conventional DES in clinical practice. The Task Force recommends that new BRS devices should undergo systematic non-clinical testing according to standardized criteria prior to evaluation in clinical studies. A clinical evaluation plan should include data from a medium sized, randomized trial against DES powered for a surrogate end point of clinical efficacy. Manufacturers of successful devices receive CE-mark approval for use and must have an approved plan for a large-scale randomized clinical trial with planned long-term follow-up.
|
|
| 9. |
- Byrne, Robert A., et al.
(författare)
-
Report of an ESC-EAPCI Task Force on the evaluation and use of bioresorbable scaffolds for percutaneous coronary intervention : executive summary
- 2018
-
Ingår i: EuroIntervention. - : EUROPA EDITION. - 1774-024X .- 1969-6213. ; 13:13, s. 1574-1586
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- A previous Task Force of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) provided a report on recommendations for the non-clinical and clinical evaluation of coronary stents. Following dialogue with the European Commission, the Task Force was asked to prepare an additional report on the class of devices known as bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS). Five BRS have CE-mark approval for use in Europe. Only one device - the Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold - has published randomized clinical trial data and this data show inferior outcomes to conventional drug-eluting stents (DES) at 2-3 years. For this reason, at present BRS should not be preferred to conventional DES in clinical practice. The Task Force recommends that new BRS devices should undergo systematic non-clinical testing according to standardized criteria prior to evaluation in clinical studies. A clinical evaluation plan should include data from a medium sized, randomized trial against DES powered for a surrogate end point of clinical efficacy. Manufacturers of successful devices receive CE-mark approval for use and must have an approved plan for a large-scale randomized clinical trial with planned long-term follow-up.
|
|
| 10. |
- Costa, Francesco, et al.
(författare)
-
Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Duration Based on Ischemic and Bleeding Risks After Coronary Stenting
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Journal of the American College of Cardiology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0735-1097 .- 1558-3597. ; 73:7, s. 741-754
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUNDComplex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is associated with higher ischemic risk, which can be mitigated by long-term dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). However, concomitant high bleeding risk (HBR) may be present, making it unclear whether short-or long-term DAPT should be prioritized.OBJECTIVESThis study investigated the effects of ischemic (by PCI complexity) and bleeding (by PRECISE-DAPT [PREdicting bleeding Complications in patients undergoing stent Implantation and SubsequEnt Dual AntiPlatelet Therapy] score) risks on clinical outcomes and on the impact of DAPT duration after coronary stenting.METHODSComplex PCI was defined as $ 3 stents implanted and/or $ 3 lesions treated, bifurcation stenting and/or stent length > 60 mm, and/or chronic total occlusion revascularization. Ischemic and bleeding outcomes in high ($ 25) or nonhigh (< 25) PRECISE-DAPT strata were evaluated based on randomly allocated duration of DAPT.RESULTSAmong 14,963 patients from 8 randomized trials, 3,118 underwent complex PCI and experienced a higher rate of ischemic, but not bleeding, events. Long-term DAPT in non-HBR patients reduced ischemic events in both complex (absolute risk difference:-3.86%; 95% confidence interval:-7.71 to thorn0.06) and noncomplex PCI strata (absolute risk difference:-1.14%; 95% confidence interval:-2.26 to-0.02), but not among HBR patients, regardless of complex PCI features. The bleeding risk according to the Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction scale was increased by long-term DAPT only in HBR patients, regardless of PCI complexity.CONCLUSIONS Patients who underwent complex PCI had a higher risk of ischemic events, but benefitted from long-term DAPT only if HBR features were not present. These data suggested that when concordant, bleeding, more than ischemic risk, should inform decision-making on the duration of DAPT.
|
|
