| 1. |
- Bueno, Hector, et al.
(författare)
-
Report of the European Society of Cardiology Cardiovascular Round Table regulatory workshop update of the evaluation of new agents for the treatment of acute coronary syndrome : Executive summary
- 2019
-
Ingår i: European Heart Journal. - : SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD. - 2048-8726 .- 2048-8734. ; 8:8, s. 745-754
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Regulatory authorities interpret the results of randomized controlled trials according to published principles. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) is planning a revision of the 2000 and 2003 guidance documents on clinical investigation of new medicinal products for the treatment of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) to achieve consistency with current knowledge in the field. This manuscript summarizes the key output from a collaborative workshop, organized by the Cardiovascular Round Table and the European Affairs Committee of the European Society of Cardiology, involving clinicians, academic researchers, trialists, European and US regulators, and pharmaceutical industry researchers. Specific questions in four key areas were selected as priorities for changes in regulatory guidance: patient selection, endpoints, methodologic issues and issues related to the research for novel agents. Patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-STEMI (NSTEMI) should be studied separately for therapies aimed at the specific pathophysiology of either condition, particularly for treatment of the acute phase, but can be studied together for other treatments, especially long-term therapy. Unstable angina patients should be excluded from acute phase ACS trials. In general, cardiovascular death and reinfarction are recommended for primary efficacy endpoints; other endpoints may be considered if specifically relevant for the therapy under study. New agents or interventions should be tested against a background of evidence-based therapy with expanded follow-up for safety assessment. In conclusion, new guidance documents for randomized controlled trials in ACS should consider changes regarding patient and endpoint selection and definitions, and trial designs. Specific requirements for the evaluation of novel pharmacological therapies need further clarification.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Kobo, Ofer, et al.
(författare)
-
Impact of Multisite artery disease on Clinical Outcomes After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention : An Analysis from the e-Ultimaster Registry
- 2023
-
Ingår i: European Heart Journal - Quality of Care and Clinical Outcomes. - : Oxford University Press. - 2058-5225 .- 2058-1742. ; 9:4, s. 417-426
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Multisite artery disease is considered a 'malignant' type of atherosclerotic disease associated with an increased cardiovascular risk, but the impact of multisite artery disease on clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is unknown.METHODS: Patients enrolled in the large, prospective e-Ultimaster study were grouped into 1) those without known prior vascular disease; 2) those with known single-territory vascular disease 3) those with known 2-3 territories (i.e, coronary, cerebrovascular, or peripheral) vascular disease (multisite artery disease). The primary outcome was coronary target lesion failure (TLF) defined as the composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, and clinically driven target lesion revascularization at 1-year. Inverse propensity score weighted (IPSW) analysis was performed to address differences in baseline patient and lesion characteristics.RESULTS: Of the 37,198 patients included in the study, 62.3% had no prior known vascular disease, 32.6% had single-territory vascular disease, and 5.1% multisite artery disease. Patients with known vascular disease were older and were more likely to be men and to have more co-morbidities. After IPSW, the TLF rate incrementally increased with the number of diseased vascular beds (3.16%, 4.44% and 6.42% for no, single- and multisite artery disease, p<0.01 for all comparisons). This was also true for all cause death (2.22%, 3.28% and 5.29%, p<0.01 for all comparisons) and cardiac mortality (1.26%, 1.91% and 3.62%, p≤0.01 for all comparisons).CONCLUSIONS: Patients with previously known vascular disease experienced an increased risk for adverse cardiovascular events and mortality post percutaneous coronary intervention. This risk is highest among patients with multisite artery disease.
|
|
| 4. |
- Vlieger, Selina, et al.
(författare)
-
One-year performance of thin-strut cobalt chromium sirolimus-eluting stent versus thicker strut stainless steel biolimus-eluting coronary stent : a propensity-matched analysis of two international all-comers registries
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Coronary Artery Disease. - : Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. - 0954-6928 .- 1473-5830. ; 32:5, s. 391-396
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVES: Recent improvements in coronary stent design have focussed on thinner struts, different alloys and architecture, more biocompatible polymers, and shorter drug absorption times. This study evaluates safety and efficacy of a newer generation thin-strut cobalt chromium sirolimus-eluting coronary stent (SES, Ultimaster) in comparison with a second-generation thicker strut stainless steel biolimus-eluting stent (BES, Nobori) in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) practice.METHODS: A propensity score analysis was performed to adjust for differences in baseline characteristics of 8137 SES patients and 2738 BES patients of two PCI registries (e-Ultimaster and NOBORI 2). An independent clinical event committee adjudicated all endpoint-related adverse events.RESULTS: The use of SES, as compared with BES was associated with a significantly lower rate of myocardial infarction (MI) (1.2% vs 2.2%; P = 0.0006) and target vessel-related MI (1.1% vs 1.8%; P = 0.002) at 1 year. One-year composite endpoints of all predefined endpoints were lower in patients undergoing SES implantation (target lesion failure: 3.2% vs 4.1%; P = 0.03, target vessel failure: 3.7% vs 5.0%; P = 0.003, patient-oriented composite endpoint 5.7% vs 6.8%; P = 0.03). No significant differences between SES and BES were observed in all-cause death (2.0% vs 1.6%; P = 0.19), cardiac death (1.2% vs 1.2%; P = 0.76) or stent thrombosis (0.6% vs 0.8%; P = 0.43).CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest an improved clinical safety and efficacy of a newer generation thin-strut SES as compared with a second-generation thicker strut BES.
|
|
