Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) involving drug-eluting stents is increasingly used to treat complex coronary artery disease, although coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) has been the treatment of choice historically. Our trial compared PCI and CABG for treating patients with previously untreated three-vessel or left main coronary artery disease (or both). We randomly assigned 1800 patients with three-vessel or left main coronary artery disease to undergo CABG or PCI (in a 1:1 ratio). For all these patients, the local cardiac surgeon and interventional cardiologist determined that equivalent anatomical revascularization could be achieved with either treatment. A noninferiority comparison of the two groups was performed for the primary end point — a major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular event (i.e., death from any cause, stroke, myocardial infarction, or repeat revascularization) during the 12-month period after randomization. Patients for whom only one of the two treatment options would be beneficial, because of anatomical features or clinical conditions, were entered into a parallel, nested CABG or PCI registry. Most of the preoperative characteristics were similar in the two groups. Rates of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events at 12 months were significantly higher in the PCI group (17.8%, vs. 12.4% for CABG; P=0.002), in large part because of an increased rate of repeat revascularization (13.5% vs. 5.9%, P<0.001); as a result, the criterion for noninferiority was not met. At 12 months, the rates of death and myocardial infarction were similar between the two groups; stroke was significantly more likely to occur with CABG (2.2%, vs. 0.6% with PCI; P=0.003). CABG remains the standard of care for patients with three-vessel or left main coronary artery disease, since the use of CABG, as compared with PCI, resulted in lower rates of the combined end point of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events at 1 year. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00114972.)

The Academic Research Consortium (ARC)-2 initiative revisited the clinical and angiographic end point definitions in coronary device trials, proposed in 2007, to make them more suitable for use in clinical trials that include increasingly complex lesion and patient populations and incorporate novel devices such as bioresorbable vascular scaffolds. In addition, recommendations for the incorporation of patient-related outcomes in clinical trials are proposed. Academic Research Consortium-2 is a collaborative effort between academic research organizations in the United States and Europe, device manufacturers, and European, US, and Asian regulatory bodies. Several in-person meetings were held to discuss the changes that have occurred in the device landscape and in clinical trials and regulatory pathways in the last decade. The consensus-based end point definitions in this document are endorsed by the stakeholders of this document and strongly advocated for clinical trial purposes. This Academic Research Consortium-2 document provides further standardization of end point definitions for coronary device trials, incorporating advances in technology and knowledge. Their use will aid interpretation of trial outcomes and comparison among studies, thus facilitating the evaluation of the safety and effectiveness of these devices.

New-generation coronary stents that release zotarolimus or everolimus have been shown to reduce the risk of restenosis. However, it is unclear whether there are differences in efficacy and safety between the two types of stents on the basis of prospectively adjudicated end points endorsed by the Food and Drug Administration. In this multicenter, noninferiority trial with minimal exclusion criteria, we randomly assigned 2292 patients to undergo treatment with coronary stents releasing either zotarolimus or everolimus. Twenty percent of patients were randomly selected for repeat angiography at 13 months. The primary end point was target-lesion failure, defined as a composite of death from cardiac causes, any myocardial infarction (not clearly attributable to a nontarget vessel), or clinically indicated target-lesion revascularization within 12 months. The secondary angiographic end point was the extent of in-stent stenosis at 13 months. At least one off-label criterion for stent placement was present in 66% of patients. The zotarolimus-eluting stent was noninferior to the everolimus-eluting stent with respect to the primary end point, which occurred in 8.2% and 8.3% of patients, respectively (P<0.001 for noninferiority). There were no significant between-group differences in the rate of death from cardiac causes, any myocardial infarction, or revascularization. The rate of stent thrombosis was 2.3% in the zotarolimus-stent group and 1.5% in the everolimus-stent group (P=0.17). The zotarolimus-eluting stent was also noninferior regarding the degree (±SD) of in-stent stenosis (21.65±14.42% for zotarolimus vs. 19.76±14.64% for everolimus, P=0.04 for noninferiority). In-stent late lumen loss was 0.27±0.43 mm in the zotarolimus-stent group versus 0.19±0.40 mm in the everolimus-stent group (P=0.08). There were no significant between-group differences in the rate of adverse events. At 13 months, the new-generation zotarolimus-eluting stent was found to be noninferior to the everolimus-eluting stent in a population of patients who had minimal exclusion criteria. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00617084.)

The books and articles devoted to the anatomy of the aortic valvar complex are numerous. Until now, however, little consideration has been given to understanding the anatomy with percutaneous valvar replacement in mind. It is axiomatic that knowledge of the anatomy of the valve is fundamental in understanding key principles involved in valvar replacement. Such an appreciation of the anatomy helps better understand the optimal positioning for the prosthetic valve within the root of the aorta with respect to the coronary arteries, mitral valve, and the conduction system and may circumvent complications that can arise during its implantation. In this review, therefore, we describe the anatomy of the trifoliate aortic valvar complex and its implications for percutaneous valvar replacement.

The Official Journal of EuroPCR and the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI)