Guidelines and Expert Consensus Documents aim to present management recommendations based on all the relevant evidences on a particular subject in order to help physicians to select the best possible management strategies for the individual patient, suffering from a specific condition, not only taking into account the impact on outcome, but also the risk–benefit ratio of a particular diagnostic or therapeutic procedure. Numerous studies have demonstrated that patient outcomes improve when guideline recommendations, based on the rigorous assessment of evidence-based research, are applied in clinical practice.

Patients with obstructive left main coronary artery disease are usually treated with coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG). Randomized trials have suggested that drug-eluting stents may be an acceptable alternative to CABG in selected patients with left main coronary disease. We randomly assigned 1905 eligible patients with left main coronary artery disease of low or intermediate anatomical complexity to undergo either percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with fluoropolymer-based cobalt–chromium everolimus-eluting stents (PCI group, 948 patients) or CABG (CABG group, 957 patients). Anatomic complexity was assessed at the sites and defined by a Synergy between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) score of 32 or lower (the SYNTAX score reflects a comprehensive angiographic assessment of the coronary vasculature, with 0 as the lowest score and higher scores [no upper limit] indicating more complex coronary anatomy). The primary end point was the rate of a composite of death from any cause, stroke, or myocardial infarction at 3 years, and the trial was powered for noninferiority testing of the primary end point (noninferiority margin, 4.2 percentage points). Major secondary end points included the rate of a composite of death from any cause, stroke, or myocardial infarction at 30 days and the rate of a composite of death, stroke, myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven revascularization at 3 years. Event rates were based on Kaplan–Meier estimates in time-to-first-event analyses. At 3 years, a primary end-point event had occurred in 15.4% of the patients in the PCI group and in 14.7% of the patients in the CABG group (difference, 0.7 percentage points; upper 97.5% confidence limit, 4.0 percentage points; P=0.02 for noninferiority; hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.79 to 1.26; P=0.98 for superiority). The secondary end-point event of death, stroke, or myocardial infarction at 30 days occurred in 4.9% of the patients in the PCI group and in 7.9% in the CABG group (P<0.001 for noninferiority, P=0.008 for superiority). The secondary end-point event of death, stroke, myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven revascularization at 3 years occurred in 23.1% of the patients in the PCI group and in 19.1% in the CABG group (P=0.01 for noninferiority, P=0.10 for superiority). In patients with left main coronary artery disease and low or intermediate SYNTAX scores by site assessment, PCI with everolimus-eluting stents was noninferior to CABG with respect to the rate of the composite end point of death, stroke, or myocardial infarction at 3 years. (Funded by Abbott Vascular; EXCEL ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01205776.)

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.)

Background— Lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A ₂ (Lp-PLA ₂ ) is expressed abundantly in the necrotic core of coronary lesions, and products of its enzymatic activity may contribute to inflammation and cell death, rendering plaque vulnerable to rupture. Methods and Results— This study compared the effects of 12 months of treatment with darapladib (an oral Lp-PLA ₂ inhibitor, 160 mg daily) or placebo on coronary atheroma deformability (intravascular ultrasound palpography) and plasma high-sensitivity C-reactive protein in 330 patients with angiographically documented coronary disease. Secondary end points included changes in necrotic core size (intravascular ultrasound radiofrequency), atheroma size (intravascular ultrasound gray scale), and blood biomarkers. Background therapy was comparable between groups, with no difference in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol at 12 months (placebo, 88±34 mg/dL; darapladib, 84±31 mg/dL; P =0.37). In contrast, Lp-PLA ₂ activity was inhibited by 59% with darapladib ( P <0.001 versus placebo). After 12 months, there were no significant differences between groups in plaque deformability ( P =0.22) or plasma high-sensitivity C-reactive protein ( P =0.35). In the placebo-treated group, however, necrotic core volume increased significantly (4.5±17.9 mm ³ ; P =0.009), whereas darapladib halted this increase (−0.5±13.9 mm ³ ; P =0.71), resulting in a significant treatment difference of −5.2 mm ³ ( P =0.012). These intraplaque compositional changes occurred without a significant treatment difference in total atheroma volume ( P =0.95). Conclusions— Despite adherence to a high level of standard-of-care treatment, the necrotic core continued to expand among patients receiving placebo. In contrast, Lp-PLA ₂ inhibition with darapladib prevented necrotic core expansion, a key determinant of plaque vulnerability. These findings suggest that Lp-PLA ₂ inhibition may represent a novel therapeutic approach.