Consensus is lacking regarding the best treatment for coronary in-stent restenosis (ISR). The two most effective treatments are angioplasty with paclitaxel-coated balloon (PCB) and repeat stenting with drug-eluting stent (DES) but individual trials were not statistically powered for clinical endpoints, results were heterogeneous, and evidence about comparative efficacy and safety in relevant subsets was limited. The Difference in Anti-restenotic Effectiveness of Drug-eluting stent and drug-coated balloon AngiopLasty for the occUrrence of coronary in-Stent restenosis (DAEDALUS) study was a comprehensive, investigator-initiated, collaborative, individual patient data meta-analysis comparing angioplasty with PCB alone vs. repeat stenting with DES alone for the treatment of coronary ISR. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42017075007). All 10 available randomized clinical trials were included with 1976 patients enrolled, 1033 assigned to PCB and 943 to DES. At 3-year follow-up, PCB was associated with a significant increase in the risk of target lesion revascularization (TLR) compared with DES [hazard ratio (HR) 1.32, 95% CI 1.02–1.70, P = 0.035; number-needed-to-harm 28.5]. There was a significant interaction between treatment effect and type of restenosed stent (P = 0.029) with a more marked difference in patients with DES-ISR and comparable effects in patients with bare-metal stent-ISR. At 3-year follow-up, the primary safety endpoint of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or target lesion thrombosis was comparable between treatments (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.58–1.09, P = 0.152). A pre-specified subgroup analysis indicated a significant interaction between treatment effect and type of DES used to treat ISR (P = 0.033), with a lower incidence of events associated with PCB compared with first-generation DES and similar effect between PCB and second-generation DES (HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.71–1.60, P = 0.764). Long-term all-cause mortality was similar between PCB and DES (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.53–1.22, P = 0.310); results were consistent comparing PCB and non-paclitaxel-based DES (HR 1.42, 95% CI 0.80–2.54, P = 0.235). Myocardial infarction and target lesion thrombosis were comparable between treatments. In patients with coronary ISR, repeat stenting with DES is moderately more effective than angioplasty with PCB at reducing the need for TLR at 3 years. The incidence of a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or target lesion thrombosis was similar between groups. The rates of individual endpoints, including all-cause mortality, were not significantly different between groups.

In patients with coronary in-stent restenosis (ISR) requiring reintervention, it is unclear if the choice of treatment should depend on whether the restenotic stent was a bare-metal stent (BMS) or a drug-eluting stent (DES). This study aimed to assess the comparative efficacy and safety of the 2 most frequently used treatments - angioplasty with drug-coated balloon (DCB) and repeat stenting DES - in patients with BMS-and DES-ISR. The DAEDALUS (Difference in Antirestenotic Effectiveness of Drug-Eluting Stent and Drug-Coated Balloon Angioplasty for the Occurrence of Coronary In-Stent Restenosis) study was a pooled analysis of individual patient data from all 10 existing randomized clinical trials comparing DCB angioplasty with repeat DES implantation for the treatment of coronary ISR. In this pre-specified analysis, patients were stratified according to BMS- versus DES-ISR and treatment assigned. The primary efficacy endpoint was target lesion revascularization (TLR) at 3 years. The primary safety endpoint was a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or target lesion thrombosis at 3 years. Primary analysis was performed by mixed-effects Cox models accounting for the trial of origin. Secondary analyses included nonparsimonious multivariable adjustment accounting also for multiple lesions per patient and 2-stage analyses. A total of 710 patients with BMS-ISR (722 lesions) and 1,248 with DES-ISR (1,377 lesions) were included. In patients with BMS-ISR, no significant difference between treatments was observed in terms of primary efficacy (9.2% vs. 10.2%; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.51 to 1.37) and safety endpoints (8.7% vs. 7.5%; HR: 1.13; 95% CI: 0.65 to 1.96); results of secondary analyses were consistent. In patients with DES-ISR, the risk of the primary efficacy endpoint was higher with DCB angioplasty than with repeat DES implantation (20.3% vs. 13.4%; HR: 1.58; 95% CI: 1.16 to 2.13), whereas the risk of the primary safety endpoint was numerically lower (9.5% vs. 13.3%; HR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.47 to 1.00); results of secondary analyses were consistent. Regardless of the treatment used, the risk of TLR was lower in BMS- versus DES-ISR (9.7% vs. 17.0%; HR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.42 to 0.74), whereas safety was not significantly different between ISR types. At 3-year follow-up, DCB angioplasty and repeat stenting with DES are similarly effective and safe in the treatment of BMS-ISR, whereas DCB angioplasty is significantly less effective than repeat DES implantation in the treatment DES-ISR, and associated with a nonsignificant reduction in the primary composite safety endpoint. Overall, DES-ISR is associated with higher rates of treatment failure and similar safety compared with BMS-ISR.

Aims: After percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with second-generation drug-eluting stent (DES), whether short dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) followed by single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) with a P2Y12 receptor inhibitor confers benefits compared with prolonged DAPT is unclear. Methods and results: Multiple electronic databases, including PubMed, Scopus, Web of Sciences, Ovid, and ScienceDirect, were searched to identify randomized clinical trials comparing ≤3 months of DAPT followed by P2Y12 inhibitor SAPT vs. 12 months of DAPT after PCI with second-generation DES implantation. The primary and co-primary outcomes of interest were major bleeding and stent thrombosis 1 year after randomization. Summary hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated by fixed-effect and random-effects models. Multiple sensitivity analyses including random-effects models 95% CI adjustment were applied. A sensitivity analysis comparing trials using P2Y12 inhibitor SAPT with those using aspirin SAPT was performed. A total of five randomized clinical trials (32 145 patients) were available. Major bleeding was significantly lower in the patients assigned to short DAPT followed by P2Y12 inhibitor SAPT compared with those assigned to 12-month DAPT (random-effects model: HR 0.63, 95% 0.45–0.86). No significant differences between groups were observed in terms of stent thrombosis (random-effects model: HR 1.19, 95% CI 0.86–1.65) and the secondary endpoints of all-cause death (random-effects model: HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.70–1.03), myocardial infarction (random-effects model: HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.89–1.23), and stroke (random-effects model: HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.68–1.74). Sensitivity analyses showed overall consistent results. By comparing trials testing ≤3 months of DAPT followed by P2Y12 inhibitor SAPT vs. 12 months of DAPT with trials testing ≤3 months of DAPT followed by aspirin SAPT vs. 12-month of DAPT, there was no treatment-by-subgroup interaction for each endpoint. By combining all these trials, regardless of the type of SAPT, short DAPT was associated with lower major bleeding (random-effects model: HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.48–0.83) and no differences in stent thrombosis, all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and stroke were observed between regimens. Conclusion: After second-generation DES implantation, 1–3 months of DAPT followed by P2Y12 inhibitor SAPT is associated with lower major bleeding and similar stent thrombosis, all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and stroke compared with prolonged DAPT. Whether P2Y12 inhibitor SAPT is preferable to aspirin SAPT needs further investigation.

BACKGROUND: Results from multiple randomized clinical trials comparing outcomes after intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)– and optical coherence tomography (OCT)–guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with invasive coronary angiography (ICA)–guided PCI as well as a pivotal trial comparing the 2 intravascular imaging (IVI) techniques have provided mixed results. METHODS: Major electronic databases were searched to identify eligible trials evaluating at least 2 PCI guidance strategies among ICA, IVUS, and OCT. The 2 coprimary outcomes were target lesion revascularization and myocardial infarction. The secondary outcomes included ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization, target vessel myocardial infarction, death, cardiac death, target vessel revascularization, stent thrombosis, and major adverse cardiac events. Frequentist random-effects network meta-analyses were conducted. The results were replicated by Bayesian random-effects models. Pairwise meta-analyses of the direct components, multiple sensitivity analyses, and pairwise meta-analyses IVI versus ICA were supplemented. RESULTS: The results from 24 randomized trials (15 489 patients: IVUS versus ICA, 46.4%, 7189 patients; OCT versus ICA, 32.1%, 4976 patients; OCT versus IVUS, 21.4%, 3324 patients) were included in the network meta-analyses. IVUS was associated with reduced target lesion revascularization compared with ICA (odds ratio [OR], 0.69 [95% CI, 0.54–0.87]), whereas no significant differences were observed between OCT and ICA (OR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.63–1.09]) and OCT and IVUS (OR, 1.21 [95% CI, 0.88–1.66]). Myocardial infarction did not significantly differ between guidance strategies (IVUS versus ICA: OR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.70–1.19]; OCT versus ICA: OR, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.68–1.11]; OCT versus IVUS: OR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.69–1.33]). These results were consistent with the secondary outcomes of ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization, target vessel myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization, and sensitivity analyses generally did not reveal inconsistency. OCT was associated with a significant reduction of stent thrombosis compared with ICA (OR, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.26–0.92]) but only in the frequentist analysis. Similarly, the results in terms of survival between IVUS or OCT and ICA were uncertain across analyses. A total of 25 randomized trials (17 128 patients) were included in the pairwise meta-analyses IVI versus ICA where IVI guidance was associated with reduced target lesion revascularization, cardiac death, and stent thrombosis. CONCLUSIONS: IVI-guided PCI was associated with a reduction in ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization compared with ICA-guided PCI, with the difference most evident for IVUS. In contrast, no significant differences in myocardial infarction were observed between guidance strategies.

Background: In some randomized clinical trials, transradial access (TRA) compared with transfemoral access (TFA) was associated with lower mortality in patients with coronary artery disease undergoing invasive management. We analyzed the effects of TRA versus TFA across multicenter randomized clinical trials and whether these associations are modified by patient or procedural characteristics. Methods: We performed an individual patient data meta-analysis of multicenter randomized clinical trials comparing TRA with TFA among patients undergoing coronary angiography with or without percutaneous coronary intervention. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality and the co–primary outcome was major bleeding at 30 days. The primary analysis was conducted by 1-stage mixed-effects models on the basis of the intention-to-treat cohort. The effect of access site on mortality and major bleeding was assessed further by multivariable analysis. The relationship among access site, bleeding, and mortality was investigated by natural effect model mediation analysis with multivariable adjustment. Results: A total of 21 600 patients (10 775 TRA, 10 825 TFA) from 7 randomized clinical trials were included. The median age was 63.9 years, 31.9% were women, 95% presented with acute coronary syndrome, and 75.2% underwent percutaneous coronary intervention. All-cause mortality (1.6% versus 2.1%; hazard ratio, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.63–0.95]; P =0.012) and major bleeding (1.5% versus 2.7%; odds ratio, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.45–0.67]; P <0.001) were lower with TRA. Subgroup analyses for mortality showed consistent results, except for baseline hemoglobin level ( P _interaction =0.003), indicating that the benefit of TRA was substantial in patients with moderate or severe anemia, whereas it was not significant in patients with milder or no baseline anemia. After adjustment, TRA remained associated with 24% and 51% relative risk reduction of all-cause mortality and major bleeding, respectively. A mediation analysis showed that the benefit of TRA on mortality was only partially driven by major bleeding prevention and ancillary mechanisms are required to fully explain the causal association. Conclusions: TRA is associated with lower all-cause mortality and major bleeding at 30 days compared with TFA. The effect on mortality was driven by patients with anemia. The reduction in major bleeding only partially explains the mortality benefit. Registration: URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero ; Unique identifier: CRD42018109664.

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is a major health concern worldwide and requires effective preventive measures. Lp(a) (lipoprotein [a]) has recently garnered attention as an independent risk factor for astherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, with proinflammatory and prothrombotic mechanisms contributing to its atherogenicity. On an equimolar basis, Lp(a) is ~5 to 6 times more atherogenic than particles that have been widely associated with adverse cardiovascular outcomes, such as LDL (low-density lipoprotein). Lp(a) can enter the vessel wall, leading to the accumulation of oxidized phospholipids in the arterial intima, which are crucial for initiating plaque inflammation and triggering vascular disease progression. In addition, Lp(a) may cause atherothrombosis through interactions between apoA (apolipoprotein A) and the platelet PAR-1 (protease-activated receptor 1) receptor, as well as competitive inhibition of plasminogen. Because Lp(a) is mostly determined on genetic bases, a 1-time assessment in a lifetime can suffice to identify patients with elevated levels. Mendelian randomization studies and post hoc analyses of randomized trials of LDL cholesterol–lowering drugs showed a causal link between Lp(a) concentrations and cardiovascular outcomes, with therapeutic reduction of Lp(a) expected to contribute to estimated cardiovascular risk mitigation. Many Lp(a)-lowering drugs, including monoclonal antibodies, small interfering ribonucleic acids, antisense oligonucleotides, small molecules, and gene editing compounds, are at different stages of clinical investigation and show promise for clinical use. In particular, increased Lp(a) testing and treatment are expected to have a substantial impact at the population level, enabling the identification of high-risk individuals and the subsequent prevention of a large number of cardiovascular events. Ongoing phase 3 trials will further elucidate the cardiovascular benefits of Lp(a) reduction over the long term, offering potential avenues for targeted interventions and improved cardiovascular outcomes.