The relative merits of ticagrelor as compared with prasugrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes for whom invasive evaluation is planned are uncertain.

Despite the reduction in late thrombotic events with newer-generation drug-eluting stents (DES), late stent failure remains a concern following stent placement. In-stent neoatherosclerosis has emerged as an important contributing factor to late vascular complications including very late stent thrombosis and late in-stent restenosis. Histologically, neoatherosclerosis is characterized by accumulation of lipid-laden foamy macrophages within the neointima with or without necrotic core formation and/or calcification. The development of neoatherosclerosis may occur in months to years following stent placement, whereas atherosclerosis in native coronary arteries develops over decades. Pathologic and clinical imaging studies have demonstrated that neoatherosclerosis occurs more frequently and at an earlier time point in DES when compared with bare metal stents, and increases with time in both types of implant. Early development of neoatherosclerosis has been identified not only in first-generation DES but also in second-generation DES. The mechanisms underlying the rapid development of neoatherosclerosis remain unknown; however, either absence or abnormal endothelial functional integrity following stent implantation may contribute to this process. In-stent plaque rupture likely accounts for most thrombotic events associated with neoatherosclerosis, while it may also be a substrate of in-stent restenosis as thrombosis may occur either symptomatically or asymptomatically. Intravascular optical coherence tomography is capable of detecting neoatherosclerosis; however, the shortcomings of this modality must be recognized. Future studies should assess the impact of iterations in stent technology and risk factor modification on disease progression. Similarly, refinements in imaging techniques are also warranted that will permit more reliable detection of neoatherosclerosis.

Among low-risk patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis who are eligible for both transcatheter aortic-valve implantation (TAVI) and surgical aortic-valve replacement (SAVR), data are lacking on the appropriate treatment strategy in routine clinical practice. In this randomized noninferiority trial conducted at 38 sites in Germany, we assigned patients with severe aortic stenosis who were at low or intermediate surgical risk to undergo either TAVI or SAVR. Percutaneous- and surgical-valve prostheses were selected according to operator discretion. The primary outcome was a composite of death from any cause or fatal or nonfatal stroke at 1 year. A total of 1414 patients underwent randomization (701 to the TAVI group and 713 to the SAVR group). The mean (±SD) age of the patients was 74±4 years; 57% were men, and the median Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score was 1.8% (low surgical risk). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of the primary outcome at 1 year was 5.4% in the TAVI group and 10.0% in the SAVR group (hazard ratio for death or stroke, 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.35 to 0.79; P<0.001 for noninferiority). The incidence of death from any cause was 2.6% in the TAVI group and 6.2% in the SAVR group (hazard ratio, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.24 to 0.73); the incidence of stroke was 2.9% and 4.7%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.35 to 1.06). Procedural complications occurred in 1.5% and 1.0% of patients in the TAVI and SAVR groups, respectively. Among patients with severe aortic stenosis at low or intermediate surgical risk, TAVI was noninferior to SAVR with respect to death from any cause or stroke at 1 year. (Funded by the German Center for Cardiovascular Research and the German Heart Foundation; DEDICATE-DZHK6 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03112980.).

Background: Stent thrombosis (ST) is a serious complication following coronary stenting. Intravascular optical coherence tomography (OCT) may provide insights into mechanistic processes leading to ST. We performed a prospective, multicenter study to evaluate OCT findings in patients with ST. Methods: Consecutive patients presenting with ST were prospectively enrolled in a registry by using a centralized telephone registration system. After angiographic confirmation of ST, OCT imaging of the culprit vessel was performed with frequency domain OCT. Clinical data were collected according to a standardized protocol. OCT acquisitions were analyzed at a core laboratory. Dominant and contributing findings were adjudicated by an imaging adjudication committee. Results: Two hundred thirty-one patients presenting with ST underwent OCT imaging; 14 (6.1%) had image quality precluding further analysis. Of the remaining patients, 62 (28.6%) and 155 (71.4%) presented with early and late/very late ST, respectively. The underlying stent type was a new-generation drug-eluting stent in 50.3%. Mean reference vessel diameter was 2.9±0.6 mm and mean reference vessel area was 6.8±2.6 mm ² . Stent underexpansion (stent expansion index <0.8) was observed in 44.4% of patients. The predicted average probability (95% confidence interval) that any frame had uncovered (or thrombus-covered) struts was 99.3% (96.1–99.9), 96.6% (92.4–98.5), 34.3% (15.0–60.7), and 9.6% (6.2–14.5) and malapposed struts was 21.8% (8.4–45.6), 8.5% (4.6–15.3), 6.7% (2.5–16.3), and 2.0% (1.2–3.3) for acute, subacute, late, and very late ST, respectively. The most common dominant finding adjudicated for acute ST was uncovered struts (66.7% of cases); for subacute ST, the most common dominant finding was uncovered struts (61.7%) and underexpansion (25.5%); for late ST, the most common dominant finding was uncovered struts (33.3%) and severe restenosis (19.1%); and for very late ST, the most common dominant finding was neoatherosclerosis (31.3%) and uncovered struts (20.2%). In patients presenting very late ST, uncovered stent struts were a common dominant finding in drug-eluting stents, and neoatherosclerosis was a common dominant finding in bare metal stents. Conclusions: In patients with ST, uncovered and malapposed struts were frequently observed with the incidence of both decreasing with longer time intervals between stent implantation and presentation. The most frequent dominant observation varied according to time intervals from index stenting: uncovered struts and underexpansion in acute/subacute ST and neoatherosclerosis and uncovered struts in late/very late ST.

The best interventional strategy for the treatment of drug-eluting stent (DES) in-stent restenosis (ISR) is still unclear and no data from randomized trials beyond 3-year follow-up are available. We aimed to define 10-year comparative efficacy and safety of plain balloon (PB), paclitaxel-coated balloon (PCB), and paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of DES-ISR. Clinical follow-up of patients randomly assigned to PB, PCB, and PES in the ISAR-DESIRE 3 trial was extended to 10 years and events were independently adjudicated. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, target lesion thrombosis, or target lesion revascularization. The major secondary safety endpoint was a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or target lesion thrombosis. The major secondary efficacy endpoint was target lesion revascularization. Incidences by the Kaplan–Meier method were compared by the log-rank test. Risk estimation was primarily performed by Cox proportional hazards regression and supplemented by weighted Cox regression accounting for non-proportional hazards and Royston–Parmar flexible parametric regression with a time-varying coefficient. Primary results were further assessed by landmark, lesion-level, per-protocol, and competing risk analyses. A total of 402 patients (500 lesions) with DES-ISR were randomly assigned to PB angioplasty (134 patients, 160 lesions), PCB angioplasty (137 patients, 172 lesions), and PES implantation (131 patients, 168 lesions). Clinical follow-up did not significantly differ among treatments [PB, 9.62 (4.50–10.02) years; PCB, 10.01 (5.72–10.02) years; PES, 9.08 (3.14–10.02) years; P = 0.300]. At 10 years, the primary composite endpoint occurred in 90 patients (72.0%) assigned to PB, 70 patients (55.9%) assigned to PCB, and 72 patients (62.4%) assigned to PES (P < 0.001). The pairwise comparison between PCB and PES resulted in a non-significant difference [multiplicity-adjusted P = 0.610; Grambsch–Therneau P = 0.004; weighted Cox: hazard ratio (HR) 1.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80–1.51; Cox: HR 1.10, 95% CI 0.79–1.52; Royston–Parmar: HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.72–1.60]. The major secondary safety endpoint occurred in 39 patients (34.1%) assigned to PB, 39 patients (34.0%) assigned to PCB, and 42 patients (40.0%) assigned to PES (P = 0.564). Target lesion revascularization occurred in 71 patients (58.0%) assigned to PB, 55 patients (43.9%) assigned to PCB, and 42 patients (38.6%) assigned to PES (P < 0.0001). The pairwise comparison between PES and PCB resulted in a non-significant difference (multiplicity-adjusted P = 0.282; Grambsch–Therneau P = 0.002; weighted Cox: HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.56–1.22; Cox: HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.54–1.21; Royston–Parmar: HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.47–1.20). Lesion-level and per-protocol analyses were consistent. At landmark analyses, an excess of death and cardiac death associated with PES compared with PCB was observed within 5 years after PCI, though 10-year differences did not formally reach the threshold of statistical significance after adjustment for multiplicity. Competing risk regression confirmed a non-significant difference in target lesion revascularization between PCB and PES and showed an increased risk of death associated with PES compared with PCB. Ten years after PCI for DES-ISR, the primary and major secondary endpoints between PCB and PES were not significantly different. However, an excess of death and cardiac death within 5 years associated with PES and the results of the competing risk analysis are challenging to interpret and warrant further analysis. PES and PCB significantly reduced target lesion revascularization compared with PB. CI, confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio; PB, plain balloon; PCB, paclitaxel-coated balloon; PES, paclitaxel-eluting stent. ^aPrimary composite endpoint: Cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, target lesion thrombosis, or target lesion revascularization. ^bMajor secondary safety endpoint: Cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or target lesion thrombosis. ^cMajor secondary efficacy endpoint: Target lesion revascularization. ^dSecondary composite endpoint: Death, myocardial infarction, target lesion thrombosis, or target lesion revascularization. Values across treatment groups are counts and Kaplan–Meier incidences. The P-values refer to the k-sample log-rank test. Risk estimates for the primary composite endpoint, major secondary efficacy endpoint, and secondary composite endpoint are computed by weighted Cox regression accounting for non-proportional hazards. All the other risk estimates are computed by standard Cox proportional hazards regression.