Modifying effect of dual antiplatelet therapy on incidence of stent thrombosis according to implanted drug-eluting stent type

Aim To investigate the putative modifying effect of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) use on the incidence of stent thrombosis at 3 years in patients randomized to Endeavor zotarolimus-eluting stent (E-ZES) or Cypher sirolimus-eluting stent (C-SES). Methods and results Of 8709 patients in PROTECT, 4357 were randomized to E-ZES and 4352 to C-SES. Aspirin was to be given indefinitely, and clopidogrel/ticlopidine for ≥3 months or up to 12 months after implantation. Main outcome measures were definite or probable stent thrombosis at 3 years. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was applied, with stent type, DAPT, and their interaction as the main outcome determinants. Dual antiplatelet therapy adherence remained the same in the E-ZES and C-SES groups (79.6% at 1 year, 32.8% at 2 years, and 21.6% at 3 years). We observed a statistically significant (P = 0.0052) heterogeneity in treatment effect of stent type in relation to DAPT. In the absence of DAPT, stent thrombosis was lower with E-ZES vs. C-SES (adjusted hazard ratio 0.38, 95% confidence interval 0.19, 0.75; P = 0.0056). In the presence of DAPT, no difference was found (1.18; 0.79, 1.77; P = 0.43). Conclusion A strong interaction was observed between drug-eluting stent type and DAPT use, most likely prompted by the vascular healing response induced by the implanted DES system. These results suggest that the incidence of stent thrombosis in DES trials should not be evaluated independently of DAPT use, and the optimal duration of DAPT will likely depend upon stent type (Clinicaltrials.gov number NCT00476957

Patterns of alcohol consumption among individuals with alcohol use disorder during the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdowns in Germany

Objective: To examine whether lockdown measures are associated with AC and consumption-related temporal and psychological within-person mechanisms. Design, setting, and participants: This quantitative, intensive, longitudinal cohort study recruited 1743 participants from 3 sites from February 20, 2020, to February 28, 2021. Data were provided before and within the second lockdown of the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany: before lockdown (October 2 to November 1, 2020); light lockdown (November 2 to December 15, 2020); and hard lockdown (December 16, 2020, to February 28, 2021). Main outcomes and measures: Daily ratings of AC (main outcome) captured during 3 lockdown phases (main variable) and temporal (weekends and holidays) and psychological (social isolation and drinking intention) correlates. Results: Of the 1743 screened participants, 189 (119 [63.0%] male; median [IQR] age, 37 [27.5-52.0] years) with at least 2 alcohol use disorder (AUD) criteria according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fifth Edition) yet without the need for medically supervised alcohol withdrawal were included. These individuals provided 14 694 smartphone ratings from October 2020 through February 2021. Multilevel modeling revealed significantly higher AC (grams of alcohol per day) on weekend days vs weekdays (β = 11.39; 95% CI, 10.00-12.77; P < .001). Alcohol consumption was above the overall average on Christmas (β = 26.82; 95% CI, 21.87-31.77; P < .001) and New Year's Eve (β = 66.88; 95% CI, 59.22-74.54; P < .001). During the hard lockdown, perceived social isolation was significantly higher (β = 0.12; 95% CI, 0.06-0.15; P < .001), but AC was significantly lower (β = -5.45; 95% CI, -8.00 to -2.90; P = .001). Independent of lockdown, intention to drink less alcohol was associated with lower AC (β = -11.10; 95% CI, -13.63 to -8.58; P < .001). Notably, differences in AC between weekend and weekdays decreased both during the hard lockdown (β = -6.14; 95% CI, -9.96 to -2.31; P = .002) and in participants with severe AUD (β = -6.26; 95% CI, -10.18 to -2.34; P = .002). Conclusions and relevance: This 5-month cohort study found no immediate negative associations of lockdown measures with overall AC. Rather, weekend-weekday and holiday AC patterns exceeded lockdown effects. Differences in AC between weekend days and weekdays evinced that weekend drinking cycles decreased as a function of AUD severity and lockdown measures, indicating a potential mechanism of losing and regaining control. This finding suggests that temporal patterns and drinking intention constitute promising targets for prevention and intervention, even in high-risk individuals

OCT or Angiography Guidance for PCI in Complex Bifurcation Lesions

Imaging-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is associated with better clinical outcomes than angiography-guided PCI. Whether routine optical coherence tomography (OCT) guidance in PCI of lesions involving coronary-artery branch points (bifurcations) improves clinical outcomes as compared with angiographic guidance is uncertain.We conducted a multicenter, randomized, open-label trial at 38 centers in Europe. Patients with a clinical indication for PCI and a complex bifurcation lesion identified by means of coronary angiography were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to OCT-guided PCI or angiography-guided PCI. The primary end point was a composite of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as death from a cardiac cause, target-lesion myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization at a median follow-up of 2 years.We assigned 1201 patients to OCT-guided PCI (600 patients) or angiography-guided PCI (601 patients). A total of 111 patients (18.5%) in the OCT-guided PCI group and 116 (19.3%) in the angiography-guided PCI group had a bifurcation lesion involving the left main coronary artery. At 2 years, a primary end-point event had occurred in 59 patients (10.1%) in the OCT-guided PCI group and in 83 patients (14.1%) in the angiography-guided PCI group (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.50 to 0.98; P=0.035). Procedure-related complications occurred in 41 patients (6.8%) in the OCT-guided PCI group and 34 patients (5.7%) in the angiography-guided PCI group.Among patients with complex coronary-artery bifurcation lesions, OCT-guided PCI was associated with a lower incidence of MACE at 2 years than angiography-guided PCI. (Funded by Abbott Vascular and others; OCTOBER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03171311.)

OCT or Angiography Guidance for PCI in Complex Bifurcation Lesions.

BACKGROUND: Imaging-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is associated with better clinical outcomes than angiography-guided PCI. Whether routine optical coherence tomography (OCT) guidance in PCI of lesions involving coronary-artery branch points (bifurcations) improves clinical outcomes as compared with angiographic guidance is uncertain. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized, open-label trial at 38 centers in Europe. Patients with a clinical indication for PCI and a complex bifurcation lesion identified by means of coronary angiography were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to OCT-guided PCI or angiography-guided PCI. The primary end point was a composite of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as death from a cardiac cause, target-lesion myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization at a median follow-up of 2 years. RESULTS: We assigned 1201 patients to OCT-guided PCI (600 patients) or angiography-guided PCI (601 patients). A total of 111 patients (18.5%) in the OCT-guided PCI group and 116 (19.3%) in the angiography-guided PCI group had a bifurcation lesion involving the left main coronary artery. At 2 years, a primary end-point event had occurred in 59 patients (10.1%) in the OCT-guided PCI group and in 83 patients (14.1%) in the angiography-guided PCI group (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.50 to 0.98; P = 0.035). Procedure-related complications occurred in 41 patients (6.8%) in the OCT-guided PCI group and 34 patients (5.7%) in the angiography-guided PCI group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with complex coronary-artery bifurcation lesions, OCT-guided PCI was associated with a lower incidence of MACE at 2 years than angiography-guided PCI. (Funded by Abbott Vascular and others; OCTOBER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03171311.)