Key result
Moderate/severe coronary lesion calcification was not independently associated with increased target-lesion failure at 2 years compared to none/mild calcification (aHR 1.37; 95% CI 0.89-2.08; P=0.148).
Why the study?
Percutaneous coronary intervention of calcified lesions was associated with worse outcomes historically, but data with newer-generation drug-eluting stents were scarce.
Does moderate/severe coronary lesion calcification increase the risk of target-lesion failure in patients undergoing PCI with newer-generation drug-eluting stents?
Cohort (n=2,361)
Yes
Does moderate/severe coronary lesion calcification increase the risk of target-lesion failure in patients undergoing PCI with newer-generation drug-eluting stents?
Hazard Ratio: 1.37 (95% CI 0.89–2.08)
Absolute Event Rate: 13.5% vs 8.4%
p-value: p=0.148
In patients receiving newer-generation drug-eluting stents, moderate/severe lesion calcification independently predicts target-vessel myocardial infarction but not overall target-lesion failure.
Moderate/severe calcification should not yet change PCI strategy for TLF risk; leaves open its independent link to TV-MI.
Background Percutaneous coronary intervention of calcified lesions was associated with worse outcomes in the era of bare‐metal and first‐generation drug‐eluting stents. Data on percutaneous coronary intervention of calcified lesions with newer‐generation drug‐eluting stents are scarce. Therefore, we investigated the impact of lesion calcification on clinical outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with a bioresorbable‐polymer sirolimus‐eluting stent or a durable‐polymer everolimus‐eluting stent. Methods and Results Patients (n=2361) from BIOFLOW II, IV, and V trials were categorized into moderate/severe versus none/mild lesion calcification by a core laboratory. End points were target‐lesion failure (TLF) (cardiac death, target‐vessel myocardial infarction, or target‐lesion revascularization) and probable/definite stent thrombosis at 2 years. The agreement in calcification assessment between the operator and the core laboratory was weak (weighted κ, 0.23). Patients with moderate/severe calcification (n=303; 16%) had higher TLF (13.5% versus 8.4%; P =0.003) and stent thrombosis rates (2.1% versus 0.2%; P <0.0001), whereas target‐lesion revascularization was not different between the groups (5.0% versus 3.9%; P =0.302). After adjustment, calcification did not emerge as an independent predictor of TLF (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.37; 95% CI, 0.89–2.08; P =0.148) but did for target‐vessel myocardial infarction (aHR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.03–2.68; P =0.037). TLF rates were similar between bioresorbable‐polymer sirolimus‐eluting stent and durable‐polymer everolimus‐eluting stent (12.6% versus 15.4%, P =0.482) in moderate/severe calcification. In none/mild calcification, the bioresorbable‐polymer sirolimus‐eluting stent showed lower TLF (7.5% versus 10.3%, P =0.045). Conclusions With newer‐generation drug‐eluting stents, moderate/severe lesion calcification was not associated with more TLF after adjustment for the higher risk of patients with coronary calcification, whereas the rate of target‐vessel myocardial infarction was higher. The bioresorbable‐polymer sirolimus‐eluting stent and durable‐polymer everolimus‐eluting stent were equally effective and safe in calcified lesions. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifiers: NCT01356888, NCT01939249, NCT02389946.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hemetsberger et al. (2021) conducted a cohort in Calcified coronary lesions (n=2,361). Moderate/severe lesion calcification vs. None/mild lesion calcification was evaluated on Target-lesion failure (cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or target-lesion revascularization) at 2 years (aHR 1.37, 95% CI 0.89-2.08, p=0.148). Moderate/severe coronary lesion calcification was not independently associated with increased target-lesion failure at 2 years compared to none/mild calcification (aHR 1.37; 95% CI 0.89-2.08; P=0.148).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: