AIMS: To evaluate the impact of diabetes mellitus on the outcomes of patients undergoing PCI with sirolimus-coated balloon (SCB) MagicTouch (Concept Medical, India).

METHODS: We conducted a subgroup analysis of the prospective, multicenter, investigator-initiated EASTBOURNE registry, evaluating the performance of MagicTouch SCB in patients with and without diabetes. The study primary endpoint was target lesion revascularization (TLR) at 12-month follow-up. Secondary clinical endpoints were major adverse clinical events (MACE), death, myocardial infarction (MI), and BARC 2-5 bleedings.

RESULTS: Among 2,083 enrolled patients, a total of 864 suffered from diabetes (41.5%). Patients with diabetes had a numerically higher occurrence of TLR (6.5% vs. 4.7% HR 1.38, 95%CI 0.91-2.08), all-cause death (3.8% vs. 2.6%, HR 1.81, 95%CI 0.95-3.46), and MACE (12.2% vs. 8.9%; HR 1.26 95%CI 0.92-1.74). The incidence of spontaneous MI was significantly higher among diabetic patients (3.4% vs. 1.5%, HR 2.15 95%CI 1.09-4.25); bleeding events did not significantly differ. The overall incidence of TLR was higher among in-stent restenosis (ISR) as compared to de-novo coronary lesions, irrespectively from diabetes status.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to understand the role of a novel SCB for the treatment of coronary artery disease.

METHODS: EASTBOURNE (All-Comers Sirolimus-Coated Balloon European Registry) is a prospective, multicenter, investigator-driven clinical study that enrolled real-world patients treated with SCB. Primary endpoint was target lesion revascularization (TLR) at 12 months. Secondary endpoints were procedural success, myocardial infarction (MI), all-cause death, and major adverse clinical events (a composite of death, MI, and TLR). All adverse events were censored and adjudicated by an independent clinical events committee.

RESULTS: A total population of 2,123 patients (2,440 lesions) was enrolled at 38 study centers in Europe and Asia. The average age was 66.6 ± 11.3 years, and diabetic patients were 41.5%. De novo lesions (small vessels) were 56%, in-stent restenosis (ISR) 44%, and bailout stenting occurred in 7.7% of the patients. After 12 months, TLR occurred in 5.9% of the lesions, major adverse clinical events in 9.9%, and spontaneous MI in 2.4% of the patients. The rates of cardiac/all-cause death were 1.5% and 2.5%, respectively. The primary outcome occurred more frequently in the ISR cohort (10.5% vs 2.0%; risk ratio: 1.90; 95% CI: 1.13-3.19). After multivariate Cox regression model, the main determinant for occurrence of the primary endpoint was ISR (OR: 5.5; 95% CI: 3.382-8.881).

AIMS: Our study aimed to evaluate the performance of a sirolimus DCB in large coronary arteries.

METHODS: We analyzed all the procedures included in the EASTBOURNE Registry (NCT03085823) enrolling patients with a clinical indication to percutaneous coronary intervention performed by a sirolimus DCB according to investigator judgment. In the present analysis, a cut-off of 2.75 mm was used to define large coronary arteries. Primary endpoint of the study was clinically driven target lesion revascularization (TLR) at 24 months whereas secondary endpoint included procedural success, myocardial infarction (MI), cardiac death and total mortality.

RESULTS: Among the 2123 patients and 2440 lesions enrolled in the EASTBOURNE study between 2016 and 2020, 757 patients/810 lesions fulfilled the criteria for the present analysis. Mean reference vessel diameter was 3.2 ± 0.3 mm with mean lesion length of 22 ± 7 mm. Procedural success was high (96%) and at 2-year follow up the device showed a good efficacy with a TLR rate of 9%. There were 34 deaths (4.5%), 30 MIs (4%) and 8 BARC type 3-5 bleedings (1.1%). In-stent restenosis (629 lesions) and de novo lesions (181) were associated with 11% and 4% rates of TLR at 2 years, respectively (p = 0.003).

OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of rapamycin or rapalogs in people with TSC for decreasing tumour size and other manifestations and to assess the safety of rapamycin or rapalogs in relation to their adverse effects.

SEARCH METHODS: We identified relevant studies from the Cochrane-Central-Register-of-Controlled-Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE and ongoing trials registries with no language restrictions. We searched conference proceedings and abstract books of conferences. Date of the last searches: 15 July 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of rapamycin or rapalogs in people with TSC.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of each study; a third review author verified the extracted data and risk of bias decisions. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS: The current update added seven RCTs, bringing the total number to 10 RCTs (with 1008 participants aged 3 months to 65 years; 484 males). All TSC diagnoses were by consensus criteria as a minimum. In parallel studies, 645 participants received active interventions and 340 placebo. Evidence is low-to-high certainty and study quality is mixed; mostly a low risk of bias across domains, but one study had a high risk of performance bias (lack of blinding) and three studies had a high risk of attrition bias. Manufacturers of the investigational products supported eight studies. Systemic administration Six studies (703 participants) administered everolimus (rapalog) orally. More participants in the intervention arm reduced renal angiomyolipoma size by 50% (risk ratio (RR) 24.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.51 to 173.41; P = 0.001; 2 studies, 162 participants, high-certainty evidence). In the intervention arm, more participants in the intervention arm reduced SEGA tumour size by 50% (RR 27.85, 95% CI 1.74 to 444.82; P = 0.02; 1 study; 117 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) ,and reported more skin responses (RR 5.78, 95% CI 2.30 to 14.52; P = 0.0002; 2 studies; 224 participants; high-certainty evidence). In one 18-week study (366 participants), the intervention led to 25% fewer seizures (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.27 to 2.09; P = 0.0001) or 50% fewer seizures (RR 2.28, 95% CI 1.44 to 3.60; P = 0.0004); but there was no difference in numbers being seizure-free (RR 5.30, 95% CI 0.69 to 40.57; P = 0.11) (moderate-certainty evidence). One study (42 participants) showed no difference in neurocognitive, neuropsychiatry, behavioural, sensory and motor development (low-certainty evidence). Total adverse events (AEs) did not differ between groups (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.22; P = 0.16; 5 studies; 680 participants; high-certainty evidence). However, the intervention group experienced more AEs resulting in withdrawal, interruption of treatment, or reduced dose (RR 2.61, 95% CI 1.58 to 4.33; P = 0.0002; 4 studies; 633 participants; high-certainty evidence and also reported more severe AEs (RR 2.35, 95% CI 0.99 to 5.58; P = 0.05; 2 studies; 413 participants; high-certainty evidence). Topical (skin) administration Four studies (305 participants) administered rapamycin topically. More participants in the intervention arm showed a response to skin lesions (RR 2.72, 95% CI 1.76 to 4.18; P < 0.00001; 2 studies; 187 participants; high-certainty evidence) and more participants in the placebo arm reported a deterioration of skin lesions (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.49; 1 study; 164 participants; high-certainty evidence). More participants in the intervention arm responded to facial angiofibroma at one to three months (RR 28.74, 95% CI 1.78 to 463.19; P = 0.02) and three to six months (RR 39.39, 95% CI 2.48 to 626.00; P = 0.009; low-certainty evidence). Similar results were noted for cephalic plaques at one to three months (RR 10.93, 95% CI 0.64 to 186.08; P = 0.10) and three to six months (RR 7.38, 95% CI 1.01 to 53.83; P = 0.05; low-certainty evidence). More participants on placebo showed a deterioration of skin lesions (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.49; P < 0.0001; 1 study; 164 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The intervention arm reported a higher general improvement score (MD -1.01, 95% CI -1.68 to -0.34; P < 0.0001), but no difference specifically in the adult subgroup (MD -0.75, 95% CI -1.58 to 0.08; P = 0.08; 1 study; 36 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Participants in the intervention arm reported higher satisfaction than with placebo (MD -0.92, 95% CI -1.79 to -0.05; P = 0.04; 1 study; 36 participants; low-certainty evidence), although again with no difference among adults (MD -0.25, 95% CI -1.52 to 1.02; P = 0.70; 1 study; 18 participants; low-certainty evidence). Groups did not differ in change in quality of life at six months (MD 0.30, 95% CI -1.01 to 1.61; P = 0.65; 1 study; 62 participants; low-certainty evidence). Treatment led to a higher risk of any AE compared to placebo (RR 1.72, 95% CI 1.10, 2.67; P = 0.02; 3 studies; 277 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); but no difference between groups in severe AEs (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.19 to 3.15; P = 0.73; 1 study; 179 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).

METHODS: The objective of this study is to determine the safety and efficacy of a novel crystalline sirolimus-coated balloon (cSCB) technology in an unselective, international, large-scale patient population. Percutaneous coronary interventions of native stenosis, in-stent stenosis, and chronic total occlusions with the SCB in patients with stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndrome were included. The primary outcome variable is the target lesion failure (TLF) rate at 12 months, defined as the composite rate of target vessel myocardial infarction (TV-MI), cardiac death or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (TLR). The secondary outcome variables include TLF at 24 months, ischemia driven TLR at 12 and 24 months and all-cause death, cardiac death at 12 and 24 months.

DISCUSSION: Since there is a wealth of patient-based all-comers data for iPCB available for this study, a propensity-score matched analysis is planned to compare cSCB and iPCB for the treatment of de novo and different types of ISR. In addition, pre-specified analyses in challenging lesion subsets such as chronic total occlusions will provide evidence whether the two balloon coating technologies differ in their clinical benefit for the patient.

BACKGROUND: Drug-eluting stents have limited restenosis and reintervention but are complicated by late and very late thrombosis and accelerated neoatherosclerosis. Alternative or adjunctive technologies are needed to address these limitations.

METHODS: A total of 183 patients with de novo lesions in native coronary arteries were randomized 2:1 to Combo (n = 124) or Taxus Liberté (n = 59). Primary endpoint was 9 month angiographic in-stent late lumen loss and the secondary endpoint was the occurrence of major adverse events (MACE) through 5-year follow-up.

RESULTS: Compared with Taxus, after 5 years the Combo stent was associated with similar rates of MACE (18.3% vs. 16.9%, p = .89), cardiac death (0.8% vs. 5.1%, p = .07), myocardial infarction (4.1% vs. 3.4%, p = .81), target lesion (9.4% vs. 10.2%, p = .78), and target vessel revascularization (14.4% vs. 11.9%, p = .73). No cases of definite stent thrombosis were reported in the Combo group. The follow-up rate at 5 years was 97.7%.

BACKGROUND: The current generation of bioresorbable scaffolds has several limitations, such as thick square struts with large footprints that preclude their deep embedment into the vessel wall, resulting in protrusion into the lumen with microdisturbance of flow. The Mirage sirolimus-eluting bioresorbable microfiber scaffold is designed to address these concerns.

METHODS: In this prospective, single-blind trial, 60 patients were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to treatment with a Mirage sirolimus-eluting bioresorbable microfiber scaffold or an Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold. The clinical endpoints were assessed at 30 days and at 6 and 12 months. In-device angiographic late loss at 12 months was quantified. Secondary optical coherence tomographic endpoints were assessed post-scaffold implantation at 6 and 12 months.

RESULTS: Median angiographic post-procedural in-scaffold minimal luminal diameters of the Mirage and Absorb devices were 2.38 mm (interquartile range [IQR]: 2.06 to 2.62 mm) and 2.55 mm (IQR: 2.26 to 2.71 mm), respectively; the effect size (d) was -0.29. At 12 months, median angiographic in-scaffold minimal luminal diameters of the Mirage and Absorb devices were not statistically different (1.90 mm [IQR: 1.57 to 2.31 mm] vs. 2.29 mm [IQR: 1.74 to 2.51 mm], d = -0.36). At 12-month follow-up, median in-scaffold late luminal loss with the Mirage and Absorb devices was 0.37 mm (IQR: 0.08 to 0.72 mm) and 0.23 mm (IQR: 0.15 to 0.37 mm), respectively (d = 0.20). On optical coherence tomography, post-procedural diameter stenosis with the Mirage was 11.2 ± 7.1%, which increased to 27.4 ± 12.4% at 6 months and remained stable (31.8 ± 12.9%) at 1 year, whereas the post-procedural optical coherence tomographic diameter stenosis with the Absorb was 8.4 ± 6.6%, which increased to 16.6 ± 8.9% and remained stable (21.2 ± 9.9%) at 1-year follow-up (Mirage vs. Absorb: dpost-procedure = 0.41, d6 months = 1.00, d12 months = 0.92). Angiographic median in-scaffold diameter stenosis was significantly different between study groups at 12 months (28.6% [IQR: 21.0% to 40.7%] for the Mirage, 18.2% [IQR: 13.1% to 31.6%] for the Absorb, d = 0.39). Device- and patient-oriented composite endpoints were comparable between the 2 study groups.

BACKGROUND: SES may provide a valuable option to treat distal ULM, particularly when significant caliber gaps with side branches are observed.

METHODS: Patients from the multicenter SPARTA (clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02784405) and FAILS2 registries were included. Propensity-score with matching was performed to account for the lack of randomization. Primary end-point was the rate of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE, a composite of all cause death, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization [TLR], unstable angina and definite stent thrombosis [ST]). Single components of MACE were the secondary end-points.

RESULTS: Overall, 151 patients treated with SES and 1270 with DES-II were included; no differences in MACE rate at 250 days were observed (9.8% vs. 11.5%, P = 0.54). After propensity score with matching, 129 patients treated with SES and 258 with DES-II, of which about a third of female gender, were compared. After a follow-up of 250 days, MACE rate did not differ between the two groups (9.9% vs. 8.5%, P = 0.66), as well as the rate of ULM TLR (1.6% vs. 3.1%, P = 0.36) and definite ST (0.8% vs. 1.2%, P = 0.78). These results were consistent also when controlling for the treatment with provisional vs. 2-stents strategies for the ULM bifurcation.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis (ISR) remains challenging. PCBs are an established treatment option outside the United States with a Class I, Level of Evidence: A recommendation in the European guidelines. However, their efficacy is better in bare-metal stent (BMS) ISR compared with drug-eluting stent (DES) ISR.

METHODS: Fifty patients with DES ISR were enrolled in a randomized, multicenter trial to compare a novel SCB (SeQuent SCB, 4 μg/mm2) with a clinically proven PCB (SeQuent Please Neo, 3 μg/mm2) in coronary DES ISR. The primary endpoint was angiographic late lumen loss at 6 months. Secondary endpoints included procedural success, major adverse cardiovascular events, and individual clinical endpoints such as stent thrombosis, cardiac death, target lesion myocardial infarction, clinically driven target lesion revascularization, and binary restenosis.

RESULTS: Quantitative coronary angiography revealed no differences in baseline parameters. After 6 months, in-segment late lumen loss was 0.21 ± 0.54 mm in the PCB group versus 0.17 ± 0.55 mm in the SCB group (p = NS; per-protocol analysis). Clinical events up to 12 months also did not differ between the groups.

METHODS: Patient-level data from two all-comers observational studies (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT02629575 and NCT02905214) were pooled and analyzed in terms of their primary endpoint. During the data verification process, we observed substantial deviations from DAPT guideline recommendations. To illuminate this gap between clinical practice and guideline recommendations, we conducted a post hoc analysis of DAPT regimens and clinical event rates for which we defined the net adverse event rate (NACE) consisting of target lesion revascularization (TLR, primary endpoint of all-comers observational studies) all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), stent thrombosis (ST), and bleeding events. A logistic regression was utilized to determine predictors why ticagrelor was used in stable coronary artery disease (CAD) patients instead of the guideline-recommended clopidogrel.

BACKGROUND: Recently published randomized trials comparing BMS to DES with a focus on shortened dual-antiplatelet therapy reported incidences of stent thrombosis (ST) and bleeding complications (LEADERS FREE) in favor of drug eluting stents (DES).

METHODS: Data of previously published large-sale, international, single-armed, multicenter, observational studies of ultra-thin PF-SES, and BMS were propensity score (PS) matched for selected lesion morphological and cardiovascular risk factors to compare target lesion revascularization (TLR), myocardial infarction, cardiac death, major adverse cardiac events (MACE), bleeding complications and ST rates. Primary endpoint in both studies was TLR at 9 months.

RESULTS: At 9 months the rates of TLR was significantly lower in the PF-SES group as compared with patients treated with the BMS analogue of identical stent design (1.4% vs. 4.6%, P = 0.005). Likewise the 9-month MACE rates were lower in the PF-SES group (3.2% vs. 8.7%, P = 0.001) whereas there were no differences in the accumulated ST rates (0.5% vs. 1.5%, P = 0.109). Overall accumulated bleeding incidences (BARC 1-5) were not significantly different between PF-SES and BMS patients (1.8% vs. 2.7%, p = 0.388).

OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of rapamycin or rapalogs in people with tuberous sclerosis complex for decreasing tumour size and other manifestations and to assess the safety of rapamycin or rapalogs in relation to their adverse effects.

SEARCH METHODS: Relevant studies were identified by authors from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE, and clinicaltrials.gov. Relevant resources were also searched by the authors, such as conference proceedings and abstract books of conferences, from e.g. the Tuberous Sclerosis Complex International Research Conferences, other tuberous sclerosis complex-related conferences and the Human Genome Meeting. We did not restrict the searches by language as long as English translations were available for non-English reports.Date of the last searches: 14 March 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized or quasi-randomized studies of rapamycin or rapalogs in people with tuberous sclerosis complex.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were independently extracted by two authors using standard acquisition forms. The data collection was verified by one author. The risk of bias of each study was independently assessed by two authors and verified by one author.

MAIN RESULTS: Three placebo-controlled studies with a total of 263 participants (age range 0.8 to 61 years old, 122 males and 141 females, with variable lengths of study duration) were included in the review. We found high-quality evidence except for response to skin lesions which was judged to be low quality due to the risk of attrition bias. Overall, there are 175 participants in the treatment arm (rapamycin or everolimus) and 88 in the placebo arm. Participants all had tuberous sclerosis complex as proven by consensus diagnostic criteria as a minimum. The quality in the description of the study methods was mixed, although we assessed most domains as having a low risk of bias. Blinding of treatment arms was successfully carried out in all of the studies. However, two studies did not report allocation concealment. Two of the included studies were funded by Novartis Pharmaceuticals.Two studies (235 participants) used oral (systemic) administration of everolimus (rapalog). These studies reported response to tumour size in terms of the number of individuals with a reduction in the total volume of tumours to 50% or more relative to baseline. Significantly more participants in the treatment arm (two studies, 162 participants, high quality evidence) achieved a 50% reduction in renal angiomyolipoma size, risk ratio 24.69 (95% confidence interval 3.51 to 173.41) (P = 0.001). For the sub-ependymal giant cell astrocytoma, our analysis of one study (117 participants, high quality evidence) showed significantly more participants in the treatment arm achieved a 50% reduction in tumour size, risk ratio 27.85 (95% confidence interval 1.74 to 444.82) (P = 0.02). The proportion of participants who showed a skin response from the two included studies analysed was significantly increased in the treatment arms, risk ratio 5.78 (95% confidence interval 2.30 to 14.52) (P = 0.0002) (two studies, 224 participants, high quality evidence). In one study (117 participants), the median change of seizure frequency was -2.9 in 24 hours (95% confidence interval -4.0 to -1.0) in the treatment group versus -4.1 in 24 hour (95% confidence interval -10.9 to 5.8) in the placebo group. In one study, one out of 79 participants in the treatment group versus three of 39 in placebo group had increased blood creatinine levels, while the median percentage change of forced expiratory volume at one second in the treatment arm was -1% compared to -4% in the placebo arm. In one study (117 participants, high quality evidence), we found that those participants who received treatment had a similar risk of experiencing adverse events compared to those who did not, risk ratio 1.07 (95% confidence interval 0.96 - 1.20) (P = 0.24). However, as seen from two studies (235 participants, high quality evidence), the treatment itself led to significantly more adverse events resulting in withdrawal, interruption of treatment, or reduction in dose level, risk ratio 3.14 (95% confidence interval 1.82 to 5.42) (P < 0.0001).One study (28 participants) used topical (skin) administration of rapamycin. This study reported response to skin lesions in terms of participants' perception towards their skin appearance following the treatment. There was a tendency of an improvement in the participants' perception of their skin appearance, although not significant, risk ratio 1.81 (95% confidence interval 0.80 to 4.06, low quality evidence) (P = 0.15). This study reported that there were no serious adverse events related to the study product and there was no detectable systemic absorption of the rapamycin during the study period.