Abluminal biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stent versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent (COMPARE II): a randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial

Effect of biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents versus biocompatible polymer everolimus-eluting stents: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Biocompatible polymer everolimus-eluting stents (EES) are associated with risk of stent thrombosis (ST); biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents (BP-DES) were designed to reduce these risks. However, the long-term benefits are not completely clear.

METHOD

We undertook a meta-analysis of randomized studies identified in systematic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database. Primary outcome was the risk of ST.

RESULTS

Twelve studies (11,692 patients) were included. Overall, compared with EES, BP-DES were associated with a broadly equivalent risk of definite and probable ST (OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.55 to 1.50; P = 0.71; I²= 0.0%), early ST (OR, 2.25; 95% CI, 0.78 to 6.47; P = 0.13; I²= 0.0%), late ST (OR, 3.57; 95% CI, 0.42 to 30.58; P = 0.25; I²= 0.0%) and very late ST (OR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.05 to 5.52; P = 0.57). Meanwhile, there was no significant difference in all-cause mortality (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.32; P = 0.54; I²= 0.0%), myocardial infarction (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.30; P = 0.47; I²= 0.0%), target vessel revascularization (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.21; P = 0.80; I²= 12.0%), and major adverse cardiac events (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.16; P = 0.53; I²= 0.0%). Furthermore, angiographic data showed that in-stent and in-segment late luminal loss were similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with biocompatible polymer EES, biodegradable polymer stents appear to have equivalent clinical benefits.

Bioresorbable Polymers and Stent Devices

OPINION STATEMENT

Percutaneous coronary interventions will never become obsolete, as evolution is inherent to interventional cardiology. Current drug-eluting platforms have appreciably improved their safety and efficacy profiles in different clinical settings compared to first-generation devices such that it is difficult to consider other alternatives. However, there is definite biological plausibility to consider devices with bioabsorbable polymers and/or scaffolds. It is also an undeniable fact that many patients, based on variety of belief systems, would prefer not to have a permanently implanted device. BP DES with or without bioresorbable scaffolds offer advantages over durable polymer DES in restoring normal coronary physiology and vascular adaptive responses, resulting in late lumen gain and plaque regression. They will likely allow flexibility in treating complex CAD. However, so far, we have been able to prove non-inferiority in a selected population of patients without long-term data. Is "as good as" good enough? Are we ready to reach for the BRS or a BP DES in our catheterization laboratory based on preclinical and mechanistic data (endothelialization, OCT imaging, vasomotion) with limited human experience? I am not. While I will maximize my efforts to recruit patients in related randomized controlled trials, the technology is not ready for prime time. Randomized controlled trials are needed to determine whether any or all of these devices improve long-term outcome compared to best in class DP DES. Most definitive evidence is likely about a decade away. Until then, we can learn to be disciplined implanters not only in selecting the appropriate patient but also in perfecting implantation techniques.

Nobori-Biolimus-Eluting Stents versus Resolute Zotarolimus-Eluting Stents in Patients Undergoing Coronary Intervention: A Propensity Score Matching

PURPOSE

To compare the 1-year outcomes of a durable polymer Zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) versus a biodegradable polymer Biolimus-eluting stent (BES) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 2083 patients from 2 different registries, 1125 treated with BES in NOBORI registry and 858 received ZES in CONSTANT registry were included in this study. Clinical outcomes were compared with the use of propensity score matching (PSM). The primary endpoint was a composite of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) including cardiac death, myocardial infarction, clinically driven target lesion revascularization and stroke. Secondary end points were individual components of MACCEs as well as the incidence of stent thrombosis at 1-year follow-up.

RESULTS

After PSM, 699 matched pairs of patients (n=1398) showed no significant difference between BES and ZES in the risk of composite MACCEs at 1 year (2.6% vs. 1.7%; p=0.36). Cardiac death was not statistically different between groups (0.7% vs. 0.4%, p=0.73). Target lesion revascularization rate was also similar between BES and ZES (1.1% vs. 0.7%, p=0.579). Non-Q wave myocardial infarction, as well as target-vessel revascularization rate, was similar between the two groups (0.14% for BES and 0.72% for ZES). Both stent types were excellent with no cases of stent thrombosis and rate of Q wave myocardial infarction reported during the follow-up period.

CONCLUSION

In this cohort of patients treated with BES or ZES, the rate of MACCEs at 1 year was low and significantly not different between both groups.

Safety and efficacy of a novel abluminal groove-filled biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent

Late stent thrombosis (LST) following drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) is often associated with delayed vascular healing, resulting from vascular inflammation and hypersensitivity to durable polymers and drugs. Therefore, DES design, materials, and coatings have been technologically revolutionized. Herein, we designed a novel abluminal groove-filled biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (AGF-BP-SES), with a sirolimus content of only about one-third of traditional DES. The mechanical performances of AGF-BP-SES during compression and expansion were investigated. The pharmacokinetic (PK) profile of sirolimus was studied in the swine model. The in vivo efficacy of AGF-BP-SES was compared with that of Xience PRIME^® stent. The results showed that AGF-BP-SES exhibited mechanical properties similar to traditional DES, including the rebound ratio of radial contraction/direction, rebound ratio of axial contraction/direction, and inhomogeneity of compression/expansion. Despite utilizing a reduced dose of sirolimus, AGF-BP-SES delivered sirolimus to the coronary artery in a controlled and efficient manner. The stent maintained a safe and effective local drug concentration without local or systemic risks. In the swine model, histopathological indicators predicted safety and biocompatibility of AGF-BP-SES. In conclusion, AGF-BP-SES maintained similar mechanical properties as other stents while reducing the drug-loading capacity, and showed a favorable safety and efficacy profile of the targeted DES.

Current State of Bioabsorbable Polymer-Coated Drug-Eluting Stents

Drug-eluting stents (DES) have been shown to significantly reduce clinical and angiographic restenosis compared to bare metal stents (BMS). The polymer coatings on DES elute antiproliferative drugs to inhibit intimal proliferation and prevent restenosis after stent implantation. Permanent polymers which do not degrade in vivo may increase the likelihood of stent-related delayed arterial healing or polymer hypersensitivity. In turn, these limitations may contribute to an increased risk of late clinical events. Intuitively, a polymer which degrades after completion of drug release, leaving an inert metal scaffold in place, may improve arterial healing by removing a chronic source of inflammation, neoatherosclerosis, and/or late thrombosis. In this way, a biodegradable polymer may reduce late ischemic events. Additionally, improved healing after stent implantation could reduce the requirement for long-term dual antiplatelet therapy and the associated risk of bleeding and cost. This review will focus on bioabsorbable polymer-coated DES currently being evaluated in clinical trials.

Very thin strut biodegradable polymer everolimus-eluting and sirolimus-eluting stents versus durable polymer zotarolimus-eluting stents in allcomers with coronary artery disease (BIO-RESORT): a three-arm, randomised, non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

In patients with coronary artery disease, treated with durable polymer-coated drug-eluting stents, the life-long presence of the polymer might delay arterial healing. Novel very thin strut biodegradable polymer stents, which leave only a bare metal stent after polymer resorption, might improve long-term outcome. We investigated in allcomers the safety and efficacy of three stents eluting either everolimus, sirolimus, or zotarolimus, often clinically used but never compared, of which the biodegradable polymer everolimus-eluting stent was never before assessed in allcomers.

METHODS

The large-scale, investigator-initiated, multicentre, assessor and patient blinded, three-arm, randomised, BIO-RESORT non-inferiority trial was done at four clinical sites in the Netherlands. All-comer patients were aged 18 years or older, capable of providing informed consent, and required a percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stent implantation according to clinical guidelines or the operators' judgment. Exclusion criteria were: participation in another randomised drug or device study before reaching the primary endpoint of that study; planned surgery necessitating interruption of dual antiplatelet therapy within the first 6 months; known intolerance to components of the investigational product or medication required; uncertainty about the adherence to follow-up procedures or an assumed life expectancy of less than 1 year; or known pregnancy. Web-based computer-generated allocation sequences randomly assigned patients (1:1:1) to treatment with very thin strut biodegradable polymer everolimus-eluting or sirolimus-eluting stents (which differ substantially in type, amount, distribution, and resorption speed of their respective coating), or thin strut durable polymer zotarolimus-eluting stents. The primary endpoint was a composite of safety (cardiac death or target vessel-related myocardial infarction) and efficacy (target vessel revascularisation) at 12 months of follow up with a very thin strut biodegradable polymer of either everolimus-eluting or sirolimus-eluting stents, compared with durable polymer zotarolimus-eluting stents, analysed by intention to treat (non-inferiority margin 3·5%). This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01674803.

FINDINGS

From Dec 21, 2012, to Aug 24, 2015, 3514 patients were enrolled and analysed, of whom 2449 (70%) had acute coronary syndromes, which included 1073 (31%) ST-elevation myocardial infarctions. 12 month follow-up of 3490 (99%) patients (three lost to follow-up; 21 withdrawals) was available. The primary endpoint was met by 55 (5%) of 1172 patients assigned to everolimus-eluting stents, 55 (5%) of 1169 assigned to sirolimus-eluting stents and 63 (5%) of 1173 assigned to zotarolimus-eluting stents. Non-inferiority of the everolimus-eluting stents and sirolimus-eluting stents compared with zotarolimus-eluting stents was confirmed (both -0·7% absolute risk difference, 95% CI -2·4 to 1·1; upper limit of one sided 95% CI 0·8%, p_{non-inferiority}<0·0001). Definite stent thrombosis (defined by the Academic Research Consortium) occurred in four (0·3%) of 1172 patients who were allocated to everolimus-eluting stents, four (0·3%) of 1169 patients who were allocated to sirolimus-eluting stents, and three (0·3%) of 1173 patients who were allocated to zotarolimus-eluting stents (log-rank p=0·70 for both comparisons with zotarolimus-eluting stents).

INTERPRETATION

At 12 month follow-up, both very thin strut drug-eluting stents with dissimilar biodegradable polymer coatings (eluting either everolimus or sirolimus) were non-inferior to the durable polymer stent (eluting zotarolimus) in treating allcomers with a high proportion of patients with acute coronary syndromes. The absence of a loss of 1 year safety and efficacy with the use of these two biodegradable polymer-coated stents is a prerequisite before assessing their potential longer-term benefits.

FUNDING

Biotronik, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic.

Outcomes of Acute Myocardial Infarction Patients Implanted With Biodegradable Polymer Biolimus-Eluting Stents Versus New-Generation Durable Polymer Drug-Eluting Stents: A Retrospective Analysis

We compared outcomes between biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stent (BP-BES) and new-generation durable polymer drug-eluting stent (DP-DES) implantations in patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI). Among 13472 patients with acute MI in a nationwide registry, 557 (64.8%) were in the BP-BES and 303 (35.2%) in the new-generation DP-DES group following coronary reperfusion. The occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE; death, MI, revascularization) and stent thrombosis was compared. Major adverse cardiac events occurred in 53 (6.2%) patients and showed similar rates between the BP-BES and new-generation DP-DES groups (all: 6.6% vs 5.9%, P = .652; propensity score [PS] matched: n = 380, 6.3% vs 5.3%, P = .623). Stent thrombosis did not differ between groups (all: 0.3% vs 0.4%, P = .892; PS matched: 0.5% vs 0.5%, P = 1.000). Major adverse cardiac event-free survival was comparable between groups (all: 93.4% vs 94.1%, log-rank P = .357; PS matched: 93.7% vs 94.7%, log-rank P = .445). Biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stent was not associated with MACE (all: hazard ratio [HR], 1.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75-3.74; P = 0.212; PS matched: HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.40-2.75; P = .915). In conclusion, in patients with acute MI, BP-BES was equivalent to the new-generation DP-DES in terms of outcomes.

Outcome After Myocardial Infarction Treated With Resolute Integrity and Promus Element Stents: Insights From the DUTCH PEERS (TWENTE II) Randomized Trial

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

In acute myocardial infarction (MI), novel highly deliverable drug-eluting stents (DES) may be particularly valuable as their flexible stent designs might reduce device-induced traumas to culprit lesions. The aim of the study was to assess the safety and efficacy of percutaneous coronary interventions with 2 novel durable polymer-coated DES in patients with acute MI.

METHODS

The prospective, randomized DUTCH PEERS (TWENTE II) multicenter trial compares Resolute Integrity and Promus Element stents in 1811 all-comer patients, of whom 817 (45.1%) were treated for ST-segment elevation MI or non-ST-segment elevation MI and the 2-year outcome is available in 99.9%. The primary clinical endpoint is target vessel failure (TVF), a composite of cardiac death, target vessel related MI, or target vessel revascularization.

RESULTS

Of all 817 patients treated for acute MI, 421 (51.5%) were treated with Resolute Integrity and 396 (48.5%) with Promus Element stents. At the 2-year follow-up, the rates of TVF (7.4% vs 6.1%; P = .45), target lesion revascularization (3.1% vs 2.8%; P = .79), and definite stent thrombosis (1.0% vs 0.5%; P = .69) were low for both stent groups. Consistent with these findings in all patients with acute MI, outcomes for the 2 DES were favorable and similar in both, with 370 patients with ST-segment elevation MI (TVF, 5.1% vs 4.9%; P = .81) and 447 patients with non-ST-segment elevation MI (TVF, 9.0% vs 7.5%; P = .56).

CONCLUSIONS

Resolute Integrity and Promus Element stents were both safe and efficacious in treating patients with acute MI. The present 2-year follow-up data underline the safety of using these devices in this particular clinical setting.

An international randomised controlled trial to compare TARGeted Intraoperative radioTherapy (TARGIT) with conventional postoperative radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery for women with early-stage breast cancer (the TARGIT-A trial)

BACKGROUND

Based on our laboratory work and clinical trials we hypothesised that radiotherapy after lumpectomy for breast cancer could be restricted to the tumour bed. In collaboration with the industry we developed a new radiotherapy device and a new surgical operation for delivering single-dose radiation to the tumour bed - the tissues at highest risk of local recurrence. We named it TARGeted Intraoperative radioTherapy (TARGIT). From 1998 we confirmed its feasibility and safety in pilot studies.

OBJECTIVE

To compare TARGIT within a risk-adapted approach with whole-breast external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) over several weeks.

DESIGN

The TARGeted Intraoperative radioTherapy Alone (TARGIT-A) trial was a pragmatic, prospective, international, multicentre, non-inferiority, non-blinded, randomised (1 : 1 ratio) clinical trial. Originally, randomisation occurred before initial lumpectomy (prepathology) and, if allocated TARGIT, the patient received it during the lumpectomy. Subsequently, the postpathology stratum was added in which randomisation occurred after initial lumpectomy, allowing potentially easier logistics and a more stringent case selection, but which needed a reoperation to reopen the wound to give TARGIT as a delayed procedure. The risk-adapted approach meant that, in the experimental arm, if pre-specified unsuspected adverse factors were found postoperatively after receiving TARGIT, EBRT was recommended. Pragmatically, this reflected how TARGIT would be practised in the real world.

SETTING

Thirty-three centres in 11 countries.

PARTICIPANTS

Women who were aged ≥ 45 years with unifocal invasive ductal carcinoma preferably ≤ 3.5 cm in size.

INTERVENTIONS

TARGIT within a risk-adapted approach and whole-breast EBRT.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measure was absolute difference in local recurrence, with a non-inferiority margin of 2.5%. Secondary outcome measures included toxicity and breast cancer-specific and non-breast-cancer mortality.

RESULTS

In total, 3451 patients were recruited between March 2000 and June 2012. The following values are 5-year Kaplan-Meier rates for TARGIT compared with EBRT. There was no statistically significant difference in local recurrence between TARGIT and EBRT. TARGIT was non-inferior to EBRT overall [TARGIT 3.3%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.1% to 5.1% vs. EBRT 1.3%, 95% CI 0.7% to 2.5%; p = 0.04; P_{non-inferiority} = 0.00000012] and in the prepathology stratum (n = 2298) when TARGIT was given concurrently with lumpectomy (TARGIT 2.1%, 95% CI 1.1% to 4.2% vs. EBRT 1.1%, 95% CI 0.5% to 2.5%; p = 0.31; P_{non-inferiority} = 0.0000000013). With delayed TARGIT postpathology (n = 1153), the between-group difference was larger than 2.5% and non-inferiority was not established for this stratum (TARGIT 5.4%, 95% CI 3.0% to 9.7% vs. EBRT 1.7%, 95% CI 0.6% to 4.9%; p = 0.069; P_{non-inferiority} = 0.06640]. The local recurrence-free survival was 93.9% (95% CI 90.9% to 95.9%) when TARGIT was given with lumpectomy compared with 92.5% (95% CI 89.7% to 94.6%) for EBRT (p = 0.35). In a planned subgroup analysis, progesterone receptor (PgR) status was found to be the only predictor of outcome: hormone-responsive patients (PgR positive) had similar 5-year local recurrence with TARGIT during lumpectomy (1.4%, 95% CI 0.5% to 3.9%) as with EBRT (1.2%, 95% CI 0.5% to 2.9%; p = 0.77). Grade 3 or 4 radiotherapy toxicity was significantly reduced with TARGIT. Overall, breast cancer mortality was much the same between groups (TARGIT 2.6%, 95% CI 1.5% to 4.3% vs. EBRT 1.9%, 95% CI 1.1% to 3.2%; p = 0.56) but there were significantly fewer non-breast-cancer deaths with TARGIT (1.4%, 95% CI 0.8% to 2.5% vs. 3.5%, 95% CI 2.3% to 5.2%; p = 0.0086), attributable to fewer deaths from cardiovascular causes and other cancers, leading to a trend in reduced overall mortality in the TARGIT arm (3.9%, 95% CI 2.7% to 5.8% vs. 5.3%, 95% CI 3.9% to 7.3%; p = 0.099]. Health economic analyses suggest that TARGIT was statistically significantly less costly than EBRT, produced similar quality-adjusted life-years, had a positive incremental net monetary benefit that was borderline statistically significantly different from zero and had a probability of > 90% of being cost-effective. There appears to be little uncertainty in the point estimates, based on deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. If TARGIT were given instead of EBRT in suitable patients, it might potentially reduce costs to the health-care providers in the UK by £8-9.1 million each year. This does not include environmental, patient and societal costs.

LIMITATIONS

The number of local recurrences is small but the number of events for local recurrence-free survival is not as small (TARGIT 57 vs. EBRT 59); occurrence of so few events (< 3.5%) also implies that both treatments are effective and any difference is unlikely to be large. Not all 3451 patients were followed up for 5 years; however, more than the number of patients required to answer the main trial question (n = 585) were followed up for > 5 years.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with breast cancer (women who are aged ≥ 45 years with hormone-sensitive invasive ductal carcinoma that is up to 3.5 cm in size), TARGIT concurrent with lumpectomy within a risk-adapted approach is as effective as, safer than and less expensive than postoperative EBRT.

FUTURE WORK

The analyses will be repeated with longer follow-up. Although this may not change the primary result, the larger number of events may confirm the effect on overall mortality and allow more detailed subgroup analyses. The TARGeted Intraoperative radioTherapy Boost (TARGIT-B) trial is testing whether or not a tumour bed boost given intraoperatively (TARGIT) boost is superior to a tumour bed boost given as part of postoperative EBRT.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN34086741 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00983684.

FUNDING

University College London Hospitals (UCLH)/University College London (UCL) Comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre, UCLH Charities, Ninewells Cancer Campaign, National Health and Medical Research Council and German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF). From September 2009 this project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 73. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Two-year clinical outcomes of Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold implantation in complex coronary artery disease patients stratified by SYNTAX score and ABSORB II study enrolment criteria

AIMS

This study presents the two-year clinical outcomes of the Amsterdam ABSORB registry stratified by lesion and patient characteristics complexity (SYNTAX score and ABSORB II study enrolment criteria).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients treated with BVS were included in this prospective registry and stratified according to the ABSORB II trial inclusion and exclusion criteria and the SYNTAX score. The registry comprises 135 patients (59±11 years, 73% male, 18% diabetic) with 159 lesions. Median follow-up duration was 774 days (742-829). Median SYNTAX score was 11.5 (Q1-Q3: 6-17.5). Two-year event rates were cardiac death 0.7%, MI 5.3%, TVR 13.6%, TLR 11.4%, definite ST 3.0% and TVF 14.4%, respectively. Stratified analyses showed a significantly higher revascularisation rate in patients not meeting ABSORB II criteria (TVR: 2.3% vs. 19.2%, p=0.010, and TLR: 2.3% vs. 15.8%, p=0.025) and patients with SYNTAX score ≥11.5 (TVR: 4.8% vs. 21.8%, p=0.006, and TLR: 3.2% vs. 17.4%, p=0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of Absorb BVS in patients meeting the ABSORB II trial inclusion criteria or those with low SYNTAX scores is associated with acceptable clinical outcomes at two-year follow-up. Patients with more complex characteristics have significantly higher revascularisation rates.

Randomized evaluation of short-term dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome treated with the COMBO dual therapy stent: rationale and design of the REDUCE trial

BACKGROUND

The optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients treated with drug eluting stents (DES) is still under debate. Recent meta-analyses on ≤6months versus 12months DAPT suggest that bleeding rates can be reduced, without a higher rate of thrombotic complications. In particular, the COMBO dual therapy stent, being associated with early re-endothelialization, may allow for a reduction of the duration of DAPT without increasing the thrombotic risk, while reducing the risk of bleeding complications.

AIM

The aim of the REDUCE trial is to demonstrate the non-inferiority of a combined efficacy and safety endpoint of a short-term 3months DAPT strategy as compared to standard 12-month DAPT strategy in ACS patients treated with the COMBO stent.

DESIGN

A prospective, multicenter, randomized study designed to enroll 1500 patients with ACS treated with the COMBO stent. Patients will be randomized before discharge in a 1:1 fashion to either 3 or 12months of DAPT. A clinical follow-up is scheduled at 3, 6, 12, and 24months. The primary endpoint is the time to event as defined by the occurrence of one of the following: all cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, stroke, target vessel revascularization or bleeding (Bleeding Academic Research Council type II, III and V) within 12months. The study has recruited patients since July 2014, and the results are expected in 2017.

SUMMARY

A reduction of the DAPT duration in ACS patients after PCI without affecting the thrombotic risk is an attractive option with regard to the associated bleeding risk. The REDUCE trial will be the first to investigate the efficacy and safety of a 3-month DAPT strategy compared to a 12-month DAPT strategy in an ACS only population treated with the COMBO stent.

Long-term outcomes of biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stents versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Both biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stents (BP-BES) and biocompatible durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP-EES) have been developed to decrease the risk of late adverse events. However, their efficacy and safety beyond 1year after stent deployment still remain controversial.

METHODS

We conducted a meta-analysis on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing BP-BES with DP-EES in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in long-term follow up (beyond 1year), and compared the pooled estimates with those in mid-term follow up (within 1year).

RESULTS

Eight RCTs were included in this meta-analysis. The risks in BP-BES versus DP-EES of death (odds ratio (OR): 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.86-1.31, p=0.557 for long-term; OR: 1.09, 95% CI: 0.76-1.56, p=0.645 for mid-term), myocardial infarction (OR: 1.06, 95% CI: 0.84-1.35, p=0.628 for long-term; OR: 1.04, 95% CI: 0.81-1.33, p=0.778 for mid-term), and definite or probable stent thrombosis (OR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.51-1.57, p=0.695 for long-term; OR: 1.36, 95% CI: 0.66-2.81, p=0.400 for mid-term) were comparable in each follow up, respectively. In contrast, the risk of target vessel revascularization (TVR) tended to be higher in BP-BES as compared to DP-EES in long-term follow up (OR: 1.15, 95% CI: 0.97-1.37, p=0.098 for long-term; OR: 1.09, 95% CI: 0.87-1.36, p=0.447 for mid-term).

CONCLUSIONS

Although the overall clinical outcomes were similar between BP-BES and DP-EES, BP-BES may be associated with higher risk of TVR up to 3years after stent deployment compared with DP-EES. Further studies are warranted in larger populations of patients during longer-term follow up.

Final 3-Year Outcome of a Randomized Trial Comparing Second-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents Using Either Biodegradable Polymer or Durable Polymer: NOBORI Biolimus-Eluting Versus XIENCE/PROMUS Everolimus-Eluting Stent Trial

BACKGROUND

There is a paucity of data reporting the clinical outcomes of biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stent (BP-BES) compared with durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent (DP-EES) beyond 1 year after stent implantation when the polymer is fully degraded.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The NOBORI Biolimus-Eluting Versus XIENCE/PROMUS Everolimus-Eluting Stent Trial (NEXT) is a prospective, multicenter, randomized, open-label, noninferiority trial comparing BP-BES with DP-EES in patients scheduled for percutaneous coronary intervention using drug-eluting stent (DES) without any exclusion criteria among 98 participating centers in Japan. The trial was designed to evaluate noninferiority of BP-BES relative to DP-EES in terms of any target-lesion revascularization at 1 year and death or myocardial infarction at 3 years. Between May and October 2011, 3235 patients were randomly assigned to receive either BP-BES (1617 patients) or DP-EES (1618 patients). Complete 3-year follow-up was achieved in 97.6% of patients. At 3 years, the primary safety end point of death or myocardial infarction occurred in 159 patients (9.9%) in the BP-BES group and in 166 patients (10.3%) in the DP-EES group, demonstrating noninferiority of BP-BES relative to DP-EES (P noninferiority<0.0001 and P superiority=0.7). Cumulative incidence of target-lesion revascularization was not significantly different between the 2 groups (7.4% versus 7.1%; P=0.8). By a landmark analysis at 1 year, the cumulative incidences of death or myocardial infarction and target-lesion revascularization were also not significantly different between the 2 groups (4.6% versus 5.2%; P=0.46 and 3.3% versus 2.7%; P=0.39, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Safety and efficacy outcomes of BP-BES were non inferior to those of DP-EES 3 years after stent implantation.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01303640.

Clinical Impact of Intravascular Ultrasound-Guided Chronic Total Occlusion Intervention With Zotarolimus-Eluting Versus Biolimus-Eluting Stent Implantation: Randomized Study

BACKGROUND

There have been no randomized studies comparing intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-guided versus conventional angiography-guided chronic total occlusion (CTO) intervention using new-generation drug-eluting stent Therefore, we conducted a prospective, randomized, multicenter trial designed to test the hypothesis that IVUS-guided CTO intervention is superior to angiography-guided intervention.

METHODS AND RESULTS

After successful guidewire crossing, 402 patients with CTOs were randomized to the IVUS-guided group (n=201) or the angiography-guided group (n=201) and secondarily randomized to Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stents or Nobori biolimus-eluting stents. The primary and secondary end points were cardiac death and a major adverse cardiac event defined as the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target-vessel revascularization, respectively. After 12-month follow-up, the rate of cardiac death was not significantly different between the IVUS-guided group (0%) and the angiography-guided group (1.0%; P by log-rank test=0.16). However, major adverse cardiac event rates were significantly lower in the IVUS-guided group than that in the angiography-guided group (2.6% versus 7.1%; P=0.035; hazard ratio, 0.35; 95% confidence interval, 0.13-0.97). Occurrence of the composite of cardiac death or myocardial infarction was significantly lower in the IVUS-guided group (0%) than in the angiography-guided group (2.0%; P=0.045). The rates of target-vessel revascularization were not significantly different between the 2 groups. In the comparison between Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stent and Nobori biolimus-eluting stent, major adverse cardiac event rates were not significantly different (4.0% versus 5.7%; P=0.45).

CONCLUSIONS

Although IVUS-guided CTO intervention did not significantly reduce cardiac mortality, this randomized study demonstrated that IVUS-guided CTO intervention might improve 12-month major adverse cardiac event rate after new-generation drug-eluting stent implantation when compared with conventional angiography-guided CTO intervention.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01563952.

Biodegradable-Polymer Biolimus-Eluting Stents versus Durable-Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stents at One-Year Follow-Up: A Registry-Based Cohort Study

We compared outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention patients who received biodegradable-polymer biolimus-eluting stents with those who received durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stents. At Tehran Heart Center, we performed a retrospective analysis of the data from January 2007 through December 2011 on 3,270 consecutive patients with coronary artery disease who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention with the biodegradable-polymer biolimus-eluting stent or the durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stent. We excluded patients with histories of coronary artery bypass grafting or percutaneous coronary intervention, acute ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction, or the implantation of 2 different stent types. Patients were monitored for 12 months. The primary endpoint was a major adverse cardiac event, defined as a composite of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and target-vessel and target-lesion revascularization. Durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stents were implanted in 2,648 (81%) and biodegradable-polymer biolimus-eluting stents in 622 (19%) of the study population. There was no significant difference between the 2 groups (2.7% vs 2.7%; P=0.984) in the incidence of major adverse cardiac events. The cumulative adjusted probability of major adverse cardiac events in the biodegradable-polymer biolimus-eluting stent group did not differ from that of such events in the durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stent group (hazard ratio=0.768; 95% confidence interval, 0.421-1.44; P=0.388). We conclude that in our patients the biodegradable-polymer biolimus-eluting stent was as effective and safe, during the 12-month follow-up period, as was the durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stent.

Can Platforms Affect the Safety and Efficacy of Drug-Eluting Stents in the Era of Biodegradable Polymers?: A Meta-Analysis of 34,850 Randomized Individuals

Objective

In the era of bare metal stents (BMSs), alloys have been considered to be better materials for stent design than stainless steel. In the era of biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents (BP-DESs), the safety and efficacy of BP-DESs with different metal platforms (stainless steel or alloys) have not yet been reported, although their polymers are eventually absorbed, and only the metal platforms remain in the body. This study sought to determine the clinical safety and efficacy of BP-DESs with different platforms compared with other stents (other DESs and BMSs).

Methods

PubMed, Embase and Clinical Trials.gov were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared BP-DESs with other stents. After performing pooled analysis of BP-DESs and other stents, we performed a subgroup analysis using two classification methods: stent platform and follow-up time. The study characteristics, patient characteristics and clinical outcomes were abstracted.

Results

Forty RCTs (49 studies) comprising 34,850 patients were included. Biodegradable polymer stainless drug-eluting stents (BP-stainless DESs) were superior to the other stents [mainly stainless drug-eluting stents (DESs)] in terms of pooled definite/probable stent thrombosis (ST) (OR [95% CI] = 0.76[0.61–0.95], p = 0.02), long-term definite/probable ST (OR [95% CI] = 0.73[0.57–0.94], p = 0.01), very late definite/probable ST (OR [95% CI] = 0.56[0.33–0.93], p = 0.03) and long-term definite ST. BP-stainless DESs had lower rates of pooled, mid-term and long-term target vessel revascularization (TVR) and target lesion revascularization (TLR) than the other stainless DESs and BMSs. Furthermore, BP-stainless DESs were associated with lower rates of long-term death than other stainless DESs and lower rates of mid-term myocardial infarction than BMSs. However, only the mid-term and long-term TVR rates were superior in BP-alloy DESs compared with the other stents.

Conclusion

Our results indirectly suggest that BP-stainless DESs may offer more benefits than BP-alloy DESs in the era of BP-DESs. Further well-designed RCTs comparing BP-stainless with BP-alloy DESs are needed to confirm which platform is better.

Two-Year Safety and Efficacy of Biodegradable Polymer Drug-Eluting Stent Versus Second-Generation Durable Polymer Drug-Eluting Stent in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction: Data from the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry (KAMIR)

BACKGROUND

Despite improved long-term safety of biodegradable polymer (BP) drug-eluting stents (DES) compared to first-generation durable polymer (DP) DES, data on the safety and efficacy of BP-DES compared with second-generation (2G) DP-DES in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) are limited.

HYPOTHESIS

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of BP-DES compared with 2G-DP-DES in the higher stent thrombosis (ST) risk setting of AMI.

METHODS

A total of 3359 AMI patients who received either BP-DES (n = 261) or 2G-DP-DES (n = 3098) were included from the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry (KAMIR). Differences in baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics were adjusted using a 1:5 propensity score matching analysis (n = 261 for BP-DES and n = 1305 for 2G-DP-DES). The primary outcome was the incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) including all-cause death, recurrent myocardial infarction (re-MI), and target vessel revascularization (TVR). The rate of definite or probable ST was also investigated.

RESULTS

In adjusted analysis, there was no significant difference between the 2 groups in baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics; 2-year MACE (10.7% and 9.9% in the BP-DES group and 2G-DP-DES group, respectively, P = 0.679); ST incidence (0.8% vs 0.9%, respectively, P = 1.0), and rates of all-cause death, re-MI, and TVR. By multivariate analysis, old age, diabetes mellitus, renal dysfunction, and left ventricular dysfunction were the independent predictors of MACE after BP-DES or 2G-DP-DES implantation.

CONCLUSIONS

BP-DES and 2G-DP-DES appear to have comparable 2-year safety and efficacy for the treatment of AMI. However, longer-term follow-up is needed.

Biodegradable polymer stents vs second generation drug eluting stents: A meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized controlled trials

AIM: To evaluate the premise, that biodegradable polymer drug eluting stents (BD-DES) could improve clinical outcomes compared to second generation permanent polymer drug eluting stents (PP-DES), we pooled the data from all the available randomized control trials (RCT) comparing the clinical performance of both these stents.

METHODS: A systematic literature search of PubMed, Cochrane, Google scholar databases, EMBASE, MEDLINE and SCOPUS was performed during time period of January 2001 to April 2015 for RCT and comparing safety and efficacy of BD-DES vs second generation PP-DES. The primary outcomes of interest were definite stent thrombosis, target lesion revascularization, myocardial infarction, cardiac deaths and total deaths during the study period.

RESULTS: A total of 11 RCT’s with a total of 12644 patients were included in the meta-analysis, with 6598 patients in BD-DES vs 6046 patients in second generation PP-DES. The mean follow up period was 16 mo. Pooled analysis showed non-inferiority of BD-DES, comparing events of stent thrombosis (OR = 1.42, 95%CI: 0.79-2.52, P = 0.24), target lesion revascularization (OR = 0.99, 95%CI: 0.84-1.17, P = 0.92), myocardial infarction (OR = 1.06, 95%CI: 0.86-1.29, P = 0.92), cardiac deaths (OR = 1.07, 95%CI 0.82-1.41, P = 0.94) and total deaths (OR = 0.96, 95%CI: 0.80-1.17, P = 0.71).

CONCLUSION: BD-DES, when compared to second generation PP-DES, showed no significant advantage and the outcomes were comparable between both the groups.

The EXCEL and NOBLE trials: similarities, contrasts and future perspectives for left main revascularisation

Unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) stenosis has relatively high prevalence and exposes patients to a high risk for adverse cardiovascular events. The optimal revascularisation strategy (coronary artery bypass surgery [CABG] or percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI]) for patients with complex coronary artery disease is a topic of continuing debate. The introduction of the newer-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) -with documented improvements in both safety and efficacy- has prompted the interventional community to design two new dedicated randomised trials comparing CABG and PCI: the NOBLE (Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Vs Drug Eluting Stent Percutaneous Coronary Angioplasty in the Treatment of Unprotected Left Main Stenosis) and EXCEL (Evaluation of XIENCE Everolimus Eluting Stent Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization) trials. The aims of the present review are to describe the similarities and contrasts between these two trials as well to explore their future implications in ULMCA treatment.

Drug Eluting Stents for Malignant Airway Obstruction: A Critical Review of the Literature

Lung cancer being the most prevalent malignancy in men and the 3(rd) most frequent in women is still associated with dismal prognosis due to advanced disease at the time of diagnosis. Novel targeted therapies are already on the market and several others are under investigation. However non-specific cytotoxic agents still remain the cornerstone of treatment for many patients. Central airways stenosis or obstruction may often complicate and decrease quality of life and survival of these patients. Interventional pulmonology modalities (mainly debulking and stent placement) can alleviate symptoms related to airways stenosis and improve the quality of life of patients. Mitomycin C and sirolimus have been observed to assist a successful stent placement by reducing granuloma tissue formation. Additionally, these drugs enhance the normal tissue ability against cancer cell infiltration. In this mini review we will concentrate on mitomycin C and sirolimus and their use in stent placement.

Favorable outcomes in octogenarians treated with bioresorbable polymer drug-eluting stent

AIM

As a result of a higher prevalence of comorbidities, elderly adults are often underrepresented in clinical trials, and more often experience complications during percutaneous coronary intervention. Our aim was to evaluate clinical outcomes of patients older than 80 years, compared with their younger counterparts, when bioresorbable polymer biolimus A9 drug-eluting stent is used for their treatment.

METHODS

The prospective, observational e-Nobori registry was created to validate the safety and efficacy of bioresorbable polymer drug-eluting stent in unselected patients. The primary end-point of the study was freedom from target lesion failure defined as a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction and clinically-driven target lesion revascularization at 1 year.

RESULTS

There were 781 (7.8%) octogenarians, they were less frequently male (62% vs 77%; P < 0.0001) and more often presented as acute coronary syndrome (44% vs 39%; P = 0.0182). The index percutaneous coronary intervention success was lower in the elderly patients (98% vs 99%; P = 0.0398). One-year follow up was completed for 97% of the elderly patients and 99% of the younger patients. The difference in target lesion failure (3.33% vs 2.83%; log-rank P = 0.0114) was mainly driven by increased mortality in octogenarians (3.73% vs 1.47%; P < 0.0001). Elderly patients had more bleeding and vascular complications (2.67% vs 1.05%; P = 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite advanced age, multiple comorbidities and complexity of treated lesions, clinical outcomes are favorable in octogenarians treated by bioresorbable polymer biolimus A9 drug-eluting stent. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2016; 16: 1246-1253.

Clinical performance of a novel ultrathin strut, low-dose, sirolimus-eluting stent with abluminal-only biodegradable polymeric coating for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in the daily practice

BACKGROUND

The present study aimed to evaluate the clinical performance, in the daily practice of a busy catheterization laboratory, of a novel drug-eluting stent (DES) built with an ultra-thin-strut metallic platform, eluting sirolimus at low doses, abluminal coated with biodegradable polymers, and mounted in a low-compliant delivery system.

METHODS

Prospective, single-arm study, comprising all consecutive patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with the Inspiron™ sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) (Scitech, Aparecida de Goiania, Brazil). The primary endpoint was the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) [cardiac death, non-PCI related myocardial infarction (MI), or target vessel revascularization (TVR)].

RESULTS

A total of 470 patients were included, from which 51.3% were diabetics, 33.8% had triple-vessel disease, 15.3% had heart failure, 38.9% had at least one bifurcation treated, 19.8% were treated for a bare metal stent restenosis, and 61.9% had at least one type C lesion; one or more of these features were found in 96.0%. At 300 days, the rate target lesion revascularization was 5.4% and the rate of MACE was 8.1%. The incidence of definite or probable stent thrombosis was 0.4%, with no cases between 30 and 300 days.

CONCLUSIONS

The novel stent is associated with excellent short and mid-term clinical outcomes in patients treated with PCI in the daily practice.

Drug-eluting stents: the past, present, and future

Since the advent of percutaneous coronary intervention, enormous advances have been made in the treatment of coronary artery disease. Angioplasty and bare metal stents were plagued by high rates of restenosis leading to repeat revascularization procedures. Examination of the underlying pathophysiology of restenosis led to the development of drug-eluting stents to reduce neointimal hyperplasia. However, as restenosis rates declined, length of dual antiplatelet therapy use and risk of long-term stent thrombosis associated with drug-eluting stents increased. Subsequent generations have improved each facet of stent design. Novel alloys maintain durability and reduce strut thickness to increase deliverability, biocompatible polymers decrease the inflammatory response and improve drug elution kinetics, and new generations of drugs predictably inhibit restenosis. Developments on the horizon include stents with bioabsorbable polymers and platforms. The purpose of this review is to assess the evolution of stent design and the evidence behind each generation and to peer into the future of stent technology.

Coronary Artery Vessel Healing Pattern, Short and Long Term, After Implantation of the Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold

BACKGROUND

Although the Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold is increasingly used in daily clinical practice for the treatment of coronary artery disease, the exact vascular healing pattern and the resorption process in humans is unknown because histological data are derived only from animal studies.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We have obtained 4 autopsies (5 scaffolds) since August 2013. Duration of bioresorbable vascular scaffold implantation ranged from 3 to 501 days. All autopsies and histological assessments were performed by dedicated cardiovascular pathologists. At 1 week after bioresorbable vascular scaffold implantation, struts were covered with a fine layer of fibrin and platelets. At 113 days, the scaffold struts were fully covered with smooth muscle cells. Hyaline eosinophilic and proteoglycan material infiltrating the scaffold struts was observed at 501 days after implantation. At all time points, we observed the presence of multinuclear foreign body giant cells adjacent to the scaffold struts.

CONCLUSIONS

Resorption and healing processes after bioresorbable vascular scaffold implantation in human patients mirror those observed in porcine models. The presence of multinucleated foreign body giant cells at both short- and long-term follow-up needs further investigation and may be related to a low-grade absorptive inflammatory response to the polymer.

Mid-term clinical outcomes of ABSORB bioresorbable vascular scaffold implantation in a real-world population: A single-center experience

BACKGROUND

Available data on the use of the ABSORB bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA) in real-world patients is limited. The aim of this study was to assess the mid-term clinical outcomes in a real-world population treated with ABSORB BVS.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We retrospectively evaluated all patients treated with ABSORB at Papworth Hospital, Papworth Everard, UK between July 2012 and July 2014. A total of 108 patients (126 lesions) were identified. Clinical follow-up was performed on all subjects by clinic visit or telephone interview.

RESULTS

Most patients were male (91.7%) with a relative high incidence of previous myocardial infarction (MI) (40.7%). Clinical presentation was equally divided between stable angina and acute coronary syndrome (ACS) (51.8% vs. 48.2%, p=0.59). Of the ACS patients, 26.9% presented with ST-elevation myocardial MI. Intravascular imaging was used in all cases. Predilatation (92.9%) and postdilatation (82.5%) were frequently performed. Major adverse cardiac event (MACE) rates defined as the composite of all-cause death, follow-up MI and target vessel revascularization were 2.5% at 6-month and 4.5% at 1-year. The 1-year target lesion failure rate, defined as the composite of cardiac death, target-vessel MI and target lesion revascularization was 1.9%. There was 1 case of subacute stent thrombosis.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of ABSORB BVS in real-world patients appears to be associated with good mid-term clinical outcomes when guided by intravascular imaging. Larger studies are required to evaluate further the role of BVS in routine clinical practice and examine how this compares to metallic devices.

SUMMARY

Available data on the use of the ABSORB BVS in real-world patients is limited. We retrospectively evaluated all patients treated with ABSORB BVS between July 2012 and July 2014. A total of 108 patients (126 lesions) were identified. Clinical presentation was equally divided between stable angina and acute coronary syndrome (51.8% vs. 48.2%, p=0.59). Predilatation (92.9%) and postdilatation (82.5%) were frequently performed. Estimated MACE rates at 6-month and 1-year were 2.5% and 4.5% respectively, with a 1-year TLF rate of 1.9%. These results suggest that the use of ABSORB BVS use in the real-world is associated with good mid-term clinical outcomes when guided by intravascular imaging.

Comparison of endothelium-dependent and -independent vasomotor response after abluminal biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stent and persistent polymer everolimus-eluting stent implantation (COMPARE-IT)

BACKGROUND

Drug-eluting stents (DES) have been associated with local endothelial dysfunction in the segments proximal and distal to the stent (peristent segments) and increased thrombotic risk in long term follow-up. Little data exists on endothelial function post-implantation of new DES with biodegradable polymer. The aim of our study was to compare the local endothelial function assessed by exercise induced coronary vasomotion after implantation of a biolimus A9-eluting stent with biodegradable polymer (BES) with an everolimus-eluting stent with durable polymer (EES).

METHODS

Coronary vasomotion was evaluated with quantitative coronary angiography at rest and during supine bicycle exercise in nine patients with EES and thirteen patients with BES, 16 months after stent implantation. Mean luminal diameter of the stent, peristent segments, and of a control vessel were determined at rest, during exercise, and after the administration of nitroglycerine.

RESULTS

The control vessel showed exercise-induced vasodilatation in both groups (EES: +6.4±5.5%, p=0.07; BES: +7.8±10.1%, p=0.07). Vasomotion in the stented vessel segment was abolished. There was exercise-induced vasoconstriction in both groups in the segments proximal (EES: -9.6±4.5%; p=0.03; BES: -4.3±5.4%, p=0.02) and distal to the stent (EES: -3.2±9.3%; p=0.41, BES -8.6±8.0%, p<0.01). Sublingual nitroglycerin was associated with maximal vasodilatation of the peristent segments in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Alike DES with durable polymer, stents with a biodegradable polymer are associated with exercise-induced paradoxical coronary vasoconstriction of the peristent segments. This data suggests that endothelial dysfunction after DES implantation is not primarily caused by the durability of the polymer coating.

Harmonizing Optimal Strategy for Treatment of coronary artery diseases--comparison of REDUCtion of prasugrEl dose or POLYmer TECHnology in ACS patients (HOST-REDUCE-POLYTECH-ACS RCT): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Antiplatelet treatment is an important component in optimizing the clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) especially in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Prasugrel, which is a new P2Y12 inhibitor, has been confirmed as efficacious in a large trial in Western countries, and a similar trial is also to be launched in Asian countries. Although a 60-mg loading dose of prasugrel followed by 10 mg per day should be acceptable, there have been no data regarding the optimal dose in Asian patients. Furthermore, serum levels of prasugrel and the rates of platelet inhibition are known to be higher in Asians than Caucasians with the same dose of the drug.

Polymer, a key component of drug-eluting stents (DES), has been suggested as the cause of inflammation leading to late complications, and has driven many companies to develop biodegradable-polymer DES. Currently, there are limited data regarding the head-to-head comparison between BP-BES and the biostable polymer CoCr-EES or the newest platinum-chromium everolimus-eluting stent (PtCr-EES). Furthermore, the polymer issue may be more important in ACS where there is ruptured thrombotic plaque where polymer-induced inflammation may affect the local milieu of the stented artery.

Therefore, the present study dedicated only to ACS patients, will offer important information on the optimal prasugrel dose in the Asian population by comparing a 10-mg versus a 5-mg maintenance dose beyond 1 month after PCI, as well as giving important insight into the polymer issue by comparing BP-BES versus biostable-polymer PtCr-EES.

Method/Design

Harmonizing Optimal Strategy for Treatment of coronary artery diseases – comparison of REDUCtion of prasugrEl dose or POLYmer TECHnology in ACS patients (HOST-REDUCE-POLYTECH-ACS) trial is a multicenter, randomized and open-label clinical study with a 2 × 2 factorial design, according to the type of stent (PtCr-EES versus BP-BES) and prasugrel maintenance dose (5 mg versus 10 mg), to demonstrate non-inferiority of PtCr-EES relative to BP-BES or the reduced prasugrel dose relative to conventional dose in an Asian all-comers PCI population presenting with ACS. Approximately 3400 patients will undergo prospective, random assignment separately to either stent or prasugrel arm (1:1 ratio, respectively). When the patients have contraindications to prasugrel, they are categorized into an antiplatelet observation group after stent-randomization. The primary endpoint is the patient-oriented composite outcome, which is a composite of all-cause mortality, any myocardial infarction (MI), any repeat revascularization in the stent arm at 12 months after index PCI. In the prasugrel arm, primary endpoint is any major adverse cardiovascular event, which is a composite of all-cause mortality, any MI, any stent thrombosis (Academic Research Consortium (ARC)-defined), any repeat revascularization, stroke, or bleeding (BARC class ≥ 2).

Discussion

The HOST-REDUCE-POLYTECH-ACS RCT is the first study exploring the optimal maintenance dose of prasugrel beyond 1 month after PCI for ACS in Asian all-comers. In addition, this is the largest study dedicated only to ACS patients to evaluate the polymer issue in the situation of ACS by directly comparing biostable-polymer PtCr-EES versus BP-BES.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov (ID: NCT02193971, 13 July 2014).