Three-year clinical outcome of biodegradable hybrid polymer Orsiro sirolimus-eluting stent and the durable biocompatible polymer Resolute Integrity zotarolimus-eluting stent: A randomized controlled trial

Comparative effectiveness of ultrathin vs. standard strut drug-eluting stents: insights from a large-scale meta-analysis with extended follow-up

BACKGROUND

Newer generation ultrathin strut stents are associated with less incidence of target lesion failure (TLF) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the short term. However, its long-term effect on different cardiovascular outcomes remains unknown.

OBJECTIVES

We aim to identify the effects of newer-generation ultrathin-strut stents vs. standard thickness second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) on long-term outcomes of revascularization in coronary artery disease.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library databases, and Scopus for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and registries that compare newer-generation ultrathin-strut (< 70 mm) with thicker strut (> 70 mm) DES to evaluate cardioprotective effects over a period of up to 5 years. Primary outcome was TLF, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction (TVMI) or target lesion revascularization (TLR). Secondary outcomes included the components of TLF, stent thrombosis (ST), and all-cause death were pooled as the standardized mean difference between the two groups from baseline to endpoint.

RESULTS

We included 19 RCTs and two prospective registries (103,101 patients) in this analysis. The overall effect on the primary outcome was in favor of second-generation ultrathin struts stents in terms of TLF at ≥ 1 year, ≥ 2 years, and ≥ 3 years (P value = 0.01, 95% CI [0.75, 0.96]), P value = 0.003, 95% CI [0.77, 0.95]), P value = 0.007, 95% CI [0.76, 0.96]), respectively. However, there was no reported benefit in terms of TLF when we compared the two groups at ≥ 5 years (P value = 0.21), 95% CI [0.85, 1.04]). Some of the reported components of the primary and secondary outcomes, such as TLR, target vessel revascularization (TVR), and TVMI, showed the same pattern as the TLF outcome.

CONCLUSION

Ultrathin-strut DES showed a beneficial effect over thicker strut stents for up to 3 years. However, at the 5-year follow-up, the ultrathin strut did not differ in terms of TLF, TLR, TVR, and TVMI compared with standard-thickness DES, with similar risks of patient-oriented composite endpoint (POCE), MI, ST, cardiac death, and all-cause mortality.

Final 5-year report of BIONYX comparing the thin-composite wire-strut zotarolimus-eluting stent versus ultrathin-strut sirolimus-eluting stent

BACKGROUND

The BIONYX randomized trial is the first study to evaluate the Resolute Onyx durable polymer-coated zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) in all-comers. Furthermore, it is the first trial to assess safety and efficacy of this stent versus the Orsiro biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) in all-comers, paying particular attention to patients with diabetes. It has previously shown promising results until 3 years of follow-up.

AIMS

We aimed to assess long-term clinical outcome after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with Onyx ZES versus Orsiro SES at 5-year follow-up.

METHODS

The main composite endpoint was target vessel failure (TVF): cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization. Time to primary and secondary endpoints was assessed using Kaplan-Meier methods, applying the log-rank test for between-group comparison.

RESULTS

Follow-up was available in 2414/2488 (97.0%) patients. After 5 years, TVF showed no significant difference between Onyx ZES and Orsiro SES (12.7% vs. 13.7%, hazard ratio [HR] 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.75-1.17], plog-rank = 0.55). Landmark analysis between 3- and 5-year follow-up found a lower target lesion revascularization rate for Onyx ZES (1.1% vs. 2.4%, HR 0.47, 95% CI [0.24-0.93], plog-rank = 0.026). A prespecified subgroup analysis showed no significant between-stent difference in clinical outcome among patients with diabetes. After treatment with Onyx ZES, patients aged ≥75 years had significantly lower rates of TVF (13.8% vs. 21.9%, HR 0.60, 95% CI [0.39-0.93], plog-rank = 0.023).

CONCLUSIONS

The final 5-year analysis of the randomized BIONYX trial showed favorable and similar long-term outcomes of safety and efficacy for Onyx ZES and Orsiro SES in both all-comers and patients with diabetes.

Ultra-thin everolimus-eluting stents in atherosclerotic lesions: Three years follow-up with subgroup analysis of ultra-long stents

OBJECTIVES

To assess the long-term (3 years) safety and efficacy of Tetrilimus everolimus-eluting stent (EES) and subgroup analysis of outcomes of ultra-long (44/48 mm) Tetrilimus EES implantation in patients with long coronary lesions.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In this observational, single-centre, single-arm, investigator-initiated registry, 558 patients who underwent implantation of Tetrilimus EES for the treatment of coronary artery disease were retrospectively included. The primary endpoint was occurrence of any major adverse cardiac event (MACE) at 12 months follow-up (composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction [MI], and target lesion revascularization [TLR]) and we hereby report 3 years follow-up data. Stent thrombosis was assessed as a safety endpoint. A subgroup analysis of patients with long coronary lesions is also reported.

RESULTS

A total of 558 patients (57.0 ± 10.2 years) received 766 Tetrilimus EES (1.3 ± 0.5 stents/patient) to treat 695 coronary lesions. In subgroup analysis of 143 patients implanted with ultra-long EES, 155 lesions were intervened successfully with only one Tetrilimus EES (44/48 mm) implanted per lesion. At 3 years, event rates of 9.1% MACE with predominance of MI (4.4%), followed by 2.9% TLR and 1.7% cardiac death, and only 1.0% stent thrombosis were reported in overall population, while in a subgroup of patients implanted with ultra-long EES, 10.4% MACE and 1.5% stent thrombosis were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Three years clinical outcomes showed favourable long-term safety and excellent performance of Tetrilimus EES in high-risk patients and complex coronary lesions in routine clinical practice, including a subgroup of patients with long coronary lesions, with acceptable primary and safety endpoints.

Is There an Advantage of Ultrathin-Strut Drug-Eluting Stents over Second- and Third-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents?

In patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, the second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) are considered the gold standard of care for revascularization. By reducing neointimal hyperplasia, drug-eluting coronary stents decrease the need for repeat revascularizations compared with conventional coronary stents without an antiproliferative drug coating. It is important to note that early-generation DESs were associated with an increased risk of very late stent thrombosis, most likely due to delayed endothelialization or a delayed hypersensitivity reaction to the polymer. Studies have shown a lower risk of very late stent thrombosis with developing second-generation DESs with biocompatible and biodegradable polymers or without polymers altogether. In addition, research has indicated that thinner struts are associated with a reduced risk of intrastent restenosis and angiographic and clinical results. A DES with ultrathin struts (strut thickness of 70 µm) is more flexible, facilitates better tracking, and is more crossable than a conventional second-generation DES. The question is whether ultrathin eluting drug stents suit all kinds of lesions. Several authors have reported that improved coverage with less thrombus protrusion reduced the risk of distal embolization in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Others have described that an ultrathin stent might recoil due to low radial strength. This could lead to residual stenosis and repeated revascularization of the artery. In CTO patients, the ultrathin stent failed to prove non-inferiority regarding in-segment late lumen loss and showed statistically higher rates of restenosis. Ultrathin-strut DESs with biodegradable polymers have limitations when treating calcified (or ostial) lesions and CTOs. However, they also possess certain advantages regarding deliverability (tight stenosis, tortuous lesions, high angulation, etc.), ease of use in bifurcation lesions, better endothelialization and vascular healing, and reducing stent thrombosis risk. In light of this, ultrathin-strut stents present a promising alternative to existing DESs of the second and third generation. The aims of the study are to compare ultrathin eluting stents with second- and third-generation conventional stents regarding procedural performance and outcomes based on different lesion types and specific populations.

How to deal with vessel diameter mismatch in left main bifurcation stenting

Left main coronary artery percutaneous coronary intervention is particularly complex when stenting across the distal bifurcation is required in the presence of a diameter mismatch between the proximal main and distal branches. A suboptimal procedural result increases the risk of thrombosis and restenosis. Considering the paucity of data published on this topic, our objective was to provide technical solutions to deal with this complex anatomy. We described four cases showing the use of devices and techniques which allowed us to overcome a diameter discrepancy between adjacent coronary segments: (1) self-expanding nitinol stent; (2) stent platform with noteworthy expansion capacity; (3) the 'extended skirt' technique; (4) the 'trouser-leg' technique. In conclusion, the use of specific strategies and devices allows a safe and effective approach to be used to perform treatment that respects the coronary anatomy, and to optimize percutaneous coronary intervention results in complex scenarios.

Sirolimus-eluting stents with ultrathin struts versus everolimus-eluting stents for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: final three-year results of the TALENT trial

BACKGROUND

In the TALENT study, the sirolimus-eluting ultrathin strut Supraflex stent was non-inferior to the XIENCE stent for a device-oriented composite endpoint (DoCE: defined as cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction [TV-MI], or clinically indicated target lesion revascularisation [CI-TLR]) at 12 months.

AIMS

This study investigated the 3-year outcomes of the TALENT trial and long-term impact of ultrathin drug-eluting stents (DES), compared to the XIENCE everolimus-eluting thin stent.

METHODS

The TALENT trial is a prospective, multicentre, randomised all-comers trial comparing the Supraflex sirolimus-eluting stent with the XIENCE everolimus-eluting stent, with planned follow-up for 3 years.

RESULTS

The TALENT trial enrolled 1,435 patients (Supraflex n=720, XIENCE n=715) with 3-year follow-up data available in 97.8% in the Supraflex group, and in 98.9% in the XIENCE group. At 3 years, DoCE occurred in 57 patients (8.1%) in the Supraflex group, and in 66 patients (9.4%) in the XIENCE group (p=0.406). There were no significant between-group differences in rates of cardiac death, TV-MI or CI-TLR. The rates of definite or probable stent thrombosis were low and similar between groups (1.1% vs 1.4%; p=0.640). In a meta-analysis of long-term follow-up (3-5 years), ultrathin strut DES tended to reduce DoCE (relative risk 0.89 [0.79-1.01]; p=0.068), compared to thicker strut DES. The risks for cardiac death and definite or probable stent thrombosis were similar between ultrathin strut DES and thicker strut DES.

CONCLUSIONS

At 3-year follow-up, the use of the Supraflex stent was at least as safe and efficacious as the XIENCE stent in an all-comers population.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov: NCT02870140.

A Narrative Review of Ultrathin-strut Drug-eluting Stents: The Thinner the Better?

Second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) are considered standard of care for revascularization of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Besides the polymer and antiproliferative drug used, the metallic backbone of DES is an attractive target for further development. Ultrathin-strut DES (≤70 μm strut thickness) are more flexible, have an improved trackability and crossability compared to conventional second-generation DES. Importantly, ultrathin-strut DES reduce the risk of in-stent restenosis, thereby decreasing the risk of angiographic and clinical restenosis. In this narrative review, we will discuss the clinical outcomes of the commercially available ultrathin-strut DES.

First Report of 3-Year Clinical Outcome After Treatment With Novel Resolute Onyx Stents in the Randomized BIONYX Trial

BACKGROUND

At 1 year, the international randomized BIONYX trial (ClinicalTrials.gov:NCT02508714) established non-inferiority regarding safety and efficacy of the novel Resolute Onyx zotarolimus-eluting stent (RO-ZES) vs. the Orsiro sirolimus-eluting stent (O-SES). Although the RO-ZES is used in daily practice, no clinical results have been published beyond 2 years.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We assessed 3-year clinical outcomes of 2,488 all-comers after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with RO-ZES vs. O-SES. The main endpoint was target vessel failure (TVF), a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction (MI), or target vessel revascularization. Time-to-endpoints was assessed by Kaplan-Meier methods and between-group comparisons by log-rank tests. Follow-up was available in 2,433/2,488 (97.8%) patients. There was no significant between-stent difference in TVF (RO-ZES 112/1,243 [9.2%] vs. O-SES 109/1,245 [8.9%], hazard ratio [HR]: 1.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79-1.34; Plog-rank=0.85) and its individual components. The all-cause mortality was significantly lower after PCI with RO-ZES (3.7% vs.5.4%, HR: 0.67, 95% CI 0.46-0.97; Plog-rank=0.034), but cardiac mortality did not differ significantly (1.1% vs.1.9%, HR: 0.56, 95% CI 0.28-1.11; Plog-rank=0.09). Definite-or-probable stent thrombosis rates were low for both groups (0.6% vs.1.2%, HR: 0.46, 95% CI 0.19-1.14; Plog-rank=0.09).

CONCLUSIONS

This first 3-year randomized assessment of the RO-ZES showed a favorable rate of TVF that matched the outcomes of patients treated with O-SES. We observed a lower rate of all-cause death in the RO-ZES group, but long-term clinical follow-up is of interest.

Clinical outcomes of an ultrathin-strut sirolimus-eluting stent in all-comers population: Thailand Orsiro registry

Background

Despite numerous studies supporting the outperformance of ultrathin-strut bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (Orsiro SES, Biotronik AG), the generalizability of the study results remains unclear in the Asian population. We sought to evaluate the clinical outcomes of the Orsiro SES in unselected Thai population.

Methods

The Thailand Orsiro registry was a prospective, open-label clinical study evaluating all patients with obstructive coronary artery disease implanted with Orsiro SES. The primary endpoint was target lesion failure (TLF) at 12 months. TLF is defined as a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction (TVMI), emergent coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), and clinically driven target lesion revascularization (CD-TLR). Patients with diabetes, small vessels (≤ 2.75 mm), chronic total occlusions (CTOs), and acute myocardial infarction (AMI) were pre-specified subgroups for statistical analysis.

Result

A total of 150 patients with 235 lesions were included in the analysis. Half of the patients (53.3%) presented with AMI, and 24% had diabetes. Among 235 lesions, 93(39.4%) were small vessels, and 24(10.2%) were chronic total occlusions. The primary endpoint, TLF at 12 months, occurred in eight patients (5.3%), predominately caused by cardiac death. By contrast, the incidences of TVMI and CD-TLR were null. The outcomes in pre-specified subgroup were not different from the overall population (all p > 0.05). One definite late stent thrombosis(0.7%) was incidentally observed during primary percutaneous coronary intervention to the non-target vessel.

Conclusion

The safety and efficacy of the ultrathin strut sirolimus-eluting stent in unselected cases are confirmed in the Thailand Orsiro registry. Despite the high proportion of pre-specified high-risk subgroups, the excellent stent performance was consistent with the overall population.

Trial Registration TCTR20190325001.

Long-term follow-up after ultrathin vs. conventional 2nd-generation drug-eluting stents: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

AIMS

Contemporary 2nd-generation thin-strut drug-eluting stents (DES) are considered standard of care for revascularization of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. A previous meta-analysis of 10 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 11 658 patients demonstrated a 16% reduction in the 1-year risk of target lesion failure (TLF) with ultrathin-strut DES compared with conventional 2nd-generation thin-strut DES. Whether this benefit is sustained longer term is not known, and newer trial data may inform these relative outcomes. We therefore sought to perform an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs comparing clinical outcomes with ultrathin-strut DES (≤70 µm strut thickness) with conventional 2nd-generation thin-strut DES.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We performed a random-effects meta-analysis of all RCTs comparing ultrathin-strut DES to conventional 2nd-generation thin-strut DES. The pre-specified primary endpoint was long-term TLF, a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), or clinically driven target lesion revascularization (CD-TLR). Secondary endpoints included the components of TLF, stent thrombosis (ST), and all-cause death. There were 16 eligible trials in which 20 701 patients were randomized. The weighted mean follow-up duration was 2.5 years. Ultrathin-strut DES were associated with a 15% reduction in long-term TLF compared with conventional 2nd-generation thin-strut DES [relative risk (RR) 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76-0.96, P = 0.008] driven by a 25% reduction in CD-TLR (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.62-0.92, P = 0.005). There were no significant differences between stent types in the risks of MI, ST, cardiac death, or all-cause mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

At a mean follow-up of 2.5 years, ultrathin-strut DES reduced the risk of TLF, driven by less CD-TLR compared with conventional 2nd-generation thin-strut DES, with similar risks of MI, ST, cardiac death, and all-cause mortality.

Long term outcomes of ultrathin versus standard thickness second-generation drug eluting stents: Meta-analysis of randomized trials

OBJECTIVE

Identify the effect of ultrathin drug eluting stents on long term outcomes in coronary artery disease.

BACKGROUND

Although second-generation drug eluting stents (DES) are superior to first-generation DES, persistence of adverse outcomes has led to continued refinement in design. Ultrathin second-generation DES have been shown to improve outcomes at 1-year follow-up. Beyond 1-year their effect remains unknown.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Database were searched for randomized controlled trials that compared ultrathin (defined as <70 um) to standard thickness second-generation DES. Studies were chosen according to the PROSPERO protocol (CRD42020185374). Data from randomized controlled trials were pooled using random-effects model (Mantel-Haenszel). The primary outcome was target lesion failure (TLF) at 2 years, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization. Secondary outcomes included TLF at 3 and 5 years, the components of TLF and definite or probable stent thrombosis. Differences in outcomes between groups were presented in Forest plots as risk ratios (RR) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each trial.

RESULTS

We identified 18 publications from 10 trials with14,649 patients. At 2-years there was a significant 12% reduction in TLF (RR, 0.88; 95% CI 0.78-0.99; p < 0.05) associated with the use of ultrathin DES. At 3-years, there was a significant 19% reduction in TLF with ultrathin DES (RR, 0.79; 95% CI 0.64-0.98; p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

In patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, ultrathin DES improve long term clinical outcomes.

Comparison of clinical outcomes between percutaneous coronary intervention for de novo lesions versus in-stent restenosis lesions

In-stent restenosis (ISR) remains the primary concern after a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and is considered to be associated with worse clinical outcomes. However, comparative data on ISR and de novo lesions are rare. Therefore, we aimed to compare PCI-related clinical outcomes between patients with de novo lesions and those with ISR lesions. We undertook a retrospective analysis of patients who had undergone a PCI between 2013 and 2020. The incidences of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) and all-cause death over a 2-year follow-up period were evaluated. In total, 1538 patients were enrolled and divided into two groups: a de novo lesions group (n = 1258, 81.8%) and an ISR lesions group (n = 280, 18.2%). Patients in the ISR lesions group were significantly older, with a higher prevalence of hypertension, diabetes mellitus, dyslipidemia, and chronic kidney disease than those in the de novo lesions group. Kaplan-Meier curves showed no significant between-group differences in the incidence of MACCE (log-rank, p = 0.93) and all-cause death (p = 0.09). After adjustment for other covariates, PCIs for ISR lesions were not found to be significantly associated with MACCE (hazard ratio [HR], 1.10; 95% confidential interval [CI] 0.49-2.49; p = 0.81) and all-cause death (HR, 0.58; 95% CI 0.26-1.31; p = 0.19). PCIs for ISR lesions were not associated with worse clinical outcomes compared with PCIs for de novo lesions.

Cardiovascular Stents: A Review of Past, Current, and Emerging Devices

One of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide is coronary artery disease, a condition characterized by the narrowing of the artery due to plaque deposits. The standard of care for treating this disease is the introduction of a stent at the lesion site. This life-saving tubular device ensures vessel support, keeping the blood-flow path open so that the cardiac muscle receives its vital nutrients and oxygen supply. Several generations of stents have been iteratively developed towards improving patient outcomes and diminishing adverse side effects following the implanting procedure. Moving from bare-metal stents to drug-eluting stents, and recently reaching bioresorbable stents, this research field is under continuous development. To keep up with how stent technology has advanced in the past few decades, this paper reviews the evolution of these devices, focusing on how they can be further optimized towards creating an ideal vascular scaffold.

Times up to demonstrate a difference is current DES platforms

Current generation durable polymer DES have sustained efficacy and safety out to 5 years. The Orsiro DES has both a bioresorbable polymer and ultra thin struts and has the potential to improve the safety of DES. In this all comers trial, 3 year outcomes with Orsiro DES were similar to the durable polymer zotarolimus eluting stent.

Ultrathin-strut biodegradable polymer versus durable polymer drug-eluting stents: a meta-analysis

Objectives

Determine whether an ultrathin biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (‘Orsiro’—BP-SES) has clinical benefits over second-generation durable polymer drug-eluting stents (DP-DES).

Methods

We conducted a prospective systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials comparing Orsiro BP-SES against DP-DES (PROSPERO Registration: CRD42019147136). The primary outcome was target lesion failure (TLF): composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction (TVMI) and clinically indicated target lesion revascularisation (TLR)) evaluated at the longest available follow-up.

Results

Nine trials randomised 11 302 patients to either Orsiro BP-SES or DP-DES. At mean weighted follow-up of 2.8 years, the primary outcome (TLF) occurred in 501 of 6089 (8.2%) participants with BP-SES compared with 495 of 5213 (9.5%) participants with DP-DES. This equates to an absolute risk reduction of 1.3% in TLF in favour of Orsiro BP-SES (OR 0.82; 95% CI 0.69 to 0.98; p=0.03). This was driven by a reduction in TVMI (OR 0.80; 95% CI 0.65 to 0.98; p=0.03). There were no significant differences in other clinical endpoints: cardiac death, TLR and stent thrombosis.

Conclusion

The Orsiro BP-SES shows promising clinical outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention compared with contemporary second-generation DES at a short to medium term follow-up. More research is warranted to evaluate performance over a longer follow-up period and in different clinical and lesion subsets.

Three-year clinical outcome of biodegradable hybrid polymer Orsiro sirolimus-eluting stent and the durable biocompatible polymer Resolute Integrity zotarolimus-eluting stent: A randomized controlled trial

AIMS

We compared long-term clinical outcomes between patients treated with Orsiro sirolimus-eluting stent (O-SES) and those treated with durable biocompatible polymer Resolute Integrity zotarolimus-eluting stent (R-ZES).

METHODS AND RESULTS

The ORIENT trial was a randomized controlled noninferiority trial to compare angiographic outcomes between O-SES and R-ZES. We performed a post hoc analysis of 3-year clinical outcomes and included 372 patients who were prospectively enrolled and randomly assigned to O-SES (n = 250) and R-ZES (n = 122) groups in a 2:1 ratio. The primary endpoint was target lesion failure defined as a composite of cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization. At 3 years, target lesion failure occurred in 4.7% and 7.8% of O-SES and R-ZES groups, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.58; 95% confidence intervals, 0.24-1.41; p = .232 by log-rank test). Secondary endpoints including cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization showed no significant differences between the groups. Stent thrombosis occurred in two patients in R-ZES group (0.0% vs. 1.6%, p = .040).

CONCLUSION

This study confirms long-term safety and efficacy of the two stents. We found a trend for lower target lesion failure with O-SES compared to R-ZES, although statistically insignificant.