The relationship of pre-procedural Dmax based sizing to lesion level outcomes in Absorb BVS and Xience EES treated patients in the AIDA trial

Endovascular Drug Delivery

Drug-eluting stents (DES) and balloons revolutionize atherosclerosis treatment by targeting hyperplastic tissue responses through effective local drug delivery strategies. This review examines approved and emerging endovascular devices, discussing drug release mechanisms and their impacts on arterial drug distribution. It emphasizes the crucial role of drug delivery in modern cardiovascular care and highlights how device technologies influence vascular behavior based on lesion morphology. The future holds promise for lesion-specific treatments, particularly in the superficial femoral artery, with recent CE-marked devices showing encouraging results. Exciting strategies and new patents focus on local drug delivery to prevent restenosis, shaping the future of interventional outcomes. In summary, as we navigate the ever-evolving landscape of cardiovascular intervention, it becomes increasingly evident that the future lies in tailoring treatments to the specific characteristics of each lesion. By leveraging cutting-edge technologies and harnessing the potential of localized drug delivery, we stand poised to usher in a new era of precision medicine in vascular intervention.

Ultrathin-strut vs thin-strut drug-eluting stents for multi and single-stent lesions: A lesion-level subgroup analysis of 2 randomized trials

BACKGROUND

Whether ultrathin-strut stents are particularly beneficial for lesions requiring implantation of more than 1 stent is unknown.

METHODS

In a post-hoc lesion-level analysis of 2 randomized trials comparing ultrathin-strut biodegradable polymer Sirolimus-eluting stents (BP-SES) vs thin-strut durable polymer Everolimus-eluting stents (DP-EES), lesions were stratified into multistent lesions (MSL) vs single-stent lesions (SSL). The primary endpoint was target lesion failure (TLF), a composite of lesion-related unclear/cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), or revascularization, at 24 months.

RESULTS

Among 5328 lesions in 3397 patients, 1492 (28%) were MSL (722 with BP-SES, 770 with DP-EES). At 2 years, TLF occurred in 63 lesions (8.9%) treated with BP-SES and 60 lesions (7.9%) treated with DP-EES in the MSL-group (subdistibution hazard ratio [SHR], 1.13; 95% CI, 0.77-1.64; P = .53), and in 121 (6.4%) and 136 (7.4%) lesions treated with BP-SES and DP-EES respectively (SHR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.62-1.18; P = .35) in the SSL-group (P for interaction = .241). While the rates of lesion-related MI or revascularization were significantly lower in SSL treated with BP-SES as compared to DP-EES (3.5% vs 5.2%; SHR, 0.67; 95% CI 0.46-0.97; P = .036), no significant difference was observed in MSL (7.1% vs 5.4%; SHR, 1.31; 95% CI 0.85-2.03; P = .216) with significant interaction between groups (P for interaction = .014).

CONCLUSIONS

Rates of TLF are similar between ultrathin-strut BP-SES and thin-strut DP-EES in MSL and SSL. The use of ultrathin-strut BP-SES vs thin-strut DP-EES did not prove to be particularly beneficial for the treatment of multistent lesions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Post-hoc analysis from the BIOSCIENCE (NCT01443104) and BIOSTEMI (NCT02579031) trials.

Vascular Lesion-Specific Drug Delivery Systems: JACC State-of-the-Art Review

Drug delivery is central to modern cardiovascular care, where drug-eluting stents, bioresorbable scaffolds, and drug-coated balloons all aim to restore perfusion while inhibiting exuberant healing. The promise and enthusiasm of these devices has in some cases exceeded demonstration of efficacy and even understanding of driving mechanisms. The authors review the means of drug delivery in each device, outlining how the technologies affect vascular behavior. They focus on how drug retention and response are governed by lesion morphology: lipid displacing drug-specific binding sites, calcium inhibiting diffusion, blocking thrombi or promoting luminal washout, and vascular healing steering hyperplastic developments. In this regard, the authors outline the fundamental impact of vascular structure on drug delivery and review the development of contemporary and future devices for coronary and peripheral intervention. They look toward a future where incorporating information on lesion distribution is central to therapeutic success and envision a transition toward lesion-specific treatment for improved interventional outcomes.

Three-year clinical outcomes of the absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold compared to Xience everolimus-eluting stent in routine PCI in patients with diabetes mellitus-AIDA sub-study

Background

In this prespecified AIDA‐trial sub‐study we investigate the clinical performance of absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) compared to Xience everolimus‐eluting stent (EES) in routine percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) at complete 3‐year follow‐up.

Methods and results

All 1,845 randomized patients were subdivided by medical history with DM or without DM. Of the 924 Absorb BVS patients, 171 (18.5%) patients had DM, of which 65 (38.0%) were treated with insulin (iTDM). Of the 921 Xience EES patients, 153 (16.6%) patients had DM, of which 45 (29.4%) were insulin‐treated diabetes mellitus (iTDM). Target vessel failure (TVF), composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization, occurred in 18.7% of diabetic patients treated with Absorb patients versus in 18.0% patients treated with Xience EES (p = .840). In nondiabetics the rates of TVF were 12.3% in Absorb BVS versus 11.0% in Xience EES (p = .391). Definite/probable device thrombosis occurred more frequently in Absorb BVS compared to Xience EES in both diabetic and nondiabetic patients (4.8% versus 0.7%; p = .028 and 3.2% vs. 0.5%; p < .001, respectively).

Conclusions

In routine PCI practice, both Absorb BVS and Xience EES have worse clinical outcomes in diabetic patients as compared to nondiabetic patients. Throughout all clinical presentations, Absorb BVS was associated with higher rates of device thrombosis at 3‐year follow‐up.

A paradox in sex-specific clinical outcomes after bioresorbable scaffold implantation: 2-year results from the AIDA trial

BACKGROUND

Females are underrepresented in clinical trials evaluating new stent technologies whilst results may differ between the sexes. Females are known to have smaller, more tortuous coronary arteries and have generally more comorbidities. On the other hand, they may have smaller plaque burden. This subgroup-analysis sought to assess sex-specific outcomes after Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) or XIENCE everolimus-eluting stent (EES) implantation.

METHODS

The AIDA trial was an investigator-initiated, non-inferiority, all-comers trial, in which 1845 patients were randomly assigned to either Absorb BVS or XIENCE EES. Baseline clinical, angiography and procedural variables, as well as 2-year clinical outcomes were analyzed by sex and device modality.

RESULTS

Of the 1845 randomized patients, 475 (25.7%) were females. The 2-year rates of target vessel failure (TVF) with Absorb BVS versus XIENCE EES in females were 6.4% versus 10.6% (HR 0.59; 95% CI: 0.31-1.11; p = 0.10) and in males 12.7% versus 9.7% (HR 1.34; 95% CI: 0.98-1.85; p = 0.07). Males treated with Absorb BVS were at higher risk for TVF compared to females treated with Absorb BVS (HR 2.06; 95% CI 1.21-3.53; p = 0.007). Definite/probable device thrombosis occurred in females with Absorb BVS versus XIENCE EES in 1.6% versus 1.4% (HR 1.15; 95% CI: 0.26-5.12; p = 0.86) and in males 3.9% versus 0.7% (HR 5.55; 95% CI: 2.11-14.35; p < 0.001). A statistical significant interaction between sex and device was present for TVF (p = 0.02), but was not seen for definite/probable device thrombosis (p = 0.08).

CONCLUSIONS

In this subgroup analysis, Absorb BVS used in routine practice tends to result in better clinical outcomes in females compared to males.

The Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold in real-world practice: long-term follow-up of the AMC Single Centre Real World PCI Registry

BACKGROUND

Bioresorbable scaffolds have been introduced to overcome the shortcomings of drug-eluting stents. Higher rates of device thrombosis, however, have been reported up to 3 years after implantation of the Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS). In the current article, we therefore report long-term clinical outcomes of the AMC Absorb Registry.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In the AMC Absorb Registry, all patients who underwent a percutaneous coronary intervention with Absorb BVS implantation between 30 August 2012 and 5 August 2013 at the Amsterdam University Medical Centre-Academic Medical Centre were included. The composite endpoint of this analysis was target-vessel failure (TVF). The median follow-up of the study cohort of the AMC Absorb Registry was 1534 days. At the time of the cross-sectional data sweep the clinical status at 4 years was known in 124 of 135 patients (91.9%). At long-term follow-up, the composite endpoint of TVF had occurred in 27 patients. The 4‑year Kaplan-Meier estimate of TVF was 19.8%. At 4 years cardiac death had occurred in 4 patients (3.2%) and target-vessel myocardial infarction in 9 (6.9%) patients. Definite scaffold thrombosis occurred in 5 (3.8%) patients. We found 1 case of very late scaffold thrombosis that occurred at 911 days after device implantation in a patient who was not on dual anti-platelet therapy.

CONCLUSION

In a patient population reflecting routine clinical practice, we found that cases of TVF continued to accrue beyond 2 years after Absorb BVS implantation.