Comparison of zotarolimus-eluting stents with sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents for coronary revascularization: the ZEST (comparison of the efficacy and safety of zotarolimus-eluting stent with sirolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stent for coronary lesions) randomized trial

Revolutionizing Cardiovascular Frontiers: A Dive Into Cutting-Edge Innovations in Coronary Stent Technology

Plain balloon angioplasty was the initial method used to enlarge the intracoronary lumen size. However, it was linked to acute coronary closure due to early vessel recoil. This led to the invention of coronary stents, which offer mechanical support to open and maintain the vascular lumen. Nevertheless, the metallic scaffold introduced other issues, such as thrombosis and restenosis caused by neointimal proliferation. To address these concerns, polymers were employed to cover the scaffold, acting as drug reservoirs and regulators for controlled drug release. The use of polymers prevents direct contact between blood and metallic scaffolds. Drugs within the stent were incorporated to inhibit proliferation and expedite endothelialization in the healing process. Despite these advancements, adverse effects still arise due to the inflammatory reaction caused by the polymer material. Consequently, resorbable polymers and scaffolds were later discovered, but they have limitations and are not universally applicable. Various scaffold designs, thicknesses, materials, polymer components, and drugs have their own advantages and complications. Each stent generation has been designed to address the shortcomings of the preceding generation, yet new challenges continue to emerge. Conflicting data regarding the long-term safety and efficacy of coronary stents, especially in the extended follow-up, further complicates the assessment.

Comparison of 6-Month and Prolonged Dual Antiplatelet Therapy after Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with Biodegradable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stent

Background

The optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after biodegradable-polymer (BP) everolimus-eluting stent (EES) implantation remains uncertain.

Methods

This study analyzed 793 patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with BP-EES in 10 cardiovascular centers in Korea between July 2016 and January 2018. Using the prescription data at 6 months post-PCI, we divided these patients into two groups, namely, short-DAPT and prolonged-DAPT groups, which underwent DAPT for 6 and > 6 months of PCI, respectively. The primary endpoint, which included mortality, myocardial infarction, or target-vessel revascularization at 2 years, was compared by propensity score (PS) matching between the two groups.

Results

Out of the 793 patients, 283 matched pairs were identified by PS matching. Out of this matched population, 405 (71.6%) patients had an acute coronary syndrome. The primary endpoint did not differ in 2 years between the short-DAPT and prolonged-DAPT groups (7.5% vs. 8.3%; hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% confidential interval, 0.47-1.60; P = 0.648). Likewise, no difference was found regarding mortality, cardiac mortality, myocardial infarction, target-lesion failure, target-vessel failure, and bleeding events defined by the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium and Thrombolysis In the Myocardial Infarction classification. Meanwhile, one patient in the short-DAPT group had definite stent thrombosis at 364 days post-PCI. Subgroup analysis showed that several anatomical and procedural factors were not significantly related to DAPT duration. Most patients (77.4%) in both groups were prescribed clopidogrel at discharge.

Conclusions

In real-world patients undergoing PCI with BP-EES, the ischemic and bleeding endpoints demonstrated no difference between 6-month and prolonged (>6 months) DAPT.

Evolution of drug-eluting coronary stents: a back-and-forth journey from the bench-to-bedside

Coronary stents have revolutionized the treatment of coronary artery disease. Compared with balloon angioplasty, bare-metal stents effectively prevented abrupt vessel closure but were limited by in-stent restenosis due to smooth muscle cell proliferation and neointimal hyperplasia. The first-generation drug-eluting stent (DES), with its antiproliferative drug coating, offered substantial advantages over bare-metal stents as it mitigated the risk of in-stent restenosis. Nonetheless, they had several design limitations that increased the risk of late stent thrombosis. Significant advances in stent design, including thinner struts, enhanced polymers' formulation, and more potent antiproliferative agents, have led to the introduction of new-generation DES with a superior safety profile. Cardiologists have over 20 different DES types to choose from, each with its unique features and characteristics. This review highlights the evolution of stent design and summarizes the clinical data on the different stent types. We conclude by discussing the clinical implications of stent design in high-risk subsets of patients.

Short-term dual antiplatelet therapy in diabetic patients admitted for acute coronary syndrome treated with a new-generation drug-eluting stent

BACKGROUND

The optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) admitted with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and treated with a drug-eluting stent (DES) remains unclear. This is a prespecified sub-study from the Randomised Evaluation of short-term DUal antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute Coronary syndromE treated with a new generation DES (REDUCE) trial that was designed to determine the efficacy and safety of short-term versus standard 12 months DAPT in diabetic patients with ACS undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using the COMBO stent.

METHODS

In this study we included ACS diabetic patients enroled in the REDUCE trial treated with the COMBO stent and randomly assigned to either 3 or 12 months of DAPT. The primary study endpoint was the composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), stent thrombosis (ST), stroke, target vessel revascularisation (TVR), and bleeding complications at 12 and 24 months follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 307 diabetic patients were included, of which 162 (52.8%) in the 3 months DAPT group and 145 (47.2%) in the 12 months DAPT group. Patient characteristics, PCI success, and number of stents used were similar in the 3 and 12 months DAPT groups. Occurrence of the primary study endpoint at 12 and 24 months follow-up was comparable between the two groups (3.1 vs. 3.5%, p = 0.865, and 15.8 vs. 14.9%, p = 0.824, respectively). Moreover, the prevalence of the specific clinical outcome parameters (all-cause mortality), MI, ST, stroke, TVR, and bleeding was similar in both study groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This sub-analysis shows similar clinical outcomes following 3 months DAPT as compared to 12 months DAPT in diabetic patients undergoing PCI for ACS using the COMBO stent. These results suggest that, even in this particular subset of patients, short duration of DAPT might be considered safe. Future larger studies are warranted to provide more precise estimations in terms of safety and efficacy of short term DAPT in these high-risk patients.

Nitric Oxide-Producing Cardiovascular Stent Coatings for Prevention of Thrombosis and Restenosis

Cardiovascular stenting is an effective method for treating cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), yet thrombosis and restenosis are the two major clinical complications that often lead to device failure. Nitric oxide (NO) has been proposed as a promising small molecule in improving the clinical performance of cardiovascular stents thanks to its anti-thrombosis and anti-restenosis ability, but its short half-life limits the full use of NO. To produce NO at lesion site with sufficient amount, NO-producing coatings (including NO-releasing and NO-generating coatings) are fashioned. Its releasing strategy is achieved by introducing exogenous NO storage materials like NO donors, while the generating strategy utilizes the in vivo substances such as S-nitrosothiols (RSNOs) to generate NO flux. NO-producing stents are particularly promising in future clinical use due to their ability to store NO resources or to generate large NO flux in a controlled and efficient manner. In this review, we first introduce NO-releasing and -generating coatings for prevention of thrombosis and restenosis. We then discuss the advantages and drawbacks on releasing and generating aspects, where possible further developments are suggested.

Comparison of the Major Clinical Outcomes for the Use of Endeavor® and Resolute Integrity® Zotarolimus-Eluting Stents During a Three-Year Follow-up

Background

Endeavor®-zotarolimus-eluting stent (E-ZES) was the first ZES to be developed, and Resolute integrity®-ZES (I-ZES) has been developed more recently. Comparative studies on long-term usage of these two ZESs have been rare.

Objectives

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of E-ZES and I-ZES during a long-term follow-up of patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

Methods

A total of 767 patients who underwent PCI with E-ZES or I-ZES were eligible for this study. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), defined as the composite of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), and any repeat revascularization. The secondary endpoint was stent thrombosis (ST).

Results

After propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis, two PSM groups (193 pairs, n = 386, C-statistic = 0.824) were generated. During the 3-year follow-up period, the cumulative incidence of MACEs (hazard ratio [HR], 0.837; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.464-1.508; p = 0.553) and ST (HR, 0.398; 95% CI, 0.077-2.052; p = 0.271) was similar for the E-ZES and I-ZES groups. Additionally, the cumulative incidences of all-cause death, cardiac death, non-fatal MI, and any repeat revascularization were not significantly different between the two groups.

Conclusions

Although I-ZES utilizes a more advanced stent platform, stent design, and polymer system than E-ZES, both the ZESs showed comparable efficacy and safety during the 3-year follow-up period in this single-center, all-comers registry. However, further large-scaled, randomized, well-controlled trials with long-term follow-up are needed to verify these results.

Comparison of Resolute zotarolimus-eluting and Xience everolimus-eluting stents in patients with de novo long coronary artery lesions: a randomized LONG-DES VI trial

BACKGROUND

Outcomes for stent-based coronary intervention of lesions with long diseased segments remain relatively unfavorable. This study sought to compare the efficacy of Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stents (R-ZES) and Xience everolimus-eluting stents (EES) for very long coronary lesions.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This randomized, multicenter, prospective trial compared the use of R-ZES with EES for very long (≥50 mm) native coronary lesions. The primary end point was in-segment late luminal loss at 12-month angiographic follow-up. A total of 400 patients were needed to assess the primary end point. However, owing to very slow enrollment of patients, this trial was early terminated (302 patients were enrolled), and thus, this report provides descriptive information on primary and secondary end points. The R-ZES and EES groups had similar baseline characteristics. Lesion length was 49.6±10.2 and 50.6±13.3 mm in the R-ZES and EES groups, respectively (P=0.47). The number of stents used at the target lesion was 2.1±0.3 and 2.2±0.5, respectively. Twelve-month angiographic follow-up was performed in 50% of eligible patients. In-segment late luminal loss did not significantly differ between the R-ZES and EES groups (0.17±0.57 vs. 0.09±0.43 mm, P=0.32). In-segment binary restenosis rates were 8.1 and 5.3% in the R-ZES and EES groups, respectively (P=0.49). There were no significant between-group differences in the rate of adverse events (death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, target lesion revascularization, and composite outcomes).

CONCLUSION

For patients with very long native coronary artery disease, R-ZES and EES implantation showed comparable angiographic and clinical outcomes through 1 year of follow-up.

Long-term safety of bioresorbable scaffolds: insights from a network meta-analysis including 91 trials

AIMS

The aim of this study was to investigate the long-term safety and efficacy of biodegradable scaffolds and metallic stents.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We analysed a total of 91 randomised controlled trials with a mean follow-up of 3.7 years in 105,842 patients which compared two or more coronary metallic stents or biodegradable scaffolds and reported the long-term clinical outcomes (≥2 years). Network meta-analysis showed that patients treated with the Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) had a significantly higher risk of definite or probable scaffold thrombosis (ScT) compared to those treated with metallic DES. The risk of very late ScT was highest with the Absorb BVS among comparators. Pairwise conventional meta-analysis demonstrated that the elevated risk of ScT with Absorb BVS compared to cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents was consistent across the time points of ≤30 days (early), 31 days - 1 year (late) and >1 year (very late) ScT. In addition, target lesion failure rates were significantly higher in the Absorb BVS cohort, driven by both increased risk of target vessel myocardial infarction and ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularisation.

CONCLUSIONS

Absorb BVS implantation was associated with increased risk of long-term and very late ScT compared to current-generation metallic DES. The risk of ScT occurred with a rising trend beyond one year.

Clinical outcomes of second-generation limus-eluting stents compared to paclitaxel-eluting stents for acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock

Objective

Whether the cardiovascular (CV) outcomes of second-generation limus-eluting stents (LESs) differ from those of paclitaxel-eluting stents (PESs) in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS) is still unclear.

Methods

We used the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database to analyse data of 516 patients with AMI and CS diagnosed from January 2007 to December 2011. We used propensity score matching to adjust for the imbalance in covariate baseline values between these two groups. We evaluated clinical outcomes by comparing 197 subjects who used second-generation LESs to 319 matched subjects who used PESs.

Results

The risk of the primary composite outcomes (i.e., myocardial infarction, coronary revascularisation or CV death) was significantly lower in the second-generation LES group than in the PES group [37.3% vs. 51.8%; hazard ratio (HR), 0.73; 95% CI: 0.56–0.95] at the 12-month follow-up. The patients who received second-generation LESs had a lower risk of coronary revascularisation (HR 0.62; 95% CI: 0.41–0.93) than those who used PESs. However, the risks of myocardial infarction (HR 0.56; 95% CI: 0.26–1.24), ischemic stroke (HR 0.73; 95% CI: 0.23–2.35), or CV death (HR 0.90; 95% CI: 0.63–1.28) were not significantly different between the two groups.

Conclusions

Among patients with CS-complicating AMI, second-generation LES implantation significantly reduced the risk of coronary revascularisation and composite CV events compared to PES implantation at the 12-month follow-up.

Safety and Efficacy of the Endeavor Resolute® Stent in Patients with Multivessel Disease: The HEART (Honam EndeAvor ResoluTe) Prospective, Multicenter Trial

The Endeavor Resolute® (ER) is a zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) with a biocompatible BioLinx polymer. This study prospectively compared the clinical outcomes of 2 versions of ZES, ER and Endeavor Sprint® (ES), in patients with multivessel disease. A total of 488 patients who underwent multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were divided into 2 groups the ER group (n=288) and the ES group (n=200). The primary endpoint was a composite of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) consisting of death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization after 12 months. In all patients, the prevalence of diabetes was higher in the ER group (42.7% vs. 31.0%, p=0.009). The rate of post-PCI Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction flow grade 3 was higher in the ER group (100.0% vs. 98.0%, p=0.028). There were no between-group differences in the in-hospital, 1-month and 12-month clinical outcomes. In the propensity score matched cohort (n=200 in each group), no differences were observed in the baseline and procedural characteristics. There were no statistical differences in the rates of in-hospital, 1-month and 12-month events (12-month MACE in the ER and ES groups: 6.0% vs. 3.5%, p=0.240, respectively). The safety and efficacy of both versions of ZES were comparable in patients with multivessel disease during a 12-month clinical follow-up.

Contemporary Drug-Eluting Stent Platforms: Design, Safety, and Clinical Efficacy

First-generation drug-eluting stents significantly improved treatment of coronary disease, decreasing rates of revascularization. This was offset by high rates of late adverse events, driven primarily by stent thrombosis. Research and design improvements of individual DES platform components led to next-generation devices with superior clinical safety and efficacy profiles compared with bare-metal stents and first-generation drug-eluting stents. These design improvements and features are explored, and their resulting clinical safety and efficacy reviewed, focusing on platforms approved by the Food and Drug Administration currently widely used in the United States.

Contemporary Drug-Eluting Stent Platforms: Design, Safety, and Clinical Efficacy

First-generation drug-eluting stents significantly improved treatment of coronary disease, decreasing rates of revascularization. This was offset by high rates of late adverse events, driven primarily by stent thrombosis. Research and design improvements of individual DES platform components led to next-generation devices with superior clinical safety and efficacy profiles compared with bare-metal stents and first-generation drug-eluting stents. These design improvements and features are explored, and their resulting clinical safety and efficacy reviewed, focusing on platforms approved by the Food and Drug Administration currently widely used in the United States.

Lack of Concordance Between Local Investigators, Angiographic Core Laboratory, and Clinical Event Committee in the Assessment of Stent Thrombosis: Results From the TRACER Angiographic Substudy

BACKGROUND

Stent thrombosis (ST) is an important end point in cardiovascular clinical trials. Adjudication is traditionally based on clinical event committee (CEC) review of case report forms and source documentation rather than angiograms. However, the degree to which this method of adjudication is concordant with the review of independent angiographic core laboratories (ACLs) has not been studied. This report represents the first assessment of variability between local investigators (LIs), a CEC, and an ACL.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Serial angiograms of 329 patients with acute coronary syndrome without ST-segment-elevation who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention at entry in the Trial to Assess the Effects of Vorapaxar in Preventing Heart Attack and Stroke in Particpants With Acute Coronary Syndrome (TRACER) and who met criteria for possible ST subsequent to the index event were reviewed by an ACL. The ACL was blinded to the assessment by both LIs and the CEC regarding the presence or absence of ST. CEC adjudication was based on Academic Research Consortium definitions of ST, using case report form data and source documents, including catheterization laboratory reports. The ACL, CEC, and LIs agreed on the presence or absence of ST in 52.9% events (κ=0.32; 95% confidence interval, 0.26-0.39). The ACL and CEC agreed on 82.7% of events (κ=0.57; 95% confidence interval, 0.47-0.67); the ACL and LIs agreed on 61.1% of events (κ=0.25; 95% confidence interval, 0.16-0.34); and the CEC and LIs agreed on 62% of events (κ=0.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.21-0.36).

CONCLUSIONS

ST reporting by an ACL, a CEC, and LIs is discordant. The assessment of ST is more often detected by direct review of angiograms by an ACL.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00527943.

First-generation paclitaxel- vs. second-generation zotarolimus-eluting stents in small coronary arteries: the BASKET-SMALL Pilot Study

Introduction

Event rates after percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) are higher in small than large coronary vessels but may vary between different drug-eluting stent (DES) types.

Aim

To assess the efficacy of two different DES in small vessel disease.

Material and methods

Patients with small vessel PCI were randomised 1 : 1 to a first-generation paclitaxel- vs. a second-generation zotarolimus-eluting stent. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiac death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularisation after 2 years.

Results

Overall, 191 patients were enrolled: 100 with a paclitaxel- and 91 with a zotarolimus-eluting stent. Baseline characteristics were similar in both groups. After 2 years, rates of the primary endpoint were numerically higher for zotarolimus- than paclitaxel-eluting stents (9.9% vs. 5.0%, hazard ratio 2.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.7–6.2, p = 0.19), which was mainly driven by higher rates of target vessel revascularisation (6.6% vs. 2.0%, hazard ratio 3.39, 95% CI: 0.68–16.78, p = 0.14). Based on this, a total of 1,019 patients would be necessary to demonstrate at least non-inferiority between the DES used.

Conclusions

In this pilot study, paclitaxel-eluting stents had a favourable efficacy profile in small vessel disease, although the numbers were too small to draw final conclusions. Based on the prohibitively high sample size for a randomized controlled trial between DES, other treatment options should be considered.

The History of Coronary Stenting

The history of coronary angioplasty began with the groundbreaking work of Andreas Grüntzig, who was the first to use balloon-expandable catheters for the treatment of flow-limiting atherosclerotic coronary artery lesions. Thereafter, early investigators tested self-expanding springs as a solution to abrupt closure and restenosis seen with balloon angioplasty but these devices suffered from difficult delivery and a high complication rate. Julio Palmaz and Richard Schatz introduced the first balloon-expandable stent as a mechanical support to improve vessel patency. Their pioneering work launched a new era in the treatment of coronary artery disease.

First-Generation Versus Second-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents in Coronary Chronic Total Occlusions: Two-Year Results of a Multicenter Registry

BACKGROUND

Limited data are available regarding the long-term clinical outcomes of second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) versus first-generation DES in patients with coronary chronic total occlusion (CTO) who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of second-generation DES with those of first-generation DES for the treatment of CTO.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Between March 2003 and February 2012, 1,006 consecutive patients with CTO who underwent successful PCI using either first-generation DES (n = 557) or second-generation DES (n = 449) were enrolled in a multicenter, observational registry. Propensity-score matching was also performed. The primary outcome was cardiac death over a 2-year follow-up period. No significant differences were observed between the two groups regarding the incidence of cardiac death (first-generation DES versus second-generation DES; 2.5% vs 2.0%; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.37 to 1.98; p = 0.72) or major adverse cardiac events (MACE, 11.8% vs 11.4%; HR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.67 to 1.50; p = 0.99). After propensity score matching, the incidences of cardiac death (HR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.35 to 2.06; p = 0.86) and MACE (HR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.63 to 1.37; p = 0.71) were still similar in both groups. Furthermore, no significant differences were observed between sirolimus-eluting, paclitaxel-eluting, zotarolimus-eluting, and everolimus-eluting stents regarding the incidence of cardiac death or MACE.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that the efficacy of second-generation DES is comparable to that of first-generation DES for treatment of CTO over 2 years of follow-up.

Two-year outcomes following unprotected left main stenting with first vs. new-generation drug-eluting stents: the FINE registry

AIMS

To assess two-year outcomes following first vs. new-generation drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation in unprotected left main (ULMCA) percutaneous coronary intervention.

METHODS AND RESULTS

All eligible patients from our two-centre registry treated with first and new-generation DES from October 2006 to November 2010 were analysed. The study objective was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as all-cause mortality, target vessel revascularisation (TVR) and myocardial infarction (MI) at two years. In total, 186 patients were included: 93 (50.0%) treated with first vs. 93 (50.0%) with new-generation DES. No differences were observed in baseline clinical characteristics except for higher EuroSCORE with new-generation DES (3.6±2.5 vs. 4.6±2.7; p=0.007). No significant difference was observed in stenting techniques; two stents were used respectively in 53.8% vs. 44.1% (p=0.187). Notably, intravascular ultrasound guidance was more frequent with new-generation DES (46.2% vs. 61.3%; p=0.040). At 730.0 (interquartile range 365.5-1,224.5) days, there was a trend towards improved MACE with new-generation DES (31.2% vs. 19.6%; p=0.070) and a significant reduction in TVR (23.7% vs. 12.0%; p=0.038) and MI (4.3% vs. 0%; p=0.044). Notably, there were four cases of definite stent thrombosis (ST) with first vs. none with new-generation DES (p=0.044).

CONCLUSIONS

In our study, new-generation DES had a trend for less MACE and improved results with regard to MI, TVR and definite ST at two-year follow-up.

First- Versus Second-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents in Acute Coronary Syndromes (Katowice-Zabrze Registry)

Background

There are sparse data on the performance of different types of drug-eluting stents (DES) in acute and real-life setting.

Objective

The aim of the study was to compare the safety and efficacy of first- versus second-generation DES in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS).

Methods

This all-comer registry enrolled consecutive patients diagnosed with ACS and treated with percutaneous coronary intervention with the implantation of first- or second-generation DES in one-year follow-up. The primary efficacy endpoint was defined as major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event (MACCE), a composite of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, target-vessel revascularization and stroke. The primary safety outcome was definite stent thrombosis (ST) at one year.

Results

From the total of 1916 patients enrolled into the registry, 1328 patients were diagnosed with ACS. Of them, 426 were treated with first- and 902 with second-generation DES. There was no significant difference in the incidence of MACCE between two types of DES at one year. The rate of acute and subacute ST was higher in first- vs. second-generation DES (1.6% vs. 0.1%, p < 0.001, and 1.2% vs. 0.2%, p = 0.025, respectively), but there was no difference regarding late ST (0.7% vs. 0.2%, respectively, p = 0.18) and gastrointestinal bleeding (2.1% vs. 1.1%, p = 0.21). In Cox regression, first-generation DES was an independent predictor for cumulative ST (HR 3.29 [1.30-8.31], p = 0.01).

Conclusions

In an all-comer registry of ACS, the one-year rate of MACCE was comparable in groups treated with first- and second-generation DES. The use of first-generation DES was associated with higher rates of acute and subacute ST and was an independent predictor of cumulative ST.

Atherectomy Devices for the Treatment of Calcified Coronary Lesions

The presence of moderate and severe coronary artery calcification (CAC) is associated with higher rates of angiographic complications during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), as well as higher major adverse cardiac events compared with noncalcified lesions. Diabetes mellitus, a risk factor for CAC, is increasing in the United States. Vessel preparation before PCI with atherectomy can facilitate successful stent delivery and expansion that may otherwise not be possible. We review here CAC prevalence, risk factors, and impact on PCI, as well as the currently available coronary atherectomy devices including rotational atherectomy, orbital atherectomy, and laser atherectomy.

Prognostic Significance of Polymer Coatings in Zotarolimus-Eluting Stents

Polymer coatings on drug-eluting stents (DES) serve as a vehicle for delivery of antirestenotic drugs. Whether they influence outcomes for contemporary DES is unknown. The evolution of polymer coatings for zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZES) provides a natural experiment that facilitates such analysis. The Resolute ZES (R-ZES) uses the same antirestenotic drug as the Endeavor ZES (E-ZES) but has a more biocompatible polymer with enhanced drug release kinetics. However, there are limited data on the real-world comparative efficacy of R-ZES and the preceding E-ZES. Thus, we analyzed 17,643 patients who received either E-ZES or R-ZES from 2008 to 2014 from the British Columbia Cardiac Registry. A total of 9,869 patients (56%) received E-ZES and 7,774 patients (44%) received R-ZES. Compared with E-ZES, R-ZES was associated with lower 2-year mortality (4.1% vs 6.4%, p <0.001) and 2-year target vessel revascularization (TVR; 6.8% vs 10.7%, p <0.001). R-ZES use was an independent predictor of lower mortality rate and TVR. This was confirmed in propensity-matched analyses for 2-year mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 0.59, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.71, p <0.001) and 2-year TVR (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.98, p = 0.032). Instrumental variable analyses demonstrated R-ZES to be associated with lower 2-year mortality (Δ = -2.2%, 95% CI -4.3% to -0.2%, p = 0.032) and 2-year TVR (Δ = -3.3% to 95% CI -6.1% to -0.7%, p = 0.015). Acknowledging the limitations of observational analyses, this study has shown that R-ZES was associated with lower long-term TVR and mortality. These data are reassuring for the newer R-ZES and demonstrate how polymer coatings may influence the clinical performance of DES with wider implications for future DES development and design.

Is There Any Significant Difference in Stent Thrombosis Between Sirolimus and Paclitaxel Eluting Stents?: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Several meta-analyses have shown no significant difference in stent thrombosis (ST) between sirolimus eluting stents (SES) and paclitaxel eluting stents (PES). However, other meta-analyses have found SES to be superior to PES. Therefore, to solve this issue, we aim to compare the clinical outcomes between SES and PES during a follow-up period of about 1 or more years.We have searched Medline and EMBASE for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SES with PES. These RCTs have been carefully analyzed and then different types of ST including ST defined by the Academic Research Consortium (ARC), acute ST, late and very late ST have all been considered as the clinical endpoints in this study. A follow-up period of about 1 year, between 1 and 2 years as well as a longer follow-up period between 1 and 5 years have been considered. Data were retrieved and combined by means of a fixed-effect model because of a lower heterogeneity observed among the results. Odd ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated and the pooled analyses were performed with RevMan 5.3 software.Twenty-nine studies from 19 RCTs comprising of 16,724 patients (8115 patients in the SES group and 8609 patients in the PES group) satisfied the inclusion criteria and were included in this meta-analysis. No significant differences in ST have been observed between SES and PES. Results were as follow: definite ST with OR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.64-1.18, P = 0.36; probable ST with OR:0.72; 95% CI: 0.42-1.21, P = 0.21; definite, probable and/or possible ST with OR: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.75-1.17, P = 0.57; acute ST with OR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.38-2.56, P = 0.98; subacute ST with OR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.41-1.25, P = 0.25; early ST with OR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.53-1.25, P = 0.34; late ST with OR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.39-1.34, P = 0.30; very late ST with OR: 1.02; 95% CI: 0.72-1.44, P = 0.92; and any ST with OR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.69-1.07, P = 0.18. Long-term ST between 1 and 5 years with OR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.71-1.22, P = 0.60 was also not significantly different.No significant difference in ST has been observed between patients treated with either SES or PES. Hence SES and PES can both be considered almost equally effective.

Comparison of long-term clinical outcomes after the second-generation cobalt-chromium sirolimus-eluting stents implantation in diabetic versus non-diabetic patients: a subgroup analysis from the prospective FOCUS registry

BACKGROUND

Diabetes mellitus (DM) was broadly acknowledged as a risk factor for adverse events after coronary stent implantation. However, the role of DM in patients treated with second-generation cobalt-chromium sirolimus-eluting stents (CoCr-SES) was less known.

METHODS

A total of 4720 patients available for 3-year follow-up in the prospective FOCUS registry were subdivided into the DM group and the non-DM group to assess the effect of DM on the clinical outcomes after CoCr-SES implantation both before and after propensity score matching.

RESULTS

The rates of major adverse cardiovascular event was low (<10%) in both DM and non-DM groups but significantly greater in the DM group after matching (9.6% versus 6.1%; p = 0.005). Although the soft endpoints including target vessel revascularization (2.3% versus 2.3%; p = 0.938) and target lesion revascularization (1.2% versus 1.1%; p = 0.828) was not significantly different between two groups, the hard endpoints represented by cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction (7.3% versus 5.3%; p = 0.012) demonstrated a significant increase in the DM group.

CONCLUSIONS

This subgroup analysis demonstrated that DM significantly increased the risk of adverse events after implantation of CoCr-SES, but the general safety and efficacy performance of CoCr-SES in both diabetic and non-diabetic patients was satisfying and comparable with other types of new-generation drug-eluting stents.

Comparison of second- and first-generation drug eluting stent for percutaneous coronary chronic total occlusion intervention

BACKGROUND

The performance of contemporary second-generation drug-eluting stents (DESs) for percutaneous chronic total occlusion (CTO) intervention is not well established. The present study compared the efficacy and safety outcomes of second-generation DESs with those of first-generation DESs in CTO-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

METHODS

This retrospective analysis included 1049 consecutive CTO patients who underwent successful DES implantation (first-generation; 487 vs. second-generation; 562 patients) between March 2003 and August 2014. The primary endpoint was the composite of all-cause death, Q-wave myocardial infarction (MI), or target-vessel revascularization (TVR).

RESULTS

During a follow-up of 3 years, the primary endpoint incidence was 10.1% for second- and 7.7% for first-generation DES (p=0.30). After multivariable adjustment, there was no significant difference between these groups in terms of the risk of composite of death, Q-wave MI, or TVR (Hazard ratio [HR] 1.42, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.88-2.28, p=0.15) nor in the individual risks of death (adjusted HR 1.33, 95% CI 0.69-2.56, p=0.39), Q-wave MI (adjusted HR 1.15, 95% CI 0.30-4.47, p=0.84) and TVR (adjusted HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.52-2.15, p=0.87). The incidence of definite/probable stent thrombosis was relatively low (0.5% vs.0.9%, p=0.17) throughout the follow-up period.

CONCLUSION

The 3-year clinical outcomes of patients treated with second-generation DESs are comparable to those treated with first-generation DESs for CTO-PCI.

Intravascular Ultrasound and Angiographic Predictors of In-Stent Restenosis of Chronic Total Occlusion Lesions

Despite the benefits of successful percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) for chronic total occlusion (CTO) lesions, PCIs of CTO lesions still carry a high rate of adverse events, including in-stent restenosis (ISR). Because previous reports have not specifically investigated the intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) predictors of ISR in CTO lesions, we focused on these predictors. We included 126 patients who underwent successful PCIs, using drug-eluting stents, and post-PCI IVUS of CTO lesions. Patient and lesion characteristics were analyzed to elucidate the ISR predictors. In each lesion, an average of 1.7 ± 0.7 (mean length, 46.4 ± 20.3 mm) stents were used. At 9 months follow-up, 14 (11%) patients demonstrated ISR, and 8 (6.3%) underwent target lesion revascularization. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that the independent predictors of ISR were the post-PCI minimal luminal diameter (MLD) and the stent expansion ratio (SER; minimal stent cross-sectional area (CSA) over the nominal CSA of the implanted stent), measured using quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) and IVUS, respectively. A receiver operating characteristic analysis indicated that the best post-PCI MLD and SER cut-off values for predicting ISR were 2.4 mm (area under the curve [AUC], 0.762; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.639–0.885) and 70% (AUC, 0.714; 95% CI, 0.577–0.852), respectively. Lesions with post-PCI MLD and SER values less than these threshold values were at a higher risk of ISR, with an odds ratio of 23.3 (95% CI, 2.74–198.08), compared with lesions having larger MLD and SER values. Thus, the potential predictors of ISR, after PCI of CTO lesions, are the post-PCI MLD and SER values. The ISR rate was highest in lesions with a post-PCI MLD ≤2.4 mm and an SER ≤70%.

Impact of technological developments in drug-eluting stents on patient-focused outcomes: a pooled direct and indirect comparison of randomised trials comparing first- and second-generation drug-eluting stents

AIMS

To establish whether technological improvements in drug-eluting stent (DES) technology introduced in second-generation (G2) DES have contributed to improving patient-focused outcomes.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We performed a systematic review of randomised clinical trials (RCT) comparing first-generation (G1) and G2 DES with a>9-month clinical follow-up. The primary endpoint for efficacy was ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularisation (ID-TLR); safety endpoints were all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI) and stent thrombosis (ST). Sixteen RCTs involving 25,427 patients met eligibility criteria (17 comparisons). In these trials, paclitaxel (PES) and sirolimus (SES) were compared with everolimus (EES), zotarolimus (ZES) or biolimus A9 (BES) DES. G2 varied in metal alloy, strut thickness and type of drug-eluting matrix. Overall, G2 DES were associated with a 26% relative risk reduction (RRR) of MI (relative risk [RR]=0.74, 95% CI: 0.61-0.90, p=0.003) and ST (RR=0.70, 95% CI: 0.55-0.89, p=0.004), while no significant benefit was observed for ID-TLR and death. Use of 2G DES was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of ID-TLR (RR=0.66, 95% CI: 0.51-0.85, p=0.002), MI (RR=0.60, 95% CI: 0.49-0.72, p<0.001) and ST (RR=0.41, 95% CI: 0.26-0.65, p=0.001) when compared with PES. Strut thickness ≤91 µm in G2 DES was associated with a significantly lower risk of MI (RR=0.54, 95% CI: 0.51-0.86, p=0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

The introduction of thinner stent struts and other technological improvements made in G2 DES technology have translated into better patient outcomes. Overall, the net benefit of G2 DES over G1 DES is expressed in terms of ID-TLR and ST risk reduction but it could be masked by heterogeneities in the use of G1 comparators and the use of non-inferiority study designs in RCTs.

Clinical outcomes in low risk coronary artery disease patients treated with different limus-based drug-eluting stents--a nationwide retrospective cohort study using insurance claims database

The clinical outcomes of different limus-based drug-eluting stents (DES) in a real-world setting have not been well defined. The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical outcomes of three different limus-based DES, namely sirolimus-eluting stent (SES), Endeavor zotarolimus-eluting stent (E-ZES) and everolimus-eluting stent (EES), using a national insurance claims database. We identified all patients who received implantation of single SES, E-ZES or EES between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2009 from the National Health Insurance claims database, Taiwan. Follow-up was through December 31, 2011 for all selected clinical outcomes. The primary end-point was all-cause mortality. Secondary end-points included acute coronary events, heart failure needing hospitalization, and cerebrovascular disease. Cox regression model adjusting for baseline characteristics was used to compare the relative risks of different outcomes among the three different limus-based DES. Totally, 6584 patients were evaluated (n=2142 for SES, n=3445 for E-ZES, and n=997 for EES). After adjusting for baseline characteristics, we found no statistically significant difference in the risk of all-cause mortality in three DES groups (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 1.14, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.94-1.38, p=0.20 in E-ZES group compared with SES group; adjusted HR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.54-1.10, p=0.15 in EES group compared with SES group). Similarly, we found no difference in the three stent groups in risks of acute coronary events, heart failure needing hospitalization, and cerebrovascular disease. In conclusion, we observed no difference in all-cause mortality, acute coronary events, heart failure needing hospitalization, and cerebrovascular disease in patients treated with SES, E-ZES, and EES in a real-world population-based setting in Taiwan.

Balancing the risks of bleeding and stent thrombosis: a decision analytic model to compare durations of dual antiplatelet therapy after drug-eluting stents

BACKGROUND

After coronary stent placement, whether dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) duration should be extended to prevent late stent thrombosis (ST) or adverse cardiovascular events is uncertain.

METHODS

To define the reduction in ischemic events required to outweigh increased bleeding with longer-duration DAPT, we developed a decision-analytic Markov model comparing DAPT durations of 6, 12, and 30 months after DES. Separate models were developed for patients presenting with and without an acute coronary syndrome (ACS). We used sensitivity analyses to identify the incremental benefit of longer-duration DAPT on either ST or the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and ischemic stroke (major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events [MACCEs]) required to outweigh the increased risk of bleeding associated with longer DAPT. The outcome from each strategy was quantified in terms of quality-adjusted life years.

RESULTS

In the non-ACS population, in order for 30 months of DAPT to be preferred over 12 months of therapy, DAPT would have to result in a 78% reduction in the risk of ST (relative risk [RR] 0.22, 3.1 fewer events per 1000) and only a 5% reduction in MACCE (RR 0.95, 2.2 fewer events per 1000) as compared with aspirin alone. For the ACS population, DAPT would have to result in a 44% reduction in the risk of ST (RR 0.56, 3.4 fewer events per 1000) but only a 2% reduction in MACCE (RR 0.98, 2.3 fewer events per 1000) as compared with aspirin alone, for 30 months of DAPT to be preferred for 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Small absolute differences in the risk of ischemic events with longer DAPT would be sufficient to outweigh the known bleeding risks.

Safety and efficacy of first-generation and second-generation drug-eluting stents in the setting of acute coronary syndromes

Drug-eluting stents (DESs) are known to reduce in-stent restenosis rate, compared with bare metal stents (BMSs). Stent thrombosis, one of the most dangerous complications of DES, has emerged as a major concern. This issue has limited the use of DES in unstable coronary artery disease till recent years. In fact, acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and the subsequent activation of the hemocoagulative pathway could represent a prothrombotic environment, thus limiting the use of DES in this situation. Nowadays, there is increasing evidence in literature of similar stent thrombosis rates both for BMS and DES in ACS, and most interventional cardiologists are confident with the use of DES in ACS. The aim of this article is to review the current literature on this topic in order to compare first-generation and second-generation DES vs. BMS as concerns safety and efficacy.

First-generation versus second-generation drug-eluting stents in current clinical practice: updated evidence from a comprehensive meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials comprising 31 379 patients

Background

First-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) have become the most widely used devices worldwide for management of coronary artery disease. As remote follow-up data were becoming available, concerns emerged in regard to their long-term safety. Second-generation DES were designed to overcome safety issues, but the results of randomised clinical trials remain conflicting.

Methods

We compared the safety and efficacy of first-generation versus second-generation Food and Drug Administration approved DES; the following devices were included: first-generation sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES); second-generation everolimus-eluting stent (EES), zotarolimus-eluting stent Endeavor and ZES-Resolute (ZES-R). Prespecified safety end points comprised ≤1 and >1 year: overall and cardiac mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), definite/definite or probable ST; efficacy end points were target lesion revascularisation and target vessel revascularisation. Composite end points were analysed as well.

Results

33 randomised controlled trials involving 31 379 patients with stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndrome undergoing DES implantation were retrieved. No differences in mortality among devices were found. In the overall class comparison, second-generation DES were associated with a 22% reduction of odds of MI at short-term OR 0.77 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.89) p=0.0002; EES reduced the odds of definite-probable ST compared with PES: OR 0.33 (95% CI 0.15 to 0.73) p=0.006; First-generation SES along with second-generation EES and ZES-R showed similar efficacy in decreasing the odds of repeat revascularisation.

Conclusions

Second-generation EES and ZES-R offer similar levels of efficacy compared with first-generation SES, but are more effective than PES; however, only second-generation EES significantly reduced the incidence of MI and ST, and therefore should be perceived as the safest DES to date.

Novel drug-eluting stents for coronary revascularization

Over the past decades, there has been significant evolution in coronary stents used in percutaneous coronary intervention. The current novel drug-eluting stents available in the United States represent significant advancements compared to angioplasty, bare-metal stents, and the first generation of drug-eluting stents (DES). The Xience everolimus-eluting stents, Promus everolimus-eluting stents, and Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stents currently demonstrate the optimal balance of safety and efficacy. Endeavor zotarolimus-eluting stents have shorter drug-elution courses, and recent evidence suggests that 3 months of dual antiplatelet therapy appears safe, making Endeavor preferred when early discontinuation of dual antiplatelet therapy is warranted. Despite these advances in stent design, the permanent polymer and metallic stent remain in the vessel wall and may precipitate sustained inflammation, persistent vasomotor dysfunction, and in-stent neo-atherosclerosis. Bioresorbable platforms with biodegradable polymers have been developed to overcome the aforementioned limitations, and the outcomes of ongoing clinical trials are eagerly anticipated to determine if these novel stents will further improve clinical outcomes.

Efficacy and safety of drug-eluting stents in the real world: 8-year follow-up

Background:

Drug-eluting stents have been used in daily practice since 2002, with the clear advantages of reducing the risk of target vessel revascularization and an impressive reduction in restenosis rate by 50%-70%. However, the occurrence of a late thrombosis can compromise long-term results, particularly if the risks of this event were sustained. In this context, a registry of clinical cases gains special value.

Objective:

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of drug-eluting stents in the real world.

Methods:

We report on the clinical findings and 8-year follow-up parameters of all patients that underwent percutaneous coronary intervention with a drug-eluting stent from January 2002 to April 2007. Drug-eluting stents were used in accordance with the clinical and interventional cardiologist decision and availability of the stent.

Results:

A total of 611 patients were included, and clinical follow-up of up to 8 years was obtained for 96.2% of the patients. Total mortality was 8.7% and nonfatal infarctions occurred in 4.3% of the cases. Target vessel revascularization occurred in 12.4% of the cases, and target lesion revascularization occurred in 8% of the cases. The rate of stent thrombosis was 2.1%. There were no new episodes of stent thrombosis after the fifth year of follow-up. Comparative subanalysis showed no outcome differences between the different types of stents used, including Cypher®, Taxus®, and Endeavor®.

Conclusion:

These findings indicate that drug-eluting stents remain safe and effective at very long-term follow-up. Patients in the "real world" may benefit from drug-eluting stenting with excellent, long-term results.

Differential clinical outcomes after 1 year versus 5 years in a randomised comparison of zotarolimus-eluting and sirolimus-eluting coronary stents (the SORT OUT III study): a multicentre, open-label, randomised superiority trial

BACKGROUND

In head-to-head comparisons of coronary drug-eluting stents, the primary endpoint is traditionally assessed after 9-12 months. However, the optimum timepoint for this assessment remains unclear. In this study, we assessed clinical outcomes at up to 5 years' follow-up in patients who received two different types of drug-eluting stents.

METHODS

We undertook this multicentre, open-label, randomised superiority trial at five percutaneous coronary intervention centres in Denmark. We randomly allocated 2332 eligible adult patients (≥18 years of age) with an indication for drug-eluting stent implantation to the zotarolimus-eluting Endeavor Sprint stent (Medtronic, Santa Rosa, CA, USA) or the sirolimus-eluting Cypher Select Plus stent (Cordis, Johnson & Johnson, Warren, NJ, USA). Randomisation of participants was achieved by computer-generated block randomisation and a telephone allocation service. The primary endpoint of the SORT OUT III study was a composite of major adverse cardiac events-cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularisation-at 9 months' follow-up. In this study, endpoints included the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events and definite stent thrombosis at follow-up times of up to 5 years. Analysis was by intention to treat. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00660478.

FINDINGS

We randomly allocated 1162 patients to receive the zotarolimus-eluting stent and 1170 to the sirolimus-eluting stent. At 5-year follow-up, rates of major adverse cardiac events were similar in patients treated with both types of stents (zotarolimus-eluting stents 197/1162 [17.0%] vs sirolimus-eluting stents 182/1170 [15.6%]; odds ratio [OR] 1.10, 95% CI 0.88-1.37; p=0.40). This finding was indicative of the directly contrasting results for rates of major adverse cardiac events at 1-year follow up (zotarolimus 93/1162 [8.0%] vs sirolimus 46/1170 [3.9%]; OR 2.13, 95% CI 1.48-3.07; p<0.0001) compared with those at follow-up between 1 and 5 years (104 [9.0%] vs 136 [11.6%]; OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.59-1.02; p=0.071). At 1-year follow-up, definite stent thrombosis was more frequent after implantation of the zotarolimus-eluting stent (13/1162 [1.1%]) than the sirolimus-eluting stent (4/1170 [0.3%]; OR 3.34, 95% CI 1.08-10.3; p=0.036), whereas the opposite finding was recorded for between 1 and 5 years' follow-up (zotarolimus-eluting stent 1/1162 [0.1%] vs sirolimus-eluting stent 21/1170 [1.8%], OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.01-0.36; p=0.003). 26 of 88 (30%) target lesion revascularisations in the zotarolimus-eluting stent group occurred between 1 and 5 years' follow-up, whereas 54 of 70 (77%) of those in the sirolimus-eluting stent group occurred during this follow-up period.

INTERPRETATION

The superiority of sirolimus-eluting stents compared with zotarolimus-eluting stents at 1-year follow-up was lost after 5 years. The traditional 1-year primary endpoint assessment therefore might be insufficient to predict 5-year clinical outcomes in patients treated with coronary drug-eluting stent implantation.

FUNDING

Cordis and Medtronic.

Comparison of biolimus A9-eluting (Nobori) and everolimus-eluting (Promus Element) stents in patients with de novo native long coronary artery lesions: a randomized Long Drug-Eluting Stent V trial

BACKGROUND

Procedural and clinical outcomes still remain unfavorable for patients with long coronary lesions who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention. The current study, therefore, evaluated 2 innovative drug-eluting stents for the management of long-lesion coronary artery disease.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This randomized, multicenter, prospective trial, called the Long Drug-Eluting Stent (LONG-DES) V trial, compared the biodegradable polymer-based biolimus A9-eluting stent (BES) and the durable polymer-based platinum chromium everolimus-eluting stent (PtCr-EES) in 500 patients with long (≥ 25 mm) coronary lesions. The primary end point of the trial was in-segment late luminal loss at the 9-month angiographic follow-up. The BES and PtCr-EES groups had similar baseline characteristics, with a slightly shorter lesion length in the BES group versus the PtCr-EES group (29.24 ± 12.17 versus 32.27 ± 13.84 mm; P = 0.016). In-segment late luminal loss was comparable between the 2 groups at the 9-month angiographic follow-up (BES, 0.14 ± 0.38 versus PtCr-EES, 0.11 ± 0.37 mm; difference, 0.031; 95% confidence interval, -0.053 to 0.091; P = 0.03 for a noninferiority margin of 0.11, P = 0.45 for superiority), as was in-stent late luminal loss (0.20 ± 0.41 versus 0.24 ± 0.38 mm; P = 0.29). The incidence of in-segment (6.1% versus 4.9%; P = 0.63) and in-stent (3.7% versus 4.9%; P = 0.59) binary restenosis was also similar between the groups. There was no significant between-group difference in the rate of composite outcome of death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization (41, 16.7% in BES versus 42, 16.5% in PtCr-EES; P=0.94).

CONCLUSIONS

BES and PtCr-EES implantation showed analogous angiographic and clinical outcomes for patients with de novo long coronary lesions.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL

http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01186120.

Second- versus first-generation drug-eluting stents for diabetic patients: a meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The issue of whether various drug-eluting stents (DES) provide similar benefit in diabetic patients with coronary artery disease remains unclear. The purpose of the study is to assess the clinical utility of the second-generation and first-generation DES in patients with diabetes mellitus by a meta-analysis.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases was conducted. We included randomized trials involving head-to-head comparison of clinical outcomes of second- versus first-generation DES in patients with a diagnosis of diabetes with at least 6-month follow-up data. Summary statistics were calculated using random-effects models.

RESULTS

A total of 10 trials with 4503 patients were available for analysis. The pooled analyses showed that the second-generation everolimus-eluting stent (EES) significantly lowered all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.37-0.90; p = 0.01) and the risk of stent thrombosis (RR = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.22-0.95; p = 0.03) compared with the first-generation sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) and the overall first-generation DES, respectively. Moreover, the EES showed a tendency toward reducing the incidence of recurrent myocardial infarction when compared with paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) (RR = 0.58, p = 0.08). In contrast, the second-generation zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZES) were associated with increased rates of stent thrombosis and risk of target lesion revascularization in comparison with the SES (both p < 0.05) or the overall first-generation DES (both p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The second-generation EES are highly effective in reducing the risk of major cardiac events in diabetic patients with coronary artery disease.

A randomized comparison of platinum chromium-based everolimus-eluting stents versus cobalt chromium-based Zotarolimus-Eluting stents in all-comers receiving percutaneous coronary intervention: HOST-ASSURE (harmonizing optimal strategy for treatment of coronary artery stenosis-safety & effectiveness of drug-eluting stents & anti-platelet regimen), a randomized, controlled, noninferiority trial

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to test whether the newly developed platinum chromium (PtCr)-based everolimus-eluting stent (EES) is noninferior to the cobalt chromium (CoCr)-based zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) in all-comers receiving percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

BACKGROUND

PtCr provides improved radial strength, conformability, and visibility compared with the CoCr alloy, but PtCr-based stents have not been tested in a wide range of patients receiving PCI. Also, recent case series have raised the issue of longitudinal stent deformation (LSD) with newer drug-eluting stents.

METHODS

We randomly assigned 3,755 all-comers receiving PCI to PtCr-EES or CoCr-ZES. The primary outcome was target lesion failure (TLF) at 1-year post-PCI, defined as the composite of cardiac death, nonfatal target vessel-related myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization. Post-hoc angiographic analysis was performed to qualitatively and quantitatively analyze LSD.

RESULTS

At 1 year, TLF occurred in 2.9% and 2.9% of the population in the PtCr-EES and CoCr-ZES groups, respectively (superiority p = 0.98, noninferiority p = 0.0247). There were no significant differences in the individual components of TLF as well as the patient-oriented clinical outcome. Of 5,010 stents analyzed, LSD occurred in 0.2% and 0% in the PtCr-EES and CoCr-ZES groups, respectively (p = 0.104). There was no significant difference in post-deployment stent length ratio between the 2 stents (p = 0.352).

CONCLUSIONS

At 1 year, PtCr-EES was noninferior to CoCr-ZES in all-comers receiving PCI. Although LSD was observed only in PtCr-EES, both the stent length ratio and the frequency of LSD were not significantly different between the 2 stent types, and PtCr-EES was not associated with adverse clinical outcomes. (Harmonizing Optimal Strategy for Treatment of Coronary Artery Stenosis-SAfety & EffectiveneSS of Drug-ElUting Stents & Anti-platelet REgimen [HOST-ASSURE]; NCT01267734).