Randomized comparison of a polymer-free sirolimus-eluting stent versus a polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stent in patients with diabetes mellitus: the LIPSIA Yukon trial

Safety and efficacy of the polymer-free and polymer-coated drug-eluting stents in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention

INTRODUCTION

The relative safety and efficacy of polymer-free (PF) versus polymer-coated (PC) drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients with angina or acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention has received limited study.

METHOD

Digital databases were queried to identify relevant studies. Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and secondary outcomes were compared using a random effect model to calculate unadjusted odds ratios (OR).

RESULTS

A total of 28 studies consisting of 23,198 patients were included in the final analysis. On pooled analysis, there was no significant difference in the odds of MACE (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.91-1.08) and major bleeding (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.61-1.24) between patients undergoing PF-DES versus PC-DES. Similarly, the odds of myocardial infarction, stroke, stent thrombosis, cardiovascular mortality and need for target vessel revascularization was similar between the two groups. PF-DES was favored due to significantly lower odds of non-cardiac death (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.68-89) and all-cause mortality (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.80-0.95), but had a higher need for target lesion revascularization (OR 1.2, 95% CI 1.02-1.42). A subgroup analysis based on follow up duration, clinical presentation, presence of diabetes and class of eluting drugs mirrored the net estimates for all outcomes with a few exceptions. A sensitivity and meta-regression analysis showed no influence of single-study and duration of antiplatelet therapy on pooled outcomes.

CONCLUSION

In patients presenting with angina or ACS, PF-DES might be favored due to lower all-cause mortality and equal risk of ischemic adverse cardiovascular and major bleeding events compared with PC-DES.

Target Lesion Failure With Current Drug-Eluting Stents: Evidence From a Comprehensive Network Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of currently used drug-eluting stents (DES).

BACKGROUND

Head-to-head comparisons among newer DES have shown conflicting results.

METHODS

For this network meta-analysis, randomized controlled trials comparing different types of currently used DES were searched in PubMed, Scopus, and proceedings of international meetings. The primary endpoint was target lesion failure (TLF) at 1 year and at long-term follow-up.

RESULTS

Seventy-seven trials with 99,039 patients were selected for this network meta-analysis. Among the 10 DES included in the meta-analysis, 4 received the most extensive investigation: Orsiro, XIENCE, Nobori/BioMatrix, and Resolute. At 1 year, the Orsiro stent was associated with lower rates of TLF compared with XIENCE (odds ratio [OR]: 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.71 to 0.98; p = 0.03), Resolute (OR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.68 to 0.95; p = 0.01), and Nobori/BioMatrix (OR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.67 to 0.98; p = 0.03). Orsiro had the highest probability to be the best (70.8%), with a surface under the cumulative ranking curve value of 95.9%. However, after a median follow-up period of 50 months (range: 24 to 60 months), no significant difference was apparent in the rates of TLF between any DES, although Orsiro still ranked as the best stent (58.6% probability to be the best). In addition, Orsiro had a lower rate of long-term definite stent thrombosis compared with Nobori/BioMatrix (OR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.36 to 0.98; p = 0.04) and lower rates of definite and probable stent thrombosis compared with Resolute (OR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.45 to 0.99; p = 0.04). No differences in cardiac mortality between any DES were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Orsiro is associated with a lower 1-year rate of TLF compared with XIENCE, Resolute, and Nobori/BioMatrix but with an attenuation of the efficacy signal at long-term follow-up.

Real World Experience of a Biodegradable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stent (Yukon Choice PC Elite) in Patients with Acute ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Primary Angioplasty: A Multicentric Observational Study (The Elite India Study)

BACKGROUND:

The durable polymer drug-eluting stents (DPDES) reduce the risk of repeated target vessel revascularisation (TLR) compared with BMS, but are associated with increased risk of late adverse events. In broadly inclusive populations, the biodegradable-polymer drug-eluting stents (BPDES) have favourable results compared with DPDES in the long term. However, its use in primary angioplasty has not been adequately studied, and data of real-world clinical experience is lacking.

AIM:

Aim of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of Yukon Choice PC Elite sirolimus-eluting stent (a novel BPDES) in STEMI patients undergoing primary angioplasty.

METHODS:

We have presented here one-year clinical follow-up data of the Yukon Choice PC Elite sirolimus-eluting stent in patients undergoing primary angioplasty. A total of 636 patients were enrolled in this single arm, prospective observational study from five centres.

RESULTS:

This multicentric observational study showed excellent safety and efficacy profile of the novel device at one year follow up. The device-oriented composite endpoint (DOCE) of cardiac death, target-vessel reinfarction, and target-lesion revascularisation (TLR) was 2.7%, and the patient-oriented composite endpoint (POCE) of all-cause death, any myocardial infarction, and any revascularisation was 4.2% at one year. Definite or probable stent thrombosis rate was 0.6%, and no events were recorded beyond 6 months of follow up.

CONCLUSIONS:

In patients with STEMI undergoing primary angioplasty, the use of Yukon Choice PC Elite (biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent) has excellent results at one year. It, therefore, represents an attractive alternative to second generation DES in this high-risk population.

Polymer-free drug-eluting stents versus permanent polymer drug-eluting stents: An updated meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Polymer-free drug-eluting stents (PF-DES) have been demonstrated comparable to permanent polymer drug-eluting stents (PP-DES) during long-term follow-up. As a critical component of drug-eluting stents, antiproliferative drugs may be a confounding factor for the results. Thus, we sought to compare the outcomes of these stents during long-term follow-up, especially in consideration of different stent platforms with the same drugs.

METHODS

A systemic search was performed to identify the related randomized controlled trials comparing PF-DES with PP-DES. Primary outcomes included short (≤1 year) and long-term (>1 year) target lesion revascularization (TLR), short-term in-stent late luminal loss (LLL) and diameter stenosis (DS). Subgroup analyses stratified by the different platforms with the same proliferative drugs were conducted in TLR, LLL, and DS. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) and risk ratios (RRs) were estimated using fixed /random effects models RESULTS:: A total of 6927 patients extracted from 12 RCTs were enrolled in the meta-analysis. No differences were observed in clinical outcomes of short-term and long-term overall mortality, myocardial infarction and stent thrombosis and angiographic outcomes of short-term in-stent LLL and DS between PF-DES and PP-DES for patients with coronary artery lesions. Nevertheless, compared with PP-DES coated with the same proliferative drugs, PF-DES had significantly increased risks of in-stent LLL (SMD, 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25-0.72) and DS (SMD, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.27-1.07), and long-term TLR (RR, 1.64; 95% CI 1.13-2.39). There were no significant differences in other outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Under the condition of using same antiproliferative drugs (paclitaxel or sirolimus) in different stent systems, PF-DES are associated with the increased risk of restenosis compared to PP-DES.

Percutaneous coronary intervention: balloons, stents and scaffolds

In this review, major achievements in the field of percutaneous coronary interventions are delineated with particular focus on Germany's contribution. The review deals with important developments, including the first heart catheterization and coronary angiography, first coronary balloon angioplasty and refinement of the technique, coronary stenting and optimization of adjunctive antithrombotic treatment, drug-eluting stents and balloons, as well as bioresorbable polymeric and metallic drug-eluting scaffolds.

A Randomized Comparison of Reservoir-Based Polymer-Free Amphilimus-Eluting Stents Versus Everolimus-Eluting Stents With Durable Polymer in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus: The RESERVOIR Clinical Trial

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of amphilimus-eluting stents (AES) with that of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM).

BACKGROUND

The AES is a polymer-free drug-eluting stent that elutes sirolimus formulated with an amphiphilic carrier from laser-dug wells. This technology could be associated with a high efficacy in patients with DM.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial. Patients with DM medically treated with oral glucose-lowering agents or insulin and de novo coronary lesions were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to AES or EES. The primary endpoint was the neointimal (NI) volume obstruction assessed by optical coherence tomography at 9-month follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 116 lesions in 112 patients were randomized. Overall, 40% were insulin-treated patients, with a median HbA1c of 7.3% (interquartile range: 6.7% to 8.0%). The primary endpoint, NI volume obstruction, was 11.97 ± 5.94% for AES versus 16.11 ± 18.18% for EES, meeting the noninferiority criteria (p = 0.0003). Pre-specified subgroup analyses showed a significant interaction between stent type and glycemic control (p = 0.02), with a significant reduction in NI hyperplasia in the AES group in patients with the higher HbA1c (p = 0.03). By quantitative coronary angiography, in-stent late loss was 0.14 ± 0.24 for AES versus 0.24 ± 0.57 mm for EES (p = 0.27), with a larger minimal lumen diameter at follow-up for AES (p = 0.02), mainly driven by 2 cases of occlusive restenosis in the EES group.

CONCLUSIONS

AES are noninferior to EES for the coronary revascularization of patients with DM. These results suggest a high efficacy of the AES and may support the potential benefit of this stent in patients with DM. (A Randomized Comparison of Reservoir-Based Polymer-Free Amphilimus-Eluting Stents Versus Everolimus-Eluting Stents With Durable Polymer in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus [RESERVOIR]; NCT01710748).

Stent thrombosis and adverse cardiovascular outcomes observed between six months and five years with sirolimus-eluting stents and other drug-eluting stents in patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus complicated by coronary artery disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis

This study aimed to compare 6 months to 5 years stent thrombosis (ST) and adverse cardiovascular outcomes associated with sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) and other drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).Electronic databases were searched for studies comparing SES with other DES in patients with T2DM. Total ST, definite ST, probable ST, and other adverse cardiovascular outcomes reported between 6 months and 5 years were considered as the clinical end points in this study. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for categorical variables and the pooled analyses were performed with RevMan 5.3 software.Twenty-nine studies involving a total number of 25,729 patients with diabetes were included in this meta-analysis. SES were not associated with significantly higher total, definite, and probable STs with OR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.77-1.17, P = 0.62; OR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.65-1.37, P = 0.76; and OR: 1.05, 95% CI: 0.77-1.45, P = 0.74, respectively. SES were also noninferior to the other non-sirolimus eluting drug eluting stents (non-SE DES) in terms of all-cause mortality, cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and stroke with OR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.82-1.03, P = 0.16; OR: 1.09, 95% CI: 0.88-1.35, P = 0.44; OR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.80-1.06, P = 0.26; and OR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.49-1.28, P = 0.43, respectively. Target vessel revascularization, target lesion revascularization, and major adverse cardiac events were also similarly reported between SES and non-SE DES with OR: 1.04, 95% CI: 0.83-1.31, P = 0.72; OR: 1.25, 95% CI: 0.95-1.64, P = 0.11; and OR: 1.06, 95% CI: 0.90-1.25, P = 0.49, respectively.During this particular follow-up period, SES were not associated with any increase in ST among these patients with T2DM. Mortality and other adverse cardiovascular outcomes were also not significantly different between these 2 groups. Hence, SES should be considered neither superior nor inferior to other DES. They are expected to be equally effective and safe to use in patients with T2DM.

Long-term clinical impact of polymer-free sirolimus-eluting stents in unselected patients

OBJECTIVES

The long-term clinical impact of polymer-free sirolimus-eluting stents (PF-SES) in unselected patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) still remains poorly investigated. We studied the long-term clinical impact of PF-SES in a large cohort of unselected patients receiving PCI therapy at two tertiary care centers in India.

METHODS

A total of 3213 patients received PCI with drug-eluting stents during the period from December 2004 to September 2011. Among these, those receiving PF-SES implantation were retrospectively included in this registry. The primary endpoint in our study was the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as the composite of death/myocardial infarction (MI) and target lesion revascularization, whereas the main secondary endpoints were cardiac death/MI and definite/probable stent thrombosis.

RESULTS

A total of 1213 patients (83.8% men, 31.8% diabetics) with 1658 lesions (52.5% B2/C, according to the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association classification) were studied. After a median follow-up of 1160 days, MACE occurred in 10.0% of patients, whereas the rates of cardiac death/MI and definite/probable ST were found to be 5.4 and 1.9%, respectively. The incidence of MACE was more common in patients aged at least 65 years [hazard ratio (HR)=1.69, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.13-2.52, P=0.01] and diabetics (HR=1.71, 95% CI=1.18-2.47, P=0.004). The incidence of cardiac death/MI was more common in patients aged at least 65 years (HR=2.21, 95% CI=1.32-3.70, P=0.003). The baseline risk profile did not impact the occurrence of target lesion revascularization.

CONCLUSION

In this large cohort of unselected PCI patients treated in India, PF-SES shows a sustained safety and efficacy at long-term follow-up.

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.

Polymer-free sirolimus-eluting versus polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stents: an individual patient data analysis of randomized trials

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

The angiographic and clinical efficacy of polymer-free sirolimus-eluting stents vs polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stents remain a matter of debate. We sought to investigate angiographic and clinical measures of efficacy of polymer-free sirolimus-eluting stents vs polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stents.

METHODS

Patient data from the randomized intracoronary stenting and angiographic restenosis-test equivalence between the 2 drug-eluting stents (ISAR-TEST) clinical trial and the LIPSIA Yukon clinical trial (randomized comparison of a polymer-free sirolimus-eluting stent vs a polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stent in patients with diabetes mellitus) were pooled. The angiographic (primary) endpoint was in-stent late lumen loss at 6 months to 9 months. The clinical (secondary) endpoints were death or myocardial infarction, cardiac death or myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization, and myocardial infarction.

RESULTS

A total of 686 patients (polymer-free sirolimus-eluting stents, n=345 vs polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stents, n=341) and 751 lesions (polymer-free sirolimus-eluting stents, n=383 vs polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stents, n=368) were included in the study. Control angiography (606 lesions, 80.6%) showed comparable in-stent late lumen loss for polymer-free sirolimus-eluting stents vs polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stents (0.53 [0.59] mm vs 0.46 [0.57] mm; P=.15). Median follow-up was 34.8 months. Polymer-free sirolimus-eluting stents and polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stents were associated with comparable risk of death or myocardial infarction (relative risk=1.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.49-2.80; P=.71), cardiac death or myocardial infarction (relative risk=1.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-1.89; P=.50), target lesion revascularization (relative risk=0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.65-1.47; P=.93), and myocardial infarction (relative risk=1.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.85-3.76; P=.12).

CONCLUSIONS

In this pooled analysis, polymer-free sirolimus-eluting stents were comparable to polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stents with respect to both angiographic and clinical efficacy.

Safety and efficacy outcomes of first and second generation durable polymer drug eluting stents and biodegradable polymer biolimus eluting stents in clinical practice: comprehensive network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the safety and efficacy of durable polymer drug eluting stents (DES) and biodegradable polymer biolimus eluting stents (biolimus-ES).

DESIGN

Network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION

Medline, Google Scholar, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) database search for randomised controlled trials comparing at least two of durable polymer sirolimus eluting stents (sirolimus-ES) and paclitaxel eluting stents (paclitaxel-ES), newer durable polymer everolimus eluting stents (everolimus-ES), Endeavor and Resolute zotarolimus eluting stents (zotarolimus-ES), and biodegradable polymer biolimus-ES.

PRIMARY OUTCOMES

Safety (death, myocardial infarction, definite or probable stent thrombosis) and efficacy (target lesion and target vessel revascularisation) assessed at up to one year and beyond.

RESULTS

60 randomised controlled trials were compared involving 63,242 patients with stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndrome treated with a DES. At one year, there were no differences in mortality among devices. Resolute and Endeavor zotarolimus-ES, everolimus-ES, and sirolimus-ES, but not biodegradable polymer biolimus-ES, were associated with significantly reduced odds of myocardial infarction (by 29-34%) compared with paclitaxel-ES. Compared with everolimus-ES, biodegradable polymer biolimus-ES were associated with significantly increased odds of myocardial infarction (by 29%), while Endeavor zotarolimus-ES and paclitaxel-ES were associated with significantly increased odds of stent thrombosis. All investigated DES were similar with regards to efficacy endpoints, except for Endeavor zotarolimus-ES and paclitaxel-ES, which were associated with significantly increased the odds of target lesion and target vessel revascularisations compared with other devices. Direction of results beyond one year did not diverge from the findings for up to one year follow-up. Bayesian probability curves showed a gradient in the magnitude of effect, with everolimus-ES and Resolute zotarolimus-ES offering the highest safety profiles.

CONCLUSIONS

The newer durable polymer everolimus-ES and Resolute zotarolimus-ES and the biodegradable polymer biolimus-ES maintain the efficacy of sirolimus-ES; however, for safety endpoints, differences become apparent, with everolimus-ES and Resolute zotarolimus-ES emerging as the safest stents to date.

Five-year clinical follow-up of a randomized comparison of a polymer-free sirolimus-eluting stent versus a polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stent in patients with diabetes mellitus (LIPSIA Yukon trial)

OBJECTIVES

The long-term performance of polymer-free stent systems in patients with diabetes mellitus has not been investigated extensively. This study reports long-term results of the LIPSIA Yukon trial which compared the polymer-free sirolimus-eluting Yukon Choice stent with the polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting Taxus Liberté stent in this subpopulation. At 9 months, the Yukon Choice stent failed to show non-inferiority in terms of the primary end point late lumen loss, while no significant difference in clinical outcome was detected.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The LIPSIA Yukon trial randomized 240 patients with diabetes mellitus to a polymer-free sirolimus eluting stent (Yukon Choice, Translumina) versus a polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stent (Taxus Liberté, Boston Scientific). Clinical follow-up was conducted with a standardized telephone follow-up and all events were centrally adjudicated. Follow-up was available for 98.3% of patients after a median of 5.0 years. The incidence of all-cause death (16.9% versus 14.0%, P = 0.67), respectively definite or presumed cardiovascular death (7.6% versus 8.8%, P = 0.94) were similar in the Yukon Choice and the Taxus Liberté group. There were no significant differences in the rates of myocardial infarction (9.3% versus 7.9%, P = 0.88), definite stent thrombosis (0.8% versus 0.9%, P = 1.0), target lesion revascularization (15.3% versus 15.8%, P = 1.0), target vessel revascularization (18.6% versus 23.7%, P = 0.44), non-target vessel revascularization (18.6% versus 26.3%, P = 0.21), and stroke (3.4% versus 4.4%, P = 0.96) between patients assigned to the Yukon Choice and the Taxus Liberté stent.

CONCLUSION

At 5 years of follow-up, clinical outcome was similar between the polymer-free sirolimus-eluting Yukon Choice stent and the polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting Taxus Liberté stent.