Differential Effects of Newer-Generation Ultrathin-Strut Versus Thicker-Strut Drug-Eluting Stents in Chronic and Acute Coronary Syndromes

Ultrathin-strut versus thin-strut stent healing and outcomes in preclinical and clinical subjects

BACKGROUND

Compared with thin-strut durable-polymer drug-eluting stents (DP-DES), ultrathin-strut biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (BP-SES) improve stent-related clinical outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Reduced stent strut thickness is hypothesised to underlie these benefits, but this conjecture remains unproven.

AIMS

We aimed to assess the impact of strut thickness on stent healing and clinical outcomes between ultrathin-strut and thin-strut BP-SES.

METHODS

First, we performed a preclinical study of 8 rabbits implanted with non-overlapping thin-strut (diameter/thickness 3.5 mm/80 μm) and ultrathin-strut (diameter/thickness 3.0 mm/60 μm) BP-SES in the infrarenal aorta. On day 7, the rabbits underwent intravascular near-infrared fluorescence optical coherence tomography (NIRF-OCT) molecular-structural imaging of fibrin deposition and stent tissue coverage, followed by histopathological analysis. Second, we conducted an individual data pooled analysis of patients enrolled in the BIOSCIENCE and BIOSTEMI randomised PCI trials treated with ultrathin-strut (n=282) or thin-strut (n=222) BP-SES. The primary endpoint was target lesion failure (TLF) at 1-year follow-up, with a landmark analysis at 30 days.

RESULTS

NIRF-OCT image analyses revealed that ultrathin-strut and thin-strut BP-SES exhibited similar stent fibrin deposition (p=0.49) and percentage of uncovered stent struts (p=0.63). Histopathological assessments corroÂborated these findings. In 504 pooled randomised trial patients, TLF rates were similar for those treated with ultrathin-strut or thin-strut BP-SES at 30-day (2.5% vs 1.8%; p=0.62) and 1-year follow-up (4.3% vs 4.7%; p=0.88).

CONCLUSIONS

Ultrathin-strut and thin-strut BP-SES demonstrate similar early arterial healing profiles and 30-day and 1-year clinical outcomes.

Safety and efficacy of drug-eluting stents for patients at high risk of bleedings: A network meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Among different coronary stents implanted in High Bleeding Risk (HBR) patients with an indication for short antiplatelet therapy, no comparisons in terms of efficacy have been provided.

METHODS

A Network Meta Analysis was performed including all randomized controlled trials comparing different coronary stents evaluated in HBR patients. Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events (MACEs) as defined by each included trial were the primary end point, whereas TLR (target lesion revascularization), TVR (target vessel revascularization), stent thrombosis and total and major (BARC3-5) bleedings were the secondary ones.

RESULTS

A total of four studies (ONYX ONE, LEADERS FREE, SENIOR and HBR in BIO-RESORT) including 6637 patients were analyzed with different kind of stents and dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) length (1 or 6 months) on 12 months follow-up. About one-third of these patients were defined HBR due to indication for oral anticoagulation. All drug eluting stents (DESs) reduced risk of MACE compared to Bare Metal Stents (BMSs) when followed by a 1-month DAPT. At SUCRA analysis, Orsiro was the device with the highest probability of performing best. Rates of TLR and TVR were significantly lower when using Resolute Onyx, Synergy and BioFreedom stents in comparison to BMS when followed by 1-month DAPT, with Synergy ranking best. Synergy also showed a significantly lower number of stent thrombosis compared to BMS (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.06-0.93), while Orsiro and Resolute Integrity showed the highest probability of performing best.

CONCLUSION

In HBRs patients, all DESs were superior to BMSs in terms of efficacy and safety. Among DESs, Orsiro was the one with the highest ranking in terms of MACE, mainly driven by a reduced incidence of repeated revascularization and stent thrombosis.

Comparison Among Ultra-Thin Coronary Stents: A Network Meta-Analysis

Ultrathin-strut drug-eluting stents (DES) have been related to potential improvement in stent-related outcomes compared with thicker-struts DES. However, comparisons among different ultrathin devices are lacking. All randomized controlled trials comparing ultrathin (struts thickness <70 µm) and thicker-struts DESs in an all-comers population were included. Target lesion failure (TLF), as defined by included trials, at 1-year follow-up was the primary end point. Overall mortality, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization (TLR), and stent thrombosis were the secondary end points. Arms of included trials were compared using network meta-analysis. Nine studies encompassing 20,081 patients were included, of which 9,509 patients had an ultrathin DES: Orsiro (evaluated in 7 arms with 8,086 patients), MiStent (1 arm with 703 patients), or Supraflex (1 arm with 720 patients). At 1-year follow-up, no significant differences were noted for TLF among these ultrathin DES. In particular, Orsiro was associated with a similar risk of TLF compared with Supraflex (risk rate 1.07, 95% confidence interval 0.59 to 1.78) and showed the highest probability of performing best in terms of TLF, myocardial infarction, and TLR. Ultrathin DES are all associated with a comparable risk of TLF compared with thicker-strut DES. In terms of TLR and TLF risk, Orsiro was the one with the highest probability of best performances, either compared with other ultrathin DES or to devices with thicker struts.

Long-term safety of ultrathin bioabsorbable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stents versus thin durable-polymer drug-eluting stents in acute coronary syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Because of the advancement of bioabsorbable polymers and thinner struts, bioabsorbable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (BP-SES) with ultrathin struts may be related to superior performance when compared to durable-polymer drug-eluting stents (DP-DES) with thin struts. Nonetheless, the long-term safety of ultrathin BP-SES in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) remains unknown.

METHODS

We sought to assess the long-term safety of ultrathin BP-SES in ACS patients, conducting a thorough meta-analysis of all relevant trials drawing a comparison between ultrathin BP-SES and contemporary thin DP-DES. Target lesion failure (TLF), which includes cardiac death (CD), target-vessel myocardial infarction (TV-MI), and clinically driven target lesion revascularization (CD-TLR) was considered the primary endpoint. Multiple databases comprising Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Pubmed were all thoroughly searched.

RESULTS

There were seven randomized controlled trials included in our study with 7522 randomized patients with ACS (BP-SES = 3888, DP-DES = 3634). TLF occurred in 371 (9.5% in BP-SES) and 393 (10.8% in DP-DES) patients, respectively, across a 40.7-month weighted mean follow-up, with no statistically significant group differences (risk ratio [RR]: 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.73-1.04; p = .12). Furthermore, no significant differences in cardiac death (RR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.68-1.35; p = .81), TV-MI (RR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.36-1.10; p = .10) and CD-TLR (RR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.46-1.29; p = .32) were detected between two groups.

CONCLUSION

During a follow-up of 40.7 months, ultrathin BP-SES and thin DP-DES had a comparable risk of TLF and its individual components (CD, TV-MI, and CD-TLR), indicating that ultrathin BP-SES held at least the same safety and efficiency as thin DP-DES presented in patients with ACS.

Long-term outcomes with biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: 5-year follow-up of the BIOSTEMI randomised superiority trial

BACKGROUND

Biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents improve early stent-related clinical outcomes compared to durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. The long-term advantages of biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents after complete degradation of its polymer coating in patients with STEMI remains however uncertain.

METHODS

BIOSTEMI Extended Survival (BIOSTEMI ES) was an investigator-initiated, follow-up extension study of the BIOSTEMI prospective, multicentre, single-blind, randomised superiority trial that compared biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents with durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents in patients with STEMI undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention at ten hospitals in Switzerland. All individuals who had provided written informed consent for participation in the BIOSTEMI trial were eligible for this follow-up study. The primary endpoint was target lesion failure, defined as a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial re-infarction, or clinically indicated target lesion revascularisation, at 5 years. Superiority of biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents over durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents was declared if the Bayesian posterior probability for a rate ratio (RR) of less than 1 was greater than 0·975. Analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat principle. The study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05484310.

FINDINGS

Between April 26, 2016, and March 9, 2018, 1300 patients with STEMI (1622 lesions) were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to treatment with biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (649 patients, 816 lesions) or durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (651 patients, 806 lesions). At 5 years, the primary composite endpoint of target lesion failure occurred in 50 (8%) patients treated with biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents and in 72 (11%) patients treated with durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (difference of -3%; RR 0·70, 95% Bayesian credible interval 0·51-0·95; Bayesian posterior probability for superiority 0·988).

INTERPRETATION

In patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for STEMI, biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents were superior to durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents with respect to target lesion failure at 5 years of follow-up. The difference was driven by a numerically lower risk for ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularisation.

FUNDING

Biotronik.

Ultrathin, biodegradable polymer-coated everolimus-eluting stents for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: Final three-year results of the PERFORM-EVER registry

The registry reports 3-year safety and clinical performance of the ultrathin strut (60 μm) biodegradable polymer-coated Tetrilimus, an everolimus-eluting stent (EES) (Sahajanand Medical Technologies Limited, India), in 'real-world' patients with coronary artery disease. A total of 815 Tetrilimus EES were implanted in 735 lesions in 594 patients. At 3-year follow-up, primary endpoint (target lesion failure, TLF) was reported in 8.6 % patients, including 2.6 % cardiac deaths, 3.5 % myocardial infarction and 2.6 % target lesion revascularization. At three-year, no cases of definite stent thrombosis were reported. The final three-year results of PERFORM-EVER registry endorse the continuous safety and effectiveness Tetrilimus EES.

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.

DES Strut Thickness and Clinical Outcomes After CTO Recanalization: Insights From LATAM CTO Registry

BACKGROUND

Ultra-thin strut drug-eluting stent (UTS-DES) may improve outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) but have received limited study in chronic total occlusion (CTO) PCI.

AIMS

To compare of 1-year incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) between patients who underwent CTO PCI with ultrathin (≤ 75 μm) versus thin (>75 μm) strut DES in the LATAM CTO registry.

METHODS

Patients were considered for inclusion only if successful CTO PCI was performed and when only one type of stent strut thickness (ultrathin or thin) was used. A propensity score matching (PSM) was computed to produce similar groups in relation to clinical and procedural characteristics.

RESULTS

Between January 2015 and January 2020, 2092 patients underwent CTO PCI, of whom 1466 were included in the present analysis (475 in the ultra-thin and 991 in the thin strut DES). In unadjusted analysis the UTS-DES group had lower rate of MACE (HR: 0.63 95 % CI 0.42 to 0.94, p = 0.04) and repeat revascularizations (HR: 0.50 95 % CI 0.31 to 0.81, p = 0.02) at 1-year follow-up. After adjustment for confounding factors in a Cox regression model there was no difference in 1-year incidence of MACE between groups (HR: 1.15 95 % CI 0.41 to 2.97, p = 0.85). On PSM of 686 patients (343 in each group) the 1-year incidence of MACE (HR 0.68 95 % CI 0.37-1.23; P = 0.22) and individual components of MACE did not differ between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

One-year clinical outcomes after CTO PCI were similar with ultrathin and thin strut DES.

Impact of acute coronary syndrome on clinical outcomes after revascularization with the dual-therapy CD34 antibody-covered sirolimus-eluting Combo stent and the sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of the dual-therapy CD34 antibody-covered sirolimus-eluting Combo stent (DTS) and the sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent (O-SES) in patients with and without acute coronary syndrome (ACS) included in the SORT OUT X study.

BACKGROUND

The incidence of target lesion failure (TLF) after treatment with modern drug-eluting stents has been reported to be significantly higher in patients with ACS when compared to patients without ACS. Whether the results from the SORT OUT X study apply to patients with and without ACS remains unknown.

METHODS

In total, 3146 patients were randomized to stent implantation with DTS (n = 1578; ACS: n = 856) or O-SES (n = 1568; ACS: n = 854). The primary end point, TLF, was a composite of cardiac death, target-lesion myocardial infarction (MI), or target lesion revascularization (TLR) within 1 year.

RESULTS

At 1 year, the rate of TLF was higher in the DTS group compared to the O-SES group, both among patients with ACS (6.7% vs. 4.1%; incidence rate ratio: 1.65 [95% confidence interval, CI: 1.08-2.52]) and without ACS (6.0% vs. 3.2%; incidence rate ratio: 1.88 [95% CI: 1.13-3.14]). The differences were mainly explained by higher rates of TLR, whereas rates of cardiac death and target lesion MI did not differ significantly between the two stent groups in patients with or without ACS CONCLUSION: Compared to the O-SES, the DTS was associated with a higher risk of TLF at 12 months in patients with and without ACS. The differences were mainly explained by higher rates of TLR.

Acute coronary syndromes in diabetic patients, outcome, revascularization, and antithrombotic therapy

Diabetes exacerbates the progression of atherosclerosis and is associated with increased risk of developing acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Approximatively 25-30% of patients admitted for ACS have diabetes. ACS occurs earlier in diabetics and is associated with increased mortality and a higher risk of recurrent ischemic events. An increased proinflammatory and prothrombotic state is involved in the poorer outcomes of diabetic patients. In the past decade advancement in both percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery by-pass graft (CABG) techniques and more potent antiplatelet drugs like prasugrel and ticagrelor improved outcomes of diabetic patients with ACS, but this population still experiences worse outcomes compared to non-diabetic patients. While in ST elevation myocardial infarction urgent PCI is the method of choice for revascularization, in patients with non-ST elevation ACS an early invasive approach is suggested by the guidelines, but in the setting of multivessel (MV) or complex coronary artery disease (CAD) the revascularization strategy is less clear. This review describes the accumulating evidence regarding factors involved in promoting increased incidence and poor prognosis of ACS in patients with diabetes, the evolution over time of prognosis and outcomes, revascularization strategies and antithrombotic therapy studied until now.