A sirolimus-eluting bioabsorbable polymer-coated stent (MiStent) versus an everolimus-eluting durable polymer stent (Xience) after percutaneous coronary intervention (DESSOLVE III): a randomised, single-blind, multicentre, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial

Comparison of long-term clinical outcomes of bioabsorbable polymer versus durable polymer drug-eluting stents: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

One million individuals in the USA die from acute myocardial infarction (MI), which currently affects 3 million people globally. The available data about the early and late outcomes of both biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents (BP-DES) and durable polymer drug-eluting stents exhibit inconsistency. We performed a meta-analysis comparing the safety and efficacy of BP-DES with DP-DES.

METHODS

PubMed, Google Scholar, EMBASE, Cochrane, Ovid Medline, and Clinical Trials.gov databases were used to find out studies comparing BP-DES to DP-DES. All the analyses used the random-effects model.

RESULTS

A total of 18 studies were incorporated in this meta-analysis that involved 28,874 patients, out of which 11,997 received the BP Stent, and the rest of 16,578 received the DP stent. Thorough analyses revealed that the risk of all-cause death was significantly higher in the BP-DES group (5.4% vs 2.7%) (RR 1.22, p 0.02) for two years or less than two-year follow-up. For studies with more than two years of follow-up, all-cause death was 9.07% (599/6603) in BP-DES and 9.47% (531/5602) in the DP-DES group but failed to achieve statistically significant levels (RR 0.97, p 0.58).

CONCLUSIONS

The study revealed no clinically significant (P value was > 0.05) differences in all-cause death, cardiac death, target lesion revascularization (TLR), late stent thrombosis, device-oriented composite endpoint/target lesion failure (DOCE/TLF), myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel MI, target vessel revascularization (TVR), target vessel infarction (TVI) between BP-DES and DP-DES for more than two years of follow-up. Additionally, all-cause death was only outcomes which found to have a statistically significant difference for less than two years of follow-up, while remaining were statistically non-significant.

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 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.

Efficacy and Safety of TiNO-Coated Stents versus Drug-Eluting Stents in Acute Coronary Syndrome: Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis

(1) Background: Practice guidelines define drug-eluting stents (DES) as the standard of care in coronary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), including in acute coronary syndrome (ACS). This is based on comparisons with bare-metal stents (BMS). However, non-drug-eluting titanium-nitride-oxide-coated stents (TiNOS) have not been taken into account. The objective of this study is to determine whether TiNOS can be used as an alternative to DES in ACS. (2) Methods: A prospective systematic literature review (SLR), conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines, was performed, wherein multiple literature databases from 2018 and 2022 were searched. Prospective, randomised, controlled trials comparing outcomes after PCI with TiNOS vs. DES in any coronary artery disease (CAD) were searched. Clinical outcomes were meta-analytic pooled risk ratios (RR) of device-oriented Major Adverse Cardiac Events (MACE) and their components. The analysis stratified outcomes reported with ACS-only vs. ACS jointly with chronic coronary syndrome (CCS). (3) Results: Five RCTs were eligible, comprising 1855 patients with TiNOS vs. 1363 with DES at a 1-year follow-up. Three enrolled patients presented with ACS only and two with ACS or CCS. The latter accounted for most of the patients. The one-year pooled RRs in those three RCTs were as follows: MACE 0.93 [0.72, 1.20], recurrent myocardial infarction (MI) 0.48 [0.31, 0.73], cardiac death (CD) 0.66 [0.33, 1.31], clinically driven target lesion revascularization (TLR) 1.55 [1.10, 2.19], and stent thrombosis (ST) 0.35 [0.20, 0.64]. Those results were robust to a sensitivity analysis. The evidence certainty was high in MACE and moderate or low in the other endpoints. (4) Conclusions: TiNOS are a non-inferior and safe alternative to DES in patients with ACS.

Stent Thrombosis After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: From Bare-Metal to the Last Generation of Drug-Eluting Stents

Since their introduction in clinical practice in 1986, different types of coronary stents have been developed and become available for the treatment of coronary artery disease. Stent thrombosis (ST) is an uncommon but harmful complication after percutaneous coronary implantation, with a high occurrence of acute myocardial infarction and risk of mortality. Among several procedural and clinical predictors, the type of coronary stent is a strong determinant of ST. This article reviews the available evidence on the most used coronary stent types in the modern era and the related risk of ST.

The path to a hemocompatible cardiovascular implant: Advances and challenges of current endothelialization strategies

Cardiovascular (CV) implants are still associated with thrombogenicity due to insufficient hemocompatibility. Endothelialization of their luminal surface is a promising strategy to increase their hemocompatibility. In this review, we provide a collection of research studies and review articles aiming to summarize the recent efforts on surface modifications of CV implants, including stents, grafts, valves, and ventricular assist devises. We focus in particular on the implementation of micrometer or nanoscale surface modifications, physical characteristics of known biomaterials (such as wetness and stiffness), and surface morphological features (such as gratings, fibers, pores, and pits). We also review how biomechanical signals originating from the endothelial cell for surface interaction can be directed by topography engineering approaches toward the survival of the endothelium and its long-term adaptation. Finally, we summarize the regulatory and economic challenges that may prevent clinical implementation of endothelialized CV implants.

Ultrathin Struts Drug-Eluting Stents: A State-of-the-Art Review

New-generation drug-eluting stents (DESs) represent the standard of care for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Recent iterations in DES technology have led to the development of newer stent platforms with a further reduction in strut thickness. This new DES class, known as ultrathin struts DESs, has struts thinner than 70 µm. The evidence base for these devices consists of observational data, large-scale meta-analyses, and randomized trials with long-term follow-up, which have been conducted to investigate the difference between ultrathin struts DESs and conventional new-generation DESs in a variety of clinical settings and lesion subsets. Ultrathin struts DESs may further improve the efficacy and safety profile of PCI by reducing the risk of target-lesion and target-vessel failures in comparison to new-generation DESs. In this article, we reviewed device characteristics and clinical data of the Orsiro (Biotronik, Bülach, Switzerland), Coroflex ISAR (B. Braun Melsungen, Germany), BioMime (Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Gujarat, India), MiStent (MiCell Technologies, USA), and Supraflex (Sahajanand Medical Technologies, Surat, India) sirolimus-eluting stents.

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

BACKGROUND

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

AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

CLINICALTRIALS

gov: NCT02870140.

Temporal trends in clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review of 66,327 patients from 25 all-comers trials

BACKGROUND

With the improvements of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) technology and post-PCI patient management, several registry studies reported temporal trends in post-PCI clinical outcomes. However, their results are inconclusive, potentially reflecting region-specific trends, based on site-reported events without external validity.

AIMS

This study aimed to investigate temporal trends in post-PCI clinical outcomes in all-comers randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving coronary stents.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review identifying RCTs comparing a clinical outcome as a primary endpoint among different coronary stents with an all-comers design and independent clinical event adjudication, extracting the study start year, patient baseline characteristics, and one- and five-year clinical outcomes. Temporal trends in clinical outcomes (cardiac death, myocardial infarction [MI], target lesion revascularisation [TLR], stent thrombosis [ST]) were assessed using random-effects meta-regression analyses, estimating the relationship between clinical outcomes and study start year.

RESULTS

Overall, 25 all-comers trials (51 device arms, 66,327 patients) conducted between 2003 and 2018 fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Random-effects meta-regression analysis revealed significant decreasing trends in one- and five-year cardiac death, one-year TLR, and five-year ST incidences (relative risk per 10-year increase: 0.69 [0.51-0.92], 0.66 [0.44-0.98], 0.60 [0.41-0.88], and 0.18 [0.07-0.44], respectively). There was no significant trend in myocardial infarction incidences.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first attempt to clarify and quantify the temporal trends of post-PCI outcome incidence. The 15-year improvements in PCI therapy and post-therapeutic patient management are associated with reduced incidences of cardiac death and PCI-related adverse events.

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

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

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

OBJECTIVES

The authors sought to compare the differential effects of ultrathin-strut and thicker-strut drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients with chronic (CCS) versus acute (ACS) coronary syndromes.

BACKGROUND

Newest-generation ultrathin-strut DES reduce target lesion failure (TLF) compared with thicker-strut second-generation DES in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for randomized controlled trials comparing newer-generation ultrathin-strut (<70 μm) versus thicker-strut (≥70 μm) DES. Patients were divided based on baseline clinical presentation (CCS versus ACS). The primary endpoint was TLF, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically indicated target lesion revascularization (TLR).

RESULTS

A total of 22,766 patients from 16 randomized controlled trials were included, of which 9 trials reported TLF rates in ACS patients. At a mean follow-up of 12.2 months, the risk of TLF was lower among patients treated with ultrathin-strut compared with thicker-strut DES (risk ratio [RR]: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.75-0.95; P = 0.006). The difference was driven by a lower risk of clinically-indicated TLR (RR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.63-0.89; P < 0.001) among patients treated with ultrathin-strut DES. The treatment effect was consistent between patients presenting with CCS and ACS (relative RR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.73-1.31; P for interaction = 0.854). In patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, TLF risk was lower among those treated with ultrathin- compared with thicker-strut DES (RR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.54-0.99; P = 0.049).

CONCLUSIONS

Ultrathin-strut DES reduce the risk of TLF compared with thicker-strut second-generation DES in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, a difference caused by a lower risk of ischemia-driven TLR. The treatment effect was consistent among patients with CCS and ACS.

Biodegradable- Versus Durable-Polymer Drug-Eluting Stents for STEMI: Final 2-Year Outcomes of the BIOSTEMI Trial

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to investigate the safety and efficacy of biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (BP-SES) compared with durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP-EES) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).

BACKGROUND

Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is an effective treatment for patients with STEMI, and long-term outcomes are determined by the safety and efficacy profile of the newest generation drug-eluting stents.

METHODS

BIOSTEMI (A Comparison of an Ultrathin Strut Biodegradable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stent With a Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stent for Patients With Acute ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) was an investigator-initiated, multicenter, assessor-blind, randomized superiority trial using Bayesian methods. Patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI within 24 h of symptom onset were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive BP-SES (n = 649) or DP-EES (n = 651). The primary endpoint was target lesion failure (TLF), a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial reinfarction, and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization (TLR) at 2 years.

RESULTS

Between April 2016 and March 2018, 1,300 patients were included. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the 2 treatment groups. Follow-up through 2 years was complete in 1,221 patients (94%). At 2 years, TLF occurred in 33 patients (5.1%) treated with BP-SES and in 53 patients (8.1%) treated with DP-EES (rate ratio: 0.58; 95% Bayesian credible interval: 0.40 to 0.84; posterior probability of superiority = 0.998). The difference was driven by a lower incidence of clinically indicated TLR in patients treated with BP-SES compared with DP-EES (2.5% vs. 5.1%; rate ratio: 0.52; 95% Bayesian credible interval: 0.30 to 0.87; posterior probability of superiority = 0.993). There were no significant differences in rates of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial reinfarction, and definite stent thrombosis between the 2 treatment arms.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI, BP-SES were superior to DP-EES with respect to TLF at 2 years. The difference was driven by lower rates of ischemia-driven TLR. (A Comparison of an Ultrathin Strut Biodegradable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stent With a Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stent for Patients With Acute ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention [BIOSTEMI]; NCT02579031).

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

AIMS

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

METHODS AND RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

One-year performance of thin-strut cobalt chromium sirolimus-eluting stent versus thicker strut stainless steel biolimus-eluting coronary stent: a propensity-matched analysis of two international all-comers registries

OBJECTIVES

Recent improvements in coronary stent design have focussed on thinner struts, different alloys and architecture, more biocompatible polymers, and shorter drug absorption times. This study evaluates safety and efficacy of a newer generation thin-strut cobalt chromium sirolimus-eluting coronary stent (SES, Ultimaster) in comparison with a second-generation thicker strut stainless steel biolimus-eluting stent (BES, Nobori) in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) practice.

METHODS

A propensity score analysis was performed to adjust for differences in baseline characteristics of 8137 SES patients and 2738 BES patients of two PCI registries (e-Ultimaster and NOBORI 2). An independent clinical event committee adjudicated all endpoint-related adverse events.

RESULTS

The use of SES, as compared with BES was associated with a significantly lower rate of myocardial infarction (MI) (1.2% vs 2.2%; P = 0.0006) and target vessel-related MI (1.1% vs 1.8%; P = 0.002) at 1 year. One-year composite endpoints of all predefined endpoints were lower in patients undergoing SES implantation (target lesion failure: 3.2% vs 4.1%; P = 0.03, target vessel failure: 3.7% vs 5.0%; P = 0.003, patient-oriented composite endpoint 5.7% vs 6.8%; P = 0.03). No significant differences between SES and BES were observed in all-cause death (2.0% vs 1.6%; P = 0.19), cardiac death (1.2% vs 1.2%; P = 0.76) or stent thrombosis (0.6% vs 0.8%; P = 0.43).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest an improved clinical safety and efficacy of a newer generation thin-strut SES as compared with a second-generation thicker strut BES.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents vs durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: A meta-analysis of individual patient data from 5 randomized trials

BACKGROUND

Newest generation drug-eluting stents combine biodegradable polymers with ultrathin stent platforms in order to minimize vessel injury and inflammatory response. Evidence from randomized controlled trials suggested that differences in stent design translate into differences in clinical outcome. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ultrathin strut, biodegradable polymer sirolimus eluting stents (BP SES) compared with thin strut, durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP EES) among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

METHODS

We pooled individual participant data from 5 randomized trials (NCT01356888, NCT01939249, NCT02389946, NCT01443104, NCT02579031) including a total of 5,780 patients, and performed a one-stage meta-analysis using a mixed effects Cox regression model.

RESULTS

At a median duration of follow-up of 739 days (interquartile range 365-1,806 days), target-lesion failure occurred in 337 (10.3%) and 304 (12.2%) patients treated with BP SES and DP EES (HR 0.86, 95%CI 0.71-1.06, P = .16). There were no significant differences between BP SES and DP EES with regards to cardiac death (111 (3.4%) vs 102 (4.1%); HR 1.05, 95%CI 0.80-1.37, P = .73), target-vessel myocardial infarction (136 (4.1%) vs 126 (5.0%), HR 0.79, 95%CI 0.62-1.01, P = .061), and clinically-driven target-lesion revascularization (163 (5.0%) vs 147 (5.9%); HR 0.94, 95%CI 0.75-1.18, P = .61). The effect was consistent across major subgroups. In a landmark analysis, there was no significant interaction between treatment effect and timing of events.

CONCLUSIONS

In this patient-level meta-analysis of 5 randomized controlled trials, BP SES were associated with a similar risk of target-lesion failure compared with DP EES among patients undergoing PCI.

STUDY REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registry (CRD42018109098).

Novel Supreme Drug-Eluting Stents With Early Synchronized Antiproliferative Drug Delivery to Inhibit Smooth Muscle Cell Proliferation After Drug-Eluting Stents Implantation in Coronary Artery Disease: Results of the PIONEER III Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Accelerated endothelial healing after targeted antiproliferative drug delivery may limit the long-term inflammatory response of drug-eluting stents (DESs). The novel Supreme DES is designed to synchronize early drug delivery within 4 to 6 weeks of implantation, leaving behind a prohealing permanent base layer. Whether the Supreme DES is safe and effective in the short term and can improve long-term clinical outcomes is not known.

METHODS

In an international, 2:1 randomized, single-blind trial, we compared treatment with Supreme DES to durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP-EES) in patients with acute and chronic coronary syndromes. The primary end point was target lesion failure-a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target lesion revascularization. The trial was designed to demonstrate noninferiority (margin of 3.58%) of the Supreme DES at 12 months compared with DP-EES (URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03168776).

RESULTS

From October 2017 to July 2019, a total of 1629 patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to the Supreme DES (N=1086) or DP-EES (N=543). At 12 months, target lesion failure occurred in 57 of 1057 patients (5.4%) in the Supreme DES group and in 27 of 532 patients (5.1%) in the DP-EES group (absolute risk difference, 0.32% [95% CI, -1.87 to 2.5]; P_{noninferiority}=0.002]. There were no significant differences in rates of device success, clinically driven target lesion revascularization, or stent thrombosis at 12 months, and the safety composite of cardiovascular death and target vessel myocardial infarction was 3.5% versus 4.6% (hazard ratio, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.46-1.25]) with Supreme DES compared with DP-EES, although rates of combined clinically and non-clinically driven target lesion revascularization at 12 months were higher with Supreme DES.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with acute and chronic coronary syndromes undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, the Supreme DES proved to be noninferior to the standard DP-EES. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03168776.

Second generation drug-eluting stents: a focus on safety and efficacy of current devices

Introduction: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) represents the most frequent procedure performed in medicine. Second generation drug eluting stents (DES) have been developed to reduce the rates of late and very late complications of first generation DES.Areas covered: To improve long-term efficacy and safety of patients undergoing PCI, second generation DES have been developed with novel stent platforms, biocompatible durable and biodegradable polymers and newer antiproliferative agents. In this review we provide an overview of second generation DES and their clinical trials, discussing safety and effectiveness of these devices, and outlining clinical indication for use.Expert commentary: Numerous clinical trials have demonstrated the safety and efficacy of second generation DES over the last decade. These devices represent the gold standard treatment in stable and acute coronary syndromes.

Neointimal hyperplasia of ultra-thin stents with microcrystalline sirolimus or durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents: 6- and 24-month results of the DESSOLVE III OCT study

AIMS

The DESSOLVE III OCT substudy aimed to compare serially neointimal hyperplasia volume obstruction (%VO) between the thin-strut MiStent with early polymer elimination and nine-month sustained drug release from microcrystalline sirolimus and the durable polymer-coated everolimus-eluting XIENCE stent at six and 24 months after implantation.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The efficacy endpoint was %VO, calculated as abluminal neointimal volume/stent volume. Thirty-six patients (MiStent 16 patients, 16 lesions; XIENCE 20 patients, 22 lesions) underwent serial OCT evaluation at both six and 24 months. At six months, mean abluminal %VO was significantly lower in the MiStent group than in the XIENCE group (14.54±3.70% vs 19.11±6.70%; p=0.011), whereas the difference in %VO between the two groups decreased at 24 months (20.88±5.72% vs 23.50±7.33%; p=0.24). There was no significant difference in percentage malapposed struts and percentage uncovered struts between the two groups at both time points.

CONCLUSIONS

In the serial comparative OCT analysis of the MiStent versus the XIENCE, the MiStent showed a more favourable efficacy for preventing neointimal formation with comparable strut tissue coverage, as compared with the XIENCE at six months, but this difference in %VO decreased at 24 months so that the difference in neointima at 24 months was no longer significant.

Vascular Wall Reactions to Coronary Stents-Clinical Implications for Stent Failure

Coronary stents belong to the most commonly implanted devices worldwide. A number of different types of stent exist, with very different mechanical and biochemical characteristics that influence their interactions with vascular tissues. Inappropriate inflammatory reactions are the major cause of the two major complications that follow implantation of stents in a percentage as high as 5-20%. It is therefore important to understand these reactions and how different they are among different generations of stents.

Clinical outcomes of ultrathin strut biodegradable polymer-coated everolimus-eluting stent in patients with coronary artery disease

BACKGROUND

Evermine 50™ (Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., India) everolimus-eluting stent system (EES) is a novel ultrathin strut (50 µm) cobalt-chromium coronary drug-eluting stent (DES) platform with biodegradable polymer coating. The Evermine 50 EES-KLES study aimed to evaluate the Evermine 50 EES in terms of 24-month clinical safety and performance in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD).

METHODS

This retrospective study consisted of 171 patients (258 lesions) implanted with Evermine 50 EES for managing CAD. We analyzed the major adverse cardiac events (MACE) incidence, defined as a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (ID-TLR) at 6-, 12-, and 24-month follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 171 patients were included with a mean age of 57.85 ± 10.05 years, of which, 139 (81.29%) were men, 69 (40.35%) were hypertensive, and 70 (40.94%) were diabetic. The incidence of MACE was 1 (0.58%), 3 (1.81%), and 4 (2.42%) at 6-, 12-, and 24-month follow-up, respectively. There were three cases (1.82%) of cardiac death and one case (0.61%) of ID-TLR up to 24 months. None of the patients was presented with definite or probable stent thrombosis (ST).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that implantation of ultrathin strut Evermine 50 EES resulted in a low rate of incidence of MACE, indicating a favourable clinical safety and performance profile of Evermine 50 EES in patients with CAD [Clinical Trials Registry-India (CTRI) Number: CTRI/2017/09/009939)].

Coronary bifurcations treated with thin-strut drug-eluting stents: a prespecified analysis of the randomized BIO-RESORT trial

BACKGROUND

Treatment of a coronary bifurcation lesion is often required in routine clinical practice, but data on the performance of very thin-strut biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents are scarce.

METHODS

Comparison of biodegradable polymer and durable polymer drug-eluting stents in an all comers population (BIO-RESORT) is a prospective, multicenter randomized clinical trial that included 3514 all-comer patients, who were randomized to very thin-strut biodegradable polymer-coated sirolimus- or everolimus-eluting stents, versus thin-strut durable polymer-coated zotarolimus-eluting stents. The approach of bifurcation stenting was left at the operator's discretion, and provisional stenting was generally preferred. This prespecified analysis assessed 3-year clinical outcome of all patients in whom treatment involved at least one bifurcation with a side-branch diameter ≥1.5 mm.

RESULTS

Of all BIO-RESORT trial participants, 1236 patients were treated in bifurcation lesions and analyzed. Single- and two-stent techniques were used in 85.8% and 14.2%, respectively. 'True' bifurcation lesions (main vessel and side-branch obstructed) were treated in 31.1%. Three-year follow-up was available in 1200/1236 (97.1%) patients. The main endpoint target vessel failure (composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization) occurred in sirolimus-eluting stents in 42/412 (10.3%) and in zotarolimus-eluting stents in 49/409 (12.1%) patients (P-logrank = 0.40). In everolimus-eluting stents, target vessel failure occurred in 40/415 (9.8%) patients (vs. zotarolimus-eluting stents: P-logrank = 0.26). There was no between-stent difference in individual components of target vessel failure. Findings were consistent in patients with single-vessel treatment and patients treated with a single-stent technique.

CONCLUSIONS

Three years after stenting all-comers with bifurcation lesions, clinical outcome was similar with the sirolimus-eluting and everolimus-eluting stents versus the zotarolimus-eluting stent.

Angiographic and clinical outcomes of patients implanted with ultrathin, biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents versus durable polymer drug-eluting stents for percutaneous coronary intervention: an updated meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

Whether sirolimus-eluting stents constituted with ultrathin-strut and biodegradable polymers (BP-SESs) can achieve a preferable effect over current drug-eluting stents with durable polymers (DP-DESs) remains highly controversial. The aim of this analysis based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was to detect the clinical and angiographic differences between ultrathin (defined as a strut thickness <70 µm) BP-SESs and DP-DESs.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We searched seven databases to identify eligible articles. Late lumen loss (LLL) and target lesion failure (TLF) were assessed as the primary endpoints for angiographic and clinical outcomes, respectively.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Nineteen articles containing thirteen RCTs with 14801 patients were analyzed. For the 9-month angiographic outcomes, similar results were discovered between BP-SESs and DP-DESs in terms of in-stent LLL (mean difference [MD]: -0.02 [-0.05, 0.01], P=0.23), in-segment LLL (MD: -0.01 [-0.04, 0.03], P=0.74), in-stent minimum lumen diameter (MLD) (MD: -0.01 [-0.06, 0.04], P=0.72), in-segment MLD (MD: -0.01 [-0.06, 0.05], P=0.75), in-stent diameter stenosis (DS) (MD: -1.10 [-3.36, 1.15], P=0.34), in-segment DS (MD: -0.78 [-1.97, 0.40], P=0.20), in-stent binary restenosis (BR) (risk ratio [RR]: 2.27 [0.99, 5.21], P=0.05) and in-segment BR (RR: 1.46 [0.78, 2.75], P=0.24). Regarding the 12-month clinical outcomes, there was a significant decrease in TLF and a trend of a lower incidence of target vessel failure (RR: 0.89 [0.78,1.01], P=0.08), myocardial infarction (MI) and target vessel MI.

CONCLUSIONS

With similar angiographic results, BP-SESs appeared to be superior to DP-DESs with better clinical prognoses, especially for female patients, patients with STEMI and ACS and patients without diabetes. More high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these results.

The state-of-the-art coronary stent with crystallized sirolimus: the MiStent technology and its clinical program

Drug-eluting stents (DES) have been developed over recent decades and the implantation of DES is the standard of care in contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention for patients with coronary artery disease. The MiStent sirolimus-eluting stent has several unique features; ultra-thin (64 μm) struts, a bioresorbable polymer and a controlled drug release from microcrystalline sirolimus as a reservoir embedded in the vessel wall. Results of recent clinical trials demonstrated the potential performance of this state-of-the-art DES. In the present review, we provide an overview of the development of DES, in particular the design and performance of the novel MiStent sirolimus-eluting stent from technological and clinical points of view and discuss the potentials of this new type of DES.

The Minimal Clinically Important Difference for Achievement of Substantial Reperfusion With Endovascular Thrombectomy Devices in Acute Ischemic Stroke Treatment

Background and Purpose: Recent noninferiority clinical trials of novel endovascular thrombectomy devices for acute ischemic stroke have used substantial reperfusion as the primary outcome of achievement. Determining the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is an essential step for the design of noninferiority clinical trials. Materials and Methods: We surveyed international neuro-interventionalist and noninterventional vascular neurologist investigators. The questionnaire included demographic characteristics, level of clinical experience, and their MCID clinical scenario-based judgment regarding the MCID for the outcome substantial reperfusion (thrombolysis in cerebral infarction score 2b-3) within 3 passes. Results: Survey responses were received from 58 of 200 experts. Among responders, 75.9% were neuro-interventionalists (most commonly interventional neuroradiologists and interventional neurologists, followed by endovascular neurosurgeons), and 24.1% were noninterventional vascular neurologists; 87.9% had been in practice for more than 5 years, and 67.3% devoted more than half of their practice to stroke care. Responder-nonresponder and continuum of resistance analysis indicated responders were representative of the full expert population. Among experts, the median MCID for substantial reperfusion was 3.1-5% (interquartile range 1.1-3% to 5.1-10%). MCID distributions did not differ among neuro-interventionalists and noninterventional vascular neurologists. Conclusions: Neuro-interventionl and noninterventional stroke experts judged that the minimal clinically important difference in comparing thrombectomy devices for achieving substantial reperfusion is 3.1-5%. This MCID, lower than noninferiority margins used in several recent clinical trials, can inform trial designs and clinical development.

Stent Thrombosis After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: From Bare-Metal to the Last Generation of Drug-Eluting Stents

Since their introduction in clinical practice in 1986, different types of coronary stents have been developed and become available for the treatment of coronary artery disease. Stent thrombosis (ST) is an uncommon but harmful complication after percutaneous coronary implantation, with a high occurrence of acute myocardial infarction and risk of mortality. Among several procedural and clinical predictors, the type of coronary stent is a strong determinant of ST. This article reviews the available evidence on the most used coronary stent types in the modern era and the related risk of ST.

Thin, very thin, or ultrathin-strut biodegradable or durable polymer-coated drug-eluting stents

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The current article will review recently published clinical studies that evaluate very thin or ultrathin-strut drug-eluting stents (DES), focusing on major randomized clinical trials in broad patient populations.

RECENT FINDINGS

Multiple randomized trials recently assessed the clinical performance of novel very thin to ultrathin-strut DES. Most randomized trials established noninferiority of the novel device. To date, only one major randomized clinical trial (i.e., BIOFLOW V) showed superiority of an ultrathin-strut biodegradable polymer-coated sirolimus-eluting stent over a very thin-strut durable polymer-coated everolimus-eluting stent in a relatively broad patient population. There are signals that the same ultrathin-strut biodegradable polymer-coated sirolimus-eluting stent may improve clinical outcome in specific patient populations. For example, in the randomized BIOSTEMI trial, 1-year superiority of the ultrathin-strut DES was found in patients presenting with an acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Yet, substudies of large randomized trials that assessed patients with small-vessel treatment showed equivocal results.

SUMMARY

Although two randomized trials showed advantages for ultrathin-strut DES, other clinical trials provided no significant evidence that ultrathin-strut DES improve clinical outcome. The question whether ultrathin-strut DES may reduce the repeat revascularization risk following implantation in small vessels is a matter of further debate and future research.

The 2010s in clinical drug-eluting stent and bioresorbable scaffold research: a Dutch perspective

Dutch researchers were among the first to perform clinical studies in bare metal coronary stents, the use of which was initially limited by a high incidence of in-stent restenosis. This problem was greatly solved by the introduction of drug-eluting stents (DES). Nevertheless, enthusiasm about first-generation DES was subdued by discussions about a higher risk of very-late stent thrombosis and mortality, which stimulated the development, refinement, and rapid adoption of new DES with more biocompatible durable polymer coatings, biodegradable polymer coatings, or no coating at all. In terms of clinical DES research, the 2010s were characterised by numerous large-scale randomised trials in all-comers and patients with minimal exclusion criteria. Bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) were developed and investigated. The Igaki-Tamai scaffold without drug elution was clinically tested in the Netherlands in 1999, followed by an everolimus-eluting BRS (Absorb) which showed favourable imaging and clinical results. Afterwards, multiple clinical trials comparing Absorb and its metallic counterpart were performed, revealing an increased rate of scaffold thrombosis during follow-up. Based on these studies, the commercialisation of the device was subsequently halted. Novel technologies are being developed to overcome shortcomings of first-generation BRS. In this narrative review, we look back on numerous devices and on the DES and BRS trials reported by Dutch researchers.

Recent advances in the design of cardiovascular materials for biomedical applications

Biomaterials dominate the field of cardiovascular therapeutics, a multitude of which have been used to repair and replace injured heart tissue. This field has evolved beyond the simple selection of compatible materials and now focuses on the rational design of controlled structures that integrate with the cardiovascular system. However, the compatibility of these materials with the blood presents a major limitation to their clinical application. In this context, surface modification strategies can enhance blood compatibility and several recent advances in this area have emerged. This review summarizes the recent applications of biomaterials in cardiovascular therapies, the improvements in their biocompatibility and the surface modification technologies that have the potential to improve clinical outcomes.

Final 3-Year Outcomes of MiStent Biodegradable Polymer Crystalline Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Xience Permanent Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stent: Insights From the DESSOLVE III All-Comers Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

Numerous randomized clinical trials have demonstrated the superiority of thin-strut biodegradable polymer second-generation drug-eluting stent to the first-generation drug-eluting stent and the noninferiority to the thin-strut second-generation permanent polymer drug-eluting stent. Data on long-term clinical outcomes with a novel ultrathin drug-eluting stent, to date, are limited.

METHODS

The DESSOLVE III trial (Multicenter Randomized Study of the MiStent Sirolimus Eluting Absorbable Polymer Stent System for Revascularization of Coronary Arteries; n=1398) is a prospective, multicenter, single-blinded, all-comers, randomized controlled trial (NCT02385279), allocating in a 1:1 ratio to either ultrathin-strut biodegradable polymer MiStent sirolimus-eluting stent or to thin-strut permanent polymer Xience everolimus-eluting stent. The primary end point was device-oriented composite end point, defined as the composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically indicated target lesion revascularization. The secondary end point was patient-oriented composite end point, defined as the composite of all-cause mortality, any myocardial infarction, or any revascularization.

RESULTS

At 3 years, follow-up data were available in 1381 patients (98.8%). The primary end point of device-oriented composite end point occurred in 10.5% for MiStent sirolimus-eluting stent and in 11.5% for Xience everolimus-eluting stent (P=0.55). Rates of cardiac death (3.9% versus 3.8%; P=0.88), target vessel myocardial infarction (3.2% versus 2.5%; P=0.43), and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization (5.2% versus 6.5%; P=0.30) did not differ significantly between the 2 devices. The rate of definite or probable stent thrombosis was infrequent and similar between the 2 arms (1.2% versus 1.5%; P=0.64). The 90-day landmark analysis showed no significant difference in device-oriented composite end point between the 2 groups after polymer degradation of MiStent. The risk of patient-oriented composite end point was comparable between the 2 groups (22.7% versus 22.9%; P=0.34).

CONCLUSIONS

In the DESSOLVE III trial, early safety and efficacy with MiStent sirolimus-eluting bioabsorbable polymer-coated stent are confirmed at a longer term follow-up when compared with Xience everolimus-eluting permanent polymer-coated stent in a large all-comers population. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02385279.

Endpoint selection for noninferiority percutaneous coronary intervention trials: a methodological description

Background:

The objective of this review is to provide a practical update on endpoint selection for noninferiority (NI) studies in percutaneous coronary intervention studies.

Methods:

A PubMed search was conducted for predefined terms to explore the use of NI designs and intrapatient comparisons to determine their current importance. Sample size calculations for the most frequently used endpoints with NI hypotheses were done to increase statistical awareness.

Results:

Reported NI trials, with the most frequently chosen clinical endpoint of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), had NI margins ranging from 1.66% to 5.00%, resulting in patient populations of 400–1500 per treatment group. Clinical study endpoints comprising of MACE complemented with rates of bleeding complications and stent thrombosis (ST) are suggested to conduct a statistically and clinically meaningful NI trial. Study designs with surrogate endpoints amenable to intrapatient randomizations, are a very attractive option to reduce the number of necessary patients by about half. Comparative clinical endpoint studies with MACE and ST/bleeding rates to study a shortened dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in coronary stent trials are feasible, whereas ST as the sole primary endpoint is not useful.

Conclusions:

Expanded composite clinical endpoints (MACE complemented by ST and bleeding rates and intrapatient randomization for selected surrogate endpoints) may be suitable tools to meet future needs in device approval, recertification and reimbursement.

A Review of the Ultrathin Orsiro Biodegradable Polymer Drug-eluting Stent in the Treatment of Coronary Artery Disease

Drug-eluting stents (DES) have revolutionised the treatment of coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. In recent years, there has been a focus on a new generation of DES, such as biodegradable polymer DES (BP-DES). This novel stent platform was developed with the hope of eliminating the risk of very late stent thrombosis associated with the current gold-standard durable polymer DES (DP-DES). Ultrathin Orsiro BP-DES (Biotronik, Bülach, Switzerland) are based on a cobalt-chromium stent platform that is coated with a bioresorbable polymer coating containing sirolimus. These devices have one of the thinnest struts available in the current market and have the theoretical benefit of reducing a chronic inflammatory response in the vessel wall. In 2019, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the use of Orsiro BP-DES in patients with CAD based on promising results in recent landmark trials, such as BIOFLOW V and BIOSTEMI. The aim of the present review article was to discuss the history of stent technology and the continued opportunities for improvements, focusing on the potential benefits of Orsiro BP-DES.

Noninferiority Margins in Trials of Thrombectomy Devices for Acute Ischemic Stroke

Background and Purpose—

Novel endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) devices for acute ischemic stroke are often cleared by regulatory agencies on the basis of noninferiority trials. The relation between the noninferiority margins used in trials and the minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) determined by experts have not been systematically investigated.

Methods—

Systematic searches were performed to identify (1) all noninferiority design or noninferiority-presented stroke-EVT trials for acute ischemic stroke, (2) all studies determining the MCIDs for the same outcomes, and (3) all noninferiority coronary revascularization trials. Stroke-EVT trial results were reanalyzed using the broad noninferiority margins originally used and narrower noninferiority margins derived from formal MCID studies.

Results—

We identified 7 noninferiority-designed or noninferiority-interpreted stroke-EVT controlled trials, enrolling 1766 patients, variously comparing coil retrievers, first- and second-generation stent retrievers, and aspiration devices. In 6 trials, the primary outcome was achievement of reperfusion, using noninferiority margins of 15% (3 trials), 10% (2 trials), and 8% (1 trial). In contrast, a stroke expert survey identified the MCID for reperfusion as 3.1% to 5%, and cardiac trials used noninferiority margins of 3.5% to 4.4%. In one stroke-EVT trial, the primary outcome was functional independence, using a noninferiority margin of 15%. However, 2 stroke expert survey studies identified MCIDs for functional independence as having lower values, 5% and 1% to 1.5%. For both reperfusion and functional independence outcomes, all 7 trials demonstrated noninferiority with the broadest noninferiority margin, but only 4 and 3 trials demonstrated noninferiority with actual expert-derived margins for reperfusion and functional independence, respectively.

Conclusions—

Noninferiority margins used in EVT device trials have regularly exceeded the MCIDs determined by stroke experts, as well as margins used for cardiac devices. New approaches, such as the use of reasonably adequate performance margins, rather than noninferiority margins, are needed to optimize stroke-EVT trial design integrity and trial performance feasibility.

Triglyceride to high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ratio as a risk factor of repeat revascularization among patients with acute coronary syndrome after first-time percutaneous coronary intervention

BACKGROUND

It is clinically important to identify high-risk patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) who may require repeat revascularization. This retrospective study identified risk factors for repeat revascularization among ACS patients after first-time successful percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs). The predictive value of the triglyceride to high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (TG/HDL-C) ratio for repeat revascularization was also evaluated.

METHODS

We enrolled consecutive ACS patients who had coronary angiography performed during the period from 6 to 12 months after a first-time successful PCI. The primary outcome of the study was to identify the risk factors of repeat revascularization. The subjects were stratified based on repeat PCI events. After comparing various clinical characteristics, univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard model analyses were adopted to evaluate the effects of risk factors on repeat revascularization.

RESULTS

The patients (n=271) were divided into the event (+) group (n=101) and the event (-) group (n=170). In the event (+) group, target lesion revascularization (TLR) accounted for 20.79% and target vessel revascularization (TVR) accounted for 50.49% of the patients. In contrast, 52.47% of the patients required de novo vessel revascularization (DVR). After adjustment for confounding factors, the TG/HDL-C ratio [hazard ratio (HR) =1.206, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.016-1.431, P=0.032 for each higher TG/HDL-C ratio unit] and the Gensini score (HR =1.012, 95% CI: 1.005-1.018, P<0.001 for each higher Gensini score unit) were independent risk factors for a repeat PCI. Subgroup analyses showed that higher TG/HDL-C ratios were associated with a significantly higher risk of repeat PCIs in the male, hypertensive, and diabetes mellitus subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

The TG/HDL-C ratio and Gensini score could serve as risk factors for repeat revascularization in ACS patients after a first-time successful PCI.

Subgroup Analysis Comparing Ultrathin, Bioresorbable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Thin, Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stents in Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients

BACKGROUND

Presentation with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) constitutes a high-risk subset of patients with worse outcome after percutaneous coronary intervention. We report clinical outcomes in subjects with ACS from the BIOFLOW V trial (BIOTRONIK - A Prospective Randomized Multicenter Study to Assess the Safety and Effectiveness of the Orsiro Sirolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Subjects With up to Three De Novo or Restenotic Coronary Artery Lesions) comparing an ultrathin strut (60 μm) bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (BP-SES) with a thin strut (81 μm) durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent (DP-EES).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Among 1334 patients randomized to 2:1 treatment with either BP-SES or DP-EES, 677 (50.7%) ACS patients without ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (MI; 454 BP-SES and 223 DP-EES) were identified in the retrospective post hoc analysis. The primary end point of 12-month target lesion failure, individual component end points, and stent thrombosis were evaluated. Recurrent MI was defined as a ≥50% increase of creatine kinase-myocardial band or in the absence of creatine kinase-myocardial band, troponin >50% increase over previous level and >3× the upper limit of normal). All events were adjudicated by a blinded independent clinical events committee. Overall, baseline clinical, angiographic, and procedural characteristics of the ACS population were similar between the 2 treatment groups. At 12 months, target lesion failure occurred in 5.6% (24/426) of BP-SES patients versus 11.0% (23/209) in DP-EES patients ( P=0.02); target lesion failure composite components were cardiac death, 0% versus 1.0% ( P=0.11); target vessel-related MI, 3.5% versus 9.7% ( P=0.003); and clinically driven target lesion revascularization, 2.8% versus 3.4% ( P=0.80). Spontaneous target vessel MI was 0.5% (2/425) for BP-SES versus 2.4% (5/206) for DP-EES ( P=0.041). Stent thrombosis rates at 1 year were similar (0.5% versus 1.0%; P=0.601).

CONCLUSIONS

In the ACS subgroup population of the BIOFLOW V study, treatment with BP-SES compared with DP-EES was associated with a significantly lower rate of 12-month target lesion failure, a difference driven by significantly lower periprocedural MI and spontaneous MI. These findings support treatment with an ultrathin strut BP-SES in ACS patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT02389946.

The Future of Cardiovascular Stents: Bioresorbable and Integrated Biosensor Technology

Cardiovascular disease is the greatest cause of death worldwide. Atherosclerosis is the underlying pathology responsible for two thirds of these deaths. It is the age-dependent process of "furring of the arteries." In many scenarios the disease is caused by poor diet, high blood pressure, and genetic risk factors, and is exacerbated by obesity, diabetes, and sedentary lifestyle. Current pharmacological anti-atherosclerotic modalities still fail to control the disease and improvements in clinical interventions are urgently required. Blocked atherosclerotic arteries are routinely treated in hospitals with an expandable metal stent. However, stented vessels are often silently re-blocked by developing "in-stent restenosis," a wound response, in which the vessel's lumen renarrows by excess proliferation of vascular smooth muscle cells, termed hyperplasia. Herein, the current stent technology and the future of biosensing devices to overcome in-stent restenosis are reviewed. Second, with advances in nanofabrication, new sensing methods and how researchers are investigating ways to integrate biosensors within stents are highlighted. The future of implantable medical devices in the context of the emerging "Internet of Things" and how this will significantly influence future biosensor technology for future generations are also discussed.

Newer-Generation Ultrathin Strut Drug-Eluting Stents Versus Older Second-Generation Thicker Strut Drug-Eluting Stents for Coronary Artery Disease

BACKGROUND

Contemporary second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) have superior efficacy and safety in comparison with early-generation stents in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, in part, related to their thinner struts. Whether newer-generation ultrathin DES further improve clinical outcomes in comparison with older second-generation thicker strut DES is unknown.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomized clinical trials that compared newer-generation ultrathin strut DES (defined as strut thickness <70 µm) versus thicker strut second-generation DES and reported clinical outcomes. The primary outcome was target lesion failure (composite of cardiovascular death, target vessel myocardial infarction or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization) evaluated at 1-year follow-up. Tests for subgroup effects based on the ultrathin strut DES type and the comparator DES type were performed by using meta-regression analysis.

RESULTS

We identified 10 trials that randomly assigned 11 658 patients and evaluated 3 newer-generation ultrathin strut DES: Orsiro stent (60 μm), MiStent (64 μm), and BioMime (65 µm). In comparison with thicker strut second-generation DES, newer-generation ultrathin strut DES were associated with a 16% reduction in target lesion failure (relative risk, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.72-0.99) driven by less myocardial infarction (relative risk, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.65-0.99). Ultrathin strut DES were also associated with qualitatively lower rates of any stent thrombosis (relative risk, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.51-1.01). Tests for subgroup effects based on the ultrathin strut DES type ( P=0.58) and the comparator DES type ( P=0.98) were not significant, suggesting consistent outcomes across the 3 ultrathin strut DES and with the different DES comparators.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, newer-generation ultrathin strut DES further improve 1-year clinical outcomes in comparison with contemporary thicker strut second-generation DES.

Long-Term Effect of Ultrathin-Strut Versus Thin-Strut Drug-Eluting Stents in Patients With Small Vessel Coronary Artery Disease Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Background:

Randomized trials evaluating the Orsiro biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (BP-SES; 60 and 80 μm strut thickness for stent diameters ≤3 and >3 mm, respectively) did not stratify according to vessel size and failed to specify the impact of ultrathin-strut thickness on long-term clinical outcomes compared with durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP-EES). We sought to assess the long-term effect of ultrathin-strut (60 μm) BP-SES versus thin-strut (81 μm) DP-EES on long-term outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary revascularization for small vessel disease.

Methods:

In a subgroup analysis of the randomized, multicenter, noninferiority BIOSCIENCE trial, patients with stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndrome randomly assigned to treatment with BP-SES or DP-EES were stratified according to vessel size (≤3 mm versus >3 mm) as a surrogate to compare patients treated with ultrathin-strut versus thin-strut drug-eluting stent. The primary end point was target lesion failure, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization, within 5 years.

Results:

Among 2109 patients, 1234 (59%) were treated for small vessel disease. At 5 years, target lesion failure occurred in 124 patients (cumulative incidence, 22.3%) treated with ultrathin-strut BP-SES and 109 patients (18.3%) treated with thin-strut DP-EES (rate ratio, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.94–1.58; P =0.13). Cumulative incidences of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization and definite stent thrombosis at 5 years were similar in patients treated with ultrathin-strut BP-SES and thin-strut DP-EES. After adjustment for potential confounders, there was no significant interaction between vessel size and treatment effect of BP-SES versus DP-EES.

Conclusions:

We found no significant difference in clinical outcomes throughout 5 years between patients with small vessel disease treated with ultrathin-strut BP-SES versus thin-strut DP-EES.

Clinical Trial Registration:

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01443104.

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Developments in the Last 12 Months

In 2018, there were several studies that significantly added to the field of interventional cardiology. Research was focused on understanding the role of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in various clinical syndromes, optimizing outcomes for high-risk lesion subsets, and building an evidence base for greater adoption of PCI guided by physiology and intracoronary imaging. In the area of innovation, novel and iterative developments in drug-eluting stents (DES) and scaffold platforms were compared with current generation DES. This article summarizes the research from last year which has had the most impact on PCI techniques and clinical care.

Safety and efficacy of a sirolimus-eluting coronary stent with ultra-thin strut for treatment of atherosclerotic lesions (TALENT): a prospective multicentre randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Supraflex is a sirolimus-eluting stent with a biodegradable polymer coating and ultra-thin struts. We aimed to compare Supraflex with the standard of care, Xience, an everolimus-eluting stent with a durable polymer coating, regarding clinical outcomes with a randomised trial in an all-comer population.

METHODS

We did a prospective, randomised, single-blind, multicentre study (TALENT) across 23 centres in Europe (the Netherlands, Poland, the UK, Spain, Bulgaria, Hungary, and Italy). Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older, had one or more coronary artery stenosis of 50% or greater in a native coronary artery, saphenous venous graft, or arterial bypass conduit, and had a reference vessel diameter of 2·25-4·50 mm. Patients underwent percutaneous coronary intervention in an all-comer manner. We randomly assigned patients (1:1) to implantation of either a sirolimus-eluting stent with a biodegradable polymer coating and ultra-thin struts (Supraflex) or an everolimus-eluting stent with a durable polymer coating (Xience). Randomisation was done by local investigators by use of a web-based software with random blocks according to centre. The primary endpoint was a non-inferiority comparison of a device-oriented composite endpoint-cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically indicated target lesion revascularisation-between groups at 12 months after the procedure, assessed in an intention-to-treat population. On assumption of 1-year composite endpoint prevalence of 8·3%, a margin of 4·0% was defined for non-inferiority of the Supraflex group compared with the Xience group. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02870140.

FINDINGS

Between Oct 21, 2016, and July 3, 2017, 1435 patients with 1046 lesions were randomly assigned to Supraflex, of whom 720 received the index procedure, and 715 patients with 1030 lesions were assigned to Xience, all receiving the index procedure. At 12 months, the primary endpoint had occurred in 35 patients (4·9 %) in the Supraflex group and in 37 patients (5·3%) in the Xience group (absolute difference -0·3% [one-sided 95% upper confidence bound 1·6%], p_{non-inferiority}<0·0001). Definite or probable stent thrombosis prevalence, a safety indicator, was low in both groups and did not differ between them.

INTERPRETATION

The Supraflex stent was non-inferior to the Xience stent for a device-oriented composite clinical endpoint at 12 months in an all-comer population. Supraflex seems a safe and effective alternative drug-eluting stent to other stents in clinical practice.

FUNDING

European Cardiovascular Research Institute.