Randomized Comparison Between Polymer-Free Versus Polymer-Based Paclitaxel-Eluting Stent

Individualizing Medicinal Therapy Post Heart Stent Implantation: Tailoring for Patient Factors

The field of cardiovascular medicine is undergoing a transformative shift towards personalized medicinal therapy, particularly in the context of post stent implantation. This narrative review explores the significance, challenges, and future directions of individualized treatment strategies for patients with coronary stents. The review highlights the pivotal role of personalized approaches in optimizing treatment efficacy and minimizing adverse events. Real-world clinical studies and trials underscore the importance of tailoring antiplatelet therapy based on platelet function testing, genetic testing, and risk scoring. These studies reveal that personalized medicinal treatment improves clinical outcomes by balancing preventing thrombotic events and mitigating bleeding risks. Challenges, including cost, test availability, patient adherence, and ethical considerations, are discussed in depth, shedding light on the complexities of implementing personalized approaches. Technological advancements, including omics data integration, artificial intelligence, and big data analytics, shape the future of personalized medicinal therapy. These tools enable precise pharmacogenomic selection of medications and the development of integrated risk-scoring systems. Patient engagement and education are also central, with empowered patients and remote monitoring contributing to collaborative decision-making. In conclusion, the narrative review underscores that personalized medicinal therapy post stent implantation holds immense promise for revolutionizing cardiovascular care. By embracing a comprehensive approach that considers genetics, clinical factors, and patient preferences, healthcare providers can optimize treatment outcomes and improve patient quality of life. The evolving landscape of personalized medicine offers a glimpse into a future where tailored treatment strategies become the cornerstone of precision cardiovascular care.

Clinical Outcomes of Polymer-Free Versus Polymer-Coated Drug-Eluting Stents in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Drug-eluting stents have transformed the treatment of coronary artery disease (CAD), and there are two types: polymer-free and polymer-coated stents. Polymer-free stents have a coating that is quickly absorbed by the body, whereas polymer-coated stents have a coating that remains on the stent surface. This meta-analysis and systematic review aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of these two stent types in patients with coronary artery disease. The literature and abstracts from significant databases were reviewed to compare polymer-free drug-eluting stents (PF-DES) and polymer-coated drug-eluting stents (PC-DES) for the treatment of coronary artery disease (CAD). The primary efficacy endpoints of the study were all-cause mortality and deaths from cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular causes. Among the secondary outcomes were incidences of myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR), target vessel revascularization (TVR), stent thrombosis, stroke, and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs). In terms of the primary outcomes, the combined analysis revealed a marginally lower risk of all-cause mortality (relative risk, RR (95% CI) = 0.92 (0.85, 1.00), p = 0.05, I² = 0%) with the use of PF-DES versus PC-DES. Nonetheless, there was no significant difference in cardiovascular mortality (RR (95% CI) = 0.97 (0.87, 1.08)) or non-cardiovascular mortality (RR (95% CI) = 0.87 (0.69, 1.10), p = 0.25, I² = 9%) between the groups. Furthermore, univariate meta-regression revealed that male gender and prior myocardial infarction were independently associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular disease. According to the current meta-analysis, no statistically significant differences existed in PF-DES and PC-DES outcomes. More extensive research is needed to investigate these findings further and establish their validity.

Drug-eluting stents for the treatment of coronary artery disease: A review of recent advances

INTRODUCTION

Percutaneous coronary intervention is a widely used procedure for the treatment of coronary artery disease to relieve narrowing or occlusion and improve blood supply. Although only balloon angioplasty was performed in the early period, coronary stents were developed later and coronary drug-eluting stents were introduced to decrease in-stent restenosis, which is related to the proliferation and migration of vascular smooth muscle cells.

AREAS COVERED

The drug-eluting stents are composed of a metallic or polymeric platform, specific drug, and polymers or coating for drug release. In this article, the recent advances in drug-eluting stent technologies for the treatment of coronary artery disease and adjunctive antiplatelet therapy after drug-eluting stent implantation will be reviewed.

EXPERT OPINION

The need for further advances in drug-eluting stents or fully bioresorbable coronary scaffolds still exists to improve patient survival or clinical outcomes. The use for different actions or of combinations of drugs with several actions can be potential. Technological refinement and progress in manufacturing to improve mechanical integrity are needed, particularly for fully bioresorbable scaffolds. For antiplatelet therapy after stenting, clinical bleeding reduction strategies, such as a shortened duration of dual-antiplatelet therapy, are in progress.

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.

Polymer-Free vs. Polymer-Coated Drug-Eluting Stents for the Treatment of Coronary Artery Disease: A Meta-Analysis of 16 Randomized Trials

BACKGROUND

Polymer-coating represents one of components of drug-eluting stents (DES) to have experienced a more intensive technological evolution. Polymer-free DES (PF-DES) have offered promising angiographic results, with earlier complete re-endothelization, potentially reducing the thrombotic risk and offering the option of a shorter antiplatelet therapy. However, contrasting prognostic data have been reported so far with PF-DES. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to perform a comprehensive updated meta-analysis of randomized trials (RCT) comparing the impact of PF-DES vs polymer- coated DES (PC-DES) on clinical outcome.

METHODS

Literature and main scientific session abstracts were searched for RCTs comparing PF-DES vs PC-DES for the treatment of CAD. The primary efficacy endpoint was mortality, secondary endpoints were cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization (TLR) and stent thrombosis.

RESULTS

We included 16 randomized clinical trials, with a total of 15,689 patients, including 50.6% randomized to PF-DES. At a median follow-up of 24 months, PF-DES were associated to a significant reduction in mortality as compared to PC-DES (0.82 [0.68, 0.99], p = .03, I2 = 0%; phet = 0.93). However, no significant benefit was observed in terms of cardiovascular death or major ischemic endpoints (respectively CV death: OR [95% CI] = 0.92 [0.71, 1.18] p = .50, I2 = 0.50; phet = 0.84; MI: OR [95% CI] = 1.08 [0.90, 1.29], p = .42; I2 = 0%, phet = 0.98; TLR: OR [95% CI] = 1.02 [0.78, 1.32], p = .91; I2 = 0.63 phet = 0.0003; ST: OR [95% CI] = 0.98 [0.87, 1.10], p = .72; I2 = 0% phet = 0.64). By meta-regression analysis, the mortality benefits of PF-DES were not conditioned by the rate of diabetes mellitus or acute coronary syndromes.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the current meta-analysis, PF-DES are associated to a significant reduction in mortality as compared to PC-DES, but not in the occurrence of major ischemic events. Future larger studies are certainly needed to further investigate and confirm our findings, especially in particular subsets of patients, such as those with high bleeding risk or acute myocardial infarction.

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.

Polymer-free versus durable polymer drug-eluting stents in patients with coronary artery disease: A meta-analysis

Background

Polymer-free drug-eluting stents (PF-DES) were introduced with the aim of reducing the risk of stent thrombosis associated with durable polymer drug-eluting stents (DP-DES). The comparison of safety and efficacy profiles between these two stent platforms remains unclear.

Materials and methods

We conducted electronic database searches for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing patients treated with either PF-DES or DP-DES. Outcomes included definite or probable stent thrombosis (ST), myocardial infarction (MI), cardiac death, all-cause death, target lesion revascularization (TLR), and target vessel revascularization (TVR). A random-effects model was used to derive risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Subgroup analyses based on different variables were also performed. After screening a total of 1026 articles, the present meta-analysis included 13 RCTs comprising 8021 patients.

Results

No significant differences were found for the risks of definite or probable ST (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.62–1.43; P = 0.77), MI (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.85–1.33; P = 0.61), cardiac death (RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.80–1.21; P = 0.88), all-cause death (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.76–1.00; P = 0.06), TLR (RR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.94–1.33; P = 0.22), and TVR (RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.87–1.61; P = 0.29). Similarly, no significant differences were found for all outcomes regardless of anti-proliferative drug, except for an increased risk of TLR for polymer-free paclitaxel-eluting stents compared with DP-DES (RR, 2.32, 95% CI, 1.30–4.14; P = 0.005).

Conclusions

Our findings showed that PF-DES and DP-DES confer equivalent safety and efficacy profiles, with similar rates of stent thrombosis.

•

Polymer-free and durable polymer drug-eluting stents confer similar safety and efficacy profiles.

•

There were comparable rates of stent thrombosis between the two stent platforms.

•

Further trials with greater length of follow-up are warranted to assess long-term safety and efficacy outcomes.

Vascular response profiles following a nano polymer-free sirolimus-eluting stent implantation assessed by optical coherence tomography in a porcine model

Optical coherence tomography (OCT) is a high resolution imaging modality and has been considered as the ideal tool for the evaluation of neointimal tissue and vascular responses following stent implantation. However, vascular response profiles following the implantation of a novel nano polymer-free sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) assessed by OCT has not been fully investigated. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to determine the effects of a nano polymer-free SES on neointimal formation using OCT. A total of 16 nano polymer-free SESs were implanted in the coronary arteries of 8 pigs. At 3 (n=4) or 6 months (n=4), the animals were euthanized following OCT evaluation and the stented arterial segments were analyzed by histological analysis. Neointimal area, thickness and burden were evaluated by OCT. In addition, strut-associated inflammation, stent endothelialization and arterial injury were investigated by histomorphological analysis. OCT examination showed that at 6 months, neointimal thickness (193.3±109.5 vs. 167.2±119.7 µm, P=0.023) and neointimal burden (29.3±14.3 vs. 24.8±17.4%, P=0.006) significantly increased compared with at 3 months. Histomorphological analysis indicated that the endothelialization score was significantly greater at 6 months compared with at 3 months (2.85±0.36 vs. 2.52±0.60, P<0.001). However, at 3 months, nano polymer-free SES showed a significantly higher inflammatory score [0 (0, 1) vs. 0 (0, 0), P<0.001] compared with at 6 months. In conclusion, nano polymer-free SES achieves endothelialization at 3 months; however, neointimal proliferation is more significant at 6 months and may be attributed to strut-associated inflammation.

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).

Polymer-free versus permanent polymer drug eluting stents in coronary artery disease: A meta-analysis of 10 RCTs with 6575 patients

Background

Permanent polymer drug eluting stents (PP-DES) may induce inflammation of the vessel wall due to the existence of the polymer, which may delay intimal healing. Polymer-free DES (PF-DES) that eliminate the polymeric carrier may potentially lead to safer DES. However, the safety and efficacy of PF-DES remains controversial.

Methods

Randomized controlled trials comparing PF-DES with PP-DES were searched in online database including MEDLINE, Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE) and Cochrane Library. Studies reporting late lumen loss (LLL), all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR) and late stent thrombosis (LST) were enrolled and quantitatively analyzed.

Results

Ten studies enrolling 6575 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The PF-DES showed a benefit in reducing all-cause death (OR = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.61 to 0.98, P = 0.03) and long-term LLL (weighted mean difference (WMD) −0.16 mm, 95% CI: −0.22 to −0.11 mm, P < 0.001), while no superiority was found in reducing short-term LLL (WMD 0.03 mm, 95% CI: −0.07–0.13 mm, P = 0.57), MI (OR = 1.12, 95% CI: 0.19 to 23.18, P = 0.39), TLR (OR = 1.19, 95% CI: 0.42 to 3.38, P = 0.83) and LST (OR = 0.92, 95% CI: 0.05 to 5.71, P = 0.74).

Conclusion

PF-DES showed benefits in reducing long-term LLL and mortality compared with PP-DES, but no superiority was found in short-term LLL, MI, TLR and LST. These findings provide a sound basis for the wide application of PF-DES in the future.