Final 3-Year Outcome of a Randomized Trial Comparing Second-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents Using Either Biodegradable Polymer or Durable Polymer: NOBORI Biolimus-Eluting Versus XIENCE/PROMUS Everolimus-Eluting Stent 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.

Durable-polymer versus biodegradable-polymer drug-eluting stents in acute coronary syndromes: three-year outcomes of the HOST REDUCE POLYTECH RCT Trial

BACKGROUND

Long-term follow-up is essential to evaluate the impact of polymer degradation in drug-eluting stents (DES).

AIMS

We aimed to compare durable-polymer DES (DP-DES) and biodegradable-polymer DES (BP-DES) during a 3-year follow-up to evaluate the entire period of polymer resolution (before, during, and after degradation).

METHODS

The HOST REDUCE POLYTECH RCT Trial was a randomised clinical trial enrolling patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and comparing the efficacy and safety of DP-DES and BP-DES. The primary outcome was a patient-oriented composite outcome (POCO), and the key secondary outcome was a device-oriented composite outcome (DOCO).

RESULTS

A total of 3,413 ACS patients were randomised to either the DP-DES (1,713 patients) or BP-DES (1,700 patients) group. During the 3-year follow-up, the risk of the POCO was similar between the DP-DES and BP-DES groups (14.8% vs 15.4%, hazard ratio [HR] 0.96, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.80-1.14; p=0.613). However, the risk of the DOCO was lower in the DP-DES group (6.0% vs 8.0%, HR 0.73, 95% CI: 0.57-0.95; p=0.020). In a landmark analysis, the lower risk of the DOCO for the DP-DES group was evident during the transition from the early to the late period after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (from 8 to 16 months post-PCI; 1.8% vs 3.3%, HR 0.54, 95% CI: 0.34-0.84; p=0.007), which was mainly driven by a risk reduction of target lesion revascularisation.

CONCLUSIONS

In ACS patients, DP-DES showed similar results to BP-DES regarding the POCO up to 3 years. For the DOCO, DP-DES were superior to BP-DES; this was due to the higher event rate during the period of polymer degradation.

Biodegradable or durable polymer drug-eluting stents in patients with coronary artery disease: ten-year outcomes of the randomised NEXT Trial

BACKGROUND

There are no randomised trials reporting clinical outcomes of biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stents (BP-BES) and durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP-EES) at 10 years.

AIMS

We aimed to compare the 10-year clinical outcomes between BP-BES and DP-EES.

METHODS

The randomised NOBORI Biolimus-Eluting Versus XIENCE/PROMUS Everolimus-eluting Stent Trial (NEXT) was originally designed to evaluate the non-inferiority of BP-BES relative to DP-EES with the primary efficacy endpoint of target lesion revascularisation (TLR) at 1 year and the primary safety endpoint of death or myocardial infarction (MI) at 3 years. In this extended follow-up study, clinical outcomes were compared from 1 year after stent implantation up to 10 years between patients with BP-BES and DP-EES.

RESULTS

From May to October 2011, NEXT enrolled a total of 3,241 patients from 98 centres in Japan. The current study population consisted of 2,417 patients (1,204 patients with BP-BES and 1,213 with DP-EES) from 66 centres that agreed to participate in the extended study. Complete 10-year follow-up was achieved in 87.5% of patients. The cumulative 10-year incidence of death or MI was 34.0% in the BP-BES group and 33.1% in the DP-EES group (hazard ratio [HR] 1.04, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.90-1.20; p=0.58). TLR occurred in 15.9% of patients in the BP-BES group and in 14.1% of the DP-EES group (HR 1.12, 95% CI: 0.90-1.40; p=0.32). In a landmark analysis at 1 year, the cumulative incidences of death or MI and TLR were not significantly different between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The safety and efficacy outcomes for BP-BES were not significantly different from those for DP-EES at 1 year and up to 10 years after stent implantation.

Biodegradable polymer everolimus-eluting stents versus contemporary drug-eluting stents: a systematic review and meta‑analysis

In spite of similar efficacy and safety in pilot studies, compared with the contemporary durable polymer drug-eluting stent (DP-DES), the bioabsorbable polymer drug-eluting stent (BP-DES) may be more superior in promoting blood vessel healing. We sought to compare the safety and efficacy of everolimus-eluting BP-DES (BP-EES) with contemporary DP-DES through a meta-analysis. We performed this meta-analysis to provide further evidence of the safety and efficacy of BP-EES. Medline, Embase and the Cochrane library databases were searched for randomized controlled trials comparing clinical efficacy and safety of BP-EES versus contemporary DP-DES. Fifteen RCTs with a total of 15,572 patients were selected. The rate of MACE was 9.4% in patients receiving BP-EES and 7.3% receiving DP-EES (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.99-1.29, p = 0.05; I² = 46%). TLF and MI were also similar in both groups. Based on the available data, this review demonstrates that BP-EES displays a clinically comparable efficacy and safety profile to that of contemporary DP-DES at years of follow-up in patients undergoing PCI.

Five-Year Clinical Outcome of the Biodegradable Polymer Ultrathin Strut Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Compared to the Biodegradable Polymer Biolimus-Eluting Stent in Patients Treated With Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: From the SORT OUT VII Trial

BACKGROUND

Biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents were developed to improve safety and efficacy outcomes for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. However, few long-term follow-up efficacy studies are available. The study sought to investigate 5-year results from the SORT OUT VII trial (Scandinavian Organization for Randomized Trials With Clinical Outcome) comparing the biodegradable polymer ultrathin-strut sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent (O-SES) versus the biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting Nobori stent (N-BES).

METHODS

This registry-based, randomized, multicenter, single-blinded, noninferiority trial compared O-SES and N-BES in an all-comer population. The composite primary end point, target lesion failure, consisted of cardiac death, myocardial infarction related to the target lesion, or target lesion revascularization within 1 year. Follow-up was extended to 5 years.

RESULTS

Five-year follow-up was completed for 2521 patients (99.8%). Five-year target lesion failure did not differ between O-SES (12.4%) and N-BES (13.1%; rate ratio [RR], 0.94 [95% CI, 0.75-1.18]). Cardiac death (RR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.67-1.34]), target myocardial infarction (RR, 1.14 [95% CI, 0.76-1.71]), target lesion revascularization (RR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.67-1.21]), and definite stent thrombosis rates (RR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.41-1.33]) did not differ significantly between the 2 stents. Within the first year, definite ST was significantly lower for O-SES (0.4%) compared to N-BES (1.2%; RR, 0.33 [95% CI, 0.12-0.92]), but no difference was from 1 through 5 years: O-SES 1.2% and N-BES 0.9% (RR, 1.28 [95% CI, 0.58-2.82]).

CONCLUSIONS

Five years after treatment with biodegradable polymer stents, target lesion failure did not differ among O-SES and N-BES. Definite stent thrombosis was less often seen within the first year in the O-SES but the difference was not maintained after 5 years.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01879358.

Durable polymer versus biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing complex percutaneous coronary intervention: a post hoc analysis of the HOST-REDUCE-POLYTECH-ACS trial

BACKGROUND

Comparative data of durable polymer (DP) versus biodegradable polymer (BP) drug-eluting stents (DES) are limited in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

AIMS

We sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DP-DES and BP-DES in ACS patients receiving complex PCI.

METHODS

This study was a post hoc analysis of the HOST-REDUCE-POLYTECH-ACS trial. ACS patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to DP-DES or BP-DES in the HOST-REDUCE-POLYTECH-ACS trial. Complex PCI was defined as having at least 1 of the following features: ≥3 stents implanted, ≥3 lesions treated, total stent length ≥60 mm, bifurcation PCI with 2 stents, left main PCI, or heavy calcification. Patient-oriented (POCO, a composite of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and any repeat revascularisation) and device-oriented composite outcomes (DOCO, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularisation) were evaluated at 12 months.

RESULTS

Among 3,301 patients for whom full procedural data were available, 1,140 patients received complex PCI. Complex PCI was associated with higher risks of POCO and DOCO. The risks of POCO were comparable between DP-DES and BP-DES in both the complex (HR 0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.57-1.33; p=0.522) and non-complex (HR 0.83, 95% CI: 0.56-1.24; p=0.368; p for interaction=0.884) PCI groups. DOCO was also not significantly different between DP-DES and BP-DES in both the complex (HR 0.74, 95% CI: 0.43-1.27; p=0.278) and non-complex (HR 0.67, 95% CI: 0.38-1.19; p=0.175; p for interaction=0.814) PCI groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In ACS patients, DP-DES and BP-DES showed similar clinical outcomes irrespective of PCI complexity.

Recent Advances in Stent Technology: Do They Reduce Cardiovascular Events?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Drug-eluting stents are used in nearly all cases of percutaneous coronary revascularization and have been shown to be superior to balloon angioplasty or bare metal stents. The designs of these stents are continually evolving to maximize efficacy and safety.

RECENT FINDINGS

This review outlines the important components of a drug-eluting stent and highlights the changes in stent design that have led to the optimization of clinical outcomes. Most stents used in contemporary times are thin strut, durable polymer drug-eluting stents (DES) that elute either everolimus or zotarolimus. Newer DES designs incorporating bioresorbable polymers or ultrathin struts have shown encouraging safety and efficacy profiles. DES are essential for the management of patients with obstructive coronary artery disease and are used in most coronary interventions. Changes in stent designs over the past 30 years reflect the ongoing need to address the limitations of earlier stents aimed to improve patient outcomes.

First Report of 3-Year Clinical Outcome After Treatment With Novel Resolute Onyx Stents in the Randomized BIONYX Trial

BACKGROUND

At 1 year, the international randomized BIONYX trial (ClinicalTrials.gov:NCT02508714) established non-inferiority regarding safety and efficacy of the novel Resolute Onyx zotarolimus-eluting stent (RO-ZES) vs. the Orsiro sirolimus-eluting stent (O-SES). Although the RO-ZES is used in daily practice, no clinical results have been published beyond 2 years.Methods and Results:We assessed 3-year clinical outcomes of 2,488 all-comers after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with RO-ZES vs. O-SES. The main endpoint was target vessel failure (TVF), a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction (MI), or target vessel revascularization. Time-to-endpoints was assessed by Kaplan-Meier methods and between-group comparisons by log-rank tests. Follow-up was available in 2,433/2,488 (97.8%) patients. There was no significant between-stent difference in TVF (RO-ZES 112/1,243 [9.2%] vs. O-SES 109/1,245 [8.9%], hazard ratio [HR]: 1.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79-1.34; P_log-rank=0.85) and its individual components. The all-cause mortality was significantly lower after PCI with RO-ZES (3.7% vs.5.4%, HR: 0.67, 95% CI 0.46-0.97; P_log-rank=0.034), but cardiac mortality did not differ significantly (1.1% vs.1.9%, HR: 0.56, 95% CI 0.28-1.11; P_log-rank=0.09). Definite-or-probable stent thrombosis rates were low for both groups (0.6% vs.1.2%, HR: 0.46, 95% CI 0.19-1.14; P_log-rank=0.09).

CONCLUSIONS

This first 3-year randomized assessment of the RO-ZES showed a favorable rate of TVF that matched the outcomes of patients treated with O-SES. We observed a lower rate of all-cause death in the RO-ZES group, but long-term clinical follow-up is of interest.

Bioresorbable polymer and durable polymer metallic stents in coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Literature on bioresorbable-polymer-stents (BPS) and second-generation durable-polymer-stents (DPS) in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for all comer CAD is conflicting.

METHODS

Randomized controlled studies comparing PCI among BPS and second-generation DPS were identified up until May-2020 from online databases.  Primary outcomes included are all-cause myocardial infarction (MI), cardiac-death, target-vessel-revascularization (TVR), target-vessel MI (TVMI), and stent-thrombosis (ST). Random effect method of risk ratio and confidence interval of 95% was used.

RESULTS

25 prospective randomized controlled trials with 31,822 patients (BPS n = 17,065 and DPS n = 14,757) were included in the study. Follow-up ranged between a minimum of 6 months to more than 5 years. Cardiac death (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.89-1.45, p = 0.16) was comparable in BPS and second-generation DPS. Risk of all-cause MI was similar between BPS and DPS (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.84-1.11, p = 0.73). TVMI (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.69-1.11, p = 0.33) and ST rates were also comparable in BPS and DPS groups (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.80-1.40, p = 1.00). Overall TVR had comparable outcomes between BPS and DPS (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.79-1.14, p < 0.001); however, higher TVR was seen among BPS group at follow-up of ≥5 years (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.12-1.14, p = 0.02). Bias was low and heterogeneity was moderate.

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing PCI treated with BPS had comparable outcomes in terms of cardiac death, TVR, ST, TVMI, and all-cause MI to patients treated with second-generation DPS; however, BPS had higher rates of TVR for follow-up of ≥5-years.

Biodegradable polymer-coated versus durable polymer-coated sirolimus-eluting stents: the final 5-year outcomes of the I-LOVE-IT 2 trial

AIMS

This analysis presents the final five-year results of the I-LOVE-IT 2 trial, a non-inferiority study comparing a biodegradable polymer (BP) sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) with a durable polymer (DP) SES in patients with coronary artery disease.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Overall, 2,737 Chinese patients eligible for coronary stenting were treated with BP-SES or DP-SES in a 2:1 ratio. Patients who were randomised to the BP-SES group were additionally re-randomised to receive either six-month or 12-month dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in a 1:1 ratio. The primary endpoint was 12-month target lesion failure (TLF: cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction (MI), or clinically indicated target lesion revascularisation). At five years, the overall follow-up rate was 90.8%, and the cumulative incidence of TLF as the primary endpoint was similar between BP-SES and DP-SES (hazard ratio [HR] 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.79 to 1.28), as was that for the patient-oriented composite endpoint (PoCE: all-cause death, all MI and any revascularisation) (HR 1.03, 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.23), or definite/probable stent thrombosis (ST) (HR 0.91, 95% CI: 0.70 to 1.77). Cumulative events were also similar between the six-month DAPT and 12-month DAPT groups after BP-SES implantation.

CONCLUSIONS

I-LOVE-IT 2 showed that the five-year safety and efficacy of BP-SES and DP-SES were similar, as were those between six months and 12 months of DAPT after BP-SES implantation.

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.

Impact of ischemic risk factors on long-term outcomes in patients with and without high bleeding risk

Background The current guidelines have recommended to shorten the dual antiplatelet therapy duration in patients at high bleeding risk (HBR) to minimize the bleeding complications. The impact of ischemic risk factors (IRF) on long-term ischemic events in patients with and without HBR after percutaneous coronary intervention remains unclear. Methods The study population comprised 1219 patients who were treated with everolimus-eluting stents between 2010 and 2011. The mean follow-up period was 2996 ± 433 days. HBR was defined as set by the Academic Research Consortium. IRF was defined as high-risk features of stent-driven recurrent ischemic events endorsed in the 2017 European Society of Cardiology Guidelines. Major bleeding was defined as the occurrence of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 or 5 bleeding. Primary ischemic events included myocardial infarction, definite stent thrombosis, and cardiac death. Results The 1219 patients were divided into two groups: 614 patients at HBR (HBR group) and 605 patients at no HBR (non-HBR group). The rate of IRF patients was significantly higher in the HBR group than in the non-HBR group (81.4% versus 47.6%, P < 0.001). The cumulative rate of ischemic events in the HBR group was significantly higher in IRF patients than in non-IRF patients (21.0% versus 7.0%, log rank P < 0.001), whereas that in the non-HBR group was not significantly different between IRF and non-IRF patients (10.1% versus 6.3%, log rank P = 0.09). Conclusions More than 80% of HBR patients treated with everolimus-eluting stents were at IRF. A combination of HBR and IRF may increase the risk of long-term ischemic events.

Randomized Comparison of Everolimus- and Zotarolimus-Eluting Coronary Stents With Biolimus-Eluting Stents in All-Comer Patients

Background:

There is limited data comparing the Xience everolimus-eluting stent (EES) and the Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) with the BioMatrix biolimus-eluting stent (BES).

Methods:

This open-label, randomized, noninferiority trial enrolled all-comer patients to be randomly treated with either BES, EES, or ZES in a 1:1:1 ratio in 15 centers across South Korea. The primary end point was a device-oriented composite outcome consisting of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization at 24 months. The BES was compared with the EES and the ZES by intention-to-treat analyses with a noninferiority margin of 3.8%, respectively.

Results:

Because of slow recruitment and low event rates, this trial was prematurely terminated after enrollment of 1935 (75%) of the intended 2580 patients. Of the 1911 patients randomized to either EES (n=638), BES (n=634), or ZES (n =639), the rate of device-oriented composite outcome was 3.6%, 2.2%, and 3.9%, respectively, at 24 months (BES versus EES: absolute risk difference −1.4% [upper limit of 1-sided 95% CI: −3.2%]; P for noninferiority <0.001; BES versus ZES: absolute risk difference −1.7% [upper limit of 1-sided 95% CI: −3.6%]; P for noninferiority <0.001).

Conclusions:

The BES was noninferior to either the EES or the ZES in all-comer patients for device-oriented composite outcome at the 24-month follow-up. However, caution is advised regarding interpretation of these results due to the premature termination of this study.

Registration:

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT01397175.

Safety and Efficacy of Second-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents in Real-World Practice: Insights from the Multicenter Grand-DES Registry

Objective

In this study, we sought to compare the efficacy and safety of the Xience Prime/Xience V/Promus EES and Biomatrix/Biomatrix Flex/Nobori BES with resolute integrity/resolute ZES using the grand drug-eluting stent (Grand-DES) registry.

Background

Currently, new-generation drug-eluting stents (DESs) are used as the standard of care in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. No study has simultaneously compared everolimus-eluting stent (EES), biolimus-eluting stent (BES), and zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES).

Methods

Stent-related composite outcomes (target lesion failure) and patient-related composite outcomes were compared in crude and propensity score-matched analysis.

Results

Of the 17,286 patients in the Grand-DES group, 5,137, 2,970, and 4,990 patients in the EES, BES, and ZES groups completed a three-year follow-up. In the propensity score-matched cohort, the stent-related outcome (EES vs. BES vs. ZES; 5.9% vs. 6.7% vs. 7.1%, P = 0.226) and patient-related outcomes (12.7% vs. 13.5% vs. 14.3%, P = 0.226) and patient-related outcomes (12.7% vs. 13.5% vs. 14.3%, P = 0.226) and patient-related outcomes (12.7% vs. 13.5% vs. 14.3%, P = 0.226) and patient-related outcomes (12.7% vs. 13.5% vs. 14.3%.

Conclusions

In this robust real-world registry with unrestricted use of EES, BES, and ZES, the three stent groups showed comparable safety and efficacy at the 3-year follow-up.

Biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stent vs. contemporary durable polymer drug-eluting stents in patients with diabetes: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

AIMS

The biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents (BP-DES) offer controlled drug elution and complete degradation of the polymer over time, eventually lowering the risk for chronic inflammation and neoatherosclerosis, which can be particularly helpful in patients with diabetes. While BP-DES and durable polymer drug-eluting stents (DP-DES) have demonstrated comparable efficacy in all-comers population, their efficacy and safety in patients with diabetes remains uncertain.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Electronic databases were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing BP-DES with contemporary DP-DES in patients with diabetes. Study investigators were contacted to obtain additional data. The primary outcome was efficacy in terms of target-vessel revascularization (TVR) and target-lesion revascularization (TLR). We also evaluated the following safety outcomes separately: all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), and definite or probable stent thrombosis. Eleven RCTs including 5190 diabetic patients were included. At the longest available follow-up (mean 2.7 years), there was no significant difference in TLR [relative risk (RR): 1.02, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.85-1.24; P = 0.80] or TVR (RR: 1.04, 95% CI: 0.81-1.34; P = 0.76). Safety outcomes of all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, and MI were similar between the two groups. Stent thrombosis rates were also similar between BP-DES and DP-DES groups (1.66% vs. 1.83%; RR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.54-1.31; P = 0.45). The heterogeneity was low and fixed-effect model yielded similar results. Meta-regression analysis showed no relationship between insulin requiring diabetes and difference in TLR or stent thrombosis between BP-DES and DP-DES.

CONCLUSION

Overall, BP-DESs have similar safety and efficacy profiles compared to contemporary DP-DES in patients with diabetes.

Ten-Year Clinical Outcomes From a Trial of Three Limus-Eluting Stents With Different Polymer Coatings in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease

BACKGROUND

New-generation drug-eluting stents offer the potential for enhanced late outcomes in comparison with early generation drug-eluting stents. However, assessment of extended long-term outcomes for these devices is lacking, especially regarding the comparison between new-generation drug-eluting stents with biodegradable or permanent polymers. The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of biodegradable polymer-based sirolimus-eluting stents (BP-SES; Yukon Choice PC) versus permanent polymer-based everolimus-eluting stents (PP-EES; Xience) versus early generation permanent polymer-based sirolimus-eluting stents (PP-SES; Cypher) at 10-year follow-up.

METHODS

Overall, 2603 patients were randomized to treatment with BP-SES (n=1299), PP-EES (n=652), or PP-SES (n=652). The primary end point of this analysis was major adverse cardiac event, the composite of death, myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization. The main secondary end point of interest was definite/probable stent thrombosis. Follow-up at 10 years was available in 83% of the study patients.

RESULTS

The 10-year incidence of major adverse cardiac event (BP-SES 47.7% versus PP-EES 46.0% versus PP-SES 54.9%, P=0.003) and mortality (BP-SES 31.8% versus PP-EES 30.3% versus PP-SES 37.2%, P=0.02) was different among the groups. Definite/probable stent thrombosis was not significantly different among the groups (BP-SES 1.8% versus PP-EES 2.5% versus PP-SES 3.7%, P=0.09). Definite stent thrombosis was significantly different among the groups (BP-SES 1.1% versus PP-EES 0.8% versus PP-SES 2.4%, P=0.03). There were no significant differences between BP-SES and PP-EES.

CONCLUSIONS

In this unique long-term outcome analysis, BP-SES and PP-EES showed comparable clinical outcomes out to 10 years. PP-SES had higher rates of major adverse cardiac events and definite stent thrombosis.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00598676.

One-year outcomes of a NeoHexa sirolimus-eluting coronary stent system with a biodegradable polymer in all-comers coronary artery disease patients: Results from NeoRegistry in India

BACKGROUND

Biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents (BP-DES) have shown to reduce restenosis rates and have low rates of stent thrombosis. The present postmarketing surveillance assessed 1-year clinical outcomes of patients who had received NeoHexa DES in real practice.

AIM

To investigate 1-year clinical outcomes of Neohexa DES in real practice.

METHODS

Data obtained from a single-center cohort of patients who had received NeoHexa stents as part of routine treatment of coronary artery disease (CAD) were retrospectively investigated. The primary study endpoint was the rate of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) defined as the composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), and target lesion revascularization (TLR) during the follow-up at 1 mo, 6 mo, and 1 year after the index procedure.

RESULTS

A total of 129 patients with 172 lesions were enrolled. The most common comorbid conditions were hypertension (49.61%) and diabetes mellitus (39.53%). Procedural success was achieved in all patients, and no in-hospital MACE was reported. The incidence of composite MACE at 30 d, 6 mo, and 1 year was 0.78%, 3.94%, and 4.87%, respectively. The rate of possible and probable late stent thrombosis was 0.78%. The cumulative incidences of death, MI, and TLR at 1 year were 2.44%, 0.81%, and 1.63%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The relatively low rates of MACE and stent thrombosis in this study support safety and performance of NeoHexa stents, suggesting it to be an effective alternative to other contemporary stents for the treatment of de novo lesions in native coronary arteries.

Development of a Bioactive Polymeric Drug Eluting Coronary Stent Coating Using Electrospraying

Drug-eluting stents are now routinely used in the treatment of acute coronary syndromes caused by coronary artery disease. Whilst the sustained release of anti-proliferative drugs from these devices has greatly reduced the need for repeat revascularisation procedures, this approach is not suitable for all patients and appears to delay regrowth of the endothelium, necessitating the use of prolonged dual anti-platelet therapy. Although the development of more advanced stent platforms and drug coatings has produced modest improvements in performance, these devices have not fully addressed the limitations experienced with their first-generation counterparts. In the present study, we developed a novel stent coating that provides controlled sirolimus release from a bioactive polymer (accelerate™ AT) that has previously been shown to support endothelial cell growth in vitro. A bespoke electrospray deposition process provided control over the coating thickness, surface roughness, drug load, and release kinetics. The resultant optimised coating combines rapid release of an anti-proliferative agent from a bioactive polymer coating that promotes re-endothelialisation, thereby offering potential protection against in-stent restenosis and thrombosis. This novel, dual-action coating therefore has significant therapeutic potential, with the enhanced control of drug load and release kinetics offered by electrospray deposition also opening up opportunities for more personalised treatment approaches. Further development and evaluation of these technologies in vitro and in vivo is therefore warranted.

A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to compare long-term clinical outcomes of bioabsorbable polymer and durable polymer drug-eluting stents

AIMS

The durable polymer (DP) of a drug-eluting stent (DES) serves no function once drug elution is complete. To ascertain the benefits of bioabsorbable polymer (BP) over DP-DESs requires a longer follow-up period, to overcome the time taken for polymer absorption. The primary aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the safety and efficacy of BP-DES with the DP-DES over mid (2 years) to long-term (3-5 years) follow-up.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A thorough computer-based search was performed using Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and PubMed databases. We only included randomized controlled studies comparing clinical outcomes between BP-DESs and DP-DESs. Only studies where data were available for a minimum of 2 years were included. A separate analysis of 2-year outcomes and 3- to 5-year outcomes were conducted. Data from 6 and 8 studies were included in 3- to 5-year and 2-year follow-up, respectively. There were no differences between stent groups in cardiac mortality, stent thrombosis (ST), target lesion revascularization, target vessel failure, and reinfarction rates for either 2-year or 3- to 5-year follow-up. Subgroup analysis according to strut thickness (<100 µm, >100 µm) of BP-DES demonstrated similar results. The analyses of ST and very late ST favoured BP-DESs but did not reach statistically significant level.

CONCLUSION

There were no differences in clinical outcomes between BP-DESs and DP-DESs over mid- and long-term follow-up.

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

AIMS

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

METHODS AND RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Randomized comparison between 2-link cell design biolimus A9-eluting stent and 3-link cell design everolimus-eluting stent in patients with de novo true coronary bifurcation lesions: the BEGIN trial

The appropriate stent platform for treating coronary bifurcation lesions (CBLs) remains controversial. Previous bench tests have demonstrated the superiority of a 2-link cell design to 3-link cell design for creating inter-strut dilation at the side branch ostium. This randomized multicenter prospective BEGIN trial compared the biodegradable polymer-based biolimus A9-eluting stent (2-link BES) with the durable polymer-based cobalt chromium everolimus-eluting stent (3-link EES) in 226 patients with de novo CBLs. Patients with true bifurcations, defined as > 50% stenosis in the main vessel and side branch (SB) and an SB diameter > 2.25 mm, were enrolled. Guide wire re-crossing to the distal cell (near the carina) in the jailed SB and final kissing inflation were recommended. The SB angiographic endpoint was < 50% stenosis diameter. Left-main CBLs (13.5% vs. 13.0%) and 2-stent technique (30.6% vs. 22.6%) rates were similar. The primary endpoints (minimum lumen diameter at the SB ostium measured at an independent core laboratory at the 8-month follow-up) were comparable (1.64 ± 0.50 mm vs. 1.63 ± 0.51 mm, p = 0.976). There was no significant difference in composite outcomes of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target vascular revascularization at 12 months (7.4% vs. 8.0%, p = 0.894). Two-link BES and 3-link EES showed similar 8-month angiographic and 1-year clinical outcomes for true CBLs.

Prognostic impact of reducing myocardial ischemia identified using ECG-gated myocardial perfusion SPECT in Japanese patients with coronary artery disease: J-ACCESS 4 study

AIM

Whether myocardial ischemia identified using myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) can be an alternative target of coronary revascularization to reduce the incidence of cardiac events remains unclear.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This multicenter, prospective cohort study aimed to clarify the prognostic impact of reducing myocardial ischemia. Among 494 registered patients with possible or definite coronary artery disease (CAD), 298 underwent initial pharmacological stress ^99mTc-tetrofosmin MPI before, and eight months after revascularization or medical therapy, and were followed up for at least one year. Among these, 114 with at least 5% ischemia at initial MPI were investigated. The primary endpoints were cardiac death, non-fatal myocardial infarction and hospitalization for heart failure. Ischemia was reduced ≥5% in 92 patients. Coronary revascularization reduced ischemia (n = 89) more effectively than medical therapy (n = 25). Post-stress cardiac function also improved after coronary revascularization. Ejection fraction significantly improved at stress (61.0% ± 10.7% vs. 65.4% ± 11.3%; p < 0.001) but not at rest (67.1% ± 11.3% vs. 68.3% ± 11.6%; p = 0.144), among patients who underwent revascularization. Rates of coronary revascularization and cardiac events among the 114 patients were significantly higher (13.6%, p = 0.035) and lower (1.1% p = 0.0053), respectively, in patients with, than without ≥5% ischemia reduction. Moreover, patients with complete resolution of ischemia at the time of the second MPI had a significantly better prognosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Reducing ischemia by ≥5% and the complete resolution of ischemia could improve the prognosis of patients with stable CAD.

The OCT-ORION Study: A Randomized Optical Coherence Tomography Study Comparing Resolute Integrity to Biomatrix Drug-Eluting Stent on the Degree of Early Stent Healing and Late Lumen Loss

BACKGROUND

Durable polymers used in drug-eluting stents are considered a potential cause of hypersensitivity inflammatory response adversely affecting stent healing. Using a sequential follow-up with optical coherence tomography, we compared the differences in healing profiles of 2 drug-eluting stents with a biodegradable or durable polymer.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Sixty patients with multivessel disease were prospectively enrolled to receive both study stents, which were randomly assigned to 2 individual vessels, a Resolute Integrity zotarolimus-eluting stent with a durable BioLinx polymer and a BioMatrix NeoFlex Biolimus A9-eluting stent with a biodegradable polylactic acid polymer. Optical coherence tomography was performed at baseline, then in 5 randomly assigned monthly groups at 2 to 6 months, and at 9 months in all patients. The primary end point was the difference in optical coherence tomography strut coverage at 9 months. Key secondary end points included angiographic late lumen loss and composite major adverse cardiac events (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization, and definite or probable stent thrombosis) at 9 months. Resolute Integrity zotarolimus-eluting stent showed significantly better strut coverage than BioMatrix NeoFlex Biolimus A9-eluting stent at 2 to 6 months (P<0.001) and less variance of percent coverage at 9 months, 99.7% (interquartile range, 99.1-100) versus 99.6% (interquartile range, 96.8-99.9; difference, 0.10; 95% confidence interval, 0.00-1.05; P<0.001). No significant difference was observed in major adverse cardiac events or angiographic end points.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite having a durable polymer, Resolute Integrity zotarolimus-eluting stent exhibited better strut coverage than BioMatrix NeoFlex Biolimus A9-eluting stent having a biodegradable polymer; both showed similar antiproliferative efficacy. This novel, longitudinal, sequential optical coherence tomography protocol using each patient as own control could achieve conclusive results in small sample size.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01742507.

Dual Antiplatelet Therapy for 6 Versus 18 Months After Biodegradable Polymer Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation

OBJECTIVES

The NIPPON (Nobori Dual Antiplatelet Therapy as Appropriate Duration) study was a multicenter randomized investigation of the noninferiority of short-term versus long-term dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in patients with implantation of the Nobori drug-eluting stent (DES) (Terumo, Tokyo, Japan), which has a biodegradable abluminal coating.

BACKGROUND

The optimum duration of DAPT for patients with a biodegradable polymer-coated DES is unclear.

METHODS

The subjects were 3,773 patients with stable or acute coronary syndromes undergoing Nobori stent implantation. They were randomized 1:1 to receive DAPT for 6 or 18 months. The primary endpoint was net adverse clinical and cerebrovascular events (NACCE) (all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, and major bleeding) from 6 to 18 months after stenting. Intention-to-treat analysis was performed in 3,307 patients who were followed for at least 6 months.

RESULTS

NACCE occurred in 34 patients (2.1%) receiving short-term DAPT and 24 patients (1.5%) receiving long-term DAPT (difference 0.6%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.5 to 0.3). Because the lower limit of the 95% CI was inside the specified margin of -2%, noninferiority of short-term DAPT was confirmed. Mortality was 1.0% with short-term DAPT versus 0.4% with long-term DAPT, whereas myocardial infarction was 0.2% versus 0.1%, and major bleeding was 0.7% versus 0.7%, respectively. The estimated probability of NACCE was lower in the long-term DAPT group (hazard ratio: 1.44, 95% CI: 0.86 to 2.43).

CONCLUSIONS

Six months of DAPT was not inferior to 18 months of DAPT following implantation of a DES with a biodegradable abluminal coating. However, this result needs to be interpreted with caution given the open-label design and wide noninferiority margin of the present study. (Nobori Dual Antiplatelet Therapy as Appropriate Duration [NIPPON]; NCT01514227).

Bioresorbable Polymer-Coated Orsiro Versus Durable Polymer-Coated Resolute Onyx Stents (BIONYX): Rationale and design of the randomized TWENTE IV multicenter trial

AIM

The aim was to compare in a noninferiority trial the efficacy and safety of 2 contemporary drug-eluting stents (DESs): a novel, durable polymer-coated stent versus an established bioabsorbable polymer-coated stent.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The BIONYX trial (ClinicalTrials.gov-no.NCT02508714) is an investigator-initiated, prospective, randomized, patient- and assessor-blinded, international, multicenter study in all-comer patients with all types of clinical syndromes and lesions who require percutaneous coronary interventions with DES. Patients at 7 study sites in the Netherlands, Belgium, and Israel were randomly assigned (1:1, stratified for gender and diabetes mellitus) to treatment with the novel, zotarolimus-eluting, durable polymer-coated Resolute Onyx stent that has a radiopaque, thin-strut, CoreWire stent platform versus the sirolimus-eluting, bioresorbable polymer-coated Orsiro stent (reference device) that has a very thin-strut, cobalt-chromium stent backbone. The primary end point is the 1-year incidence of the composite clinical end point target vessel failure consisting of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or clinically indicated target vessel revascularization. A power calculation, assuming a target vessel failure rate of 6.0% (noninferiority margin 2.5%), revealed that 2,470 study patients would give the study 80% power (α level 5%), allowing for up to 3% loss to follow-up. The first patient was enrolled on October 7, 2015; on December 23, 2016, the last patient entered the study.

CONCLUSIONS

BIONYX is a large-scale, prospective, randomized, international, multicenter trial comparing a novel DES with durable coating versus a reference DES with biodegradable coating in all-comers. The study is the first randomized assessment of the Resolute Onyx stent, which is an often-used DES outside the United States.

CVIT expert consensus document on primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in 2018

While primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has significantly contributed to improve the mortality in patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction even in cardiogenic shock, primary PCI is a standard of care in most of Japanese institutions. Whereas there are high numbers of available facilities providing primary PCI in Japan, there are no clear guidelines focusing on procedural aspect of the standardized care. Whilst updated guidelines for the management of acute myocardial infarction were recently published by European Society of Cardiology, the following major changes are indicated; (1) radial access and drug-eluting stent over bare metal stent were recommended as Class I indication, and (2) complete revascularization before hospital discharge (either immediate or staged) is now considered as Class IIa recommendation. Although the primary PCI is consistently recommended in recent and previous guidelines, the device lag from Europe, the frequent usage of coronary imaging modalities in Japan, and the difference in available medical therapy or mechanical support may prevent direct application of European guidelines to Japanese population. The Task Force on Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention of the Japanese Association of Cardiovascular Intervention and Therapeutics (CVIT) has now proposed the expert consensus document for the management of acute myocardial infarction focusing on procedural aspect of primary PCI.

Stent Polymers: Do They Make a Difference?

The necessity of polymers on drug-eluting stent (DES) platforms is dictated by the need of an adequate amount and optimal release kinetic of the antiproliferative drugs for achieving ideal DES performance. However, the chronic vessel wall inflammation related to permanent polymer persistence after the drug has been eluted might trigger late restenosis and stent thrombosis. Biodegradable polymers have the potential to avoid these adverse events. A variety of biodegradable polymer DES platforms have been clinically tested, showing equal outcomes with the standard-bearer permanent polymer DES within the first year of implantation. At longer-term follow-up, promising lower rates of stent thrombosis have been observed with the early generation biodegradable polymer DES platforms compared to first-generation DES. Whether this safety benefit still persists with newer biodegradable polymer DES generations against second-generation permanent polymer DES needs to be explored.

Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials Comparing Biodegradable Polymer Drug-Eluting Stent to Second-Generation Durable Polymer Drug-Eluting Stents

OBJECTIVES

The authors sought to perform a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing the safety and efficacy of biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents (BP-DES) to second-generation durable polymer drug-eluting stents (DP-DES).

BACKGROUND

Prior meta-analyses have established the superiority of BP-DES over bare-metal stents and first-generation DP-DES; however, their advantage compared with second-generation DP-DES remains controversial.

METHODS

The authors searched PubMed and Scopus databases for RCTs comparing BP-DES to the second-generation DP-DES. Outcomes included target vessel revascularization (TVR) as efficacy outcome and cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), and definite or probable stent thrombosis (ST) as safety outcomes. In addition, we performed landmark analysis for endpoints beyond 1 year of follow-up and a subgroup analysis based on the stent characteristics.

RESULTS

The authors included 16 RCTs comprising 19,886 patients in the meta-analysis. At the longest available follow-up (mean duration 26 months), we observed no significant differences in TVR (p = 0.62), cardiac death (p = 0.46), MI (p = 0.98), or ST (risk ratio: 0.83, 95% confidence interval: 0.64 to 1.09; p = 0.19). Our landmark analysis showed that BP-DES were not associated with a reduction in the risk of very late ST (risk ratio: 0.87, 95% confidence interval: 0.49 to 1.53; p = 0.62). Similar outcomes were seen regardless of the eluting drug (biolimus vs. sirolimus), the stent platform (stainless steel vs. alloy), the kinetics of polymer degradation or drug release (<6 months vs. >6 months), the strut thickness of the BP-DES (thin <100 μm vs. thick >100 μm), or the DAPT duration (≥6 months vs. ≥12 months).

CONCLUSIONS

BP-DES have similar safety and efficacy profiles to second-generation DP-DES.

Coronary balloon angioplasty, stents, and scaffolds

Since the first coronary angioplasty on Sept 16, 1977, the field of percutaneous coronary intervention has evolved rapidly. Now marking its 40th anniversary, percutaneous coronary intervention has become one of the most common medical procedures worldwide. Much of this progress has been due to the iteration and improvement of angioplasty technologies. Balloon angioplasty was limited by unpredictable procedural outcomes due to vessel dissection and recoil, and a high rate of restenosis. The introduction of stents resulted in more stable early results and lower rates of restenosis, although early stent thrombosis and neointimal hyperplasia causing vessel renarrowing were key limitations. Drug-eluting stents delivering antiproliferative agents significantly lowered the rates of restenosis, permitting widespread use of percutaneous coronary intervention in more advanced and complex disease. Although fully bioresorbable scaffolds have the potential to further improve long-term outcomes, they have not yet achieved results equivalent to those of conventional metallic drug-eluting stents in the early years after implantation. Progress in catheter technology did not occur in isolation, and the success of percutaneous coronary intervention is also due to important advances in intracoronary imaging, and adjunct pharmacotherapy-each of which is reviewed in other papers in this Series.

Clinical outcomes of biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting BioMatrix stents versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting Xience stents

There are limited data about clinical outcomes of biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting BioMatrix stents (BP-BES) and durable polymer everolimus-eluting Xience stents (DP-EES) in real world practice. We sought to compare the clinical outcomes of BP-BES and DP-EES in real world cohorts of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. A prospective multicenter registry enrolled 999 patients treated with BP-BES and 1,000 patients treated with DP-EES. The primary outcome was target lesion failure, defined as a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization. Definite or probable stent thrombosis was also compared in total and propensity score-matched cohorts. The median follow-up duration was 24 months, and mean age was 65 years (interquartile range, 56-72 years). Patients receiving BP-BES had a lower prevalence of acute coronary syndrome, prior myocardial infarction, multi-vessel disease, bifurcation lesions, and left anterior descending artery lesions than those receiving DP-EES. After propensity score matching (692 pairs), target lesion failure occurred in 22 patients receiving BP-BES and in 25 patients receiving DP-EES (3.2% versus 3.6%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53 to 1.60; p = 0.77). The risk of definite or probable stent thrombosis did not differ between the 2 groups (0.4% versus 0.4%; adjusted HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.21 to 4.98; p = 0.97). The results were consistent across various subgroups. In the propensity score-matched analysis of real world cohorts, BP-BES showed similar clinical outcomes compared to DP-EES. We need to investigate about whether differences in clinical outcome emerge during long-term follow-up.

Coronary stents and vascular response to implantation: literature review

Drug-eluting stents (DESs) have minimized the limitations of bare-metal stents (BMSs) after percutaneous coronary interventions. Nevertheless, serious concerns remain about possible late complications of stenting, such as stent thrombosis (ST) and in-stent restenosis (ISR), although the introduction of second-generation DESs seems to have softened the phenomenon, compared to the first-generation ones. ST is a potentially catastrophic event, which has been markedly reduced by optimization of stent implantation, novel stent designs, and dual antiplatelet therapy. The exact mechanism to explain its occurrence is under investigation, and, realistically, multiple factors are responsible. ISR of BMSs has been previously considered as a stable condition with an early peak (at 6 months) of intimal hyperplasia, followed by a regression period beyond 1 year. On the contrary, both clinical and histologic studies of DESs have demonstrated evidence of continuous neointimal growth during long-term follow-up, named "late catch-up" phenomenon. The acknowledgment that ISR is a relatively benign clinical condition has been recently challenged by evidences which reported that patients with ISR can experience acute coronary syndromes. Intracoronary imaging is an invasive technology that allows identifying features of atherosclerotic plaque of stent implanted and of vascular healing after stenting; it is often used to complete diagnostic coronary angiography and to drive interventional procedures. Intracoronary optical coherence tomography is currently considered a state-of-the-art imaging technique; it provides, compared to intravascular ultrasound, better resolution (at least >10 times), allowing the detailed characterization of the superficial structure of the vessel wall. Imaging studies "in vivo," in agreement with histological findings, suggest that chronic inflammation and/or endothelial dysfunction may induce late de novo "neoatherosclerosis" inside both BMSs and DESs. So, neoatherosclerosis has become the prime suspect in the pathogenesis of late stent failure.

Midterm angiographic outcomes with sirolimus- and everolimus-eluting stents for small vessels in diabetic patients: propensity-score-matched comparisons in three different vessel diameters

We conducted propensity-score-matched comparisons of midterm angiographic follow-up outcomes of sirolimus- versus everolimus-eluting stents (SES, EES) after elective placements for de novo coronary stenosis in small vessels (SV) in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM), because the angiographic efficacy of EES over SES for those cohorts remained unclear. The study was a non-randomized, retrospective, lesion-based, multicenter study, examining lesions followed up angiographically within 550 days, extracted from the unified database of 6 institutes. The endpoint (binary restenosis) was defined as the percentage of subjects having >50% diameter stenosis at follow-up. Propensity-score-matched analyses were conducted in 3 different vessel-size cohorts, defined by a preprocedural reference diameter (RD) <2.10, <2.35, and <2.60 mm, yielding group sizes of n = 107, 183, and 312 baseline-adjusted lesions in each of the 2 stent arms. The frequency of binary restenosis decreased significantly with increasing vessel size, at 16.8, 12.6, and 12.2%, in the SES group. However, it remained almost the same across vessel-size groups in the EES group (8.0, 6.0, and 7.5%). The p values for the significance of the differences in binary restenosis between EES and SES in each vessel size increased with the decrease in vessel size [p = 0.002, 0.040, and 0.063 (the last still nearly significant)]. Thus, in patients with DM, EES showed increasingly superior efficacy over SES for SV stenosis as the vessel size became smaller, i.e., the risk for binary restenosis became greater.

Second-generation versus first-generation drug-eluting stents in patients with and without diabetes mellitus: pooled analysis from the RESET and NEXT trials

The impact of second-generation drug-eluting stent (G2-DES) implantations compared with first-generation drug-eluting stents (G1-DES) implantations on long-term clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with and without diabetes mellitus (DM) has not yet been adequately assessed. This pooled analysis compared 3-year clinical outcomes between G1- and G2-DES according to the presence or absence of DM, using individual patient-level data from the RESET and NEXT trials. Among 6431 patients, G1-DES and G2-DES were used in 713 and 2211 patients, respectively, in the DM stratum, and 887 and 2620 patients, respectively, in the non-DM stratum. Cumulative incidence of and adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for target-lesion revascularization (TLR) were not significantly different between G2- and G1-DES in both strata [DM, 8.7 versus 10.1%, adjusted HR: 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59-1.10, P = 0.17; non-DM, 5.7 versus 6.2%, adjusted HR: 0.86, 95% CI 0.62-1.22, P = 0.38]. In the insulin-treated DM (ITDM), G2-DES had a significantly lower adjusted HR for TLR compared with G1-DES, although there was no significant difference in the non-ITDM (ITDM, adjusted HR: 0.54, 95% CI 0.32-0.96, P = 0.04; non-ITDM, adjusted HR: 0.95, 95% CI 0.66-1.42, P = 0.81). G2-DES provided similar risk for TLR in non-ITDM and non-DM patients compared with G1-DES. However, G2-DES compared with G1-DES had a lower risk for TLR among ITDM patients.

Outcomes of Acute Myocardial Infarction Patients Implanted With Biodegradable Polymer Biolimus-Eluting Stents Versus New-Generation Durable Polymer Drug-Eluting Stents: A Retrospective Analysis

We compared outcomes between biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stent (BP-BES) and new-generation durable polymer drug-eluting stent (DP-DES) implantations in patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI). Among 13472 patients with acute MI in a nationwide registry, 557 (64.8%) were in the BP-BES and 303 (35.2%) in the new-generation DP-DES group following coronary reperfusion. The occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE; death, MI, revascularization) and stent thrombosis was compared. Major adverse cardiac events occurred in 53 (6.2%) patients and showed similar rates between the BP-BES and new-generation DP-DES groups (all: 6.6% vs 5.9%, P = .652; propensity score [PS] matched: n = 380, 6.3% vs 5.3%, P = .623). Stent thrombosis did not differ between groups (all: 0.3% vs 0.4%, P = .892; PS matched: 0.5% vs 0.5%, P = 1.000). Major adverse cardiac event-free survival was comparable between groups (all: 93.4% vs 94.1%, log-rank P = .357; PS matched: 93.7% vs 94.7%, log-rank P = .445). Biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stent was not associated with MACE (all: hazard ratio [HR], 1.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75-3.74; P = 0.212; PS matched: HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.40-2.75; P = .915). In conclusion, in patients with acute MI, BP-BES was equivalent to the new-generation DP-DES in terms of outcomes.

Long-term outcomes of biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stents versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Both biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stents (BP-BES) and biocompatible durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP-EES) have been developed to decrease the risk of late adverse events. However, their efficacy and safety beyond 1year after stent deployment still remain controversial.

METHODS

We conducted a meta-analysis on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing BP-BES with DP-EES in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in long-term follow up (beyond 1year), and compared the pooled estimates with those in mid-term follow up (within 1year).

RESULTS

Eight RCTs were included in this meta-analysis. The risks in BP-BES versus DP-EES of death (odds ratio (OR): 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.86-1.31, p=0.557 for long-term; OR: 1.09, 95% CI: 0.76-1.56, p=0.645 for mid-term), myocardial infarction (OR: 1.06, 95% CI: 0.84-1.35, p=0.628 for long-term; OR: 1.04, 95% CI: 0.81-1.33, p=0.778 for mid-term), and definite or probable stent thrombosis (OR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.51-1.57, p=0.695 for long-term; OR: 1.36, 95% CI: 0.66-2.81, p=0.400 for mid-term) were comparable in each follow up, respectively. In contrast, the risk of target vessel revascularization (TVR) tended to be higher in BP-BES as compared to DP-EES in long-term follow up (OR: 1.15, 95% CI: 0.97-1.37, p=0.098 for long-term; OR: 1.09, 95% CI: 0.87-1.36, p=0.447 for mid-term).

CONCLUSIONS

Although the overall clinical outcomes were similar between BP-BES and DP-EES, BP-BES may be associated with higher risk of TVR up to 3years after stent deployment compared with DP-EES. Further studies are warranted in larger populations of patients during longer-term follow up.

Ultrathin Strut Biodegradable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Durable-Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stent for Percutaneous Coronary Revascularization: 2-Year Results of the BIOSCIENCE Trial

Background

No data are available on the long‐term performance of ultrathin strut biodegradable polymer sirolimus‐eluting stents (BP‐SES). We reported 2‐year clinical outcomes of the BIOSCIENCE (Ultrathin Strut Biodegradable Polymer Sirolimus‐Eluting Stent Versus Durable Polymer Everolimus‐Eluting Stent for Percutaneous Coronary Revascularisation) trial, which compared BP‐SES with durable‐polymer everolimus‐eluting stents (DP‐EES) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

Methods and Results

A total of 2119 patients with minimal exclusion criteria were assigned to treatment with BP‐SES (n=1063) or DP‐EES (n=1056). Follow‐up at 2 years was available for 2048 patients (97%). The primary end point was target‐lesion failure, a composite of cardiac death, target‐vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically indicated target‐lesion revascularization. At 2 years, target‐lesion failure occurred in 107 patients (10.5%) in the BP‐SES arm and 107 patients (10.4%) in the DP‐EES arm (risk ratio [RR] 1.00, 95% CI 0.77–1.31, P=0.979). There were no significant differences between BP‐SES and DP‐EES with respect to cardiac death (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.62–1.63, P=0.984), target‐vessel myocardial infarction (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.60–1.39, P=0.669), target‐lesion revascularization (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.81–1.71, P=0.403), and definite stent thrombosis (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.56–3.44, P=0.485). There were 2 cases (0.2%) of definite very late stent thrombosis in the BP‐SES arm and 4 cases (0.4%) in the DP‐EES arm (P=0.423). In the prespecified subgroup of patients with ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction, BP‐SES was associated with a lower risk of target‐lesion failure compared with DP‐EES (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.23–0.99, P=0.043, P_interaction=0.026).

Conclusions

Comparable safety and efficacy profiles of BP‐SES and DP‐EES were maintained throughout 2 years of follow‐up.

Clinical Trial Registration

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