Comparison of the safety and efficacy of biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents versus durable polymer drug-eluting stents: a meta-analysis

Incidence of late-acquired stent malapposition of drug eluting stents with second generation permanent and biodegradable polymer coatings-A prospective, randomized comparison using optical coherence tomography

OBJECTIVES AND BACKGROUND

Polymer coatings of drug-eluting stents (DES) may induce allergic reactions and inflammation, resulting in late-acquired stent malapposition (LASM) with the risk of stent thrombosis. This study evaluated, if biodegradable polymer (BP) reduces the incidence of LASM compared to permanent polymer (PP) after treatment with newer generation DES.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Fifty patients with 59 lesions were randomized (2:1) to elective treatment with second generation PP-DES (n = 32, 39 stents), either Everolimus-eluting or Zotarolimus-eluting stents, or with BP-DES (Biolimus-eluting stents [BES]; n = 18, 20 stents) and underwent optical coherence tomography directly after implantation and after 1 year. After implantation acute stent malappositions (ASM) were documented in 30 stents (51%) distributed to 22 stents treated with PP-DES (56%) and 8 with BP-DES (40%; n.s.). After 1 year, late stent malappositions (LSM) were detected in 14 stents (24 %); ASM persisted (APSM) in 9 stents after one year (7 PP-DES-18%, 2 BES-10%), whereas ASM resolved in 21 stents. In addition, LASM was documented in nine stents including five stents without and four stents with additional APSM. All LASM were located in PP-DES (n = 9; 23%), none in BP-DES (P = 0.022). Compared to the reference lumen area, in-stent lumen area of stents without LASM was smaller due to neointimal hyperplasia (P = 0.021), whereas in-stent lumen area at maximum LASM of stents with LASM was larger due to positive remodeling (P = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion the use of BP-DES reduced the occurrence of LASM due to positive remodeling compared to second generation PP-DES.

Biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents versus first-generation durable polymer drug-eluting stents: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 12 randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Even if drug-eluting stents (DES) showed beneficial effects in patients with coronary artery diseases (CADs), limitations have been observed with the first-generation durable polymer DES (DP-DES). Recently, biodegradable polymer DES (BP-DES) have been approved to be used as an alternative to DP-DES, with potential benefits. We aimed to systematically compare BP-DES with the first-generation DP-DES using a large number of randomized patients.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing BP-DES with first-generation DP-DES. The main endpoints were the long-term (≥2 years) adverse clinical outcomes that were reported with these 2 types of DES. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and the analysis was carried out by RevMan 5.3 software.

RESULTS

Twelve trials with a total number of 13,480 patients (7730 and 5750 patients were treated by BP-DES and first-generation DP-DES, respectively) were included. During a long-term follow-up period of ≥2 years, mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR), and major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) were not significantly different between these 2 groups with OR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.66-1.07; P = .16, I = 0%, OR: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.45-2.27; P = .98, I = 0%, OR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.75-1.11; P = .37, I = 0% and OR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.44-1.67; P = .65, I = 0%, respectively. Long-term total stent thrombosis (ST), definite ST, and probable ST were also not significantly different between BP-DES and the first-generation DP-DES with OR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.50-1.18; P = .22, I = 0%, OR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.43-1.18; P = .19, I = 0% and OR: 1.31, 95% CI: 0.56-3.08; P = .53, I = 6%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Long-term mortality, MI, TLR, MACEs, and ST were not significantly different between BP-DES and the first-generation DP-DES. However, the follow-up period was restricted to only 3 years in this analysis.

The metamorphosis of vascular stents: passive structures to smart devices

The role of nanotechnology enabled techniques in the evolution of vascular stents.

Novel sirolimus-eluting stent Prolim® with a biodegradable polymer in the all-comers population: one year clinical results with quantitative coronary angiography and optical coherence tomography analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to assess the safety and the efficacy of the novel sirolimus-eluting Prolim® stent with a biodegradable polymer in the all-comers population.

METHODS

We prospectively enrolled all patients with stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndrome treated with Prolim® stent between January and December 2013 in two interventional cardiology centers in Poland. Angiographic control was planned at 12 months, in which 15 % of patients (randomly chosen) underwent optical coherence tomography imaging. The primary end-point was the cumulative rate of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization at 12 months.

RESULTS

There were 204 patients enrolled, in whom 238 Prolim® stents were deployed (1.17 stent per patient). The mean age was 68 ± 10 years and 32.8 % were females. The examined stent was implanted in 5.9 % in STEMI patients, in 21.6 % - in NSTE-ACS and in 72.5 % - in patients with stable coronary artery disease. The Prolim® stent was most frequently implanted in right coronary artery (38.2 %) followed by left anterior descending artery (34.0 %). The cumulative major adverse cardiovascular events rate at 12 months was 6.9 %, and the clinically-driven target lesion revascularization rate - 5.4 %. At 12 months in quantitative coronary angiography the late lumen loss was 0.21 ± 0.18 mm, and in optical coherence tomography the mean neointima burden was 24.6 ± 8.6 %.

CONCLUSIONS

Sirolimus-eluting Prolim® stent with a biodegradable polymer is a feasible device with a very good safety profile and long-term clinical effectiveness.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02545985 .