lower-atherothrombotic risk undergoing coronary intervention with newer-generation drug-eluting stents: an analysis from the randomized BIOFLOW trials

BACKGROUND

Patients with atherothrombotic risk are at high hazard of ischemic events. Preventive medicine plays a major role in modifying their outcomes. Whether the choice of a BP-SES or DP-EES can contribute to the occurrence of events remains unclear. We sought to investigate the outcomes of patients with higher atherothrombotic risk (H-ATR) versus lower atherothrombotic risk (L-ATR) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with either bioresorbable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (BP-SES) or durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stent (DP-EES).

METHODS

Patients (n = 2361) from BIOFLOW-II, -IV, and -V randomized trials were categorized into H-ATR vs. L-ATR. L-ATR patients had ≤ 1 and H-ATR ≥ 2 of the following criteria: presentation in ACS, diabetes mellitus, previous myocardial infarction, previous PCI/CABG, or previous stroke. Endpoints were target lesion failure (TLF: cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction [TV-MI], target lesion revascularization [TLR]) and stent thrombosis (ST) at three years.

RESULTS

H-ATR patients (n = 1023) were more morbid than L-ATR patients (n = 1338). TLF rate was significantly higher in H-ATR patients as compared with L-ATR (11.6% vs. 7.0%; HR 1.67, 95% CI 1.27-2.20, p < 0.0001). With BP-SES TLF rates were numerically lower as compared with DP-EES in H-ATR (10.5% vs. 13.5%; HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.54-1.14, p = 0.20) and significantly lower in L-ATR (5.6% vs. 9.8%; HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.38-0.85, p = 0.006).

CONCLUSION

In the era of newer-generation DES, patients with H-ATR still are at hazard for ischemic events. Patients with BP-SES had lower TLF rates as compared with DP-EES, most consistent in L-ATR whereas in H-ATR patients most probably secondary preventive strategies are of higher value.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrial.gov. NCT01356888, NCT01939249, NCT02389946. https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01356888 , https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01939249 , https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT02389946 .

non-complex percutaneous coronary intervention with newer-generation drug-eluting stents: an analysis from the randomized BIOFLOW trials

BACKGROUND

Patients undergoing complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are at higher risk of adverse outcomes, but data are scarce in the era of newer-generation coronary stents.

AIM

We sought to compare the clinical outcomes after complex PCI with a bioresorbable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (BP-SES) versus a durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stent (DP-EES).

METHODS

Patients (n = 2350) from BIOFLOW-II, -IV, and -V randomized trials were categorized into non-complex PCI vs. complex PCI. Complex PCI had at least one of the following criteria: multi-vessel PCI, ≥ 3 lesions treated, ≥ 3 stents implanted, total stent length ≥ 60 mm. Endpoints were target lesion failure (TLF: cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction [TV-MI], or target lesion revascularization [TLR]) and probable/definite stent thrombosis (ST) at three years.

RESULTS

Patients with complex PCI (n = 348) were older and presented more often with acute coronary syndrome than non-complex PCI patients (n = 2002). Complex PCI lesions were more often type B2/C and bifurcation lesions and required more pre- and post-dilatation. Complex PCI patients had higher rates of TLF (14.6% vs. 8.1%; aHR 1.89, 95% CI [1.31-2.73], p = 0.001), TV-MI (10.2% vs. 4.4%, aHR 2.17, 95% CI [1.40-3.37], p = 0.001), and ST (1.5% vs. 0.4%, p = 0.025) as compared with non-complex PCI. TLF was not lower with BP-SES as compared to DP-EES in complex PCI (12.6% vs 18.2%, p = 0.16).

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing complex PCI with the newer-generation DES still sustain a higher risk of TLF, TV-MI and stent thrombosis as compared with non-complex PCI. This adverse outcome was not significantly modified by the stent platform (BP-SES vs. DP-EES).

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrial.gov NCT01356888, NCT01939249, NCT02389946, https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01356888 ; https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01939249 ; https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT02389946 .

Impact of Coronary Calcification on Clinical Outcomes After Implantation of Newer-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents

Background

Percutaneous coronary intervention of calcified lesions was associated with worse outcomes in the era of bare‐metal and first‐generation drug‐eluting stents. Data on percutaneous coronary intervention of calcified lesions with newer‐generation drug‐eluting stents are scarce. Therefore, we investigated the impact of lesion calcification on clinical outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with a bioresorbable‐polymer sirolimus‐eluting stent or a durable‐polymer everolimus‐eluting stent.

Methods and Results

Patients (n=2361) from BIOFLOW II, IV, and V trials were categorized into moderate/severe versus none/mild lesion calcification by a core laboratory. End points were target‐lesion failure (TLF) (cardiac death, target‐vessel myocardial infarction, or target‐lesion revascularization) and probable/definite stent thrombosis at 2 years. The agreement in calcification assessment between the operator and the core laboratory was weak (weighted κ, 0.23). Patients with moderate/severe calcification (n=303; 16%) had higher TLF (13.5% versus 8.4%; P=0.003) and stent thrombosis rates (2.1% versus 0.2%; P<0.0001), whereas target‐lesion revascularization was not different between the groups (5.0% versus 3.9%; P=0.302). After adjustment, calcification did not emerge as an independent predictor of TLF (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.37; 95% CI, 0.89–2.08; P=0.148) but did for target‐vessel myocardial infarction (aHR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.03–2.68; P=0.037). TLF rates were similar between bioresorbable‐polymer sirolimus‐eluting stent and durable‐polymer everolimus‐eluting stent (12.6% versus 15.4%, P=0.482) in moderate/severe calcification. In none/mild calcification, the bioresorbable‐polymer sirolimus‐eluting stent showed lower TLF (7.5% versus 10.3%, P=0.045).

Conclusions

With newer‐generation drug‐eluting stents, moderate/severe lesion calcification was not associated with more TLF after adjustment for the higher risk of patients with coronary calcification, whereas the rate of target‐vessel myocardial infarction was higher. The bioresorbable‐polymer sirolimus‐eluting stent and durable‐polymer everolimus‐eluting stent were equally effective and safe in calcified lesions.

Registration

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifiers: NCT01356888, NCT01939249, NCT02389946.