Biodegradable Polymer Sirolimus-eluting Stent Research Articles

Biodegradable Polymer Versus Polymer-Free Ultrathin Sirolimus-Eluting Stents: Analysis of the Stent Arm Registry From the HOST-IDEA Randomized Trial.

The efficacy and safety of each third-generation drug-eluting stent with ultrathin struts and advanced polymer technology remain unclear. We investigated the clinical outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention using the Coroflex ISAR polymer-free sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) or Orsiro biodegradable polymer SES. The HOST-IDEA trial (Harmonizing Optimal Strategy for Treatment of Coronary Artery Stenosis-Coronary Intervention With Next-Generation Drug-Eluting Stent Platforms and Abbreviated Dual Antiplatelet Therapy), initially designed with a 2×2 factorial approach, sought to randomize patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention based on dual antiplatelet therapy duration (3 versus 12 months) and stent type (Coroflex ISAR versus Orsiro). Despite randomizing 2013 patients for dual antiplatelet therapy duration, the stent arm transitioned to a registry format during the trial. Among these, 328 individuals (16.3%) were randomized for Coroflex ISAR or Orsiro SES, while 1685 (83.7%) underwent percutaneous coronary intervention without stent-type randomization. In this study, the Coroflex ISAR (n=559) and Orsiro groups (n=1449) were matched using a propensity score. The prespecified primary end point was target lesion failure, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically driven target lesion revascularization at 12 months. The baseline patient and procedural characteristics were well balanced between the Coroflex ISAR and Orsiro groups after propensity score matching (n=559, each group). The Coroflex ISAR group was significantly associated with a higher rate of target lesion failure, mainly driven by clinically driven target lesion revascularization, compared with the Orsiro group (3.4% versus 1.1%; hazard ratio, 3.21 [95% CI, 1.28-8.05]; P=0.01). A higher risk of target lesion failure in the Coroflex ISAR group was consistently observed across various subgroups. The rates of any bleeding (hazard ratio, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.51-1.40]; P=0.52) and major bleeding (hazard ratio, 1.58 [95% CI, 0.61-4.08]; P=0.34) were comparable between the 2 groups. In this propensity score-matched analysis of the stent arm registry from the HOST-IDEA trial, the Orsiro SES was associated with significantly better outcomes in terms of 1-year target lesion failure, mainly driven by clinically driven target lesion revascularization, than the Coroflex ISAR SES. URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02601157.

Comparison of thrombogenicity in different types of drug-eluting stents during transition from DAPT to SAPT.

During the transition from dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) to single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT), previous studies have raised concerns about a rebound effect. We compared platelet and inflammatory cell adhesion on different types of stents in the setting of clopidogrel presence and withdrawal. In Experiment 1, three pigs were administered with DAPT, that is, clopidogrel and acetylsalicylic acid (ASA), for 7 days. Each animal underwent an extracorporeal carotid arteriovenous shunt model implanted with fluoropolymer-coated everolimus-eluting stent (FP-EES), biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (BP-SES), and biodegradable-polymer everolimus-eluting stents (BP-EES). In Experiment 2, two pigs were administered DAPT, clopidogrel was then withdrawn at day 7, and SAPT with ASA was continued for next 21 days. Then flow-loop experiments with the drawn blood from each time point were performed for FP-EES, BioLinx-polymer zotarolimus-eluting stents (BL-ZES), and BP-EES. The rebound effect was defined as the statistical increase of inflammation and platelet adhesion assessed with immunohistochemistry on the stent-strut level basis from baseline to day-14 or 28. Both experiments showed platelet adhesion value was highest in BP-EES, while the least in FP-EES during DAPT therapy. There was no increase in platelet or inflammatory cell adhesion above baseline values (i.e., no therapy) due to the cessation of clopidogrel on the stent-strut level. Monocyte adhesion was the least for FP-EES with the same trend observed for neutrophil adhesion. No evidence of rebound effect was seen after the transition from DAPT to SAPT. FP-EES demonstrated the most favorable antithrombotic and anti-inflammatory profile regardless of the different experimental designs.

Final 5-year report of BIONYX comparing the thin-composite wire-strut zotarolimus-eluting stent versus ultrathin-strut sirolimus-eluting stent.

The BIONYX randomized trial is the first study to evaluate the Resolute Onyx durable polymer-coated zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) in all-comers. Furthermore, it is the first trial to assess safety and efficacy of this stent versus the Orsiro biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) in all-comers, paying particular attention to patients with diabetes. It has previously shown promising results until 3 years of follow-up. We aimed to assess long-term clinical outcome after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with Onyx ZES versus Orsiro SES at 5-year follow-up. The main composite endpoint was target vessel failure (TVF): cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction,or target vessel revascularization. Time to primary and secondary endpoints was assessed using Kaplan-Meier methods, applying the log-rank test for between-group comparison. Follow-up was available in 2414/2488 (97.0%) patients. After 5 years, TVF showed no significant difference between Onyx ZES and Orsiro SES (12.7% vs. 13.7%, hazard ratio [HR]0.94, 95%confidence interval [CI][0.75-1.17], plog-rank = 0.55). Landmark analysis between 3- and 5-year follow-up found a lower target lesion revascularization rate for Onyx ZES (1.1% vs. 2.4%, HR 0.47, 95%CI[0.24-0.93], plog-rank = 0.026). A prespecified subgroup analysis showed no significant between-stent difference in clinical outcome among patients with diabetes. After treatment with Onyx ZES, patients aged ≥75 years had significantly lower rates of TVF (13.8% vs. 21.9%, HR 0.60, 95%CI[0.39-0.93], plog-rank = 0.023). The final 5-year analysis of the randomized BIONYX trial showed favorable and similar long-term outcomes of safety and efficacy for Onyx ZES and Orsiro SES in both all-comers and patients with diabetes.

Ultrathin-strut versus thin-strut stent healing and outcomes in preclinical and clinical subjects.

Compared with thin-strut durable-polymer drug-eluting stents (DP-DES), ultrathin-strut biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (BP-SES) improve stent-related clinical outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Reduced stent strut thickness is hypothesised to underlie these benefits, but this conjecture remains unproven. We aimed to assess the impact of strut thickness on stent healing and clinical outcomes between ultrathin-strut and thin-strut BP-SES. First, we performed a preclinical study of 8 rabbits implanted with non-overlapping thin-strut (diameter/thickness 3.5 mm/80 μm) and ultrathin-strut (diameter/thickness 3.0 mm/60 μm) BP-SES in the infrarenal aorta. On day 7, the rabbits underwent intravascular near-infrared fluorescence optical coherence tomography (NIRF-OCT) molecular-structural imaging of fibrin deposition and stent tissue coverage, followed by histopathological analysis. Second, we conducted an individual data pooled analysis of patients enrolled in the BIOSCIENCE and BIOSTEMI randomised PCI trials treated with ultrathin-strut (n=282) or thin-strut (n=222) BP-SES. The primary endpoint was target lesion failure (TLF) at 1-year follow-up, with a landmark analysis at 30 days. NIRF-OCT image analyses revealed that ultrathin-strut and thin-strut BP-SES exhibited similar stent fibrin deposition (p=0.49) and percentage of uncovered stent struts (p=0.63). Histopathological assessments corroÂborated these findings. In 504 pooled randomised trial patients, TLF rates were similar for those treated with ultrathin-strut or thin-strut BP-SES at 30-day (2.5% vs 1.8%; p=0.62) and 1-year follow-up (4.3% vs 4.7%; p=0.88). Ultrathin-strut and thin-strut BP-SES demonstrate similar early arterial healing profiles and 30-day and 1-year clinical outcomes.

Lower revascularization rates after high-speed rotational atherectomy compared to modified balloons in calcified coronary lesions: 5-year outcomes of the randomized PREPARE-CALC trial.

In the PREPARE-CALC trial, severely calcified lesion preparation with rotational atherectomy (RA) before biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) implantation demonstrated higher procedural success and comparable rates of acute lumen gain and late lumen loss compared to modified balloons (MB) (scoring/cutting). We aimed to analyze the 5-year outcomes of both lesion preparation strategies. PREPARE-CALC randomly assigned 200 patients 1:1 to MB or RA, followed by SES implantation. The principal endpoint of the current analysis was target vessel failure (TVF) at 5years. At 5years, MB had comparable rates of TVF to RA (19% vs. 21%, HR 1.14, 95% CI 0.60-2.16, p = 0.687). Subgroup analysis showed a lesion length treatment interaction, favoring MB for short lesions and RA for long ones (p for interaction = 0.042). Target lesion revascularization (TLR) was significantly less common with RA (12 vs. 3%, HR 0.28, 95% CI 0.08-0.98, p = 0.048). In a multivariate analysis, RA was independently protective against TLR (adj. HR 0.17, 95% CI 0.04-0.78, p = 0.022), while ostial lesions were associated with higher TLR independent of treatment strategy (adj. HR 11.3, 95% CI 2.98-42.6, p < 0.001). In patients with severely calcified coronary lesions, using MB or RA for lesion preparation followed by biodegradable polymer SES implantation was associated with comparable rates of TVF at 5years. However, a significant reduction of TLR was observed after RA. PREPARE-CALC is the first randomized trial showing potential clinical advantages of RA over MB during long-term follow-up. URL: https://www. gov . Unique identifier: NCT02502851.

Long-Term Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Outcomes in Chronic Versus Acute Coronary Syndromes (TARGET All Comers Trial)

In the Targeted therapy with a localised abluminal coated, low-dose sirolimus-eluting, biodegreadable polymer coronary stent (TARGET; NCT02520180) All Comers trial the biodegradable polymer (BP) sirolimus-eluting FIREHAWK stent was noninferior to the durable polymer (DP) everolimus-eluting XIENCE stent with respect to target lesion failure (TLF) at 1 and 5 years; however, the long-term safety and efficacy in the setting of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) are not known. We sought to assess the long-term outcomes in ACS versus chronic coronary syndromes (CCS) with BP sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) versus DP everolimus-eluting stent (EES). The TARGET AC study was a multicenter, open-label, noninferiority trial of all comer patients randomly allocated 1:1 to BP SES or DP EES (stratified by ST-elevation myocardial infarction and study site). In this predefined substudy, the outcomes were compared based on clinical presentation (ACS vs CCS) and treatment allocation. A total of 1,653 patients were enrolled (728 with ACS and 922 with CCS), with 94% completing the 5-year follow-up. The baseline characteristics were well-matched between the 2 stent types; however, co-morbidities were more prevalent in the CCS than in the ACS population. TLF (15.5% vs 17.7%, p = 0.24), patient-oriented outcomes (32.0% vs 34.4%, p = 0.31), and stent thrombosis (4.1% vs 3.3%, p = 0.40) were similar between patients with ACS and patients with CCS. In the ACS cohort, the outcomes at 5 years for BP SES versus DP EES were similar for TLF (16.0% vs 14.9%, p = 0.70), ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (5.6% vs 8.3%, p = 0.17), and definite/probable stent thrombosis (2.7% vs 4.6%, p = 0.18). The same was true for the CCS cohort, with 5-year outcomes for BP SES versus DP EES for TLF (18.0% vs 17.4%, p = 0.82), ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (6.4% vs 5.0%, p = 0.37), and definite/probable stent thrombosis (3.0% vs 1.8%, p = 0.26). In conclusion, in the TARGET AC trial, 1 in 3 patients had a major adverse event at 5 years, irrespective of CCS or ACS presentation. Long-term, the BP sirolimus-eluting FIREHAWK stent was as safe and effective as the DP everolimus-eluting XIENCE stent across the spectrum of clinical presentations.

Two-year real world clinical outcomes after intravascular imaging device guided percutaneous coronary intervention with ultrathin-strut biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stent

BackgroundThere are little clinical data on imaging-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) 1 year after the biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (BP-SES) implantation, when the polymer disappears. MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed 2455 patients who underwent successful PCI with BP-SES or durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP-EES) between September 2011 and March 2021, and compared 2-year clinical outcomes of BP-SES (n = 459) with DP-EES (n = 1996). The outcome measures were target lesion revascularization (TLR) and major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, and stent thrombosis. Multivariate analysis using the Cox proportional hazard model and inverse probability weighting (IPW) analysis based on the propensity score were used to evaluate the clinical outcomes. ResultsThe 2-year cumulative incidences of TLR (BP-SES: 4.9% vs. DP-SES: 6.1%, p = 0.304) and MACE (10.3% vs. 12.5%, p = 0.159) were similar between the two groups. Multivariable and IPW analysis revealed the risks of TLR (p = 0.388 and p = 0.500) and MACE (p = 0.139 and p = 0.083) also had no significant difference. There was a significant interaction between none/mild and moderate/severe calcification with respect to MACE and TLR (adjusted p for interaction = 0.036 and 0.047, respectively). The risk of MACE was significantly lower in BP-SES than in DP-EES in lesions with none/mild calcification (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.30–0.91), while it was similar in those with moderate/severe calcification (aHR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.58–1.55). ConclusionsCompared with DP-EES, BP-SES demonstrated durable 2-year clinical outcomes. However, BP-SES showed better clinical performance than DP-EES for lesions with none/mild calcification.

Abstract 15324: Biodegradable Polymer Ultrathin Sirolimus-Eluting Stent is Associated With Better Outcomes Compared With Polymer-Free Ultrathin Sirulimus-Eluting Stent in Complex Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Post Hoc Analysis of the HOST-IDEA Randomized Clinical Trial

Introduction: Third generation drug-eluting stents with ultrathin struts and advanced polymer technology have been introduced. However, their safety and efficacy have not been fully elucidated, particularly in complex percutaneous intervention (PCI). Aim To investigate the clinical outcomes of complex PCI using the Coroflex ISAR polymer-free sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) or Orsiro biodegradable polymer SES. Methods: This study was a post-hoc analysis of the HOST-IDEA trial that randomly assigned 2,013 patients undergoing PCI with Orsiro or Coroflex ISAR into either 3-month dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) or 12-month DAPT arms from January 2016 to May 2021 at 37 centers in South Korea. We compared a 1:1 propensity score (PS)–matched cohort balanced by patient and procedural characteristics. The primary endpoint was target lesion failure (TLF), a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically-driven target lesion revascularization at 1 year. Complex PCI was defined as any of the following features: ≥3 stents implanted, ≥3 lesions treated, bifurcation PCI, total stent length ≥ 60 mm, left main PCI, or heavy calcification. Results: After PS matching, baseline patient and procedural characteristics were balanced between Coroflex ISAR and Orsiro groups (n=542 in each). Complex PCI was significantly associated with a higher rate of TLF compared with non-complex PCI (5.3% vs. 1.1%, hazard ratio (HR) 5.12 [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.21-11.86], P&lt;0.001). Compared with the Coroflex ISAR SES, the better outcomes of TLF associated with the Orsiro SES was more pronounced in the complex PCI group (HR 0.14 [95% CI 0.03-0.60], P =0.008 in complex PCI; HR 0.99 [95% CI 0.25-3.98], P =0.993 in non-complex PCI; P for interaction 0.054). Conclusion In patients undergoing complex PCI with third-generation DES, the Orsiro SES was associated with significantly better outcomes in terms of TLF than the Coroflex ISAR SES.

Long-term outcomes with biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: 5-year follow-up of the BIOSTEMI randomised superiority trial

Biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents improve early stent-related clinical outcomes compared to durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. The long-term advantages of biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents after complete degradation of its polymer coating in patients with STEMI remains however uncertain. BIOSTEMI Extended Survival (BIOSTEMI ES) was an investigator-initiated, follow-up extension study of the BIOSTEMI prospective, multicentre, single-blind, randomised superiority trial that compared biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents with durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents in patients with STEMI undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention at ten hospitals in Switzerland. All individuals who had provided written informed consent for participation in the BIOSTEMI trial were eligible for this follow-up study. The primary endpoint was target lesion failure, defined as a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial re-infarction, or clinically indicated target lesion revascularisation, at 5 years. Superiority of biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents over durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents was declared if the Bayesian posterior probability for a rate ratio (RR) of less than 1 was greater than 0·975. Analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat principle. The study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05484310. Between April 26, 2016, and March 9, 2018, 1300 patients with STEMI (1622 lesions) were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to treatment with biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (649 patients, 816 lesions) or durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (651 patients, 806 lesions). At 5 years, the primary composite endpoint of target lesion failure occurred in 50 (8%) patients treated with biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents and in 72 (11%) patients treated with durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (difference of -3%; RR 0·70, 95% Bayesian credible interval 0·51-0·95; Bayesian posterior probability for superiority 0·988). In patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for STEMI, biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents were superior to durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents with respect to target lesion failure at 5 years of follow-up. The difference was driven by a numerically lower risk for ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularisation. Biotronik.

Randomized clinical trial of abluminus DES+ sirolimus-eluting stent versus everolimus-eluting DES for percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with diabetes mellitus: An optical coherence tomography study.

Diabetic patients are at higher risk of recurrent adverse events following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) than the nondiabetics. Despite the introduction of new generation drug-eluting stents, their efficacy in the diabetics is still limited. To evaluate the efficacy of the Abluminus DES+ biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent in reducing neointimal hyperplasia in diabetic patients, compared to a durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent (DP-EES). A total of 131 patients with diabetes and coronary artery disease were enrolled in six Italian centers and randomized in a 2:1 fashion to PCI with Abluminus DES+ or DP-EES: 85 were assigned to Abluminus DES+ and 46 to DP-EES. The primary endpoint was optimal coherence tomography (OCT)-derived neointimal volume at 9-12 months. Secondary endpoints included OCT-derived neointimal area, neointimal volume obstruction and adverse clinical events. The primary endpoint, neointimal volume, did not differ between Abluminus DES+ and DP-EES (29.11 ± 18.90 mm3 vs. 25.48 ± 17.04 mm3 , p = 0.40) at 9-12-month follow-up. This finding remained consistent after weighing for the sum of stents lengths (1.14 ± 0.68 mm3 vs. 0.99 ± 0.74 mm3 for Abluminus DES+ and DP-EES, respectively, p = 0.38). Similarly, other OCT-derived and clinical secondary endpoints did not significantly differ between the two groups. Rate of target lesion failure was high in both groups (21.2% for Abluminus DES+ and 19.6% for DP-EES). This preliminary study failed to demonstrate the superiority of the Abluminus DES+ over the DP-EES in diabetic patients in terms of neointimal proliferation.

1247 A Vascular Surgeon's Dilemma - Biodegradable Versus Non-Biodegradable Drug Releasing Stents: A Systematic Review and Meta Analysis

Abstract Aim Vascular stents are the best-known interventional treatment for cardiovascular disease, and variation in available stents has increased significantly over time. Despite the rapidity of new prototype releases, critical cross-comparisons fail to maintain the same rate, therefore causing confusion for vascular surgeons. Research is most notably lacking between biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (BP-SES) and permanent-polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (PP-SES). Consequently, a systematic review with meta-analysis was conducted evaluating clinical outcomes. Method Medline, Embase, and Scopus databases were searched using relevant synonyms of “biodegradable”, “sirolimus” and “stent”, with the final search being conducted on the 4th of November 2022. Reference lists were also screened. The clinical outcomes investigated were stent thrombosis (ST), myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularisation (TVR), target lesion revascularisation (TLR), and death. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. Results Five clinical trials directly comparing clinical outcomes between BP-SES and PP-SES were ultimately identified for inclusion. For all five outcomes investigated, no statistically significant difference (p&amp;gt;0.05) was found between the BP-SES and the PP-SES recipients. Pooled odds ratios of 0.86 (95% CI:0.44-1.65), 0.75 (95% CI:0.32-1.74), 1.12 (95% CI:0.54-2.32), 1.14 (95% CI:0.38-3.38) and 0.95 (95% CI:0.51-1.77) were calculated for ST, MI, TVR, TLR and death respectively. Conclusions Although there is some evidence to suggest BP-SES are noninferior to PP-SES, concrete conclusions cannot yet be drawn due to the paucity of research in this field. Further clarity from randomised control trials will aid additional examination and improvement in stent materials and outcomes.

Biodegradable-Polymer or Durable-Polymer Stents in Patients at High Bleeding Risk: A Randomized, Open-Label Clinical Trial.

Limited information is available on the comparative efficacy and safety of different stent platforms in patients at high bleeding risk undergoing an abbreviated dual antiplatelet therapy duration after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The aim of this study was to compare the safety and effectiveness of the biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stent with the durable-polymer zotarolimus-eluting stent in patients at high bleeding risk receiving 1 month of dual antiplatelet therapy after PCI. The Bioflow-DAPT Study is an international, randomized, open-label trial conducted at 52 interventional cardiology hospitals in 18 countries from February 24, 2020, through September 20, 2021. Patients with a clinical indication to PCI because of acute or chronic coronary syndrome who fulfilled 1 or more criteria for high bleeding risk were eligible for enrollment. Patients were randomized to receive either biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stents or durable-polymer, slow-release zotarolimus-eluting stents after successful lesion preparation, followed by 1 month of dual antiplatelet therapy and thereafter single antiplatelet therapy. The primary outcome was the composite of death from cardiac causes, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis at 1 year, and was powered for noninferiority, with an absolute margin of 4.1% at 1-sided 5% alpha. A total of 1948 patients at high bleeding risk were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (969 patients) or durable-polymer zotarolimus-eluting stents (979 patients). At 1 year, the primary outcome was observed in 33 of 969 patients (3.6%) in the biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stent group and in 32 of 979 patients (3.4%) in the durable-polymer zotarolimus-eluting stent group (risk difference, 0.2 percentage points; upper boundary of the 1-sided 95% CI, 1.8; upper boundary of the 1-sided 97.5% CI, 2.1; P<0.0001 for noninferiority for both tests). Among patients at high risk for bleeding who received 1 month of dual antiplatelet therapy after PCI, the use of biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stents was noninferior to the use of durable-polymer zotarolimus-eluting stents with regard to the composite of death from cardiac causes, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis. URL: https://www. gov; Unique identifier: NCT04137510.

SP11.9 A Vascular Surgeon's Dilemma - Biodegradable Versus Non-Biodegradable Drug Eluting Stents: A Systematic Review and Meta Analysis

Abstract Aims Vascular stents are the best-known interventional treatment for cardiovascular disease, with variation in available stents increasing significantly over time. Despite the rapidity of new prototype releases, critical cross-comparisons fail to maintain the same rate, therefore causing confusion for vascular surgeons. Research is most notably lacking between biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (BP-SESs) and permanent-polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (PP-SESs). Therefore, a systematic review with meta-analysis was conducted evaluating clinical outcomes. Methods Using relevant synonyms of “biodegradable”, “sirolimus” and “stent”, the databases Medline, Embase, and Scopus were searched, with the final search being conducted on the 4th of November 2022. Reference lists were also screened. The clinical outcomes investigated were stent thrombosis (ST), myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularisation (TVR), target lesion revascularisation (TLR), and death. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. Results Five clinical trials directly comparing clinical outcomes between BP-SESs and PP-SESs were ultimately identified for inclusion. For all five outcomes investigated, no statistically significant difference (p&amp;gt;0.05) was found between the BP-SES and the PP-SES recipients. Pooled odds ratios of 0.86 (95% CI:0.44-1.65), 0.75 (95% CI:0.32-1.74), 1.12 (95% CI:0.54-2.32), 1.14 (95% CI:0.38-3.38) and 0.95 (95% CI:0.51-1.77) were calculated for ST, MI, TVR, TLR and death respectively. Conclusions Although there is some evidence to suggest BP-SESs are noninferior to PP-SESs, concrete conclusions cannot yet be drawn due to the paucity of research in this field. Further clarity from randomised control trials will aid additional examination and improvement in stent materials and outcomes.

Outcome of percutaneous coronary intervention using ultrathin-strut biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting versus thin-strut durable polymer zotarolimus-eluting stents in patients with comorbid peripheral arterial disease: a post-hoc analysis from two randomized trials.

In patients with peripheral arterial disease (PADs), who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), little is known about the potential impact of using different new-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) on outcome. In PCI all-comers, the results of most between-stent comparisons-stratified by strut thickness-suggested some advantage of coronary stents with ultrathin-struts. The current post-hoc analysis aimed to assess outcomes of PCI with ultrathin-strut biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (BP-SES) vs. thin-strut durable polymer zotarolimus-eluting stents (DP-ZES) in patients with PADs. We pooled 3-year patient-level data from two large-scale randomized all-comer trials to compare Orsiro ultrathin-strut BP-SES vs. Resolute-type thin-strut DP-ZES in trial participants with concomitant PADs. BIO-RESORT (December 2012 to August 2015) and BIONYX (October 2015 to December 2016) included all-comer patients who were aged 18 years or older, capable of providing informed consent, and required a PCI. The trials had web-based randomization, with block sizes of 4 and 8, performed in a 1:1:1 or 1:1 fashion. Assessors, research staff, and patients were blinded to the type of stent used. We assessed the composite main clinical endpoint target vessel failure [TVF: cardiac death, target vessel related myocardial infarction (MI), or clinically indicated target vessel revascularization (TVR)], its components, and stent thrombosis. Of 4,830 trial participants, 360 had PADs: 177 (49.2%) were treated with BP-SES and 183 (50.8%) with DP-ZES. Baseline characteristics were similar. For BP-SES, the 3-year TVF rate was 11.0% and for DP-ZES 17.9% [hazard ratio (HR): 0.59, 95% CI: 0.33-1.04; P=0.07]. For BP-SES, the TVR rate was lower than for DP-ZES (4.1% vs. 11.0%; HR: 0.36, 95% CI: 0.15-0.86; P=0.016), but this did not translate into between-group differences in cardiac death or MI. In small vessels (<2.75 mm), the TVR rate was also lower in BP-SES (5.6% vs. 13.9%; HR: 0.32, 95% CI: 0.11-0.91; P=0.024). Definite-or-probable stent thrombosis rates were 1.2% and 2.3% (P=0.43). In PCI patients with PADs, the 3-year TVF incidence was numerically lower in the ultrathin-strut BP-SES vs. the thin-strut DP-ZES group. Furthermore, TVR risk was significantly lower in ultrathin-strut BP-SES, mainly driven by a lower TVR rate in small vessels. BIO-RESORT trial: clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01674803); BIONYX trial: clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02508714).

Very short-term tissue coverage of the CD34 antibody-covered sirolimus-eluting stent: an optical coherence tomography study.

It is well known that patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) have delayed vessel healing despite accelerated endothelial progenitor cells (EPC) mobilization. The COMBO stent is a unique biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stent with an anti-CD34 antibody coating which captures EPC and potentially promotes vessel healing. However, there are limited data about strut tissue coverage at the very short-term period after COMBO stent implantation. This was a prospective study to investigate strut tissue coverage within 1month after COMBO stent implantation using optical coherence tomography (OCT). Struts fully covered with tissue were defined as covered, and struts with distance from lumen surface longer than strut plus polymer thickness were defined as malapposed. Mean tissue thickness was measured only in apposed struts. A total of 8173 struts of 33 lesions in 32 patients were analyzed at an average of 19.8 ± 4.6days after COMBO stent implantation. In lesion-level analysis, the rate of covered struts was 89.6 ± 7.2%, the rate of malapposed struts was 0.9 ± 2.0% and mean tissue thickness was 46.8 ± 14.3µm. In comparison between AMI (n = 12) and non-AMI (n = 21) patients, there were no significant differences in the rate of covered struts (88.4 ± 8.4% vs. 90.2 ± 6.6%, p = 0.48) and mean tissue thickness (46.8 ± 13.7µm vs. 46.9 ± 15.0µm, p = 0.98). Multivariable analysis demonstrated that time from implantation to OCT imaging was significantly associated with mean tissue thickness. The COMBO stent had substantial tissue coverage at the very short-term period after implantation even in AMI patients, and follow-up time had an impact on vessel healing.

Ultrathin-strut vs thin-strut drug-eluting stents for multi and single-stent lesions: A lesion-level subgroup analysis of 2 randomized trials

Whether ultrathin-strut stents are particularly beneficial for lesions requiring implantation of more than 1 stent is unknown. In a post-hoc lesion-level analysis of 2 randomized trials comparing ultrathin-strut biodegradable polymer Sirolimus-eluting stents (BP-SES) vs thin-strut durable polymer Everolimus-eluting stents (DP-EES), lesions were stratified into multistent lesions (MSL) vs single-stent lesions (SSL). The primary endpoint was target lesion failure (TLF), a composite of lesion-related unclear/cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), or revascularization, at 24 months. Among 5328 lesions in 3397 patients, 1492 (28%) were MSL (722 with BP-SES, 770 with DP-EES). At 2 years, TLF occurred in 63 lesions (8.9%) treated with BP-SES and 60 lesions (7.9%) treated with DP-EES in the MSL-group (subdistibution hazard ratio [SHR], 1.13; 95% CI, 0.77-1.64; P=.53), and in 121 (6.4%) and 136 (7.4%) lesions treated with BP-SES and DP-EES respectively (SHR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.62-1.18; P=.35) in the SSL-group (P for interaction=.241). While the rates of lesion-related MI or revascularization were significantly lower in SSL treated with BP-SES as compared to DP-EES (3.5% vs 5.2%; SHR, 0.67; 95% CI 0.46-0.97; P=.036), no significant difference was observed in MSL (7.1% vs 5.4%; SHR, 1.31; 95% CI 0.85-2.03; P=.216) with significant interaction between groups (P for interaction=.014). Rates of TLF are similar between ultrathin-strut BP-SES and thin-strut DP-EES in MSL and SSL. The use of ultrathin-strut BP-SES vs thin-strut DP-EES did not prove to be particularly beneficial for the treatment of multistent lesions. Post-hoc analysis from the BIOSCIENCE (NCT01443104) and BIOSTEMI (NCT02579031) trials.

O061 A dilemma faced by vascular surgeons - biodegradable versus non-biodegradable drug-releasing stents: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract Introduction Vascular stents are the best-known interventional treatment for cardiovascular disease, with variation in available stents increasing significantly over time. Despite the rapidity of new prototype releases, critical cross-comparisons fail to uphold the same rate, therefore causing confusion for vascular surgeons. Research is lacking between biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (BP-SES) and permanent-polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (PP-SES). Subsequently, a systematic review with meta-analysis was conducted evaluating clinical outcomes. Methods Medline, Embase, and Scopus databases were searched using relevant synonyms of biodegradable, sirolimus and stent, with the final search being conducted on the 4th of November 2022. Reference lists were also screened. The clinical outcomes investigated were stent thrombosis, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularisation, target lesion revascularisation, and death. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. Results Five clinical trials directly comparing clinical outcomes between BP-SES and PP-SES were ultimately identified for inclusion. For all five outcomes investigated, no statistically significant difference (p&amp;gt;0.05) was found between the BP-SES and the PP-SES recipients. Pooled odds ratios of 0.86 (95% CI:0.44-1.65), 0.75 (95% CI:0.32-1.74), 1.12 (95% CI:0.54-2.32), 1.14 (95% CI:0.38-3.38) and 0.95 (95% CI:0.51-1.77) were calculated for stent thrombosis, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularisation, target lesion revascularisation and death respectively. Conclusion Although there is some evidence to suggest BP-SES are noninferior to PP-SES, concrete conclusions cannot yet be drawn due to the paucity of research in this field. Further clarity from randomised control trials will aid additional examination and improvement in stent materials and outcomes.

Comparison Of 3-6 Month Versus 12 Month Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Coronary Intervention Using the Contemporary Drug-eluting Stents With Ultrathin Struts: The HOST-IDEA Randomized Clinical Trial.

Background: Limited data are available on short-term dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using third-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) with ultrathin struts and advanced polymer technology. We investigated whether 3-6 month DAPT was non-inferior to 12 month one after implantation of DES with ultrathin struts and advanced polymer technology. Methods: We performed an open-label, randomized trial at 37 centers in South Korea. We enrolled patients undergoing PCI using the Orsiro biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) or the Coroflex ISAR polymer-free SES. Patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction were excluded. Patients were randomized to receive either 3-6 month or 12 month DAPT after PCI. The choice of antiplatelet medications was at the physician's discretion. The primary outcome was a net adverse clinical event (NACE), a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction (TVMI), clinically driven target lesion revascularization (CD-TLR), stent thrombosis, or major bleeding, defined as Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 or 5 at 12 months. The major secondary outcomes were target lesion failure (TLF), a composite of cardiac death, TVMI, CD-TLR, and major bleeding. Results: A total of 2,013 patients (mean age 65.7±10.5, 1,487 male [73.9%], 1,110 [55.1%] presented with acute coronary syndrome) were randomized to 3-6 month DAPT (n=1,002) or 12 month DAPT (n=1,011). The primary outcome occurred in 37 (3.7%) patients in the 3-6 month DAPT group and 41 (4.1%) in the 12 month DAPT group. The non-inferiority of the 3-6 month DAPT group to the 12 month DAPT group was met (absolute risk difference, -0.4% [1-sided 95% confidence interval (CI), -∞% to 1.1%; P<0.001 for non-inferiority]). There were no significant differences in TLF (hazard ratio [HR] 0.98, 95% CI 0.56-1.71, P=0.94) or major bleeding (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.41-1.61, P=0.56) between the two groups. Across various subgroups, the treatment effect of 3-6 month DAPT was consistent for NACE. Conclusions: Among patients undergoing PCI using third-generation DES, 3-6 month DAPT was non-inferior to 12 month DAPT for NACE. Further research is needed to generalize this finding to other populations and to determine the ideal regimen for 3-6 month DAPT.

Complex primary percutaneous coronary intervention with ultrathin-strut biodegradable versus thin-strut durable polymer drug-eluting stents in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: A subgroup analysis from the BIOSTEMI randomized trial.

Ultrathin-strut biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (BP-SES) are superior to thin-strut durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP-EES) with respect to target lesion failure (TLF) at 2 years among patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). We sought to determine the impact of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) complexity on long-term clinical outcomes with BP-SES versus DP-EES in STEMI patients. We performed a post hoc subgroup analysis from the BIOSTEMI (NCT02579031) randomized trial, which included individual data from 407 STEMI patients enrolled in the BIOSCIENCE trial (NCT01443104). STEMI patients were randomly assigned to treatment with ultrathin-strut BP-SES or thin-strut DP-EES, and further categorized into those undergoing complex versus noncomplex pPCI. Complex pPCI was defined by the presence of ≥1 of the following criteria: 3 vessel treatment, ≥3 stents implanted, ≥3 lesions treated, bifurcation lesion with ≥2 stents implanted, total stent length ≥60 mm, and/or chronic total occlusion treatment. The primary endpoint was TLF, a composite of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial reinfarction, or clinically indicated target lesion revascularization, within 2 years. Among a total of 1707 STEMI patients, 421 (24.7%) underwent complex pPCI. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. At 2 years, TLF occurred in 14 patients (7.1%) treated with BP-SES and 25 patients (11.6%) treated with DP-EES (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.32-1.19; p = 0.15) in the complex pPCI group, and in 28 patients (4.4%) treated with BP-SES and 49 patients (8.2%) treated with DP-EES(HR: 0.54; 95% CI:0.34-0.86; p = 0.008; p for interaction = 0.74) in the noncomplex pPCI group. Individual TLF components and stent thrombosis rates did not significantly differ between groups. In a post hoc subgroup analysis from the BIOSTEMI randomized trial, ultrathin-strut BP-SESwere superior to thin-strut DP-EES with respect to TLF at 2 years among STEMI patients undergoing both complex and noncomplex pPCI.

Three years performance of Biodegradable Polymer Sirolimus Eluting Stent in all comer patients undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

Introduction: Contemporary evidence suggest the comparable performance of biodegradable polymer sirolimus eluting stents (BPSES) with that of second generation durable polymer drug eluting stents. This study was done to evaluate the performance of BPSES in all comer patients undergoing percutaneous intervention (PCI) in real world setting over a period of three years. Materials &amp; Methods: This was a prospective observational study, wherein all comer consecutive patients undergoing PCI with BPSES (Yukon Choice Elite stent by Translumina Therapeutics, India) were enrolled and followed up for 3 years. The study's primary endpoint was the Device Oriented Composite Endpoint (DOCE), which included cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction (MI), and clinically driven target lesion revascularization (TLR); the co-primary endpoint was the Patient-Oriented Composite Endpoint (POCE), which included all-cause mortality, any MI , and any repeat revascularization and the secondary endpoint was definite or probable stent thrombosis (DST &amp; PST). Results: 301 patients with 502 lesions were treated with 485 BP-SES. Mean age of the study cohort was 61.6± 9.3 yrs and males were 79.1%. 18.6% patients were diabetic, 29.6% had ejection fraction less than 40% and 73.1% patients presented with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Majority of the patient had triple vessel disease (TVD) (51.8%), multivessel PCI was done in 15.6% and complex PCI in 26.2% patients. A mean of 1.6 ±0.8 stents per patient with mean diameter 3.0 ± 0.3 mm and mean length of 27.2 ± 0.8 mm were placed. DOCE &amp; POCE occurred in 7.9% (cardiac death-4.8%, TLR-2.6% &amp; target vessel MI-0.4%) and 12.8% (All deaths-9.7%, any MI- 0.4% and any revascularisation-2.6%) patients respectively at three years follow-up. DST &amp; PST rate was 0.9% and 0.4% respectively in the study cohort. All the cases of stent thrombosis occurred within 30 days. Kaplan Meier analysis revealed that diabetes mellitus, low ejection fraction (EF), acute coronary syndrome (ACS), long stents and complex intervention had no impact on occurrence of DOCE &amp; POCE while using BP-SES in all-comer patient population. Conclusion: Present study showed favourable long term safety and efficacy profile of BP-SES for all-comer patients undergoing PCI.