Biodegradable Polymer Sirolimus-eluting Stent Research Articles

Abbreviated or Standard Antiplatelet Therapy After PCI in Diabetic Patients at High Bleeding Risk

BackgroundAbbreviated antiplatelet therapy (APT) reduces bleeding without increasing ischemic events in largely unselected high bleeding risk (HBR) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Diabetes mellitus (DM) is associated with higher ischemic risk, and its impact on the safety and effectiveness of abbreviated APT in HBR PCI patients remains unknown. ObjectivesThis study sought to investigate the comparative effectiveness of abbreviated (1 month) vs standard (≥3 months) APT in HBR patients with and without DM after biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting coronary stent implantation. MethodsThis was a prespecified analysis from the MASTER DAPT (Management of High Bleeding Risk Patients Post Bioresorbable Polymer Coated Stent Implantation With a Abbreviated Versus Prolonged DAPT Regimen) trial, which randomized 4,579 HBR patients (1,538 [34%] with DM) to abbreviated (n = 2,295) or standard (n = 2,284) APT. The coprimary outcomes were net adverse clinical events (NACEs; composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and major bleeding), major adverse cardiac or cerebral events (MACCEs; all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and stroke), and major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding at 11 months. ResultsHBR patients with DM had higher risks of MACCEs (HR: 1.28; 95% CI: 1.00-1.63) and similar net adverse or bleeding events compared with nondiabetic subjects. Abbreviated compared with standard APT was associated with similar NACEs and MACCEs (Pinteraction = 0.47 and 0.59, respectively) and reduced major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding (Pinteraction = 0.55) irrespective of diabetes status. ConclusionsMACCE and NACE rates were similar, and bleeding rates were lower with abbreviated APT in patients with or without diabetes. Therefore, diabetes status did not modify the treatment effects of abbreviated vs standard APT in HBR patients after biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting coronary stent implantation. (Management of High Bleeding Risk Patients Post Bioresorbable Polymer Coated Stent Implantation With a Abbreviated Versus Prolonged DAPT Regimen [MASTER DAPT]; NCT03023020)

Abstract 4120583: Long term Safety and Efficacy of Ultrathin Bioabsorbable polymer sirolimus eluting Stents Versus Thin Durable polymer everolimus eluting Stents in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A systematic review and meta analysis

Background: First generation drug eluting stents (DES) with thick polymers may contribute to local vascular inflammation and late stent thrombosis. Thinner-strut DES (ultrathin), particularly those with biodegradable polymers, aim to reduce this risk by minimizing flow disturbance and vascular injury. However, the long-term safety and efficacy of ultrathin biodegradable polymer sirolimus eluting stents (BP-SES) compared to durable polymer everolimus eluting stents (DP-EES) are still uncertain. Thus, we performed a meta analysis to compare outcomes of these two stents. Methods: Inclusion criteria comprised randomized controlled trials comparing ultrathin BP SES and thin DP EES in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions with long term follow-up of at least 3 years. We excluded cohort studies, case reports, editorials, conference abstracts, and animal studies. Primary outcomes were target lesion failure (TLF), cardiac death (CD), target-vessel myocardial infarction (TV-MI), and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization (CI-TLR). We systematically searched PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Scopus. Cochrane’s ROB 2.0 tool assessed trial quality, and RevMan software (5.4) performed the meta-analysis. Results: Our analysis included ten RCTs, totaling 16,216 patients, with 9,108 in the BP SES group and 7,108 in the DP EES group. TLF occurred in 905 patients (9.94%) in the BP-SES group and 821 patients (11.55%) in the DP-EES group, with no statistically significant differences between the groups (RR = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.85 to 1.01, p = 0.08). Additionally, there were no significant differences in cardiac death (RR = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.84 to 1.19, p = 1.00), TV-MI (RR = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.78 to 1.05, p = 0.19), and CI-TLR (RR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.78 to 1.01, p = 0.06) between the two groups. Conclusion: The use of BP-SES did not result in higher rates of TLF, CD, TV-MI, or CI-TLR compared to DP-DES. These findings suggest that both BP-SES and DP-DES are viable options for PCI procedures, with comparable long-term safety profiles. However, some trials used strut thicknesses exceeding 70µm in cases requiring wider diameters, similar to the strut thickness in the DP-EES group. This makes it challenging to assess whether, in addition to biodegradable polymers, lower strut thickness contributes to reducing target lesion-related events. Further research may be needed to explore other relevant outcomes and to confirm these findings in diverse patient populations.

Randomized Comparison of NovelLow-Dose Sirolimus-Eluting Biodegradable Polymer Stent vsSecond-Generation DES: TARGET-IV NA Trial.

Drug-eluting stents (DESs) with controlled antiproliferative drug release reduce restenosis risk, but durable polymers can delay healing and inhibit reendothelialization. The Firehawk biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (BP-SES) has a fully biodegradable sirolimus-containing polymer coating localized to recessed abluminal grooves on the stent surface and delivers roughly one-third the drug dose of other DESs. We report the primary results of the TARGET-IV NA (Firehawk Rapamycin Target Eluting Coronary Stent North American Trial) randomized controlled trial comparing clinical outcomes with BP-SES vs currently used second-generation DESs. The TARGET-IV NA study was a prospective, multicenter, single-blind, 1:1 randomized noninferiority trial comparing the BP-SES with control in North America and Europe among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for chronic or acute coronary syndromes. The primary endpoint was target lesion failure (TLF) at 12months (composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization). The primary analysis (intention-to-treat) tested noninferiority of BP-SES vs control using an absolute margin of 3.85% and 1-sided α of 0.025. Noninferiority-powered secondary endpoints were tested in an optical coherence tomography substudy (endpoint: mean neointimal hyperplasia thickness) and an angiography substudy (endpoint: in-stent late lumen loss). A total of 1,720 patients (mean age 66 years; 74% male) with 2,159 lesions were randomly allocated to receive either BP-SES (860 patients, 1,057 lesions) or control second-generation DES (860 patients, 1,084 lesions). Atotal of 61% of patients presented with stable coronary disease, 32% had unstable angina, and 7% had non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) or recent ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. The rate of TLF with BP-SES was noninferior to control at 12months (3.4% vs 3.3%, absolute risk difference 0.13%, upper bound 97.5%CI: 2.03, Pnoninferiority< 0.0001). Cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and stent thrombosis rates were similar between groups. Angiographic follow-up was available in 104 patients (97.2% of those enrolled in the angiographic substudy) and 128 (94.1%) lesions. At 13months, the powered secondary endpoint of mean in-stent late lumen loss was 0.149 ± 0.263mm for BP-SES and 0.327 ± 0.463mm for control (least squares mean difference:-0.178; 90%CI:-0.2943 to-0.0632; Pnoninferiority< 0.0001). The optical coherence tomography substudy included 37 patients (42 lesions) with no difference in mean neointimal hyperplasia thickness between groups at 13months (Pnoninferiority=0.01). The biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent was noninferior to currently used second-generation DES with regard to TLF at 1 year. (Firehawk® Rapamycin Target Eluting Coronary Stent North American Trial; NCT04562532).

One-month DAPT after biodegradable-polymer everolimus-eluting stent implantation in patients at high-bleeding risk: an individual patient data pooled analysis of the SENIOR and POEM trials.

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) can be shortened up to 1 month in high-bleeding risk (HBR) patients receiving a contemporary biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stent. We aimed to summarize the evidence on a similar DAPT regimen after biodegradable-polymer everolimus-eluting stent (EES) implantation in patients at HBR. We pooled the individual participant data from the available trials evaluating this strategy, namely, the SENIOR and the POEM trials. Inclusion criteria were ≥1 biodegradable-polymer EES implantation and ≤1-month duration of DAPT. The primary endpoint was the 1-year composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Major bleeding was defined as Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 3-5 bleeding. Landmark analyses were performed at 1 month, the time point for intended DAPT interruption. We included 766 participants (age 77.5 ± 8.2 years, women 31.9%), 323 from the SENIOR and 443 from the POEM trial. The primary endpoint occurred in 45 participants (6.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.3-7.7%) through 1 year of follow-up, with 21 (2.8%; 95% CI, 1.6-3.9%) events during the first month and 24 (3.4%; 95% CI, 2.0-4.7%) thereafter. The incidences of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke were 2.2% (95% CI, 0.36-2.50%), 3.1% (95% CI, 1.8-4.3%), and 1.2% (95% CI, 0.4-2.0%), respectively. BARC type 3-5 bleeding ocuurred in 1.1% (95% CI, 0.3-1.8%) at 1 month and 2.9% (95% CI, 1.6-4.1%) at 1 year. HBR patients receiving biodegradable-polymer EES had few ischemic and bleeding events when given 1 month of DAPT. One-month DAPT after biodegradable-polymer EES implantation seems safe in patients at HBR.

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.

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.