Durable Polymer Everolimus-eluting Stent Research Articles

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 17285: Impact of Baseline Yellow Plaque Assessed by Coronary Angioscopy on 11-month Vascular Response After Stent Implantation

Background: In-stent yellow plaque (YP) evaluated by coronary angioscopy (CAS) 1 year after stent implantation is associated with the future adverse cardiac event. However, the impact of baseline YP on vascular response has not been fully investigated. Methods: This was a sub-analysis of the Collaboraiton-1 study (multicenter, retrospective, observational study). A total of 88 lesions from 80 patients with chronic coronary syndrome who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention with polymer-free biolimus A9-coated stent or durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stent implantation were analyzed. Optical coherence tomography (OCT) and CAS were serially performed immediately and 11 months after stent implantation. YP was defined as the stented segment with yellow or intensive yellow color assessed by CAS. Neoatherosclerosis was defined as a lipid or calcified neointima assessed by OCT. Neointimal coverage (NIC) over the stent was classified into 4 grades by CAS: grade 0, stent struts fully visible; grade 1, stent struts bulging into the lumen, although covered; grade 2, stent struts embedded in the neointima, but translucently visible; and grade 3, stent struts fully embedded and invisible. OCT and CAS findings at 11 months were compared between the lesions with baseline YP (YP group) and those without YP (Non-YP group). Results: Baseline YP was detected in 37 lesions (42%). OCT findings at 11 months showed that the incidence of neoatherosclerosis was significantly higher in YP than Non-YP groups (11% versus 0%, P=0.028) and mean neointimal thickness tended to be lower (104±43 μm versus 120±48 μm, P=0.098). CAS finding at 11 months demonstrated that dominant and minimum NIC grades were significantly lower (Figure) and maximum yellow color grade was significantly higher in YP than Non-YP groups. Conclusions: Baseline YP affected the incidence of neoatherosclerosis as well as poor neointimal coverage at 11 months after stent implantation.

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.

Tissue responses to everolimus-eluting stents implanted in severely calcified lesions following atherectomy

Histopathological examination has revealed that stents on severely calcified plaques were associated with delayed vascular healing. Although atherectomy devices can increase the number of malapposed struts, tissue responses to implanted drug eluting stents in atherectomy patients remain largely unknown. This retrospective observational study included 30 patients who underwent atherectomy and everolimus-eluting stent (EES) deployment for severely calcified coronary lesions (biodegradable polymer EES (BP-EES), n = 15; durable polymer EES (DP-EES), n = 15). Optical coherence tomography was carried out at baseline and follow-up, and struts with acute stent malapposition (ASM) were categorized as struts on modified calcium (mod-Ca), non-modified calcium (non-mod-Ca), or non-calcium (non-Ca). Adequate vascular healing, defined as ASM resolution with neointimal coverage, was compared between the BP-EES and DP-EES groups. Multivariate linear regression analysis using a generalized estimated equation revealed that BP-EES use was associated with significantly better adequate vascular healing compared with DP-EES (odds ratio [OR]: 3.691, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.175–11.592, P = 0.025). adequate vascular healing was associated with the underlying plaque morphology (mod-Ca vs non-mod-Ca: OR 2.833, 95% CI 1.491–5.384, P = 0.001; non-Ca vs non-mod-Ca: OR 1.248, 95% CI 0.440–3.543, P = 0.677). This study demonstrates that drug-eluting stent selection and calcium modification are possible factors affecting vascular healing of malapposed struts in severely calcified lesions.Graphical

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.

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

There are no randomised trials reporting clinical outcomes of biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stents (BP-BES) and durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP-EES) at 10years. We aimed to compare the 10-year clinical outcomes between BP-BES and DP-EES. The randomised NOBORI Biolimus-Eluting Versus XIENCE/PROMUS Everolimus-eluting Stent Trial (NEXT) was originally designed to evaluate the non-inferiority of BP-BES relative to DP-EES with the primary efficacy endpoint of target lesion revascularisation (TLR) at 1year and the primary safety endpoint of death or myocardial infarction (MI) at 3years. In this extended follow-up study, clinical outcomes were compared from 1year after stent implantation up to 10years between patients with BP-BES and DP-EES. From May to October 2011, NEXT enrolled atotal of 3,241patients from 98 centres in Japan. The current study population consisted of 2,417patients (1,204patients with BP-BES and 1,213 with DP-EES) from 66 centres that agreed to participate in the extended study. Complete 10-year follow-up was achieved in 87.5% of patients. The cumulative 10-year incidence of death or MI was 34.0% in the BP-BES group and 33.1% in the DP-EES group (hazard ratio [HR] 1.04, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.90-1.20; p=0.58). TLR occurred in 15.9% of patients in the BP-BES group and in 14.1% of the DP-EES group (HR 1.12, 95% CI: 0.90-1.40; p=0.32). In alandmark analysis at 1year, the cumulative incidences of death or MI and TLR were not significantly different between the 2 groups. The safety and efficacy outcomes for BP-BES were not significantly different from those for DP-EES at 1year and up to 10years after stent implantation.

Stent expansion in calcified coronary chronic total occlusions: The impact of different stent platforms.

To evaluate the stent expansion of the durable-polymer Zotarolimus-eluting stent (dp-ZES), the durable-polymer Everolimus-eluting stent (dp-EES), and the bioabsorbable-polymer Sirolimus-eluting stent (bp-SES) in calcified coronary chronic total occlusions (CTO). The newer generation stents with ultrathin struts might raise concerns regarding reduced radial strength and higher stent recoil (SR) when implanted in calcified CTOs. Between January 2017 and June 2021 consecutive patients with CTO undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with dp-ZES, dp-EES, or bp-SES were evaluated. The analysis was performed in calcific and in noncalcific CTOs. Quantitative coronary angiography analysis was used to assess diameter stenosis (DS), absolute and relative SR, absolute and relative focal SR, absolute and relative balloon deficit (BD), and absolute and relative focal BD. The primary endpoint was DS. A total of 213 CTOs were evaluated, 115 calcific CTOs (dp-ZES:25, dp-EES:29, bp-SES:61) and 98 non-calcific CTOs (dp-ZES:41, dp-EES:11, bp-SES:46).In calcific CTOs, residual DS was lower in dp-ZES than in dp-EES and bp-SES (-1.00% [-6.50-6.50] vs. 13.00% [7.0-19.00] vs. 15.00% [5.00-20.00]; p < 0.001). Dp-ZES was also an independent predictor of residual DS ≤ 10% (OR 11.34, 95% CI 2.6-49.43, p = 0.001). Absolute and relative focal SR and absolute and relative SR were similar between dp-ZES, dp-EES, and bp-SES (p = 0.913, p = 0.890, p = 0.518, p = 0.426, respectively). In noncalcified CTOs, the residual DS was similar in the three groups (p = 0.340). High relative focal SR was less frequent in dp-ZES than in dp-EES and in bp-SES (19.5% vs. 54.5% vs. 37.0%; p < 0.048). The three stent platforms demonstrated an overall low residual DS when implanted in CTOs. However, dp-ZES was associated with the lowest residual DS and identified as independent predictor of residual DS ≤ 10% in patients with calcific CTOs. Dp-ZES was associated with a lower incidence of high relative focal stent recoil, in noncalcific CTOs. Balloon deficit might be considerate as a surrogate for stent expansion in calcified CTOs.

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.

Angioscopic Comparison of Early- and Mid-Term Vascular Responses Following Treatment of ST-Elevation Acute Myocardial Infarction With Biodegradable vs. Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stents - A Prespecified Subanalysis of the MECHANISM AMI RCT.

The vessel healing process after implantation of biodegradable polymer (BP) and durable polymer (DP) everolimus-eluting stent (EES) in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) lesions remains unclear.Methods and Results: We conducted a multicenter prospective randomized controlled trial to compare early (2 weeks) and mid-term (12 months) vascular responses after implantation of BP-EES vs. DP-EES in STEMI patients. In this prespecified subanalysis, serial coronary angioscopy (CAS) analysis was performed in 15 stents in the BP-EES arm (n=10 patients) and 14 stents in the DP-EES arm (n=10 patients). At the 2-week follow-up, there was no significant difference in the estimated marginal means of the neointimal coverage grade (primary endpoint) between the 2 arms (mean [±SE] 0.00±0.00 in both arms; P>0.999). There were no significant differences between the BP-EES and DP-EES groups in the yellow color grade (1.046±0.106 vs. 0.844±0.114, respectively; P=0.201) or the presence of thrombus (77.8% vs. 88.8%, respectively; P=0.205). At 12 months, competent strut coverage, defined as yellow color grade ≤1, no thrombus, and a neointimal coverage grade ≥1 was achieved more frequently in the BP-EES than DP-EES arm (85.2% vs. 53.1%; adjusted odds ratio 2.11 [95% confidence interval 1.26-3.53]; P=0.023). Neointimal coverage 2 weeks after implantation of BP-EES and DP-EES in STEMI lesions was comparable on CAS evaluation. However, at 1 year, BP-EES was independently associated with competent strut coverage.

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

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

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.

Geographic Variations on the Safety and Efficacy of the Supreme Biodegradable Polymer DES: Results From PIONEER III

<h2>Abstract</h2><h3>Background</h3> The PIONEER III trial showed the 12-month safety and efficacy of the Supreme drug-eluting stent (DES) vs the durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent. We sought to assess whether the characteristics and clinical outcomes of the Supreme DES in PIONEER III were consistent among patients by enrollment location. <h3>Methods</h3> This subgroup analysis of the PIONEER III trial compared the characteristics and outcomes of patients recruited from North America, Europe, and Japan and the relative differences in patient outcomes according to the site recruitment volume. <h3>Results</h3> From October 2017 to July 2019, 1629 patients were recruited in North America (816, 50.1%), Europe (650, 39.9%), and Japan (163, 10%). Procedural success was achieved in 1556 of 1611 procedures (96.6%), with no difference by the geographic location. Target lesion failure at 12 months for combined groups was observed in 84 of 1629 patients (5.2%), with no significant geographic differences (4.7%, 6.5%, and 2.5%, respectively; <i>P</i> =.08), with similar results in the Supreme DES group alone (4.4%, 6.8%, and 3.7%, respectively, <i>P</i> =.20). Cardiac death at 12 months occurred in 0.4%, 0.2%, and 0.0% (<i>P</i> =.79), target vessel–related myocardial infarction occurred in 2.2%, 4.7%, and 3.7%, (<i>P</i> =.10), and clinically driven target lesion revascularization was required in 2.1%, 3.1%, and 0%, respectively (<i>P</i> =.15). Compared with those from high-recruiting sites, results from low-recruiting sites were similar for target lesion failure, major adverse cardiac events, stent thrombosis, and mortality, with a nonsignificant trend for higher rates of myocardial infarction. <h3>Conclusions</h3> Despite regional differences in patient characteristics, the clinical outcomes between Supreme DES and durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent in the PIONEER III trial were not different, supporting the generalizability and robustness of the findings from this multicenter controlled trial.

Ultrathin Bioresorbable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stents: BIOFLOW V Final 5-Year Outcomes.

Randomized trials have demonstrated the superiority of ultrathin strut drug-eluting stents compared with alternative stent designs. Whether these differences persist over late-term follow-up is uncertain. This study sought to compare late-term (5-year) clinical outcomes among patients treated with ultrathin strut (60 µm) bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (BP SES) and thin strut (81 µm) durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP EES). BIOFLOW V (Biotronik Prospective Randomized Multicenter Study to Assess the Safety and Effectiveness of the Orsiro Sirolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Subjects with Up to Three De Novo or Restenotic Coronary Artery Lesions V) was an international, 2:1 randomized trial comparing percutaneous coronary intervention with ultrathin strut BP SES versus thin strut DP EES regarding the primary endpoint of 12-month target lesion failure (TLF). Prespecified outcomes through 5 years were assessed. Among 1,334 patients randomized to treatment with BP SES (n = 884) or DP EES (n = 450), the 5-year rates of TLF were 12.3% for BP SES and 15.3% for DP EES (P = 0.108). Revascularization with BP SES was associated with a significantly lower target vessel-related myocardial infarction (6.6% vs 10.3%, P = 0.015) and late/very late definite/probable stent thrombosis (0.3% vs 1.6%, P = 0.021). Ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization was numerically but not significantly lower with BP SES (5.9% vs 7.7%, P = 0.202). Cardiac death rates were 2.6% versus 1.9% (P=0.495) for BP SES and DP EES, respectively. In a large, randomized trial, TLF and the individual outcomes of cardiac death and target lesion revascularization at 5 years were similar among patients treated with BP SES versus DP EES. Both target vessel-related myocardial infarction and late/very late definite/probable stent thrombosis were significantly lower with BP SES. These results confirm the durability of safety and the effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention with ultrathin BP SES.

Ultrathin, Biodegradable-Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stent vs Thin, Durable-Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stent

Previous trials suggested the superiority of ultrathin- over thin-strut drug-eluting stents (DES) concerning target lesion failure (TLF) at 1 year after index percutaneous coronary intervention. The aim of this randomized comparison study of ultrathin-strut and thin-strut DES (CASTLE [Randomized Comparison All-Comer Study of Ultrathin Strut and Thin Strut Drug-Eluting Stent]; jRCTs032180084) was to examine the impact of differences in strut thickness of DES on clinical outcomes when implanted with angiography and intravascular ultrasound or optical coherence tomographic guidance. CASTLE was a multicenter, prospective, noninferiority study conducted at 65 institutions in Japan. Percutaneous coronary intervention patients were assigned (1:1) to an ultrathin, biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (BP-SES) or a thin, durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stent (DP-EES). The primary endpoint was TLF, defined as a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, and clinically driven target lesion revascularization at 1-year follow-up. Between May 2019 and March 2020, 1,440 patients were randomly assigned to BP-SES (n=722) or DP-EES (n=718). TLF occurred in 6.0% and 5.7% of patients, respectively. Noninferiority (P=0.040) was met because the upper limit (2.67%) of the 1-sided 95%CI between the groups was lower than the prespecified noninferiority margin (3.3%). No significant interactions were observed in the relative rates of TLF between prespecified subgroups. The BP-SES was noninferior to the DP-EES regarding 1-year TLF. This demonstrates that strut thickness differences among DES have little impact on clinical outcomes when implanted with intravascular imaging guidance.

A Randomized Comparison of the Healing Response Between the Firehawk Stent and the Xience Stent in Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction at 6 Months of Follow-Up (TARGET STEMI OCT China Trial): An Optical Coherence Tomography Study.

BackgroundThe healing response of the Firehawk stent in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) remains unclear.AimWe compared the vascular healing of a biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (Firehawk) vs. a durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent (Xience) at 6 months after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with STEMI.MethodsIn this prospective, multicenter, randomized, non-inferiority study, patients within 12 h of STEMI onset were randomized in a ratio of 1:1 to receive Firehawk or Xience stents. Optical coherence tomography (OCT) follow-up was performed 6 months after the index procedure and assessed frame by frame. The primary endpoint was the neointimal thickness (NIT) at 6 months evaluated by OCT. The safety endpoint was target lesion failure (TLF) at 12 months.ResultsThe Firehawk stent was non-inferior to the Xience stent in terms of the neointimal thickness (73.03 ± 33.30 μm vs. 78.96 ± 33.29 μm; absolute difference: −5.94 [one-sided 95% lower confidence bound: −23.09]; Pnon−inferiority < 0.001). No significant difference was observed between the Firehawk and Xience groups regarding the percentage of uncovered struts (0.55 [0.08, 1.32]% vs. 0.40 [0.21, 1.19]%, P = 0.804), the percentage of malapposed struts (0.17 [0.00, 1.52]% vs. 0.17 [0.00, 0.69]%, P = 0.662), and the healing score (1.56 [0.23, 5.74] vs. 2.12 [0.91, 3.81], P = 0.647). At 12 months, one patient in the Firehawk group experienced a clinically indicated target lesion revascularization. No other TLF events occurred in both groups. Independent risk factors of the NIT included body mass index, hyperlipidemia, B2/C lesions, thrombus G3–G5, thrombus aspiration, and postdilation pressure.ConclusionIn patients with STEMI, Firehawk was non-inferior to Xience in vascular healing at 6 months. Both stents exhibited nearly complete strut coverage, moderate neointimal formation, and minimal strut malapposition.Clinical Trial NumberNCT04150016.

Magmaris Resorbable Magnesium Scaffold Versus Conventional Drug-Eluting Stent in ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: 1-Year Results of a Propensity-Score-Matching Comparison

Magmaris® (Biotronik AG, Switzerland) is the first RMS and early experience has shown promising results in stable coronary artery disease. Acute coronary syndromes have been hypothesized as a potential target group for bioresorbable scaffolds, but the efficacy and safety of RMS has not been extensively studied in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).BEST-MAG is a prospective multicenter trial designed to evaluate optical coherence tomography (OCT-)guided implantation of resorbable magnesium scaffold (RMS) in STEMI.Consecutive STEMI patients fulfilling inclusion/exclusion criteria were treated with RMS following a standardized OCT-based implantation technique including systematic pre- and post-dilatation, and baseline plus final OCT imaging. The primary endpoint was a device oriented composite endpoint (DOCE) including cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction (TV-MI) and target lesion revascularization (TLR) within 12 months. Clinical outcomes were compared after propensity score matching (PSM) to the results of the randomized controlled BIOSTEMI trial comparing biodegradable polymer sirolimus eluting (BP-SES) and durable polymer everolimus eluting stents (DP-EES) in STEMI.Between 15th February 2019 and 25th May 2020, 30 patients were included in 5 centers. Procedural success was achieved in all cases based on OCT control with final scaffold expansion of 82 ± 11%. At twelve-months, DOCE rate was 13.3% (n = 4), including 4 cases of TLR (13.3%) and one case of TV-MI (3.3%). No cardiac death occurred, and no scaffold thrombosis (ScT) was observed. Using PSM, DOCE rates in BP-SES and DP-EES groups were 10% and 6% respectively and TLR rates were 3.3% and 0.0%.In this study, OCT-guided RMS implantation in selected STEMI patients appeared feasible but was associated with numerically higher rates of TLR as compared with conventional drug-eluting stents, although the limited number of patients included in this analysis does not allow drawing statistically significant conclusions.

Optical coherence tomography assessment of acute thrombogenicity at bifurcation sites using different stenting techniques: A porcine arteriovenous shunt study.

We aimed to compare bare-metal stents (BMS), durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP-EES), and abluminal biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (ABP-SES) in the bifurcation model setup. The mechanism of thrombogenicity, which differs among second-generation stents implanted using double-kissing (DK) crushor culotte stenting techniques, remains unclear. We have shown previously that setting up a porcine arteriovenous shunt model is feasible and useful to assess thrombogenicity at vessel bifurcation points. Six porcine shunt models were prepared for the comparison between DK crushand culotte stenting techniques using BMS, DP-EES, and ABP-SES. Intracoronary imaging with high-resolution optical coherence tomography (OCT) was performed to evaluate the thrombogenicity in different stent types in the bifurcation stenting model and was evaluated by a core lab. Culotte stenting demonstrated more thrombogenicity at the proximal main branch (MB) with DP-EES, side branch (SB) with BMS, and the bifurcation site irrespective of the stent type, while DK crush technique exhibited thrombogenicity only at SB with BMS and ABP-SES. OCT analysis revealed malapposition of DP-EES in the proximal MB with culotte stenting. Stent expansion was generally larger in ABP-SES than BMS and DP-EES. The study provides hypothesis-generating findings in distinct thrombogenicity of bifurcation stenting with DP- or ABP-coated drug-eluting stents.

Safety and Efficacy of the Supreme Biodegradable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stent in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus

<h2>Abstract</h2><h3>Background</h3> Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) have worse outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention than nondiabetic patients. The novel Supreme DES is a biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent designed to synchronize early drug delivery, limiting the potential for long-term inflammatory response. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the Supreme DES in patients with DM. <h3>Methods</h3> This is a prespecified analysis of the diabetic subgroup from the PIONEER III randomized (2:1), controlled trial, comparing the Supreme DES with a durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent (DP-EES). The primary safety and efficacy composite endpoint was target lesion failure at 1 year, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target lesion revascularization. <h3>Results</h3> The PIONEER III trial randomized 1629 patients, of which 494 (30.3%) had DM with 331 (398 lesions) randomly assigned to Supreme DES and 163 (208 lesions) to DP-EES. Among patients with DM, target lesion failure at 1 year was 6.1% (20/331) with Supreme DES vs 3.7% (6/163) with DP-EES (hazard ratio=1.65; 95% confidence interval=0.66-4.10, <i>P</i> = .28). The composite of cardiac death or target vessel myocardial infarction was 3.3% (11/331) with Supreme DES and 3.7% (6/163) with DP-EES (hazard ratio=0.90; 95% confidence interval=0.33-2.44, <i>P</i> = .83). There were no significant differences in other secondary endpoints. <h3>Conclusions</h3> This prespecified substudy of the PIONEER III trial demonstrated the relative safety and efficacy of the novel Supreme DES when compared with commercially available DP-EES in diabetics at 1 year. Longer term follow-up will be required to ensure continued safety and efficacy of the Supreme DES.

Safety and efficacy of ticagrelor monotherapy according to drug-eluting stent type: the TWILIGHT-STENT study.

In the TWILIGHT trial, ticagrelor monotherapy after a short course of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) was shown to be a safe bleeding avoidance strategy in high-risk patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES). The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of ticagrelor monotherapy after three-month DAPT in patients undergoing PCI, according to DES type. In the current sub-analysis from TWILIGHT, patients were stratified into three groups based on DES type: durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP-EES), durable polymer zotarolimus-eluting stents (DP-ZES), and biodegradable polymer DES (BP-DES). Bleeding and ischaemic outcomes were assessed at one year after randomisation. Out of 5,769 patients, 3,014 (52.2%) had DP-EES, 1,350 (23.4%) had DP-ZES and 1,405 (24.4%) had BP-DES. Compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin, ticagrelor monotherapy had significantly lower BARC type 2, 3 or 5 bleeding compared with DAPT; DP-EES (3.8% vs 6.7%; HR 0.56, 95% CI: 0.41-0.78), DP-ZES (4.6% vs 6.9%; HR 0.66, 95% CI: 0.42-1.04) and BP-DES (4.2% vs 7.9%; HR 0.52, 95% CI: 0.33-0.81; pinteraction=0.76). Ticagrelor monotherapy resulted in similar rates of death, MI, or stroke: DP-EES (4.2% vs 4.3%; HR 0.97; 95% CI: 0.68-1.37); DP-ZES (4.1% vs 3.1%; HR 1.32; 95% CI: 0.75-2.33); BP-DES (3.9% vs 4.2%; HR 0.92; 95% CI: 0.54-1.55; pinteraction=0.60). In both unadjusted and covariate-adjusted analyses, DES type was not associated with any differences in ischaemic or bleeding complications. As compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin, ticagrelor monotherapy after a short DAPT duration lowered bleeding complications without increasing the ischaemic risk, irrespective of DES type. We observed no significant differences among DES types.