Eluting Coronary Stent System Research Articles

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 Bioresorbable-Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Thin Durable-Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stents for Coronary Revascularization: 3-Year Outcomes From the Randomized BIOFLOW V Trial

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to compare late-term clinical outcomes among patients treated with ultrathin-strut (60-μm) bioresorbable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (BP SES) and thin-strut (81μm) durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP EES). BackgroundEmerging evidence from comparative studies of drug-eluting stents demonstrates improved safety and efficacy with ultrathin-strut drug-eluting stents, but limited insight exists regarding late-term outcomes. MethodsBIOFLOW 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) is an international randomized trial comparing coronary revascularization with BP SES and DP EES regarding the primary endpoint of 12-month target lesion failure. Analysis of pre-specified 3-year clinical outcomes was performed. ResultsAmong 1,334 patients randomized to treatment with BP SES (n = 884) or DP EES (n = 450), the 3-year rate of target lesion failure was 8.2% for BP SES and 13.6% for DP EES (p = 0.002), driven by differences in both target vessel myocardial infarction (MI) (5.0% vs. 9.2%; p = 0.003) and clinically driven target lesion revascularization (3.2% vs. 6.7%; p = 0.006). In landmark analysis, significant differences in target vessel MI and target lesion revascularization were observed favoring treatment with BP SES. Definite or probable late or very late stent thrombosis was significantly lower with BP SES (0.1% vs. 1.2%; p = 0.018). Cardiac death or MI rates were 7.7% and 11.7% (p = 0.017) for BP SES and DP EES, respectively. ConclusionsIn a large randomized trial, both target lesion failure and the outcomes of target vessel MI, clinically driven target lesion revascularization, and late or very late stent thrombosis at 3 years were significantly lower among patients treated with BP SES versus DP EES. The results endorse the continued superiority of ultrathin-strut BP SES compared with DP EES. (Safety and Effectiveness of the Orsiro Sirolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in Subjects With Coronary Artery Lesions [BIOFLOW-V]; NCT02389946)

Outcomes of Patients With Coronary Arterial Bifurcation Narrowings Undergoing Provisional 1-Stent Treatment (from the BIONICS Trial)

Treatment of bifurcation lesions is technically challenging and has been associated with an increased risk of adverse events. We sought to evaluate the clinical and angiographic outcomes of patients who underwent bifurcation lesion provisional treatment in the BioNIR Ridaforolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in Coronary Stenosis trial. A prospective, multicenter, 1:1 randomized trial was conducted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ridaforolimus-eluting stents (RES) versus zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZES). Enrollment of bifurcation lesions treated with a provisional 1-stent technique was allowed. Bifurcation lesions were analyzed by an angiographic core laboratory. Outcomes were analyzed according to the presence of a bifurcation lesion treatment. Study population included 686 (35.8%) patients with and 1,228 (64.2%) patients without bifurcation lesion treatment. Procedural success was high and similar between groups. In 2 years, there was no difference in the rate of target lesion failure between the bifurcation and nonbifurcation groups (7.6% vs 7.3%, respectively, p = 0.81) regardless of the presence of side branch stenosis ≥50%. In 159 patients with angiographic follow-up, there was no difference in the rate of binary restenosis between groups (9.0% vs 9.2%, p = 0.96). Rates of target lesion failure at 1-year were similar with ZES and RES, and consistent in patients with and without bifurcation lesions (pinteraction = 0.61). In conclusion, patients with bifurcation lesions treated and a provisional strategy experienced similar outcomes as those with nonbifurcation lesions. RES performed as well as ZES in bifurcation and nonbifurcation lesions.

Randomized Comparison of Ridaforolimus-Eluting and Zotarolimus-Eluting Coronary Stents: 2-Year Clinical Outcomes From the BIONICS and NIREUS Trials

ObjectivesThis study sought to determine clinical outcomes between treatment groups over long-term follow-up. BackgroundThe safety and efficacy of a ridaforolimus-eluting stent (RES) was evaluated in the BIONICS (BioNIR Ridaforolimus-Eluting Coronary Stent System in Coronary Stenosis) and NIREUS (BioNIR Ridaforolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System [BioNIR] European Angiography Study) trials, demonstrating noninferiority of RES in comparison with a zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) regarding 1-year target lesion failure (TLF) and 6-month angiographic late lumen loss, respectively. MethodsPatient-level data from the BIONICS (N = 1,919) and NIREUS (N = 302) randomized trials were pooled, and outcomes in patients implanted with RES and ZES compared. Broad inclusion criteria allowed enrollment of patients with acute coronary syndromes and complex lesions. The primary endpoint was the 2-year rate of TLF or clinically driven target lesion revascularization. ResultsA total of 2,221 patients (age 63.2 ± 10.3 years; 79.7% men) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with RES (n = 1,159) or ZES (n = 1,062) were included. Clinical and angiographic characteristics were similar between groups. At 2 years, the primary endpoint of TLF was similar among patients implanted with RES and ZES (7.0% vs. 7.2%; p = 0.94). Rates of target lesion revascularization (4.8% RES vs. 4.1% ZES; p = 0.41) and target vessel–related myocardial infarction (3.1% RES vs. 3.8% ZES; p = 0.52) did not differ between groups. The overall rate of stent thrombosis was also similar (0.5% RES vs. 0.9% ZES; p = 0.39). ConclusionsIn a pooled analysis of 2 randomized trials, 2-year clinical outcomes were similar between patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with RES and ZES. These results support the long-term safety and efficacy of RES for the treatment of a broad population of patients with coronary artery disease.

Safety and Effectiveness of the Orsiro Sirolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in Subjects With Coronary Artery Lesions

Safety and Effectiveness of the Orsiro Sirolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in Subjects With Coronary Artery Lesions

The EluNIRTM Ridaforolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System

ABSTRACTIntroduction: First-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) were developed and indeed proved their superiority compared to bare-metal stent in minimizing neo-intimal hyperplasia and in-stent restenosis (ISR), overall, reducing target vessel revascularization (TVR). Newer-generation DES are characterized by thinner struts, more biocompatible and either durable, biodegradable or polymer-free surfaces, better device profile and refined drug elution.Area covered: The EluNIRTM (Medinol, Tel Aviv, Israel) Ridaforolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System is a new DES with unique properties. In this review, we highlight the special characteristics of the stent and summarize relevant clinical data. The EluNIRTM was studied in two clinical trials, the NIREUS trial and the larger, pivotal, BIONICS trial. These trials collectively provide data on the safety, performance, and efficacy of the device.Expert commentary: The newly FDA-approved EluNIRTM stent features an elastomeric durable polymer which elutes a novel drug, Ridaforolimus. The stent has thin struts with variable widths and a delivery catheter with a spring tip. These characteristics may explain the good angiographic and clinical results of this stent, which were noninferior to the FDA-approved Medtronic ResoluteTM stent DES.

Outcomes Among Diabetic Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Contemporary Drug-Eluting Stents: Analysis From the BIONICS Randomized Trial

ObjectivesThe authors sought to investigate the impact of diabetes mellitus (DM) on outcomes following contemporary drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation in the BIONICS (BioNIR Ridaforolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in Coronary Stenosis) trial. BackgroundPatients with DM are at increased risk for adverse events following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). MethodsA prospective, multicenter, 1:1 randomized trial was conducted to evaluate in a noninferiority design the safety and efficacy of ridaforolimus-eluting stents versus zotarolimus-eluting stents among 1,919 patients undergoing PCI. Randomization was stratified to the presence of medically treated DM, and a pre-specified analysis compared outcomes according to the presence or absence of DM up to 2 years. ResultsThe overall prevalence of DM was 29.1% (559 of 1,919). DM patients had higher body mass index, greater prevalence of hyperlipidemia and hypertension, and smaller reference vessel diameter. One-year target lesion failure (cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization) was significantly higher among diabetic patients (7.8% vs. 4.2%; p = 0.002), mainly due to higher target lesion revascularization (4.5% vs. 2.0%; p = 0.002). Rates of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and stent thrombosis did not statistically vary. Among 158 patients undergoing 13-month angiographic follow-up, restenosis rates were 3 times higher in diabetic patients compared with nondiabetic patients (15.2% vs. 4.7%; p = 0.01). Clinical and angiographic outcomes were similar between ridaforolimus-eluting stent– and zotarolimus-eluting stent–treated patients. ConclusionsDespite advances in interventional therapies, and the implementation of new-generation DES, diabetic patients still have worse angiographic and clinical outcomes compared with nondiabetic patients undergoing PCI.

Ultrathin Bioresorbable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Thin Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stents

BackgroundCoronary drug-eluting stent development has introduced new metal alloys, changes in stent architecture, and bioresorbable polymers. Whether these advancements improve long-term clinical safety and efficacy has been inconsistent in prior studies. ObjectivesThe authors sought to compare late-term clinical outcomes among patients treated with an ultrathin strut (60 μm) bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (BP SES) and a thin strut (81 μm) durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent (DP EES) in a large randomized trial. MethodsBIOFLOW 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 randomized trial comparing coronary revascularization with BP SES and DP EES regarding the primary endpoint of 12-month target lesion failure (TLF). Analysis of pre-specified 2-year clinical outcomes was performed. ResultsAmong 1,334 patients randomized to treatment with BP SES (n = 884) or DP EES (n = 450), the 2-year TLF rate was 7.5% for BP SES and 11.9% for DP EES (−4.33% treatment difference; 95% confidence interval: −8.16% to −0.91%; p = 0.015), driven by differences in target vessel myocardial infarction (MI) (5.3% vs. 9.5%; p = 0.01) and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (2.6% vs. 4.9%; p = 0.04). Rates of cardiac death or MI were 7.0% versus 10.4% for BP SES and DP EES, respectively (p = 0.047). Late/very late definite stent thrombosis was statistically lower for BP SES compared with DP EES (0.1% vs. 1.0%; p = 0.045). ConclusionsIn a large randomized trial, significant differences in both TLF and target vessel–related MI persisted through 2 years, favoring treatment with BP SES over DP EES. Significantly lower cumulative target lesion revascularization and late/very late stent thrombosis were also observed with BP SES. (Safety and Effectiveness of the Orsiro Sirolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in Subjects With Coronary Artery Lesions [BIOFLOW-V]; NCT02389946)

TCT-460 Multi-Center, Randomized Evaluation of the Elixir DESyne® Novolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System with Biodegradable Polymer Compared to a Zotarolimus-Eluting Coronary Stent System: Final 5-Year Results from the EXCELLA BD Study

A non-inferiority study evaluating the long-term safety and effectiveness of the Elixir DESyne® BD Novolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System (NECSS), a Co-Cr stent with a biodegradable polymer compared to the control Endeavor Zotarolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System (ZECSS) (Medtronic, Santa Rosa,

Real world experience of GenXSync and trade; sirolimus eluting coronary stent system in patients with long coronary lesions: outcome of the GEL registry

Background: The study aimed to assess the immediate (procedural outcome) and long- term clinical (Cumulative hierarchical MACE up to 2 years) and angiographic outcomes (late lumen loss at 8 months) in the patients undergoing angioplasty with at least one 40 mm GenXSync™ SES. (Indian Study Regulatory ID CTRI/2014/07/004783). Methods: This single centre prospective study included 26 real-world coronary artery disease (CAD) patients with long and very long lesions (38 lesions, 48 stents). All patients were treated with one or more 40 mm GenxSync™ sirolimus eluting stent (SES). All the subjects were followed up for 2 years including angiographic follow-up at 8 months. Angiography data was evaluated and reported by an independent angiographic core-lab. Subset analyses were performed for all 40mm long stents and 40mm with small diameter stents. Results: The procedural success was observed in 94%. The acute gain was 2.25±0.53mm in stent and 2.09±0.71mm in segment despite of long and complex lesions including CTO. At 2 years, there was only 1 (3.84%) MACE (binary restenosis at 8 months) and stent thrombosis. At 8 months late lumen loss was in-segment 0.15±0.30mm and in-stent 0.14±0.17mm (p = 0.06). The 40mm stents subset, revealed acute gain of 2.21±0.58mm in-stent and 2.01±0.74mm in-segment. The late loss was 0.16± 0.31mm and 0.13±0.17mm in-stent and in-segment respectively. In 40mm stent with small diameter subset, the acute gain was 2.19±0.42mm in-stent and 1.69 ± 0.59mm in-segment and late lumen loss was 0.10±0.18mm in-segment and 0.13± 0.33mm in-stent. Conclusions: The results of real world long lesions PCI revealed efficacy, safety and procedural success observed with GenXSync™ stent comparable to other reported studies.

TCT-586 Multi-Center, Prospective, Randomized, Single-Blind, Consecutive Enrollment Evaluation of the Elixir DESyne® Novolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System with Biodegradable Polymer Compared to a Zotarolimus-Eluting Coronary Stent System: 3-Year Results from the EXCELLA BD Study

Evaluate the long-term safety and effectiveness of the Elixir DESyne® BD Novolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System (NECSS), a Co-Cr stent with a biodegradable polymer compared to the control Endeavor Zotarolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System (ZECSS) (Medtronic, Santa Rosa, CA). 149 patients were

Three-year data from the XIENCE V INDIA study: safety and efficacy of XIENCE V in 1000 real world Indian patients.

Cardiovascular disease in Asia has reached epidemic proportions in recent years. Use of drug eluting stents in Asians has rapidly expanded with varying penetration rates across different countries. The XIENCE V INDIA Study included 'real world' patients who underwent XIENCE V stent implantation to assess short and intermediate term outcomes in Indian patients with diverse risk factors. To evaluate 3-year clinical outcomes in a cohort of 'real world' Indian patients with CAD being treated with XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System. 1000 patients were enrolled from 18 sites in India between June 2008 and March 2009. Patients were included if their index procedures were completed using only XIENCE V. There were no clinical or angiographic exclusions. An independent Clinical Events Committee adjudicated all endpoint-related events. The primary endpoint was stent thrombosis rate annually through to 3 years as defined by the Academic Research Consortium criteria. The co-primary endpoint was the composite rate of cardiac death and myocardial infarction at 1 year. At 1-year the primary endpoint of definite/probable stent thrombosis rate was 0.51%. No additional very late stent thrombosis was reported through a 3-year follow up. The composite endpoint of cardiac death and any myocardial infarction was 1.9%, 2.7% and 3.1% at 1, 2 and 3 years respectively. Despite the high risk population of coronary artery disease, the use of XIENCE V in 'real world' Indian patients was associated with very low clinical event rates upto three years of follow up.

1-Year Clinical Outcomes of Diabetic Patients Treated With Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds: A Pooled Analysis of the ABSORB and the SPIRIT Trials

The aim of this study was to evaluate 1-year clinical outcomes of diabetic patients treated with the Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS). Clinical outcomes of diabetic patients after BVS implantation have been unreported. This study included 101 patients in the ABSORB Cohort B trial and the first consecutive 450 patients with 1 year of follow-up in the ABSORB EXTEND trial. A total of 136 diabetic patients were compared with 415 nondiabetic patients. In addition, 882 diabetic patients treated with everolimus-eluting metal stents (EES) in pooled data from the SPIRIT trials (SPIRIT FIRST [Clinical Trial of the Abbott Vascular XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System], SPIRIT II [A Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System], SPIRIT III [Clinical Trial of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System (EECSS)], SPIRIT IV Clinical Trial [Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System]) were used for the comparison by applying propensity score matching. The primary endpoint was a device-oriented composite endpoint (DoCE), including cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization at 1-year follow-up. The cumulative incidence of DoCE did not differ between diabetic and nondiabetic patients treated with the BVS (3.7% vs. 5.1%, p = 0.64). Diabetic patients treated with the BVS had a similar incidence of the DoCE compared with diabetic patients treated with EES in the matched study group (3.9% for the BVS vs. 6.4% for EES, p = 0.38). There were no differences in the incidence of definite or probable scaffold/stent thrombosis (0.7% for both diabetic and nondiabetic patients with the BVS; 1.0% for diabetic patients with the BVS vs. 1.7% for diabetic patients with EES in the matched study group). In the present analyses, diabetic patients treated with the BVS showed similar rates of DoCEs compared with nondiabetic patients treated with the BVS and diabetic patients treated with EES at 1-year follow-up. (ABSORB Clinical Investigation, Cohort B; NCT00856856; ABSORB EXTEND Clinical Investigation; NCT01023789; Clinical Trial of the Abbott Vascular XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System [SPIRIT FIRST]; NCT00180453; A Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System [SPIRIT II]; NCT00180310; Clinical Trial of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System [EECSS] [SPIRIT III]; NCT00180479; Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System [SPIRIT IV Clinical Trial]; NCT00307047).

5-Year Results of a Randomized Comparison of XIENCE V Everolimus-Eluting and TAXUS Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents: Final Results From the SPIRIT III Trial (Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Patients With De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions)

This study sought to evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) in patients with obstructive coronary artery disease. The use of EES compared to PES has been shown to result in improved clinical outcomes in patients undergoing PCI. However, there have been concerns regarding the durability of these benefits over longer-term follow-up. SPIRIT III was a prospective, multicenter trial in which 1,002 patients were randomized 2:1 to EES versus PES. Endpoints included ischemia-driven target vessel failure (TVF) (death, myocardial infarction (MI), or ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization [TVR]), the pre-specified primary endpoint), target lesion failure (TLF) (cardiac death, target-vessel MI, or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization [TLR]), major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (cardiac death, MI, or ischemia-driven TLR), their individual components and stent thrombosis. Five-year follow-up was available in 91.9% of patients. Treatment with EES versus PES resulted in lower 5-year Kaplan-Meier rates of TVF (19.3% vs. 24.5%, p = 0.05), TLF (12.7% vs. 19.0%, p= 0.008), and MACE (13.2% vs. 20.7%, p = 0.007). EES also resulted in reduced rates of all-cause death (5.9% vs. 10.1%, p = 0.02), with nonsignificantly different rates of MI, stent thrombosis, and TLR, and no evidence of late catch-up of TLR over time. At 5 years after treatment, EES compared to PES resulted in durable benefits in composite safety and efficacy measures as well as all-cause mortality. Additionally, the absolute difference in TLR between devices remained stable over time without deterioration of effect during late follow-up.

Everolimus-eluting stents in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: Final 3-year results of the Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Subjects With de Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions trial

We compared the outcomes of patients treated with everolimus-eluting stents (EES) versus paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) at 3 years from the large-scale randomized SPIRIT IV trial. SPIRIT IV is the largest randomized trial comparing the outcomes of EES and PES. The present report represents the final long-term follow-up analysis from this study. A total of 3,687 patients were randomized 2:1 to EES or PES, stratified by presence of diabetes mellitus and lesion characteristics. Prespecified subgroups were compared for interaction with stent allocation. The primary end point was target lesion failure (TLF) (the composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction [MI], or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization). At 3 years, TLF occurred in 9.2% versus 11.7% of EES- and PES-treated patients (hazard ratio [HR] 0.78 [0.63-0.97], P = .02). The incidence of death or MI was 5.9% versus 9.1%, respectively (HR 0.67 [0.52-0.85], P = .001), and there was a 64% reduction in stent thrombosis (Academic Research Consortium definite or probable definition) with EES (0.59% vs 1.60%, HR 0.36 [0.18-0.72], P = .003). The difference in target lesion revascularization at 3 years did not reach statistical significance (6.2% vs 7.8%, respectively, HR 0.78 [0.60-1.01], P = .06). There was no significant interaction between treatment allocation and any of the subgroups, including diabetes. When compared with PES, EES provides durable and significant reduction in TLF, especially due to its enhanced safety profile, with lower rates of death or MI and stent thrombosis up to 3 years.

TCT-200 Multi Center, Prospective, Randomized, Single Blind, Consecutive Enrollment Evaluation a Novolimus-Eluting Coronary Stent System with Bioabsorbable Polymer Compared to a Zotarolimus-Eluting Coronary Stent System: Long Term (24- Month) Clinical Follow Up from the EXCELLA BD Study

Long term safety and efficacy of the Elixir DESyne(r) BD Novolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System (NECSS), a Co-Cr stent with a bioabsorbable polymer compared to the control Endeavor Zotarolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System is not known 149 patients were randomized 3:1, either to the Elixir DESyne

Meta-Analysis of Everolimus-Eluting Versus Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents in Coronary Artery Disease: Final 3-Year Results of the SPIRIT Clinical Trials Program (Clinical Evaluation of the Xience V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Patients With De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions)

This study sought to investigate whether the everolimus-eluting stent (EES) is superior to the paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) with respect to long-term individual clinical outcomes. Individual studies have indicated a clinical advantage of coronary EES compared with PES with respect to restenosis and the composite endpoint of major adverse cardiac events. However, these trials were not powered for superiority in low-frequency event rates and have reported limited data beyond 1-year follow-up. We conducted a meta-analysis of the final 3-year results from the international SPIRIT (Clinical Evaluation of the Xience V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Patients With De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions) II, III, and IV clinical trials. Individual patient data from 4,989 patients who were prospectively randomized to treatment with EES (n = 3,350) or PES (n = 1,639) were pooled for analysis. At 3-year follow-up, EES was superior to PES in reducing the following event rates: target lesion failure (8.9% vs. 12.5%, hazard ratio [HR]: 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.59 to 0.85; p = 0.0002), all-cause mortality (3.2% vs 5.1%, HR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.49 to 0.86; p = 0.003), myocardial infarction (3.2% vs. 5.1%, HR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.48 to 0.85; p = 0.002), cardiac death or myocardial infarction (4.4% vs. 6.3%, HR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.54 to 0.90; p = 0.005), ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (6.0% vs. 8.2%, HR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.58 to 0.90; p = 0.004), stent thrombosis (0.7% vs. 1.7%, HR: 0.45, 95% CI: 0.26 to 0.78; p = 0.003), and major adverse cardiac events (9.4% vs. 13.0%, HR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.60 to 0.85; p = 0.0002). No interaction was present between stent type and the 3-year relative rates of target lesion failure across a broad range of subgroups, with the exception of diabetes and vessel (left anterior descending vs. other). In this large dataset with 3-year follow-up, coronary implantation of EES compared with PES resulted in reduced rates of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization, stent thrombosis, and target lesion failure. Further research is warranted to characterize possible interactions between stent type, diabetes, and vessel.

Evaluation of XIENCE V Everolimus-Eluting and Taxus Express2 Paclitaxel-Eluting Coronary Stents in Patients With Jailed Side Branches From the SPIRIT IV Trial at 2 Years

The aim of this study was to determine whether patients from the Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Patients With de Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions (SPIRIT) IV trial who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention, who had target lesions with jailed side branches, had improved clinical outcomes when treated with the XIENCE V versus Taxus Express(2) drug-eluting stent. In the SPIRIT III randomized trial, patients with target lesions with jailed side branches after XIENCE V compared with Taxus Express(2) implantation had lower 2-year rates of major adverse cardiac events. The SPIRIT IV trial represents a larger more diverse patient population compared with SPIRIT III. In the large-scale, prospective, multicenter, randomized SPIRIT IV trial, 3,687 patients who underwent coronary stenting with up to 3 de novo native coronary artery lesions were randomized 2:1 to receive XIENCE V versus Taxus Express(2) stents. Two-year clinical outcomes of patients with or without jailed side branches after stenting were compared. A jailed side branch was defined as any side branch >1.0 mm in diameter within the target segment being stented, excluding bifurcations deemed to require treatment. Of the 3,687 patients in SPIRIT IV, a total of 1,426 had side branches that were jailed during angioplasty of the target lesion. Patients with jailed side branches after XIENCE V compared with Taxus Express(2) implantation had significantly lower 2-year rates of target lesion failure (6.5% vs 11.9%, p= 0.001), major adverse cardiac events (6.6% vs 12.2%, p= 0.0008), ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization (4.1% vs 7.9%, p= 0.004), and stent thrombosis (0.6% vs 2.8%, p= 0.001). In conclusion, patients with jailed side branches after stenting with XIENCE V compared to Taxus Express(2) devices had superior clinical outcomes at 2 years in the large-scale randomized SPIRIT IV trial.

Incidence and Short-Term Clinical Outcomes of Small Side Branch Occlusion After Implantation of an Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold: An Interim Report of 435 Patients in the ABSORB-EXTEND Single-Arm Trial in Comparison With an Everolimus-Eluting Metallic Stent in the SPIRIT First and II Trials

The aim of this study was to investigate the incidence and clinical sequelae of small side branch occlusion (SBO) after Absorb (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, California) bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) implantation. The thicker strut of metallic stents potentially contributes to a higher incidence of SBO. We performed a post-hoc angiographic assessment of 1,209 side branches in 435 patients enrolled in the ABSORB-EXTEND single-arm trial (ABSORB EXTEND Clinical Investigation: A Continuation in the Clinical Evaluation of the ABSORB Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold [BVS] System in the Treatment of Subjects With de Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions), in comparison with 682 side branches in 237 patients treated with the everolimus-eluting metallic stent (EES) in the SPIRIT (A Clinical Evaluation of an Investigational Device. The Abbott XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Patients With de Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions) first and II trials. Any visible side branches originating within the device implantation site or the 5-mm proximal and distal margins were included in the angiographic assessment. The SBO was defined as a reduction in Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction flow grade 0 or 1. Post-procedural SBO was observed in 73 side branches (6.0%) in BVS group and 28 side branches (4.1%) in EES group (p = 0.09). Patients with post-procedural SBO were significantly associated with an increased incidence of in-hospital myocardial infarction (6.5% in SBO group vs. 0.5% in non-SBO group, p < 0.01). Multivariable analysis revealed that BVS was an independent predictor of post-procedural SBO (odds ratio: 2.09; 95% confidence interval: 1.18 to 3.68). By stratified analysis, BVS demonstrated a higher incidence of post-procedural SBO compared with EES only in small side branches with a reference vessel diameter ≤0.5 mm (10.5% vs. 3.9%, p = 0.03 between the groups, p for interaction = 0.08). Bioresorbable vascular scaffold was associated with a higher incidence of post-procedural SBO compared with EES. This effect was more pronounced with small side branches with a reference vessel diameter ≤0.5 mm. (ABSORB EXTEND Clinical Investigation: A Continuation in the Clinical Evaluation of the ABSORB Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold [BVS] System in the Treatment of Subjects With de Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions: NCT01023789).

CRT-63 Multi Center, Prospective, Randomized, Single Blind, Consecutive Enrollment Evaluation A Novolimus-eluting Coronary Stent System With Bioabsorbable Polymer Compared To a Zotarolimus-eluting Coronary Stent System: 12- Month Clinical And 6-month Angiographic and IVUS Results: The Excella BD Study

To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the Elixir DESyneTM BD Novolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System (CSS) with a bioabsorbable polymer compared to the Endeavor Zotarolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System through the assessment of clinical, angiographic, and IVUS endpoints. 149 patients were