Everolimus-eluting Stent Group Research Articles

Three-Year Clinical Outcomes With the Cilotax Dual Drug-Eluting Stent vs Everolimus-Eluting Stents in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction.

This study compared the safety and effectiveness of paclitaxel/cilostazol-eluting Cilotax stents with those of everolimus-eluting stents in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Real-world data from the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry were examined. A total of 5,472 patients with acute myocardial infarction underwent percutaneous coronary intervention with Cilotax stents (n = 212) or everolimus-eluting stents (n = 5,260). The primary end point was the 3-year rate of target lesion failure. The other end points were major adverse cardiovascular events (a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization), target vessel revascularization, and stent thrombosis. A propensity score matching analysis was performed to adjust for potential confounders by using a logistic regression model; propensity score matching generated 2 well-balanced groups (Cilotax group, n = 180; everolimus-eluting stents group, n = 170; N = 350). After propensity score matching, baseline clinical characteristics were similar between the groups. After percutaneous coronary intervention, compared with the everolimus-eluting stents group, the Cilotax group more often had major adverse cardiovascular events (24.1% vs 18.5%; P = .042), myocardial infarction (8.0% vs 3.2%; P < .001), target lesion revascularization (8.0% vs 2.6%; P < .001), target vessel revascularization (11.3% vs 4.5%; P < .001), and stent thrombosis (4.7% vs 0.5%; P < .001) before matching. Even after matching, the Cilotax group had more frequent target lesion revascularization (9.4% vs 2.9%; P = .22) and stent thrombosis (5.6% vs 1.2%; P = .34). In patients with acute myocardial infarction who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention, use of the Cilotax stent was associated with higher rates of target lesion revascularization, target vessel revascularization, and stent thrombosis than were everolimus-eluting stents. Use of the Cilotax dual drugeluting stent should be avoided in the treatment of myocardial infarction.

A novel polymer-free everolimus-eluting stent with a nitrogen-doped titanium dioxide film inhibits restenosis and thrombosis in a swine coronary model.

Short-term outcomes regarding the safety and efficacy of a polymer-free everolimus-eluting stent (EES) with a nitrogen-doped titanium dioxide (N-TiO₂) film in a swine coronary model have been reported. However, the long-term results of the use of this type of stent have not yet been evaluated or compared to those of other polymer-free coronary stents. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the mid- to long-term safety and efficacy of a polymer-free EES with an N-TiO₂ film in a swine coronary model. Polymer-free EES with N-TiO₂ films (n = 30) and polymer-free sirolimus-eluting stents (SES; n = 30) were implanted in 30 pigs. Quantitative coronary analysis and optical coherence tomography were conducted immediately and at 1 (quantitative coronary analysis only), 3, and 6 months after stenting. Histopathologic examinations were performed at 1, 3, and 6 months after stenting. The polymer-free EES group had a lower percentage of neointimal growth than the polymer-free SES group at 3 months (22.5% ± 11.4% vs. 32.1% ± 12.3%; p < 0.001). The polymer-free EES group had a lower fibrin score than the polymer-free SES group at 1 month (1.9 ± 0.45 vs. 2.5 ± 0.54; p = 0.001). The re-endothelialization rates were similar between groups. The polymer-free EES group had a lower percentage of the area of stenosis than the polymer-free SES group throughout the follow-up period. The novel polymer-free EES with an N-TiO₂ film has superior safety and efficacy than the polymer-free SES at the 6-month follow-up in a swine model.

Estudio comparativo de la cobertura neointimal entre los stents con recubrimiento de titanio-óxido nítrico y los liberadores de everolimus en el sindrome coronario agudo

Introduction and objectivesTo evaluate by optical coherence tomography neointimal healing response after implantation of cobalt-chromium-based titanium-nitride-oxide-coated (TiNO) stents and platinum-chromium-based biodegradable-polymer-coated everolimus-eluting stents (EES) in patients with acute coronary syndrome. MethodsPatients were randomized (1:1) to receive either a TiNO-stent or EES. Optical coherence tomography images were obtained at 30-day (cohort A, n = 52) and 6-month (cohort B, n = 30) follow-up. The primary endpoint was the percentage of uncovered struts per patient. ResultsIn cohort A, the percentage of uncovered struts was lower with TiNO-stents vs EES (3.2% vs 19.6%, P <.001). The percentage of malapposed struts was 0.4% in the TiNO-group and 2.1% in the EES group (P <.001). In cohort B, the percentage of uncovered struts was also lower with TiNO-stents (0.0% vs 8.7% (P <.001). The percentage of malapposed struts was 0% in the TiNO-stent group and 0.3% in the EES group (P=.008). None of the patients had repeat revascularization during the 6 months of follow-up. ConclusionsFollowing percutaneous intervention for acute coronary syndrome, TiNO stent implantation was associated with a lower percentage of uncovered and malapposed struts per patient, compared with EES, at early and mid-term follow-up.This study is registered under ClinicalTrials.gov, with number NCT02464397.

Comparative study of neointimal coverage between titanium-nitric oxide-coated and everolimus-eluting stents in acute coronary syndromes

Introduction and objectivesTo evaluate by optical coherence tomography neointimal healing response after implantation of cobalt-chromium-based titanium-nitride-oxide-coated (TiNO) stents and platinum-chromium-based biodegradable-polymer-coated everolimus-eluting stents (EES) in patients with acute coronary syndrome. MethodsPatients were randomized (1:1) to receive either a TiNO-stent or EES. Optical coherence tomography images were obtained at 30-day (cohort A, n = 52) and 6-month (cohort B, n = 30) follow-up. The primary endpoint was the percentage of uncovered struts per patient. ResultsIn cohort A, the percentage of uncovered struts was lower with TiNO-stents vs EES (3.2% vs 19.6%, P <.001). The percentage of malapposed struts was 0.4% in the TiNO-group and 2.1% in the EES group (P <.001). In cohort B, the percentage of uncovered struts was also lower with TiNO-stents (0.0% vs 8.7%, (P <.001). The percentage of malapposed struts was 0% in the TiNO-stent group and 0.3% in the EES group, (P=.008). None of the patients had repeat revascularization during the 6 months of follow-up. ConclusionsFollowing percutaneous intervention for acute coronary syndrome, TiNO stent implantation was associated with a lower percentage of uncovered and malapposed struts per patient, compared with EES, at early and mid-term follow-up.This study is registered under ClinicalTrials.gov, with number NCT02464397.

10-Year Follow-Up of Patients With Everolimus-Eluting Versus Bare-Metal Stents After ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction

BackgroundOutcomes data for a durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stent (EES) at extended long-term follow-up in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) are unknown. ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to assess the 10-year outcomes of patients enrolled in the EXAMINATION (A Clinical Evaluation of Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stents in the Treatment of Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction) trial. MethodsThe EXAMINATION-EXTEND (10-Years Follow-Up of the EXAMINATION Trial) study is an investigator-driven 10-year follow-up of the EXAMINATION trial, which randomly assigned 1,498 patients with STEMI in a 1:1 ratio to receive either EES (n = 751) or bare-metal stents (n = 747). The primary endpoint was a patient-oriented composite endpoint of all-cause death, any myocardial infarction, or any revascularization. Secondary endpoints included a device-oriented composite endpoint of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization; the individual components of the combined endpoints; and stent thrombosis. ResultsComplete 10-year clinical follow-up was obtained in 94.5% of the EES group and 95.9% of the bare-metal stent group. Rates of the patient-oriented composite endpoint and device-oriented composite endpoint were significantly reduced in the EES group (32.4% vs. 38.0% [hazard ratio: 0.81; 95% confidence interval: 0.68 to 0.96; p = 0.013] and 13.6% vs. 18.4% [hazard ratio: 0.72; 95% confidence interval: 0.55 to 0.93; p = 0.012], respectively), driven mainly by target lesion revascularization (5.7% vs. 8.8%; p = 0.018). The rate of definite stent thrombosis was similar in both groups (2.2% vs. 2.5%; p = 0.590). No differences were found between the groups in terms of target lesion revascularization (1.4% vs. 1.3%; p = 0.963) and definite or probable stent thrombosis (0.6% vs. 0.4%; p = 0.703) between 5 and 10 years. ConclusionsAt 10-year follow-up, EES demonstrated confirmed superiority in combined patient- and device-oriented composite endpoints compared with bare-metal stents in patients with STEMI requiring primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Between 5- and 10-year follow-up, a low incidence of adverse cardiovascular events related to device failure was found in both groups. (10-Years Follow-Up of the EXAMINATION Trial; NCT04462315)

Long-term follow-up of therapeutic efficacy of everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold in comparison to everolimus-eluting stent in treatment of chronic total occlusion guided by intracoronary imaging

BackgroundWe hypothesized that 1st generation everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) stent associated with less complication and less restenosis rate than everolimus-eluting stent (EES) in chronic total occlusion (CTO) recanalization guided by intracoronary imaging. Therefore, we aimed to assess the safety and performance of BVS stent in CTO revascularization in comparison to EES guided by intracoronary imaging.Our prospective comparative cross-sectional study was conducted on 60 CTO patients divided into two groups according to type of stent revascularization: group I (EES group): 40 (66.7%) patients and group II (BVS group): 20 (33.3%) patients. All patients were subjected to history taking, electrocardiogram (ECG), echocardiography, laboratory investigation, stress thallium study to assess viability before revascularization. Revascularization of viable CTO lesion guided by intracoronary imaging using optical coherence tomography (OCT). Then, long-term follow-up over 1 year clinically and by multi-slice CT coronary angiography (MSCT). Our clinical and angiographic endpoints were to detect any clinical or angiographic complications during the follow-up period.ResultsAt 6 months angiographic follow-up, BVS group had not inferior angiographic parameters but without statistically significant difference (p = 0.566). At 12 months follow-up, there was no difference at end points between the two groups (p = 0.476).No differences were found at angiographic or clinical follow-up between BVS and EES.ConclusionThis study shows that 1st generation everolimus-eluting BVS is non-inferior to EES for CTO revascularization. Further studies are needed to clearly state which new smaller footprint BVS, faster reabsorption, magnesium-based less thrombogenicity, and advanced mechanical properties is under development. We cannot dismiss the efficacy and safety of new BVS technology.Trial registrationZU-IRB#2498/3-12-2016 Registered 3 December 2016, email: IRB_123@medicine.zu.edu.eg

Bioresorbable vascular scaffold versus metallic drug-eluting stent in patients at high risk of restenosis: the COMPARE-ABSORB randomised clinical trial.

The aim of this study was to investigate clinical outcomes of patients at high risk of restenosis after implantation of a bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS). The COMPARE-ABSORB trial was an investigator-initiated, prospective randomised study. Patients at high risk of restenosis were randomly assigned to receive either a BVS or an everolimus-eluting stent (EES). A dedicated implantation technique was recommended for BVS. The primary endpoint was target lesion failure (TLF), defined as the composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction (TVMI) or clinically indicated target lesion revascularisation at one year. The enrolment was discontinued prematurely because of a high thrombosis and TVMI rate in the BVS arm. A total of 1,670 patients were recruited (BVS 848 patients and EES 822 patients). TLF occurred in 43 patients (5.1%) of the BVS group and 34 patients (4.2%) of the EES group (absolute difference 0.9%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.2%-3.0%, p non-inferiority <0.001). Definite or probable device thrombosis (2.0% vs 0.6%, hazard ratio [HR] 3.32, 95% CI: 1.22-8.99, p=0.012) and TVMI (4.0% vs 2.1%, HR 1.96, 95% CI: 1.10-3.51, p=0.02) were significantly higher in the BVS group than in the EES group. In patients at high risk of restenosis, non-inferiority of BVS compared with EES in terms of TLF was met at one year. BVS carried a higher risk of device thrombosis and TVMI than EES.

Titanium-Nitride-Oxide–Coated Versus Everolimus-Eluting Stents in Acute Coronary Syndrome: The Randomized TIDES-ACS Trial

ObjectivesThis study sought to compare next-generation cobalt-chromium–based titanium-nitride-oxide (TiNO)–coated stents with a platinum-chromium–based biodegradable polymer everolimus-eluting stent (EES) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). BackgroundPrevious generation TiNO-coated stents showed acceptable performance in patients with ACS. MethodsIn a multicenter, randomized trial, we randomly assigned 1,491 ACS patients (2:1) to receive either a TiNO-coated stent (n = 989) or EES (n = 502). The primary endpoint was the rate of a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization at 12-month follow-up. The co-primary endpoint was a composite of cardiac death, MI, or major bleeding at 18 months. ResultsA primary endpoint event occurred in 6.3% of patients in the TiNO-coated stent group versus in 7.0% in the EES group (hazard ratio: 0.93; 95% confidence interval: 0.71 to 1.22; p = 0.66 for superiority; p < 0.001 for noninferiority). A co-primary endpoint event occurred in 3.7% of the patients in the TiNO group and in 7.8% in the EES group (hazard ratio: 0.64; 95% confidence interval: 0.51 to 0.80; p = 0.001). TiNO-coated stents were associated with lower rates of cardiac death (0.6% vs. 2.6%; p = 0.002) and MI (2.2% vs. 5.0%; p = 0.007) at 18 months of follow-up. Rates of target lesion revascularization were not significantly different at 18 months (5.8% vs. 4.4%; p = 0.27). ConclusionsIn patients with ACS, cobalt-chromium–based TiNO-coated stents were noninferior to platinum-chromium–based biodegradable polymer EES for major cardiac events at 12 months, and were superior for the co-primary endpoint of cardiac death, MI, and bleeding at 18 months. (Comparison of Titanium-Nitride-Oxide-Coated Bio-Active-Stent (Optimax™) to the Drug (Everolimus) -Eluting Stent (Synergy™) in Acute Coronary Syndrome [TIDES-ACS]; NCT02049229)

Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds Versus Drug-Eluting Stents for Diffuse Long Coronary Narrowings

Clinical benefits of bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) implantation for long coronary lesions were not sufficiently evaluated. The efficacy and safety of BVS and metallic everolimus-eluting stent (EES) were compared for the treatment of long coronary narrowings. A total of 341 patients with diffuse long lesions (requiring device length ≥28 mm) were randomized to receive either BVS (n = 171) or EES (n = 170) implantation. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events which included death from cardiac cause, myocardial infarction, device thrombosis, or ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization at 12 months. The trial was terminated early because the manufacturer stopped supplying BVS. The mean lesion length was 32.2 ± 13.1 mm in the BVS group and 35.3 ± 13.0 mm in the EES group. The 12-month follow-up was completed in 332 patients (97.4%). At 12 months, the primary endpoint events occurred in 2 patients (1.2%) in the BVS group and in 4 patients (2.4%) in the EES group (hazard ratio = 0.49, 95% confidence interval = 0.09 to 2.67, p = 0.398). Definite or probable device thrombosis occurred in 1 patient (0.6%) in the BVS group and 1 patient (0.6%) in the EES group (hazard ratio = 1.00, 95% confidence interval = 0.06 to 15.94, p = 0.998). In conclusion, in patients with long native coronary artery disease, significant differences between BVS and EES were not observed regarding the primary composite endpoint of death from cardiac cause, myocardial infarction, device thrombosis, or target-lesion revascularization at 12 months. However, due to the early termination of this trial and a low number of events, the results cannot be considered clinically relevant (clinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02796157).

Safety and Efficacy of Second-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents in Real-World Practice: Insights from the Multicenter Grand-DES Registry.

Objective In this study, we sought to compare the efficacy and safety of the Xience Prime/Xience V/Promus EES and Biomatrix/Biomatrix Flex/Nobori BES with resolute integrity/resolute ZES using the grand drug-eluting stent (Grand-DES) registry. Background Currently, new-generation drug-eluting stents (DESs) are used as the standard of care in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. No study has simultaneously compared everolimus-eluting stent (EES), biolimus-eluting stent (BES), and zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES). Methods Stent-related composite outcomes (target lesion failure) and patient-related composite outcomes were compared in crude and propensity score-matched analysis. Results Of the 17,286 patients in the Grand-DES group, 5,137, 2,970, and 4,990 patients in the EES, BES, and ZES groups completed a three-year follow-up. In the propensity score-matched cohort, the stent-related outcome (EES vs. BES vs. ZES; 5.9% vs. 6.7% vs. 7.1%, P = 0.226) and patient-related outcomes (12.7% vs. 13.5% vs. 14.3%, P = 0.226) and patient-related outcomes (12.7% vs. 13.5% vs. 14.3%, P = 0.226) and patient-related outcomes (12.7% vs. 13.5% vs. 14.3%, P = 0.226) and patient-related outcomes (12.7% vs. 13.5% vs. 14.3%, Conclusions In this robust real-world registry with unrestricted use of EES, BES, and ZES, the three stent groups showed comparable safety and efficacy at the 3-year follow-up.

Five-year outcomes after first- and second-generation drug-eluting stent implantation in all patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention

BackgroundUse of the everolimus-eluting stent (EES) instead of the sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) has been shown to improve clinical outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) out to 3 years. However, it is not known whether the differences in efficacy and safety outcomes remain constant throughout 5 years. MethodsThis was a retrospective, non-randomized, observational study. We followed 1460 consecutive patients undergoing PCI in our institutions from April 2005 to March 2012. There were 718 cases in patients with SES (SES group) and 742 with EES (EES group). Ten-month angiographic follow-up results and 5-year clinical follow-up outcomes were compared between the EES and SES groups. The primary outcome of this study was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as the composite of cardiac death, recurrent myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularization (TVR), and stent thrombosis (ST). ResultsAt 5 years, the rates of target lesion revascularization (TLR), TVR, recurrent MI and ST were significantly lower in the EES group compared to the SES group (TLR: 4.6% vs. 8.2%, p<0.05; TVR: 5.0% vs. 9.0%, p<0.05; recurrent MI: 1.5% vs. 4.4%, p<0.05; ST: 1.2% vs. 3.9%, p<0.05). Thus, MACE were significantly lesser in the EES group compared to the SES group (8.8% vs. 12.8%, p=0.006). ConclusionsEES improved clinical outcomes compared to SES, and specifically, was associated with reductions in TVR, ST, and recurrent MI out to 5 years.

Preclinical Evaluation of a Novel Sirolimus-Eluting Iron Bioresorbable Coronary Scaffold in Porcine Coronary Artery at 6 Months

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to investigate the operability, 6-month efficacy, and safety of the novel sirolimus-eluting iron bioresorbable coronary scaffold (IBS) system compared with a cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stent (EES) (XIENCE Prime stent) in porcine coronary arteries. BackgroundBioresorbable scaffolds have been considered the fourth revolution in percutaneous coronary intervention. However, the first-generation bioresorbable scaffold showed suboptimal results. MethodsForty-eight IBS and 48 EES were randomly implanted into nonatherosclerotic swine. The operability, efficacy, and safety of the IBS and EES were evaluated using coronary angiography, optical coherence tomography, micro–computed tomography, scanning electron microscopy, and histopathologic evaluation at 7, 14, 28, 90, and 180 days after implantation. ResultsThe operability of the ultrathin IBS (∼70 μm) was comparable with that of the EES, except for its visibility. There was no statistically significant difference in area stenosis between the IBS and EES from 28 to 180 days. The IBS maintained its integrity up to 90 days without corrosion, while corrosion was observed in a few struts in 2 of 10 IBS at 180 days. The percentage of endothelialization of IBS was higher than that of XIENCE Prime stents within 14 days after implantation. The fibrin score was higher in the IBS group at 28 days but comparable with the EES group at 90 and 180 days. No scaffold or stent thrombosis was seen in either group. No abnormal histopathologic changes in scaffolded or stented vessel segments and 5 main remote organs were observed in either group. ConclusionsPreclinical results suggest that the novel IBS has comparable operability, mid-term efficacy, and safety with the EES, and its corrosion profile in porcine coronary arteries is reasonable, which could support initial clinical study of the IBS.

Comparison of Resolute zotarolimus-eluting and Xience everolimus-eluting stents in patients with de novo long coronary artery lesions: a randomized LONG-DES VI trial.

Outcomes for stent-based coronary intervention of lesions with long diseased segments remain relatively unfavorable. This study sought to compare the efficacy of Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stents (R-ZES) and Xience everolimus-eluting stents (EES) for very long coronary lesions. This randomized, multicenter, prospective trial compared the use of R-ZES with EES for very long (≥50 mm) native coronary lesions. The primary end point was in-segment late luminal loss at 12-month angiographic follow-up. A total of 400 patients were needed to assess the primary end point. However, owing to very slow enrollment of patients, this trial was early terminated (302 patients were enrolled), and thus, this report provides descriptive information on primary and secondary end points. The R-ZES and EES groups had similar baseline characteristics. Lesion length was 49.6±10.2 and 50.6±13.3 mm in the R-ZES and EES groups, respectively (P=0.47). The number of stents used at the target lesion was 2.1±0.3 and 2.2±0.5, respectively. Twelve-month angiographic follow-up was performed in 50% of eligible patients. In-segment late luminal loss did not significantly differ between the R-ZES and EES groups (0.17±0.57 vs. 0.09±0.43 mm, P=0.32). In-segment binary restenosis rates were 8.1 and 5.3% in the R-ZES and EES groups, respectively (P=0.49). There were no significant between-group differences in the rate of adverse events (death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, target lesion revascularization, and composite outcomes). For patients with very long native coronary artery disease, R-ZES and EES implantation showed comparable angiographic and clinical outcomes through 1 year of follow-up.

Interim Results of the Basket of Real-World Randomised Clinical PRISM Trials for M’Sure-S, a Next-Generation Sirolimus-Eluting Stent, Versus Eliminator, an Everolimus-Eluting Stent

Objective: This study compared sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) with everolimus-eluting stents (EES) in coronary artery disease patients. Methods: A total of 1,174 patients were enrolled in the study; 290 patients (25.28%) were treated with EES and 884 patients (74.72%) were treated with SES. The trial (PRISM) was a randomised (in a 3:1 ratio), multicentre, single-blind, all-comers, single-arm, non-inferiority trial comparing SES and EES-implanted patients with coronary artery disease. The primary endpoint was a composite of safety parameters (including major adverse cardiac events [MACE], cardiac death, and myocardial infarction) and efficacy (parameters concerned to quantitative coronary angiogram). An intention-to-treat analysis was performed at 9 and 18-month follow-ups. Results: The baseline characteristics were similar for both EES and SES groups. At the 9-month follow-up, MACE occurred in 5.86% and 2.43% of patients in the EES and SES groups, respectively. At the 18-month follow-up, this differential remained almost the same (i.e., 5.17 % of patients treated with the EES versus 2.14% treated with the SES). The rate of definite stent thrombosis at 9-month follow-up was lower in the SES group (11 patients [1.24%]) compared to the EES group (9 patients [3.10%]). At 18-month follow-up, the rate was 2.14% (19 patients) in the SES group and 4.13% (12 patients) in the EES group. When censoring the patients at the time of stent thrombosis, no significant differences between the two stent groups were found. Conclusion: In this real-world trial, at 9 and 18-month follow-ups, SES (M’Sure-S) exhibited a better safety and efficacy profile when compared to EES in terms of MACE rates and definite stent thrombosis. However, the difference was not statistically significant and SES was found to be non-inferior to EES.

Japan-United States of America Harmonized Assessment by Randomized Multicentre Study of OrbusNEich's Combo StEnt (Japan-USA HARMONEE) study: primary results of the pivotal registration study of combined endothelial progenitor cell capture and drug-eluting stent in patients with ischaemic coronary disease and non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome.

AimsHarmonized Assessment by Randomized Multicentre Study of OrbusNEich’s Combo StEnt (HARMONEE) (NCT02073565) was a randomized pivotal registration trial of the Combo stent, which combined sirolimus and an abluminal bioabsorbable polymer with a novel endoluminal anti-CD34+ antibody coating designed to capture endothelial progenitor cells (EPC) and promote percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) site healing.Methods and resultsClinically stabilized PCI subjects were randomized 1:1 to receive Combo or everolimus-eluting stents (EES). Between February 2014 and June 2016, 572 subjects with 675 coronary lesions underwent 1-year angiography and fractional flow reserve, with optical coherence tomography (OCT) in the first 140 patients. The primary clinical endpoint was non-inferior 1-year target vessel failure (TVF). The primary mechanistic endpoint of EPC capture activity was superior strut coverage by OCT. Target vessel failure occurred in 7.0% Combo (20/287) vs. 4.2% EES (12/285), a 2.8% [95% confidence interval (95% CI) −1.0%, 6.5%] difference, meeting the non-inferiority hypothesis (P = 0.02). There were no cardiac deaths, with one stent thrombosis observed in the EES group. Quantitative coronary angiography late loss with Combo was equivalent to EES. Optical coherence tomography strut coverage at 1 year was superior with Combo vs. EES [91.3% (95% CI 88.7%, 93.8%) vs. 74.8% (95% CI 70.0%, 79.6%), P < 0.001], with homogeneous tissue in 81.2% vs. 68.8%, respectively.ConclusionCombo stent demonstrated non-inferior 1-year TVF and late loss in a randomized comparison to EES, with superior strut-based tissue coverage by OCT as a surrogate of EPC capture technology activity.

5-Year Outcome Following Randomized Treatment of All-Comers With Zotarolimus-Eluting Resolute Integrity and Everolimus-Eluting PROMUS Element Coronary Stents: Final Report of the DUTCH PEERS (TWENTE II) Trial

ObjectivesThe study sought to evaluate for the first time the 5-year outcomes after treating an all-comers population with newer-generation cobalt chromium-based Resolute Integrity zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZES) (Medtronic, Santa Rosa, California) versus platinum chromium-based PROMUS Element everolimus eluting stents (EES) (Boston Scientific, Natick, Massachusetts). BackgroundThe DUTCH PEERS (TWENTE II) (DUrable polymer-based sTent CHallenge of Promus ElemEnt versus ReSolute integrity: TWENTE II) trial is a randomized, multicenter, single-blinded, investigator-initiated all-comers trial that found at its main analysis similar 1-year safety and efficacy for both drug-eluting stents. It is the first randomized trial ever to investigate the Resolute Integrity ZES and the first trial to compare both devices. MethodsIn total, 1,811 patients were 1:1 randomized to ZES versus EES. We performed a pre-specified assessment of the 5-year clinical outcomes in terms of safety and efficacy. The main endpoint target vessel failure (TVF) is a composite of cardiac death, target vessel–related myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization. Secondary endpoints included the individual components of TVF, and stent thrombosis. The study was independently monitored, and adverse clinical events were independently adjudicated. ResultsFive-year clinical follow-up data was available in 1,798 (99.3%) patients. The ZES and EES groups showed favorable outcomes, with similar 5-year incidence of TVF (13.2% vs. 14.2%; plog-rank = 0.62) and its individual components: cardiac death (4.5% vs. 4.9%; plog-rank = 0.69), target vessel–related myocardial infarction (3.1% vs. 2.6%; plog-rank = 0.47), and target vessel revascularization (7.6% vs. 8.6%; plog-rank = 0.46). The 5-year incidence of definite or probable stent thrombosis was similar (1.5% vs. 1.3%; plog-rank = 0.83). ConclusionsAt 5-year follow-up, the Resolute Integrity ZES and PROMUS Element EES showed similar and sustained results in terms of safety and efficacy for treating a broad population of all-comers.

Early Strut Coverage in Patients Receiving Drug-Eluting Stents and its Implications for Dual Antiplatelet Therapy: A Randomized Trial

ObjectivesThis study sought to measure early strut coverage in patients receiving drug-eluting stents (DESs) and to explore the feasibility of short-term dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) based on the degree of early strut coverage. BackgroundData for early strut coverage in patients receiving new-generation DESs, and its implications for DAPT continuation were limited. MethodsA randomized, multicenter trial was conducted in 894 patients treated with DESs. Patients were randomly assigned to everolimus-eluting stent (EES) (n = 444) or biolimus-eluting stent (BES) (n = 450) groups and optical coherence tomography (OCT)-guided (n = 445) or angiography-guided (n = 449) implantation groups using a 2-by-2 factorial design. Early strut coverage was measured as the percentage of uncovered struts on 3-month follow-up OCT examination. The primary outcome was the difference in early strut coverage between EES and BES groups and between OCT- and angiography-guided implantation groups. The secondary outcome was a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, and major bleeding during the first 12 months post-procedure in patients receiving 3-month DAPT based on the presence of early strut coverage (≤6% uncovered) on 3-month follow-up OCT. ResultsThree-month follow-up OCT data were acquired for 779 patients (87.1%). The median percentage of uncovered struts at 3 months was 8.9% and 8.2% in the EES and BES groups, respectively (p = 0.69) and was lower in the OCT-guided group (7.5%) than in the angiography-guided group (9.9%; p = 0.009). Favorable early strut coverage (≤6% uncovered strut) was observed in 320 of 779 patients (41.1%). At 12 months, the composite event rarely occurred in the 3-month (0.3%) or 12-month (0.2%) DAPT groups (p = 0.80). ConclusionsOCT-guided DES implantation improved early strut coverage compared with angiography-guided DES implantation, with no difference in strut coverage between EES and BES groups. Short-term DAPT may be feasible in selected patients with favorable early strut coverage (Determination of the Duration of the Dual Antiplatelet Therapy by the Degree of the Coverage of The Struts on Optical Coherence Tomography From the Randomized Comparison Between Everolimus-eluting Stents Versus Biolimus A9-eluting Stents [DETECT-OCT]; NCT01752894)

Outcomes of a novel thin-strut bioresorbable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stent in patients with chronic total occlusions: A multicenter registry

BackgroundWe aimed to evaluate the mid-term outcomes of a novel thin-strut bioresorbable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (BP-SES) in chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), as compared with durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stents (EES). MethodsWe compiled a multicenter registry of patients undergoing CTO recanalization followed by BP-SES or EES implantation. The primary endpoint was the incidence of target-lesion failure (TLF, a composite of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, and target-lesion revascularization) at one year. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to adjust for case mix. ResultsOverall, 413 patients were included (BP-SES n = 242, EES n = 171). PSM resulted in 131 matched pairs, which represented the subject of the main analysis. Antegrade wire escalation was the most successful crossing technique (66% vs. 63%, p = 0.98) in both the BP-SES and EES groups, respectively. Procedural success rates were similar between groups (BP-SES 96% vs. EES 93%, p = 0.24). At one-year follow-up, there were no differences in the primary endpoint of TLF (5.7% vs. 8.3%, p = 0.44), and in cardiac death (0.9% vs. 2.8%, p = 0.32), target-vessel myocardial infarction (0.9% vs 1.9%, p = 0.57), target-lesion revascularization (3.7% vs 3.7%, p = 0.99), or stent thrombosis (0.9% vs. 1.9%, p = 0.57), in BP-SES vs. EES, respectively. ConclusionsPatients undergoing CTO PCI with BP-SES suffer a low rate of TLF at one-year follow-up, which is similar to that of subjects treated with durable-polymer EES.

A sirolimus-eluting bioabsorbable polymer-coated stent (MiStent) versus an everolimus-eluting durable polymer stent (Xience) after percutaneous coronary intervention (DESSOLVE III): a randomised, single-blind, multicentre, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial

MiStent is a drug-eluting stent with a fully absorbable polymer coating containing and embedding a microcrystalline form of sirolimus into the vessel wall. It was developed to overcome the limitation of current durable polymer drug-eluting stents eluting amorphous sirolimus. The clinical effect of MiStent sirolimus-eluting stent compared with a durable polymer drug-eluting stents has not been investigated in a large randomised trial in an all-comer population. We did a randomised, single-blind, multicentre, phase 3 study (DESSOLVE III) at 20 hospitals in Germany, France, Netherlands, and Poland. Eligible participants were any patients aged at least 18 years who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention in a lesion and had a reference vessel diameter of 2·50-3·75 mm. We randomly assigned patients (1:1) to implantation of either a sirolimus-eluting bioresorbable polymer stent (MiStent) or an everolimus-eluting durable polymer stent (Xience). Randomisation was done by local investigators via web-based software with random blocks according to centre. The primary endpoint was a non-inferiority comparison of a device-oriented composite endpoint (DOCE)-cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically indicated target lesion revascularisation-between the groups at 12 months after the procedure assessed by intention-to-treat. A margin of 4·0% was defined for non-inferiority of the MiStent group compared with the Xience group. All participants were included in the safety analyses. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02385279. Between March 20, and Dec 3, 2015, we randomly assigned 1398 patients with 2030 lesions; 703 patients with 1037 lesions were assigned to MiStent, of whom 697 received the index procedure, and 695 patients with 993 lesions were asssigned to Xience, of whom 690 received the index procedure. At 12 months, the primary endpoint had occurred in 40 patients (5·8%) in the sirolimus-eluting stent group and in 45 patients (6·5%) in the everolimus-eluting stent group (absolute difference -0·8% [95% CI -3·3 to 1·8], pnon-inferiority=0·0001). Procedural complications occurred in 12 patients (1·7%) in the sirolimus-eluting stent group and ten patients (1·4%) in the everolimus-eluting stent group; no clinical adverse events could be attributed to these dislodgements through a minimum of 12 months of follow-up. The rate of stent thrombosis, a safety indicator, did not differ between groups and was low in both treatment groups. The sirolimus-eluting bioabsorbable polymer stent was non-inferior to the everolimus-eluting durable polymer stent for a device-oriented composite clinical endpoint at 12 months in an all-comer population. MiStent seems a reasonable alternative to other stents in clinical practice. The European Cardiovascular Research Institute, Micell Technologies (Durham, NC, USA), and Stentys (Paris, France).

Ultrathin, bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents versus thin, durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents in patients undergoing coronary revascularisation (BIOFLOW V): a randomised trial

The development of coronary drug-eluting stents has included use of new metal alloys, changes in stent architecture, and use of bioresorbable polymers. Whether these advancements improve clinical safety and efficacy has not been shown in previous randomised trials. We aimed to examine the clinical outcomes of a bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent compared with a durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent in a broad patient population undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. BIOFLOW V was an international, randomised trial done in patients undergoing elective and urgent percutaneous coronary intervention in 90 hospitals in 13 countries (Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Hungary, Israel, the Netherlands, New Zealand, South Korea, Spain, Switzerland, and the USA). Eligible patients were those aged 18 years or older with ischaemic heart disease undergoing planned stent implantation in de-novo, native coronary lesions. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to either an ultrathin strut (60 μm) bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent or to a durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent. Randomisation was via a central web-based data capture system (mixed blocks of 3 and 6), and stratified by study site. The primary endpoint was 12-month target lesion failure. The primary non-inferiority comparison combined these data from two additional randomised trials of bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent and durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent with Bayesian methods. Analysis was by intention to treat. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02389946. Between May 8, 2015, and March 31, 2016, 4772 patients were recruited into the study. 1334 patients met inclusion criteria and were randomly assigned to treatment with bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (n=884) or durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (n=450). 52 (6%) of 883 patients in the bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent group and 41 (10%) of 427 patients in the durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent group met the 12-month primary endpoint of target lesion failure (95% CI -6·84 to -0·29, p=0·0399), with differences in target vessel myocardial infarction (39 [5%] of 831 patients vs 35 [8%] of 424 patients, p=0·0155). The posterior probability that the bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent is non-inferior to the durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent was 100% (Bayesian analysis, difference in target lesion failure frequency -2·6% [95% credible interval -5·5 to 0·1], non-inferiority margin 3·85%, n=2208). The outperformance of the ultrathin, bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent over the durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent in a complex patient population undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention suggests a new direction in improving next generation drug-eluting stent technology. BIOTRONIK.