Polymer Sirolimus-eluting Stent Research Articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

Biodegradable polymer-coated versus durable polymer-coated sirolimus-eluting stents: the final 5-year outcomes of the I-LOVE-IT 2 trial.

This analysis presents the final five-year results of the I-LOVE-IT 2 trial, a non-inferiority study comparing a biodegradable polymer (BP) sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) with a durable polymer (DP) SES in patients with coronary artery disease. Overall, 2,737 Chinese patients eligible for coronary stenting were treated with BP-SES or DP-SES in a 2:1 ratio. Patients who were randomised to the BP-SES group were additionally re-randomised to receive either six-month or 12-month dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in a 1:1 ratio. The primary endpoint was 12-month target lesion failure (TLF: cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction (MI), or clinically indicated target lesion revascularisation). At five years, the overall follow-up rate was 90.8%, and the cumulative incidence of TLF as the primary endpoint was similar between BP-SES and DP-SES (hazard ratio [HR] 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.79 to 1.28), as was that for the patient-oriented composite endpoint (PoCE: all-cause death, all MI and any revascularisation) (HR 1.03, 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.23), or definite/probable stent thrombosis (ST) (HR 0.91, 95% CI: 0.70 to 1.77). Cumulative events were also similar between the six-month DAPT and 12-month DAPT groups after BP-SES implantation. I-LOVE-IT 2 showed that the five-year safety and efficacy of BP-SES and DP-SES were similar, as were those between six months and 12 months of DAPT after BP-SES implantation.

Cardiovascular outcomes associated with Ultrathin bioresorbable polymer sirolimus eluting stents versus thin, durable polymer everolimus eluting stents following percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A meta-analysis of published studies.

Background:Percutaneous coronary intervention with the new generation drug eluting stents (DES) is 1 among the revascularization procedures required to treat patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). Since late stent thrombosis and silent myocardial infarction are highly associated with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), an analysis comparing the newer generation DES in this specific subgroup of patients would be scientifically relevant.In this analysis, we aimed to systematically compare the cardiovascular outcomes observed with the ultrathin bioresorbable polymer sirolimus eluting stents (SES) versus thin, durable polymer everolimus eluting stents (EES) following percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with T2DM.Methods:Through online databases, relevant studies comparing ultrathin bioresorbable polymer SES versus the durable polymer EES were carefully searched. The cardiovascular outcomes were assessed during a follow-up time period of 1 year and more than 1 year (1–5 years) respectively. This meta-analysis was carried out by the latest version of the RevMan software. Following analysis, the results were represented by odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).Results:A total number of 1967 patients with T2DM were included in this analysis. During a 1 year follow-up time period, target lesion failure (TLF) (OR: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.34–1.02; P = .06, target vessel revascularization (TVR) (OR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.55–1.70; P = .91) and target lesion revascularization (TLR) (OR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.44–1.87; P = .79) were similarly observed with ultrathin bioresorbable polymer SES versus the thin, durable polymer EES in these patients with T2DM. Other cardiovascular outcomes including myocardial infarction (MI), major adverse cardiac events, all-cause mortality (OR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.37–1.40; P = .34), cardiac death and stent thrombosis (OR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.45–1.62; P = .63) were also similarly observed with these 2 types of new stents. During a follow-up time period above 1 year (1–5 years), still no significant difference was observed in TLF, TVR, TLR, major adverse cardiac events, MI, all-cause mortality, cardiac death and stent thrombosis (OR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.33–1.16; P = .14).Conclusions:The ultrathin bioresorbable polymer SES were similar to the durable polymer EES in these patients with T2DM. These 2 types of new generation stents were comparable in terms of cardiovascular outcomes. Hence, they might be recommended in patients with T2DM. Upcoming trials should be able to confirm this hypothesis.

P3393Comparison of intermediate-term vascular response to new-generation biodegradable polymer and durable polymer-based drug-eluting stents: optical coherence tomographic study

Abstract Background Over the last decade, drug-eluting stents (DES) have undergone substantial modifications with thinner struts and more biocompatible durable polymer (DP) or biodegradable polymer (BP). In DP-based DES, after drug elusion has been completed, DP remnants may trigger of local inflammatory vascular reactions and promote delayed healing, leading to accelerated neoatherosclerosis (NA). Thus, BPs have been developed to reduce the above-mentioned risks. Recently, poor strut coverage and in-stent NA are increasingly recognized the cause of late stent failure, but it is unclear whether BPs can reduce the incidence of NA and the poor stent coverage as compared to DPs. Objectives The purpose of this study was to compare the incidence of NA and the stent coverage using optical coherence tomography (OCT) between the DPs and the BPs. Methods Between July 2016 and April 2018, 127 consecutive patients with new-generation DES who underwent 8-month follow up OCT imaging were enrolled. Patients were divided into the two groups: DP group who had the new-generation durable polymer everolimus-eluting and zotarolimus-eluting stents and BP group who had the new-generation biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting and everolimus-eluting stents. We compared patient characteristics including hypertension, dyslipidemia and diabetes mellitus and 8-month follow up OCT findings including NA, uncovered struts and malapposed struts between the two groups. Results The DP group comprised 64 patients (50.4%. The incidence of NA, uncovered struts and malapposed struts were similar between the two groups (DPs vs BPs, 1.56% vs 7.94%, P=0.11; 7.80% vs 5.88%, P=0.16 and 2.76% vs 2.01%, P=0.43, respectively) (table). The other parameters were also similar between the two groups. Table 1 DP group (n=64) BP group (n=63) P value Hypertension 44 (68.8%) 50 (79.4%) 0.2251 Dyslipidemia 39 (60.9%) 37 (58.7%) 0.8573 Diabetes mellitus 25 (39.1%) 30 (47.6%) 0.3731 8 month OCT follow up findings Neoatherosclerosis 1 (1.6%) 5 (7.9%) 0.1147 Uncovered struts 7.8% (2.8–20.4) 5.9% (0.7–16.7) 0.1616 Malapposed struts 0.2% (0–2.8) 0% (0–2.8) 0.4392 Conclusions The new-generation DP based-DES may have similar effects on vascular response compared to the new-generation BP-based DES during 8-month follow-up period.

Outcomes of patients treated with ultrathin-strut biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents versus fluoropolymer-based everolimus-eluting stents: a meta-analysis of randomised trials.

The ultrathin-strut biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) is a new-generation drug-eluting stent (DES) developed to improve the percutaneous treatment of patients with coronary artery disease. Here, we sought to investigate whether the performance of the ultrathin-strut biodegradable polymer SES is superior to that of the benchmark thin-strut fluoropolymer-based everolimus-eluting stent (EES). We undertook a study-level meta-analysis of trials in which patients receiving percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were randomly assigned to either SES or EES. Primary efficacy and safety outcomes were target lesion revascularisation (TLR) and definite/probable stent thrombosis (ST), respectively. Secondary outcomes were myocardial infarction (MI), death, target lesion failure (TLF) and target vessel failure (TVF). A total of 4,853 patients received a PCI with either SES (n=2,816) or EES (n=2,037) in six trials. After a weighted median follow-up of 12 months, patients treated with SES had a risk of TLR (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 1.24 [0.83-1.85], p=0.30), definite/probable ST (0.84 [0.53-1.33], p=0.45) and MI related to the target vessel (0.77 [0.55-1.07], p=0.12) comparable to that of patients treated with EES. We found no significant difference with regard to other secondary outcomes. At one-year follow-up, the ultrathin-strut biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent displays a performance comparable to that of the fluoropolymer-based everolimus-eluting stent.

Randomized comparison of biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents for percutaneous coronary revascularization: Rationale and design of the BIOSCIENCE trial

Biodegradable polymers for release of antiproliferative drugs from metallic drug-eluting stents aim to improve long-term vascular healing and efficacy. We designed a large scale clinical trial to compare a novel thin strut, cobalt-chromium drug-eluting stent with silicon carbide-coating releasing sirolimus from a biodegradable polymer (O-SES, Orsiro; Biotronik, Bülach, Switzerland) with the durable polymer-based Xience Prime/Xpedition everolimus-eluting stent (EES) (Xience Prime/Xpedition stent, Abbott Vascular, IL) in an all-comers patient population. The multicenter BIOSCIENCE trial (NCT01443104) randomly assigned 2,119 patients to treatment with biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) or durable polymer EES at 9 sites in Switzerland. Patients with chronic stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes, including non-ST-elevation and ST-elevation myocardial infarction, were eligible for the trial if they had at least 1 lesion with a diameter stenosis >50% appropriate for coronary stent implantation. The primary end point target lesion failure (TLF) is a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically driven target lesion revascularization within 12 months. Assuming a TLF rate of 8% at 12 months in both treatment arms and accepting 3.5% as a margin for noninferiority, inclusion of 2,060 patients would provide more than 80% power to detect noninferiority of the biodegradable polymer SES compared with the durable polymer EES at a 1-sided type I error of 0.05. Clinical follow-up will be continued through 5 years. The BIOSCIENCE trial will determine whether the biodegradable polymer SES is noninferior to the durable polymer EES with respect to TLF.

Comparison of Biodegradable Polymer Versus Durable Polymer Sirolimus‐Eluting Stenting in Patients with Acute ST‐Elevation Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Results of the RESOLVE Study

Sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) with a biodegradable polymer coating have demonstrated promising results but have not been compared to SES with a durable polymer in high-risk patients. We compared the efficacy of these 2 stent types in patients with acute myocardial infarction (STEMI). One thousand one hundred ninety-two STEMI patients were randomized to receive SES coated with biodegradable (n = 596) or durable polymer (n = 596). The study end-point was the composite of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) including all-cause death, recurrent myocardial infarction (MI), or target lesion revascularization (TLR) at 1-year follow-up. Secondary end-points included individual components of primary end-point and stent thrombosis. Compared with durable polymer SES, the noninferiority of SES with biodegradable polymer coating was established by an absolute risk difference of 0.9% in the primary end-point (12.4% vs. 13.3%, P = 0.67) and an upper limit of one-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of 2.96% (P for noninferiority = 0.001). Rate of death, recurrent MI, and TLR were 7.9% and 8.6% (HR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.61-1.38, P = 0.67), 2.9% and 3.5% (HR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.42-1.54, P = 0.51), and 2.0% and 3.2% (HR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.30-1.30, P = 0.20) in the biodegradable polymer SES and durable polymer SES group at 1-year clinical follow-up, respectively. Despite similar rates of 30-day ARC definite/probable stent thrombosis, late stent thrombosis (stent thrombosis occurring beyond 30 days) was lower with biodegradable polymer SES (0.7% vs. 2.2%, P = 0.028). In patients undergoing primary PCI for STEMI, the use of biodegradable polymer SES was associated with noninferior 1-year rates of MACE compared with durable polymer SES.

Long-term outcomes of biodegradable polymer versus durable polymer drug-eluting stents in patients with diabetes a pooled analysis of individual patient data from 3 randomized trials

BackgroundThere is ongoing debate on the optimal drug-eluting stent (DES) in diabetic patients with coronary artery disease. Biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents (BP-DES) may potentially improve clinical outcomes in these high-risk patients. We sought to compare long-term outcomes in patients with diabetes treated with biodegradable polymer DES vs. durable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (SES). MethodsWe pooled individual patient-level data from 3 randomized clinical trials (ISAR-TEST 3, ISAR-TEST 4 and LEADERS) comparing biodegradable polymer DES with durable polymer SES. Clinical outcomes out to 4years were assessed. The primary end point was the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction and target-lesion revascularization. Secondary end points were target lesion revascularization and definite or probable stent thrombosis. ResultsOf 1094 patients with diabetes included in the present analysis, 657 received biodegradable polymer DES and 437 durable polymer SES. At 4years, the incidence of the primary end point was similar with BP-DES versus SES (hazard ratio=0.95, 95% CI=0.74–1.21, P=0.67). Target lesion revascularization was also comparable between the groups (hazard ratio=0.89, 95% CI=0.65–1.22, P=0.47). Definite or probable stent thrombosis was significantly reduced among patients treated with BP-DES (hazard ratio=0.52, 95% CI=0.28–0.96, P=0.04), a difference driven by significantly lower stent thrombosis rates with BP-DES between 1 and 4years (hazard ratio=0.15, 95% CI=0.03–0.70, P=0.02). ConclusionsIn patients with diabetes, biodegradable polymer DES, compared to durable polymer SES, were associated with comparable overall clinical outcomes during follow-up to 4years. Rates of stent thrombosis were significantly lower with BP-DES.

Improved Safety and Reduction in Stent Thrombosis Associated With Biodegradable Polymer-Based Biolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Durable Polymer-Based Sirolimus-Eluting Stents in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: Final 5-Year Report of the LEADERS (Limus Eluted From A Durable Versus ERodable Stent Coating) Randomized, Noninferiority Trial

This study sought to report the final 5 years follow-up of the landmark LEADERS (Limus Eluted From A Durable Versus ERodable Stent Coating) trial. The LEADERS trial is the first randomized study to evaluate biodegradable polymer-based drug-eluting stents (DES) against durable polymer DES. The LEADERS trial was a 10-center, assessor-blind, noninferiority, "all-comers" trial (N=1,707). All patients were centrally randomized to treatment with either biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stents (BES) (n= 857) or durable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) (n= 850). The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), or clinically indicated target vessel revascularization within 9 months. Secondary endpoints included extending the primary endpoint to 5 years and stent thrombosis (ST) (Academic Research Consortium definition). Analysis was by intention to treat. At 5 years, the BES was noninferior to SES for the primary endpoint (186 [22.3%] vs. 216 [26.1%], rate ratio [RR]: 0.83 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.68 to 1.02], p for noninferiority <0.0001, pfor superiority= 0.069). The BES was associated with a significant reduction in the more comprehensive patient-orientated composite endpoint of all-cause death, any MI, and all-cause revascularization (297 [35.1%] vs. 339 [40.4%], RR: 0.84 [95% CI: 0.71 to 0.98], p for superiority= 0.023). A significant reduction in very late definite ST from 1 to 5 years was evident with the BES (n= 5 [0.7%] vs. n= 19 [2.5%], RR: 0.26 [95% CI: 0.10 to 0.68], p= 0.003), corresponding to a significant reduction in ST-associated clinical events (primary endpoint) over the same time period (n= 3 of 749 vs. n= 14 of 738, RR: 0.20 [95% CI: 0.06 to 0.71], p= 0.005). The safety benefit of the biodegradable polymer BES, compared with the durable polymer SES, was related to a significant reduction in very late ST (>1 year) and associated composite clinical outcomes. (Limus Eluted From A Durable Versus ERodable Stent Coating [LEADERS] trial; NCT00389220).

A randomised comparison of a novel abluminal groove-filled biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent with a durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent: clinical and angiographic follow-up of the TARGET I trial

The study sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of FIREHAWK, a novel abluminal groove-filled biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) for treating patients with single de novo coronary lesions compared with the durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent (EES) XIENCE V. A total of 458 patients with single de novo native coronary lesions ≤24 mm in length and a coronary artery ≥2.25 to ≤4.0 mm in diameter were enrolled in the TARGET I study, a prospective, randomised, non-inferiority trial. The primary endpoint was in-stent late lumen loss (LLL) at nine-month follow-up. The secondary endpoint, target lesion failure (TLF), was defined as the composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction (TVMI), or ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularisation (iTLR). Patients were centrally randomised to treatment with either biodegradable polymer SES (n=227) or durable polymer EES (n=231). The nine-month in-stent LLL of the biodegradable polymer SES was comparable to the EES group (0.13 ± 0.24 mm vs. 0.13 ± 0.18 mm, p=0.94; difference and 95% confidence interval 0.00 [-0.04, 0.04] mm; p for non-inferiority <0.0001). Cardiac death (0.4% vs. 0.0%), TVMI (1.3% vs. 1.7%), iTLR (0.4% vs. 0.4%) and TLF (2.2% vs. 2.2%) were similar between the biodegradable polymer SES and durable polymer EES groups at 12-month follow-up (all p>0.05). No definite/probable stent thrombosis was observed in both of these groups. In the multicentre TARGET I trial, the novel abluminal groove-filled biodegradable polymer SES FIREHAWK was non-inferior to the durable polymer EES XIENCE V with respect to the primary endpoint of in-stent LLL at nine months for treating patients with single de novo coronary lesions. The incidences of clinical endpoints were low in both of the stents at 12-month follow-up. (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01196819).

Quantitative assessment of late lumen loss after biodegradable polymer and permanent polymer sirolimus-eluting stents implantation

Background Sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) are reported to be associated with reduced late lumen loss (LLL), resulting in less frequent restenosis when compared to bare-metal stent. The current study aimed to assess the difference in LLL between SES with biodegradable and with permanent polymer. Methods From March 2010 to June 2011, 300 consecutive patients having only biodegradable polymers or permanent polymer SES for all diseased vessels were included. Serial quantitative coronary analysis was performed on both the “in-stent” and “segment” area, including the stented segment, as well as both five mm margins proximal and distal to the stent. The primary endpoint was the LLL defined as the minimal lumen diameter (MLD) post-stenting minus the MLD at nine-month after the indexed procedure. Results LLL was comparable between the two stents. Importantly, LLL for the distal segment (median 0.05 mm, interquartile 0 to 0.09 mm) was less severe compared with in-stent (median 0.13 mm, interquartile 0.08 to 0.18 mm) and proximal segment LLL (median 0.12 mm, interquartile 0.06 to 0.14 mm, all P &lt;0.001). In general, the LLL was associated with the post-procedure MLD (b=0.28, P=0.002), hyperlipidemia (b=0.14, P=0.021), and calcified lesions (b=0.58, P=0.001). The R 2 and R adj of the multiple regression model were 0.651 and 0.625, respectively. Conclusions SES with either biodegradable or permanent polymer had lower value of LLL. The small amount of LLL at the distal segment possibly contributed to the less distal edge stenosis.

Nine-month angiographic and 2-year clinical follow-up of the NOYA biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent in the treatment of patients with de novo native coronary artery lesions: the NOYA I trial

This study sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the NOYA stent which is a cobalt chromium-based sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) with DL-polylactide biodegradable polymer (Medfavour Medical, Beijing, China) in treating de novo coronary artery lesions. The NOYA I trial was designed to compare the NOYA stent with the FIREBIRD2™ stent, a durable polymer SES widely used in China (MicroPort Medical, Shanghai, China); the trial was a non-inferiority trial with a primary angiographic endpoint of the in-stent late lumen loss (LLL) at nine-month follow-up. The secondary endpoints were binary restenosis rates within nine months, major adverse cardiac events (MACE) defined as the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI) or target lesion revascularisation (TLR), and definite/probable stent thrombosis (ST) at 24-month follow-up. A total of 300 patients (n=150 in each group) were enrolled in the study from 16 Chinese centres. The LLL in the NOYA group at nine-month follow-up was similar to the FIREBIRD2 group (0.11±0.18 mm vs. 0.14±0.23 mm, p=0.16; non-inferiority p<0.001). The rates of MACE, death, MI and TLR at 24-month follow-up were comparable between these two devices (p>0.05, respectively). The biodegradable polymer NOYA stent was non-inferior to the FIREBIRD2 durable polymer stent with respect to the primary non-inferiority endpoint of in-stent LLL at nine-month follow-up. Clinical outcomes at 24-month follow-up were comparable between the two stents. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01226355).

Biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents reduce the risk of stent thrombosis at 4 years in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a pooled analysis of individual patient data from the ISAR-TEST 3, ISAR-TEST 4, and LEADERS randomized trials

The efficacy of durable polymer drug-eluting stents (DES) is delivered at the expense of delayed healing of the stented vessel. Biodegradable polymer DES aim to avoid this shortcoming and may potentially improve long-term clinical outcomes, with benefit expected to accrue over time. We sought to compare long-term outcomes in patients treated with biodegradable polymer DES vs. durable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (SES). We pooled individual patient data from three large-scale multicentre randomized clinical trials (ISAR-TEST 3, ISAR-TEST 4, and LEADERS) comparing biodegradable polymer DES with durable polymer SES and assessed clinical outcomes during follow-up through 4 years. The efficacy endpoint of interest was target lesion revascularization and the safety endpoint of interest was definite stent thrombosis. Out of 4062 patients included in the present analysis, 2358 were randomly assigned to treatment with biodegradable polymer DES (sirolimus-eluting, n= 1501; biolimus-eluting, n= 857) and 1704 patients to durable polymer SES. No heterogeneity across the trials was observed in analyses of the primary and secondary endpoints. At 4 years, the risk of target lesion revascularization was significantly lower among patients treated with biodegradable polymer DES vs. durable polymer SES (hazard ratio 0.82, 95% CI 0.68-0.98, P= 0.029). In addition, the risk of stent thrombosis was significantly reduced with biodegradable polymer DES vs. durable polymer SES (hazard ratio 0.56, 95% CI 0.35-0.90, P= 0.015), driven by a lower risk of very late stent thrombosis (hazard ratio 0.22, 95% CI 0.08-0.61, P= 0.004). In keeping with this, in landmark analysis between 1 and 4 years, the incidence of myocardial infarction was lower for patients treated with biodegradable polymer DES vs. durable polymer SES (hazard ratio 0.59, 95% CI 0.73-0.95, P= 0.031). Biodegradable polymer DES improve safety and efficacy compared with durable polymer SES during long-term follow-up to 4 years.