Ultrathin-strut Drug-eluting Stents Research Articles

Long-term clinical and angiographic outcome of T-and protrusion technique with ultrathin strut drug eluting stents.

Data about coronary bifurcations treated with ultrathin strut drug-eluting stents (DES) using T-and-protrusion (TAP) technique is limited. In this study, a total of 84 consecutive patients, who underwent bifurcation percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with TAP technique using Orsiro® DES (Biotronik, Berlin, Germany), were included. All pre- and post-procedural data, as well as 1- and 2-year follow-up angiograms, were analyzed. Primary endpoints were procedural success and target lesion failure (TLF); secondary endpoints were all-cause mortality and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) during follow-up. Procedural success was achieved in 100% of cases. TLF rate was higher in patients presented with acute coronary syndrome compared to the ones with chronic coronary syndrome (19% vs. 5% p = 0.09). All-cause mortality was 30% during follow-up, from which 26% was due to non-cardiovascular cause, and the MACCE rate was 46%. Coronary bifurcations treated with ultrathin strut DES showed good short-term results and were associated with acceptable cardiovascular mortality. However, in these long-term patients, the rate of MACCE and non-cardiovascular death were rather high.

Treatment of in-stent restenosis with ultrathin-strut versus thin-strut drug-eluting stents or drug-eluting balloons: a multicentre registry.

Limited data exist on ultrathin-strut drug-eluting stent (ultrathin DES) performance in DES in-stent restenosis (ISR). We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of ultrathin DES compared to thin-strut DES and drug-eluting balloons (DEB) for DES-ISR. Patients from the DEB Dragon (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04415216) and ULTRA registries (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05205148) were divided into ultrathin DES, thin-strut DES, or DEB groups for DES-ISR treatment. Both propensity score matching (PSM) and inverse probability weighting (IPW) were considered to adjust the distribution of patients in each class. Cox regression was applied to the following main endpoints: device-oriented composite endpoints (DOCE; including cardiac death, target lesion revascularisation [TLR] and target vessel myocardial infarction), TLR and target vessel revascularisation (TVR). A total of 269, 541, and 557 patients received an ultrathin DES, thin-strut DES, and DEB, respectively. After 3 years of follow-up, in the IPW-adjusted overall cohort, ultrathin DES were associated with a significantly reduced risk of DOCE compared to DEBs (hazard ratio [HR] 0.353, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.194-0.642; p<0.001), as well as thin-strut DES (HR 0.645, 95% CI: 0.457-0.911; p=0.013). Compared to DEBs, ultrathin DES also reduced the risks of both TLR (HR 0.184, 95% CI: 0.081-0.417; p<0.001) and TVR (HR 0.188, 95% CI: 0.093-0.379; p<0.001), while thin-strut DES did not (TLR: HR 0.686, 95% CI: 0.407-1.157; p=0.157; TVR: HR 0.706, 95% CI: 0.453-1.101; p=0.124). For diffuse ISR patients, ultrathin DES reduced the risk of DOCE (HR 0.364, 95% CI: 0.188-0.705; p=0.003), as did thin-strut DES (HR 0.602, 95% CI: 0.367-0.987; p=0.044), while a reduction of TLR (HR 0.220, 95% CI: 0.091-0.531; p<0.001) and TVR (HR 0.241, 95% CI: 0.113-0.513; p<0.001) was achieved only by ultrathin DES. Ultrathin DES were associated with reduced DOCE, TLR and TVR risks in diffuse ISR compared to DEBs.

Comparison Among Ultra-Thin Coronary Stents: A Network Meta-Analysis

Ultrathin-strut drug-eluting stents (DES) have been related to potential improvement in stent-related outcomes compared with thicker-struts DES. However, comparisons among different ultrathin devices are lacking. All randomized controlled trials comparing ultrathin (struts thickness <70 µm) and thicker-struts DESs in an all-comers population were included. Target lesion failure (TLF), as defined by included trials, at 1-year follow-up was the primary end point. Overall mortality, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization (TLR), and stent thrombosis were the secondary end points. Arms of included trials were compared using network meta-analysis. Nine studies encompassing 20,081 patients were included, of which 9,509 patients had an ultrathin DES: Orsiro (evaluated in 7 arms with 8,086 patients), MiStent (1 arm with 703 patients), or Supraflex (1 arm with 720 patients). At 1-year follow-up, no significant differences were noted for TLF among these ultrathin DES. In particular, Orsiro was associated with a similar risk of TLF compared with Supraflex (risk rate 1.07, 95% confidence interval 0.59 to 1.78) and showed the highest probability of performing best in terms of TLF, myocardial infarction, and TLR. Ultrathin DES are all associated with a comparable risk of TLF compared with thicker-strut DES. In terms of TLR and TLF risk, Orsiro was the one with the highest probability of best performances, either compared with other ultrathin DES or to devices with thicker struts.

Long-term outcomes following ultrathin vs thin-strut drug-eluting stents for percutaneous coronary intervention: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized control trials.

Current thin-strut 2nd generation drug eluting stents (DES) are considered as optimal standard of care for revascularization of coronary artery disease (CAD) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Ultrathin (≤ 70 μm strut thickness) strut DES have recently been shown to reduce target lesion failure (TLF) compared to thin-strut DES. Therefore, in order to assess the validity of improved outcomes associated with ultrathin-strut DES, we conducted an updated meta-analysis that includes recently published follow-ups of previously conducted randomized controlled trials (RCTs). MEDLINE and Scopus were queried from their inception to May 2024 to identify studies comparing outcomes between ultrathin and current thin-strut 2nd generation DES groups. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted to derive risk ratios (RR) from dichotomous data. The primary endpoint was long-term TLF defined as a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction (TV-MI) and clinically driven target lesion revascularization (CD-TLR). The secondary outcome was target-vessel failure (TVF) defined as a composite of cardiac death, TV-MI and clinically driven target-vessel revascularization (CD-TVR). A total of 17 RCTs (n=22141) with a mean follow-up of 34 months were included. The risk of TLF was significantly lowered in the ultrathin DES group in comparison to thin-strut DES. A significant decrease was also noted in rates of TVF, CD-TLR and CD-TVR in the ultrathin DES vs thin-strut DES group. The results of our analysis demonstrate a significantly reduced risk of TLF in the ultrathin DES group in comparison with thin-strut DES. Ultrathin DES was also associated with a significantly decreased risk of TVF, CD-TLR and CD-TVR.

Faster smooth muscle cell coverage in ultrathin-strut drug-eluting stent leads to earlier re-endothelialization.

Background: The ultrathin-strut drug-eluting stent (DES) has shown better clinical results than thin- or thick-strut DES. We investigated if re-endothelialization was different among three types of DES: ultrathin-strut abluminal polymer-coated sirolimus-eluting stent (SES), thin-strut circumferential polymer-coated everolimus-eluting stent (EES), and thick-strut polymer-free biolimus-eluting stent (BES) to gain insight into the effect of stent design on promoting vascular healing. Methods: After implanting three types of DES in the coronary arteries of minipigs, we performed optical coherence tomography (OCT) at weeks 2, 4, and 12 (n = 4, each). Afterward, we harvested the coronary arteries and performed immunofluorescence for endothelial cells (ECs), smooth muscle cells (SMCs), and nuclei. We obtained 3D stack images of the vessel wall and reconstructed the en face view of the inner lumen. We compared re-endothelialization and associated factors among the different types of stents at different time points. Results: SES showed significantly faster and denser re-endothelialization than EES and BES at weeks 2 and 12. Especially in week 2, SES elicited the fastest SMC coverage and greater neointimal cross-sectional area (CSA) compared to EES and BES. A strong correlation between re-endothelialization and SMC coverage was observed in week 2. However, the three stents did not show any difference at weeks 4 and 12 in SMC coverage and neointimal CSA. At weeks 2 and 4, SMC layer morphology showed a significant difference between stents. A sparse SMC layer was associated with denser re-endothelialization and was significantly higher in SES. Unlike the sparse SMC layer, the dense SMC layer did not promote re-endothelialization during the study period. Conclusion: Re-endothelialization after stent implantation was related to SMC coverage and SMC layer differentiation, which were faster in SES. Further investigation is needed to characterize the differences among the SMCs and explore methods for increasing the sparse SMC layer in order to improve stent design and enhance safety and efficacy.

Is There an Advantage of Ultrathin-Strut Drug-Eluting Stents over Second- and Third-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents?

In patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, the second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) are considered the gold standard of care for revascularization. By reducing neointimal hyperplasia, drug-eluting coronary stents decrease the need for repeat revascularizations compared with conventional coronary stents without an antiproliferative drug coating. It is important to note that early-generation DESs were associated with an increased risk of very late stent thrombosis, most likely due to delayed endothelialization or a delayed hypersensitivity reaction to the polymer. Studies have shown a lower risk of very late stent thrombosis with developing second-generation DESs with biocompatible and biodegradable polymers or without polymers altogether. In addition, research has indicated that thinner struts are associated with a reduced risk of intrastent restenosis and angiographic and clinical results. A DES with ultrathin struts (strut thickness of 70 µm) is more flexible, facilitates better tracking, and is more crossable than a conventional second-generation DES. The question is whether ultrathin eluting drug stents suit all kinds of lesions. Several authors have reported that improved coverage with less thrombus protrusion reduced the risk of distal embolization in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Others have described that an ultrathin stent might recoil due to low radial strength. This could lead to residual stenosis and repeated revascularization of the artery. In CTO patients, the ultrathin stent failed to prove non-inferiority regarding in-segment late lumen loss and showed statistically higher rates of restenosis. Ultrathin-strut DESs with biodegradable polymers have limitations when treating calcified (or ostial) lesions and CTOs. However, they also possess certain advantages regarding deliverability (tight stenosis, tortuous lesions, high angulation, etc.), ease of use in bifurcation lesions, better endothelialization and vascular healing, and reducing stent thrombosis risk. In light of this, ultrathin-strut stents present a promising alternative to existing DESs of the second and third generation. The aims of the study are to compare ultrathin eluting stents with second- and third-generation conventional stents regarding procedural performance and outcomes based on different lesion types and specific populations.

Determinants of neointimal strut coverage in bio-degradable polymer coated ultrathin strut stent

Abstract Introduction Incomplete strut coverage (ISC) is the most important morphometric determinant of stent thrombosis. Determinants of ISC have been studied in thick and thin strut stents. Purpose To identify morphometric factors causing ISC in the biodegradable polymer-coated ultra-thin strut drug eluting stent (BP-UTS-DES) that are designed to encourage better strut coverage. Methods Patients undergoing implantation of a 65μm BP-UTS-DES had opportunistic OCT during staged PCI to assess strut coverage at 90 days. Images were analysed offline by experienced operators blinded to patient and procedural data. Neointimal thickness (NIT, μm) was measured as the minimum endoluminal distant between the strut and lumen border. All malapposed struts were considered uncovered. ISC was defined as &amp;lt;100% covered struts in a frame. Stepwise logistic regression using multiple morphometric variables was used to identify independent determinants of ISC including markers of circumferential distribution of neointimal growth (CVS,NUS,RUS), symmetry of stent expansion (SEI, AVS, MAS) in each cross section and the geographical location of the frame along the axis of the stent. Results We analysed 11652 frames of 65 stents (1976 mm) in 46 arteries of 40 patients. All stents were post dilated. 95.6% arteries had &amp;gt;20mm stents, 39.1% were overlapped and 15.2% were chronic total occlusions. Malapposition was seen in 2.6% of all struts and 39.2% of uncovered struts. The proportion of covered struts decreased as indices of circumferential uniformity of distribution of neointimal hyperplasia increased (CVS: r=0.37, p&amp;lt;0.001; RUS: r=0.36, p&amp;lt;0.001; NUS: r=0.52, p&amp;lt;0.001). As uniformity of stent expansion improved (SEI increased) strut coverage and circumferential uniformity of neointimal hyperplasia increased (CVS, NUS and RUS decreased) suggesting that distribution of neointimal growth becomes homogeneous as uniformity of stent expansion improves (Fig. 1). Determinants ISC is shown in Table 1. Conclusion SEI but not AVS or MAS determines ISC. Compared to the distal third of the stent frames in the middle third had lower and the proximal third had high risk of ISC. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None.

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.

Sirolimus-eluting stents with ultrathin struts versus everolimus-eluting stents for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: final three-year results of the TALENT trial.

In the TALENT study, the sirolimus-eluting ultrathin strut Supraflex stent was non-inferior to the XIENCE stent for a device-oriented composite endpoint (DoCE: defined as cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction [TV-MI], or clinically indicated target lesion revascularisation [CI-TLR]) at 12 months. This study investigated the 3-year outcomes of the TALENT trial and long-term impact of ultrathin drug-eluting stents (DES), compared to the XIENCE everolimus-eluting thin stent. The TALENT trial is a prospective, multicentre, randomised all-comers trial comparing the Supraflex sirolimus-eluting stent with the XIENCE everolimus-eluting stent, with planned follow-up for 3 years. The TALENT trial enrolled 1,435 patients (Supraflex n=720, XIENCE n=715) with 3-year follow-up data available in 97.8% in the Supraflex group, and in 98.9% in the XIENCE group. At 3 years, DoCE occurred in 57 patients (8.1%) in the Supraflex group, and in 66 patients (9.4%) in the XIENCE group (p=0.406). There were no significant between-group differences in rates of cardiac death, TV-MI or CI-TLR. The rates of definite or probable stent thrombosis were low and similar between groups (1.1% vs 1.4%; p=0.640). In a meta-analysis of long-term follow-up (3-5 years), ultrathin strut DES tended to reduce DoCE (relative risk 0.89 [0.79-1.01]; p=0.068), compared to thicker strut DES. The risks for cardiac death and definite or probable stent thrombosis were similar between ultrathin strut DES and thicker strut DES. At 3-year follow-up, the use of the Supraflex stent was at least as safe and efficacious as the XIENCE stent in an all-comers population. gov: NCT02870140.

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

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

Gender-Associated Outcomes Following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With a Third-Generation, Ultrathin-Strut Drug-Eluting Stent: A Real-World, Single-Center Experience.

IntroductionIn recent years, the new third-generation ultrathin bioresorbable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (BP-SES), characterized by some of the thinnest struts among commercially available devices (60–80 μm) and an amorphous silicon carbide coating, has been introduced for the treatment of coronary artery disease (CAD). The present study aimed to assess different clinical outcomes and safety of this drug-eluting stent in male and female patients in a real-world setting.MethodsThe present study is a retrospective analysis including all patients treated with BP-SES between January 2017 and December 2019 at a single high-volume center. Follow-up data, including stress test results and clinical setting, were collected during outpatient visits or by telephone contact. Patients symptomatic for angina or with a positive stress test were addressed to CT scan/coronary angiogram. The main study outcome was target lesion failure (TLF), defined as a composite of cardiovascular death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization.ResultsOverall, 66 (15.9%) female and 349 (84.1%) male patients were included; women were older (median age 70 vs. 66, P = 0.003) and with a lower body mass index (BMI) (25.0 vs. 26.1, P = 0.010) compared to men, with no other relevant differences in baseline characteristics. Indication for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was acute coronary syndrome in 86 (20.7%) of the cases, with no significant differences between male and female patients. A total of 558 lesions were treated with BP-SES stents, 90 in women and 468 in men (1.36 vs. 1.34 lesions per patient, P = 0.83); cumulative stent length (33.6 vs. 38.4 mm, P = 0.078), and mean stent diameter (2.92 vs. 3.0 mm, P = 0.39) did not differ in women compared to men. Technical and clinical successes were achieved in all patients. Stent thrombosis (ST) occurred in 2 (0.5%) patients, both men. TLF occurred in 10 (2.9%) men and 2 (3.0%) women after a median follow-up of 402 days, without significant differences at log-rank analysis (2.34 events per 100 patient-years in men, 2.53 in women; P = 0.80).ConclusionUltrathin struts BP-SES showed to be a safe and effective option for the treatment of CAD in both women and men, with a very low ST rate and favorable long-term outcomes.

Differential Effects of Newer-Generation Ultrathin-Strut Versus Thicker-Strut Drug-Eluting Stents in Chronic and AcuteCoronary Syndromes.

The authors sought to compare the differential effects of ultrathin-strut and thicker-strut drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients with chronic (CCS) versus acute (ACS) coronary syndromes. Newest-generation ultrathin-strut DES reduce target lesion failure (TLF) compared with thicker-strut second-generation DES in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for randomized controlled trials comparing newer-generation ultrathin-strut (<70μm) versus thicker-strut (≥70μm) DES. Patients were divided based on baseline clinical presentation (CCS versus ACS). The primary endpoint was TLF, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically indicated target lesion revascularization (TLR). A total of 22,766 patients from 16 randomized controlled trials were included, of which 9 trials reported TLF rates in ACS patients. At a mean follow-up of 12.2months, the risk of TLF was lower among patients treated with ultrathin-strut compared with thicker-strut DES (risk ratio [RR]: 0.85; 95%CI: 0.75-0.95; P=0.006). The difference was driven by a lower risk of clinically-indicated TLR (RR: 0.75; 95%CI: 0.63-0.89; P< 0.001) among patients treated with ultrathin-strut DES. The treatment effect was consistent between patients presenting with CCS and ACS (relative RR: 0.97; 95%CI: 0.73-1.31; P for interaction=0.854). In patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, TLF risk was lower among those treated with ultrathin- compared with thicker-strut DES (RR: 0.74; 95%CI: 0.54-0.99; P=0.049). Ultrathin-strut DES reduce the risk of TLF compared with thicker-strut second-generation DES in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, a difference caused by a lower risk of ischemia-driven TLR. The treatment effect was consistent among patients with CCS and ACS.

Long-term follow-up after ultrathin vs. conventional 2nd-generation drug-eluting stents: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Contemporary 2nd-generation thin-strut drug-eluting stents (DES) are considered standard of care for revascularization of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. A previous meta-analysis of 10 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 11658 patients demonstrated a 16% reduction in the 1-year risk of target lesion failure (TLF) with ultrathin-strut DES compared with conventional 2nd-generation thin-strut DES. Whether this benefit is sustained longer term is not known, and newer trial data may inform these relative outcomes. We therefore sought to perform an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs comparing clinical outcomes with ultrathin-strut DES (≤70 µm strut thickness) with conventional 2nd-generation thin-strut DES. We performed a random-effects meta-analysis of all RCTs comparing ultrathin-strut DES to conventional 2nd-generation thin-strut DES. The pre-specified primary endpoint was long-term TLF, a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), or clinically driven target lesion revascularization (CD-TLR). Secondary endpoints included the components of TLF, stent thrombosis (ST), and all-cause death. There were 16 eligible trials in which 20701 patients were randomized. The weighted mean follow-up duration was 2.5 years. Ultrathin-strut DES were associated with a 15% reduction in long-term TLF compared with conventional 2nd-generation thin-strut DES [relative risk (RR) 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76-0.96, P = 0.008] driven by a 25% reduction in CD-TLR (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.62-0.92, P = 0.005). There were no significant differences between stent types in the risks of MI, ST, cardiac death, or all-cause mortality. At a mean follow-up of 2.5 years, ultrathin-strut DES reduced the risk of TLF, driven by less CD-TLR compared with conventional 2nd-generation thin-strut DES, with similar risks of MI, ST, cardiac death, and all-cause mortality.

A Narrative Review of Ultrathin-strut Drug-eluting Stents: The Thinner the Better?

Second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) are considered standard of care for revascularization of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Besides the polymer and antiproliferative drug used, the metallic backbone of DES is an attractive target for further development. Ultrathin-strut DES (≤70 μm strut thickness) are more flexible, have an improved trackability and crossability compared to conventional second-generation DES. Importantly, ultrathin-strut DES reduce the risk of in-stent restenosis, thereby decreasing the risk of angiographic and clinical restenosis. In this narrative review, we will discuss the clinical outcomes of the commercially available ultrathin-strut DES.

Long-term efficacy and safety of newer generation ultrathin strut drug-eluting stents: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract Background Recent trials have demonstrated that short-term efficacy and safety of ultrathin strut drug-eluting stents (DES) were non-inferior to contemporary stents but long-term benefit remains uncertain. Purpose The main objective of this meta-analysis was to evaluate efficacy and safety of ultrathin strut DES with an extended follow-up in comparison to 2nd and 3rd generations DES. Methods A double-blind review of randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing ultrathin strut DES to contemporary DES was performed from MEDLINE and CENTRAL databases and from cardiological congresses. The primary efficacy endpoint was target vessel failure (TLF) defined as a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction (TV-MI) and target lesion revascularization (TLR) and the primary safety endpoint was occurrence of stent thrombosis (ST). Short (1 year) and long term (≥2 years) effects were estimated separately. This analysis was pre-specified in PROSPERO (CRD42019142206). Results The meta-analysis included 13 RCT including 19,490 patients. In short term, we found TLF decrease with ultrathin strut DES (RR 0.85, CI [0.75–0.97], p=0.01), driven by lower TV-MI (RR 0.83, CI [0.66–1.03], p=0.1) and TLR (RR 0.77, CI [0.58–1.01], p=0.1) rates, and a non-significant downward trend in ST (RR 0.85 CI [0.64–1.14]). In long term, from the 5 trials with extended follow-up, there was no significant difference between ultrathin strut DES and thicker strut stents in rate of TLF at the longest available follow-up (RR 0.90, CI [0.76–1.06], p=0.2), despite a numerically reduction of TV-MI (RR 0.81, CI [0.61–1.08], p=0.05) and TLR (RR 0.85, CI [0.69–1.04], p=0.1) in favor of ultrathin strut stents. However, we observed a persistent numerically reduction in ST (RR 0.79, CI [0.61–1.02], p=0.01). Conclusion Ultrathin strut DES was associated with a lower target lesion failure rate at one year but not beyond 2-years follow-up. Nevertheless, the safety of the ultrathin strut stents was sustained over time with a numerically reduction of ST. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None

Clinical outcomes with unselected use of an ultrathin-strut sirolimus-eluting stent: a report from the Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry (SCAAR).

The aim of this study was to assess the real-world clinical performance of a sirolimus-eluting ultrathin-strut drug-eluting stent (DES) (Orsiro) in a large nationwide cohort of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). From the Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry, the two-year outcomes of 4,561 patients implanted with Orsiro (Orsiro group) and 69,570 receiving other newer-generation DES (n-DES group) were analysed. The rate of definite stent thrombosis was low in both groups (0.67% and 0.83% for Orsiro and n-DES, respectively; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.90, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.55-1.46, p-value 0.66). Restenosis was also infrequent (1.5% vs 2.0% with Orsiro and n-DES, adjusted HR 0.81, 95% CI: 0.63-1.03, p-value=0.09). The risk of target lesion revascularisation by PCI was lower in the Orsiro group (1.6% vs 2.3%, adjusted HR 0.75, 95% CI: 0.60-0.94, p-value=0.013). All-cause mortality and myocardial infarction did not show a statistically significant difference between the two groups (mortality of 7.5% in both groups, adjusted HR 0.99, 95% CI: 0.72-1.35, p-value=0.94; 6.0% vs 5.2% for myocardial infarction, adjusted HR 1.19, 95% CI: 1.00-1.43, p-value=0.06). In a nationwide scenario, the use of a sirolimus-eluting ultrathin-strut DES portended favourable clinical outcomes.

Thin, very thin, or ultrathin-strut biodegradable or durable polymer-coated drug-eluting stents.

The current article will review recently published clinical studies that evaluate very thin or ultrathin-strut drug-eluting stents (DES), focusing on major randomized clinical trials in broad patient populations. Multiple randomized trials recently assessed the clinical performance of novel very thin to ultrathin-strut DES. Most randomized trials established noninferiority of the novel device. To date, only one major randomized clinical trial (i.e., BIOFLOW V) showed superiority of an ultrathin-strut biodegradable polymer-coated sirolimus-eluting stent over a very thin-strut durable polymer-coated everolimus-eluting stent in a relatively broad patient population. There are signals that the same ultrathin-strut biodegradable polymer-coated sirolimus-eluting stent may improve clinical outcome in specific patient populations. For example, in the randomized BIOSTEMI trial, 1-year superiority of the ultrathin-strut DES was found in patients presenting with an acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Yet, substudies of large randomized trials that assessed patients with small-vessel treatment showed equivocal results. Although two randomized trials showed advantages for ultrathin-strut DES, other clinical trials provided no significant evidence that ultrathin-strut DES improve clinical outcome. The question whether ultrathin-strut DES may reduce the repeat revascularization risk following implantation in small vessels is a matter of further debate and future research.

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)

CRT-500.02 Ultrathin Bioresorbable-Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Thin Durable-Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stents in Patients Undergoing Coronary Revascularization: Three-Year Outcomes From the Randomized BIOFLOW V Trial

Coronary drug-eluting stent (DES) development has included new metal alloys, changes in stent architecture and bioresorbable polymers. Emerging evidence from comparative study demonstrates improved safety and efficacy with ultrathin-strut DES. BIOFLOW V (ClinicalTrials.gov [NCT02389946][1]) was an

Outcomes in Patients Treated With Thin-Strut, Very Thin-Strut, or Ultrathin-Strut Drug-Eluting Stents in Small Coronary Vessels

Stenting small-vessel lesions has an increased adverse cardiovascular event risk. Very thin-strut or ultrathin-strut drug-eluting stents might reduce this risk, but data are scarce. To assess the outcome of all-comer patients with small coronary vessel lesions treated with 3 dissimilar types of drug-eluting stents. This is a prespecified substudy of the Comparison of Biodegradable Polymer and Durable Polymer Drug-eluting Stents in an All Comers Population (BIO-RESORT) trial, an investigator-initiated, randomized, patient-blinded comparative clinical drug-eluting stent trial. Patients treated with ultrathin-strut sirolimus-eluting stents, very thin-strut everolimus-eluting stents, or previous-generation thin-strut zotarolimus-eluting stents were enrolled from December 2012 to August 2015. This multicenter trial was conducted in 4 Dutch centers for cardiac intervention. Of all 3514 all-comer BIO-RESORT participants, 1506 patients with treatment in at least 1 small-vessel lesion (reference vessel <2.5 mm) were included. Data were analyzed between September 2018 and February 2019. Target lesion failure at 3-year follow-up, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization, analyzed by Kaplan-Meier methods. In 1452 of 1506 participants (96.4%) (1057 men [70.2%]; 449 women [29.8%]; mean [SD] age, 64.3 [10.4] years), follow-up was available. Target lesion failure occurred in 36 of 525 patients (7.0%) treated with sirolimus-eluting stents, 46 of 496 (9.5%) with everolimus-eluting stents, and 48 of 485 (10.0%) with zotarolimus-eluting stents (sirolimus-eluting vs zotarolimus-eluting hazard ratio [HR], 0.68; 95% CI, 0.44-1.05; P = .08; everolimus-eluting vs zotarolimus-eluting HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.62-1.39; P = .72). There was a difference in target lesion revascularizations between sirolimus-eluting and zotarolimus-eluting stents (2.1% vs 5.3%; HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.20-0.81; P = .009) that emerged after the first year of follow-up (1.0% vs 3.7%; P = .006); multivariate analysis showed that sirolimus-eluting stent implantation was independently associated with a lower target lesion revascularization rate at 3-year follow-up (adjusted HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.20-0.85; P = .02). In the everolimus-eluting stents, the revascularization rate was 4.0% (vs zotarolimus-eluting, HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.41-1.34; P = .31). There was no significant between-stent difference in cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis. Patients stented in small coronary vessels experienced fewer repeated revascularizations if treated with ultrathin-strut sirolimus-eluting stents vs previous generation thin strut zotarolimus-eluting stents. Further research is required to evaluate the potential effect of particularly thin stent struts. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01674803.