Search

Background: Long-term clinical data on biodegradable-polymer (BP) drug-eluting stents (DES) are limited. The objective of this study was to assess the long-term safety and efficacy of the BP-DES SYNERGY compared to XIENCE V, a durable-polymer (DP)-DES., Methods: We compared patients treated with BP-DES or DP-DES at our center from 2008 to 2020. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as the composite of all-cause death, Q-wave myocardial infarction (MI), and target vessel revascularization (TVR). Secondary endpoints were all-cause death, Q-wave MI, target lesion revascularization (TLR), and stent thrombosis (ST)., Results: A total of 4255 patients underwent propensity-score matching, and 380 patients from each cohort were matched. There was no significant difference between BP-DES and DP-DES concerning MACE (5-year estimates: 21.6% vs. 26.6%, log-rank p = 0.259). Furthermore, there was no difference in the TLR rate (5-year estimates: 7.3% vs. 8.6%, log-rank p = 0.781). All-cause death (5-year estimates: 13.6% vs. 12.9%, log-rank p = 0.72) and Q-wave MI (5-year estimates: 0.53% vs. 1.7%, log-rank p = 0.427) were also comparable between the two groups. Of note, the rate of very late ST was very low and similar between the groups (5-year estimates: 0.26% vs. 0.64%, log-rank p = 0.698)., Conclusion: BP-DES and DP-DES demonstrate similar safety and efficacy at 5-year follow-up. Both can be used for the effective treatment of coronary artery disease., (© 2024 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background and Aims: Neoatherosclerosis is a leading cause of late (>1 year) stent failure following drug-eluting stent implantation. The role of biodegradable (BP) versus durable polymer (DP) drug-eluting stents on long-term occurrence of neoatherosclerosis remains unclear. Superiority of biodegradable against durable polymer current generation thin-strut everolimus-eluting stent (EES) was tested by assessing the frequency of neoatherosclerosis 3 years after primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) among patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI)., Methods: The randomized controlled, multicentre (Japan and Switzerland) CONNECT trial (NCT03440801) randomly (1:1) assigned 239 STEMI patients to pPCI with BP-EES or DP-EES. The primary endpoint was the frequency of neoatherosclerosis assessed by optical coherence tomography (OCT) at 3 years. Neoatherosclerosis was defined as fibroatheroma or fibrocalcific plaque or macrophage accumulation within the neointima., Results: Among 239 STEMI patients randomized, 236 received pPCI with stent implantation (119 BP-EES; 117 DP-EES). A total of 178 patients (75%; 88 in the BP-EES group and 90 in the DP-EES group) underwent OCT assessment at 3 years. Neoatherosclerosis did not differ between the BP-EES (11.4%) and DP-EES (13.3%; odds ratio 0.83, 95% confidence interval 0.33-2.04, p=0.69). There were no differences in the frequency of fibroatheroma (BP-EES 9.1% vs DP-EES 11.1%, p=0.66) or macrophage accumulation (BP-EES 4.5% vs DP-EES 3.3%, p=0.68), and no fibrocalcific neoatherosclerosis was observed. Rates of target lesion failure did not differ between groups (BP-EES 5.9% vs DP-EES 6.0%, p=0.97)., Conclusions: Use of BP-EES for primary PCI in patients presenting with STEMI was not superior to DP-EES regarding frequency of neoatherosclerosis at 3 years., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Coronary drug-eluting stents (DES) built with either durable (DP) or biodegradable (BP) polymeric coatings have been largely tested and are extensively available for routine use. However, their comparative performance remains an open question, particularly in more complex subsets of patients., Aims: We evaluated the outcomes of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) using DP-DES versus BP-DES in a large multicenter real-world registry., Methods: The population comprised patients with STEMI treated with pPCI within 12 h of symptoms onset. Those treated with more than one DES who received different polymer types were excluded. The final cohort for analysis was selected after propensity score matching (PSM), computed to generate similar groups of DP DES versus BP DES. Primary endpoint was the incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as the composite of total death, myocardial infarction and target lesion revascularization at 2 years., Results: From January 2017 to April 2022, a total of 1527 STEMI patients underwent pPCI with a single DES type (587 DP-DES; 940 BP-DES). After PSM, 836 patients (418 patients in the DP-DES and 418 patients in the BP-DES groups), comprised the final study population. Both study groups had a similar baseline profile. Patients treated with BP-DES group had similar rates of MACE (15.3 % vs. 19.4 %, HR 0.69, 95 % CI 0.50-0.94, p = 0.022). Rates of target lesion revascularization was lower in BP DES group (0.7 % vs. 3.8 %, HR 0.17, 95 % CI 0.05-0.51, p = 0.006)., Conclusion: In a cohort of STEMI patients submitted to pPCI, BP and DP DES had similar rates of the primary outcome. Patients treated with BP DES, however, had a decreased incidence of TLR at after 2-year follow-up., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declared they do not have anything to disclose regarding conflict of interest with respect to this manuscript., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background In a previous trial, higher 5-year mortality was observed following treatment with biodegradable polymer Orsiro sirolimus-eluting stents (SES). We assessed 5-year safety and efficacy of all-comers as well as patients with diabetes treated with SES or Synergy everolimus-eluting stents (EES) versus durable polymer Resolute Integrity zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZES). Methods and Results The randomized BIO-RESORT (Comparison of Biodegradable Polymer and Durable Polymer Drug-Eluting Stents in an All Comers Population) trial enrolled 3514 all-comer patients at 4 Dutch cardiac centers. Patients aged ≥18 years who required percutaneous coronary intervention were eligible. Participants were stratified for diabetes and randomized to treatment with SES, EES, or ZES (1:1:1). The main end point was target vessel failure (cardiac mortality, target vessel myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization). Five-year follow-up was available in 3183 of 3514 (90.6%) patients. The main end point target vessel failure occurred in 142 of 1169 (12.7%) patients treated with SES, 130 of 1172 (11.6%) treated with EES, versus 157 of 1173 (14.1%) treated with ZES (hazard ratio [HR], 0.89 [95% CI, 0.71-1.12], P log-rank =0.31; and HR, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.65-1.04], P log-rank =0.10, respectively). Individual components of target vessel failure showed no significant between-stent difference. Very late definite stent thrombosis rates were low and similar (SES, 1.1%; EES, 0.6%; ZES, 0.9%). In patients with diabetes, target vessel failure did not differ significantly between stent-groups (SES, 19.8%; EES, 19.2%; versus ZES, 21.1% [ P log-rank =0.69 and P log-rank =0.63]). Conclusions Orsiro SES, Synergy EES, and Resolute Integrity ZES showed similar 5-year outcomes of safety and efficacy, including mortality. A prespecified stent comparison in patients with diabetes also revealed no significant differences in 5-year clinical outcomes. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01674803.

Background: The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of biodegradable polymer (BP) versus durable polymer (DP) drug eluting stents (DES) in patients with calcified coronary lesions who underwent rotational atherectomy (RA) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)., Methods: This study was based on a multicenter registry which enrolled patients with calcified coronary artery disease who received PCI using RA during between January 2010 and October 2019 from 9 tertiary centers in Korea. The primary outcome was 3-year all-cause mortality, and the secondary outcomes were cardiovascular death and target-lesion failure., Results: A total of 540 patients who underwent PCI using RA were enrolled with a follow-up period of median 16.1 months. From this registry, 272 patients with PCI using DP-DES and 238 patients with BP-SGDES were selected for analysis. PCI with BP-DES was associated with decreased all-cause mortality after propensity score matching (HR 0.414, CI 0.174-0.988) and multivariate Cox regression analysis (HR 0.458, HR 0.224-0.940). BP-DES was also associated with decreased cardiovascular mortality, but there was no difference in TLF between the two groups., Conclusions: BP-DES were associated with favorable outcomes compared to DP-DES in patients undergoing PCI using RA for calcified coronary lesions.

Background: The healing response of the Firehawk stent in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) remains unclear., Aim: We compared the vascular healing of a biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (Firehawk) vs. a durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent (Xience) at 6 months after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with STEMI., Methods: In this prospective, multicenter, randomized, non-inferiority study, patients within 12 h of STEMI onset were randomized in a ratio of 1:1 to receive Firehawk or Xience stents. Optical coherence tomography (OCT) follow-up was performed 6 months after the index procedure and assessed frame by frame. The primary endpoint was the neointimal thickness (NIT) at 6 months evaluated by OCT. The safety endpoint was target lesion failure (TLF) at 12 months., Results: The Firehawk stent was non-inferior to the Xience stent in terms of the neointimal thickness (73.03 ± 33.30 μm vs. 78.96 ± 33.29 μm; absolute difference: -5.94 [one-sided 95% lower confidence bound: -23.09]; P non-inferiority < 0.001). No significant difference was observed between the Firehawk and Xience groups regarding the percentage of uncovered struts (0.55 [0.08, 1.32]% vs. 0.40 [0.21, 1.19]%, P = 0.804), the percentage of malapposed struts (0.17 [0.00, 1.52]% vs. 0.17 [0.00, 0.69]%, P = 0.662), and the healing score (1.56 [0.23, 5.74] vs. 2.12 [0.91, 3.81], P = 0.647). At 12 months, one patient in the Firehawk group experienced a clinically indicated target lesion revascularization. No other TLF events occurred in both groups. Independent risk factors of the NIT included body mass index, hyperlipidemia, B2/C lesions, thrombus G3-G5, thrombus aspiration, and postdilation pressure., Conclusion: In patients with STEMI, Firehawk was non-inferior to Xience in vascular healing at 6 months. Both stents exhibited nearly complete strut coverage, moderate neointimal formation, and minimal strut malapposition., Clinical Trial Number: NCT04150016., Competing Interests: MZ is an employee of MicroPort Medical (Group), Shanghai, China. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 He, Wang, Liu, Li, Li, Li, Zhou, Zhao, Yang, Mou, Wang, Kan, Li, Li, Zheng, Chen, Gao and Tao.)

Background: Biodegradable polymer drug eluting stents (BP-DES) may offer the advantage of vascular healing in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Long-term outcome data comparing BP-DES and second-generation durable polymer drug eluting stents (DP-DES) in STEMI is lacking. This study aims to compare the long-term clinical outcomes of BP-DES versus second-generation DP-DES in STEMI., Methods: This is an observational study of consecutive patients with STEMI who received either BP-DES (n = 854) or DP-DES (n = 708) during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) from 1st February 2007 to 31st December 2016. The primary outcome was target lesion failure (TLF), a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction (MI), and target lesion revascularization with follow up till 30th November 2019., Results: The baseline demographics, lesion and procedural characteristic were similar between the two groups except for more prior MI and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the BP-DES group. At a median follow up of 4.2 years (interquartile range: 2.6-6.2 years), the incidence of TLF was similar between BP-DES and DP-DES (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.70-1.26). Likewise, incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE: all-cause death, any MI or target vessel revascularization) and definite stent thrombosis were similar in both groups (MACE: adjusted HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.82-1.32; definite stent thrombosis: adjusted HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.31-3.64)., Conclusion: Among patients with STEMI who underwent primary PCI, BP-DES and DP-DES implantation was associated with similar long-term clinical outcomes., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Dr. Joshua P. Loh and Dr. Huay Cheem Tan received institutional research grant from Boston Scientific., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Biodegradable polymers (BDPs) and ultrathin struts were recently introduced to drug-eluting stents (DES) to further improve outcomes. In this study, we analyzed and compared the effect of the ultrathin strut BDP-DES (UBDP-DES) with the conventional durable polymer-DES (DP-DES) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). A total of 356 STEMI patients (n = 160 in the UBDP-DES group and n = 196 in the DP-DES group) were enrolled. The primary endpoint was target lesion failure (TLF), including cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and ischemic-driven, target lesion revascularization (ID-TLR). The mean age was 60.3 ± 12.7 years (male 81.7%), and the median follow-up duration was 63.8 months. TLF was numerically more frequent in the UBDP-DES group (8.1% vs. 4.1%; HR 2.14; 95% CI 0.89-5.18; p = 0.091). Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to balance discrepancies in the baseline characteristics due to patients in the UBDP-DES group initially having more unstable vital signs. However, after PSM (n = 116 in each group), there was no significant difference in TLF (5.3% vs. 5.3%; HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.34-3.22; p = 0.947) or other secondary endpoints including ID-TLR. In the subgroup analysis, subjects with initial acute heart failure (AHF), defined as Killip class ≥ 3, were associated with 13.6% chance of 30-day mortality (9-fold of those without AHF), although chances of repeat revascularization were low (3.0%). Among patients with AHF, the UBDP-DES group was associated with a numerically higher chance of TLF compared with the DP-DES group. There was no difference in TLF between groups in patients without AHF. This study showed that UBDP-DES has long-term clinical outcomes similar to those of conventional DP-DES in real-world Korean STEMI patients receiving PPCI, especially in those without initial AHF.

Background: The ideal drug-eluting stent (DES) for the treatment of unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) is unknown. We compared percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using durable polymers versus early-generation, thicker strutted and coated bioabsorbable polymers for ULMCA disease., Methods: Patients who underwent ULMCA PCI (893 patients) from April 2008 to November 2014 were identified from the Grand-DES registry. The primary end point was 3-year target lesion failure (TLF) after propensity score matching., Results: The final analysis included 754 patients (84.4%) and 139 patients (15.6%) in the durable and bioabsorbable polymer group, respectively. The groups differed significantly in lesion and procedural characteristics. Propensity score-matched analysis revealed a trend toward a lower 3-year TLF in the durable polymer group (log rank p=0.071). Independent predictors of 3-year TLF were chronic kidney disease, presentation with acute myocardial infarction, and a two-stenting technique for ULMCA lesions. Definite/probable stent thrombosis rates at 3-years were low in both groups (0.8% vs. 0.7%, p=0.925)., Conclusions: The safety of ULCMA PCI was excellent, and durable and bioabsorbable polymer DES provided similar clinical outcomes at 3-year follow-up. Landmark analysis revealed that the durable polymer group had a lower TLF rate from 9 months. Further studies are needed to confirm these results., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study was conducted to use optical coherence tomography (OCT) to compare vascular healing between bioresorbable polymer (BP) and durable polymer (DP) everolimus-eluting stents (EES) in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS)., Background: Whether BP-EES induce better vascular healing compared to contemporary DP-EES remains controversial, especially for ACS., Methods: In this prospective, randomized, non-inferiority trial, we used OCT to compare 6-month vascular healing in patients with ACS randomized to BP versus DP-EES: percent strut coverage (primary endpoint, non-inferiority margin of 2.0%) and neointimal thickness and percent neointimal hyperplasia (NIH) volume. As an exploratory analysis, morphological factors related to the endpoints and the effect of underlying lipidic plaque on stent healing were evaluated., Results: A total of 104 patients with ACS were randomly assigned to BP-EES (n = 52) versus DP-EES (n = 52). Of these, 86 patients (40 BP-EES and 46 DP-EES) were included in the final OCT analyses. Six-month percent strut coverage of BP-EES (83.6 ± 11.4%) was not non-inferior compared to those of DP-EES (81.6 ± 13.9%), difference 2.0% (lower 95% confidence interval-2.6%), p non-inferiority  = 0.07. There were no differences in neointimal thickness 70.0 ± 33.9 μm versus 67.2 ± 33.9 μm, p = 0.71; and percent NIH volume 7.5 ± 4.7% versus 7.3 ± 5.3%, p = 0.85. By multivariable linear regression analysis, stent type was not associated with percent strut coverage or percent NIH volume; however, percent baseline embedded struts or stent expansion was positively associated with percent NIH volume. Greater NIH volume was observed in lipidic compared with non-lipidic segments (8.7 ± 5.6% vs. 6.1 ± 5.2%, p = 0.005)., Conclusions: Six-month strut coverage of BP-EES was not non-inferior compared to those of DP-EES in ACS patients. Good stent apposition and expansion were independently associated with better vascular healing., (© 2021 The Authors. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: Very long-term outcomes according to diabetic status of patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with new-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) are scant. Both, the durable polymer zotarolimus-eluting stent (DP-ZES), the first DES to gain FDA-approval for specific use in patients with diabetes mellitus, and the polymer-free sirolimus- and probucol-eluting stent (PF-SES), with a unique design that enables effective drug release without the need of a polymer offer the potential to enhance clinical long-term outcomes especially in patients with diabetes mellitus., Methods: We investigate 10-year clinical outcomes of the prespecified subgroups of patients with and without diabetes mellitus, randomly assigned to treatment with PF-SES versus DP-ZES in the ISAR-TEST 5 trial. The primary endpoint of interest was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as the composite of all-cause death, any myocardial infarction or any revascularization. Further endpoints of interest were cardiac death, myocardial infarction related to the target vessel and target lesion revascularization as well as the individual components of the primary composite endpoint and the incidence of definite or probable stent thrombosis at 10 years., Results: This analysis includes a total of 3002 patients randomly assigned to PF-SES (n = 2002) or DP-ZES (n = 1000). Prevalence of diabetes mellitus was high and comparable, 575 Patients (28.7%) in PF-SES group and 295 patients (29.5%) in DP-ZES group (P = 0.66). At 10 years 53.5% of patients with diabetes mellitus and 68.5% of patients without diabetes mellitus were alive. Regarding major adverse cardiac events, PF-SES as compared to DP-ZES showed comparable event rates in patients with diabetes mellitus (74.8% vs. 79.6%; hazard ratio 0.86; 95% CI 0.73-1.02; P = 0.08) and in patients without diabetes (PF-SES 62.5% vs. DP-ZES 62.2%; hazard ratio 0.99; 95% CI 0.88-1.11; P = 0.88)., Conclusion: At 10 years, both new-generation DES show comparable clinical outcome irrespective of diabetic status or polymer strategy. Event rates after PCI in patients with diabetes mellitus are considerable higher than in patients without diabetes mellitus and continue to accrue over time., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00598533, Registered 10 January 2008, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00598533?term=NCT00598533 Kaplan-Meier estimates of endpoints of interest for patients with vs. without diabetes mellitus treated with PF-SES vs. DP-ZES. Bar graphs: Kaplan-Meier estimates as percentages. PF-SES: polymer-free sirolimus-eluting stent; DP-ZES: durable polymer zotarolimus-eluting stent; DM: diabetes mellitus. Comparison of event rates of individual endpoints in patients with and without diabetes mellitus treated with PF-SES vs. DP-ZES all without statistically significant differences. Comparison of event rates of individual endpoints in overall patients with vs. without diabetes mellitus significantly different (P ≤ 0.01 for all comparisons)., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: Recent clinical studies have suggested the feasibility of 1-month dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for patients receiving drug-eluting stent (DES). Although our previous ex-vivo swine arteriovenous (AV) shunt studies under low dose heparin treatment suggested superior thromboresistance of fluoropolymer-coated everolimus-eluting stent (FP-EES) when compared to other polymer-based DESs, the relative thromboresistance of different DESs under single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) has never been examined. This study aimed to evaluate platelet adhesion under SAPT in competitive DESs in the in vitro flow loop model and ex vivo swine AV shunt model., Methods: The thrombogenicity of FP-EES, BioLinx polymer zotarolimus-eluting stent (BL-ZES), and biodegradable polymer everolimus-eluting stent (BP-EES) was assessed acutely using the swine AV shunt model under aspirin or clopidogrel SAPT. Stents were immunostained using antibodies against platelets and inflammatory markers and evaluated by confocal microscopy. Also, the adhesion of platelet and albumin on the three DESs was assessed by an in-vitro flow loop model using human platelets under aspirin SAPT and fluorescent albumin, respectively., Results: In the shunt model, FP-EES showed significantly less platelet and inflammatory cell adhesion than BL-ZES and BP-EES. In the flow loop model, FP-EES showed significantly less platelet coverage and more albumin adsorption than BL-ZES and BP-EES., Conclusions: These results suggest FP-EES may have particular advantage for short-term DAPT compared to other DESs., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: We aimed to evaluate the 1-year outcomes of three everolimus-eluting stents (EES) for complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)., Background: It is controversial whether contemporary bioresorbable-polymer drug-eluting stents (BP-DES) are associated with better outcomes compared with durable-polymer DES (DP-DES)., Methods: Patients undergoing PCI with cobalt-chromium (CoCr)-DP-EES (Xience), platinum-chromium (PtCr)-DP-EES (Promus), or PtCr-BP-EES (Synergy) at one high-volume institution between 2015 and 2017 were included. The primary endpoint was 1-year major adverse cardiac events (MACE), a composite of death, myocardial infarction, and target-vessel revascularization. Associations were also examined in patients undergoing complex PCI. Multivariable analysis was conducted to adjust for baseline differences across groups., Results: We included n = 5,446 patients (CoCr-DP-EES, n = 3,177; PtCr-DP-EES, n = 1,555; PtCr-BP-EES, n = 714). Patients treated with PtCr-BP-EES had higher comorbidity burden and procedural complexity. At 1 year, MACE rates were 8.9% for CoCr-DP-EES versus 8.9% for PtCr-DP-EES versus 8.6% for PtCr-BP-EES (p = .97). The incidence of definite/probable stent thrombosis (ST) was also similar (0.6 vs. 0.4 vs. 0.3%, p = .69). Complex PCI was performed in n = 2,894/5,446 (53.1%). At 1 year, MACE rates were 11.5 versus 10.7 versus 10.3%, respectively (p = .83). The incidence of definite/probable ST was also similar (0.9 vs. 0.3 vs. 0.3%, p = .22). On multivariable analysis, stent type was not an independent predictor of MACE either in the overall or in the complex PCI population., Conclusions: We observed comparable 1-year rates of MACE and definite/probable ST in patients undergoing PCI with CoCr-DP-EES, PtCr-DP-EES, and PtCr-BP-EES. Results were unchanged among patients undergoing complex PCI. Future multicenter randomized studies should confirm and extend our findings., (© 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Aims: The advantage of biodegradable-polymer drug-eluting stents (BP-DES) versus durable-polymer (DP) DES remains uncertain. We compared neointimal formation and endothelial barrier function of new BP sirolimus-eluting stents (BP-SES, BuMA Supreme®) to other contemporary BP-DES, DP-DES, and bare metal stents (BMS)., Methods and Results: Light microscopic assessment in swine coronary arteries showed comparable neointimal formation between BP-SES and DP everolimus-eluting stent (DP-EES). The performance of BP-SES was compared with DP-EES (Xience Xpedition®), BP-EES (Synergy®), and BMS (Multi-Link Vision®) at 45- and 90-days in rabbit ilio-femoral arteries using Evans blue dye (EBD) followed by immunostaining for endothelial barrier proteins (p120/vascular endothelial-cadherin [VE-cad]) to evaluate endothelial barrier function and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) to determine strut tissue coverage. BMS followed by BP-SES and BP-EES exhibited smaller EBD positive areas versus that of DP-EES at 45- and 90-days. p120/VE-cad immunostaining and SEM-determined strut coverage was greater at 45- and 90-days for BMS followed by all DESs. Regardless of stent type, the lack of p120/VE-cad co-localization showed greater leukocyte and platelet aggregation., Conclusion: Three types of DES showed different endothelial healing pattern regardless their equivalent suppression of neointimal formation., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest CVPath Institute has received institutional research support from R01 HL141425 Leducq Foundation Grant; 480 Biomedical; 4C Medical; 4Tech; Abbott; Accumedical; Amgen; Biosensors; Boston Scientific; Cardiac Implants; Celonova; Claret Medical; Concept Medical; Cook; CSI; DuNing, Inc.; Edwards LifeSciences; Emboline; Endotronix; Envision Scientific; Lutonix/Bard; Gateway; Lifetech; Limflo; MedAlliance; Medtronic; Mercator; Merill; Microport Medical; Microvention; Mitraalign; Mitra assist; NAMSA; Nanova; Neovasc; NIPRO; Novogate; Occulotech; OrbusNeich Medical; Phenox; Profusa; Protembis; Qool; Recor; Senseonics; Shockwave; Sinomed; Spectranetics; Surmodics; Symic; Vesper; W.L. Gore; Xeltis. A.F. has received honoraria from Abbott Vascular; Biosensors; Boston Scientific; Celonova; Cook Medical; CSI; Lutonix Bard; Sinomed; Terumo Corporation; and is a consultant Amgen; Abbott Vascular; Boston Scientific; Celonova; Cook Medical; Lutonix Bard; Sinomed. R.V. has received honoraria from Abbott Vascular; Biosensors; Boston Scientific; Celonova; Cook Medical; Cordis; CSI; Lutonix Bard; Medtronic; OrbusNeich Medical; SINO Medical Technology; ReCore; Terumo Corporation; W. L. Gore; Spectranetics; and is a consultant Abbott Vascular; Boston Scientific; Celonova; Cook Medical; Cordis; CSI; Edwards Lifescience; Lutonix Bard; Medtronic; OrbusNeich Medical; ReCore; Sinomededical Technology; Spectranetics; Surmodics; Terumo Corporation; W. L. Gore; Xeltis. A.C. receives research grants from University Hospital RWTH Aachen. Other authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction : Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) represents the most frequent procedure performed in medicine. Second generation drug eluting stents (DES) have been developed to reduce the rates of late and very late complications of first generation DES. Areas covered : To improve long-term efficacy and safety of patients undergoing PCI, second generation DES have been developed with novel stent platforms, biocompatible durable and biodegradable polymers and newer antiproliferative agents. In this review we provide an overview of second generation DES and their clinical trials, discussing safety and effectiveness of these devices, and outlining clinical indication for use. Expert commentary : Numerous clinical trials have demonstrated the safety and efficacy of second generation DES over the last decade. These devices represent the gold standard treatment in stable and acute coronary syndromes.

Background: Data examining the safety and efficacy of the bioabsorbable polymer (BP) drug-eluting stent (DES) as compared with durable polymer (DP) DES in high-risk patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remain limited., Methods: We conducted a pre-specified analysis among patients enrolled in the TWILIGHT trial treated with the SYNERGY BP-DES or a DP-DES. Following successful PCI and 3 months of ticagrelor plus aspirin, patients were randomized to aspirin or placebo for 1 year; DES choice was at physician discretion. The primary endpoint was target lesion failure (TLF) [composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction (MI), clinically driven target lesion revascularization (TLR) or definite/probable stent thrombosis (ST)]., Results: Among enrolled participants (N = 9,006), 653 were treated exclusively with the SYNERGY BP-DES and 6,404 with a comparator DP-DES. Over 15 months, TLF rates were 6.4 and 6.1% among those receiving a SYNERGY BP-DES and a DP-DES, respectively (adjusted HR 0.93; 95% CI 0.64-1.35; p = .72). The effect of ticagrelor monotherapy on Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding and the composite of all-cause death, MI or stroke was uniform across DES groups (both p int  > .10)., Conclusions: The safety and efficacy profile of the SYNERGY BP-DES is comparable to that of contemporary DP-DES in high-risk patients undergoing PCI. Compared to ticagrelor plus aspirin, the effect of ticagrelor monotherapy is consistent among patients receiving SYNERGY BP-DES or DP-DES., (© 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

The optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES) has been the focus of much discussion. The risk of late stent thrombosis appears less with newer-generation stents, and polymer-free drug-coated stents (DCS) may improve clinical efficacy relative to a bare metal stent without the potential long-term hazards associated with a durable polymer. Based on the outcomes of recent clinical trials, risk stratification to identify high bleeding risk patients and appropriate selection of a polymer-free drug-coated or durable-polymer zotarolimus-eluting stent may optimize clinical outcomes in patients who require an abbreviated DAPT regimen., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Outcome data after extended long-term follow-up of patients with coronary artery disease treated with drug-eluting stents (DES) in randomized clinical trials are scant., Objectives: Performance differences among devices may be expected to emerge over time depending on whether stenting is done with polymer-free or durable polymer DES. This study assessed the 10-year outcomes of patients enrolled in the ISAR-TEST-5 (Test Efficacy of Sirolimus- and Probucol-Eluting Versus Zotarolimus-Eluting Stents) trial., Methods: A total of 3,002 patients were randomized to treatment with either polymer-free sirolimus- and probucol-eluting stents (n = 2,002) or durable polymer zotarolimus-eluting stents (n = 1,000). The primary endpoint was the composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization (a device-oriented composite endpoint [DOCE]). Additional endpoints of interest were the patient-oriented composite endpoint (POCE), including all-cause death, any myocardial infarction, or any revascularization; individual components of the composite endpoints; and definite or probable stent thrombosis., Results: The median age of the patients at randomization was 67.8 years. At 10 years, 63.9% of patients were alive. The rates of DOCE and POCE were high in both groups with no difference in the incidence between polymer-free sirolimus- and probucol-eluting stents and durable polymer zotarolimus-eluting stents (DOCE: 43.8% vs. 43.0%, respectively; hazard ratio: 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.89 to 1.14; p = 0.90; POCE: 66.2% vs. 67.7%, respectively; hazard ratio: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.04; p = 0.22). The rates of the individual components of the composite endpoints were comparable in both groups. The incidence of definite/probable stent thrombosis over 10 years was low and comparable in both groups (1.6% vs. 1.9%; hazard ratio: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.46 to 1.54; p = 0.58)., Conclusions: At 10 years, there were no measurable differences in outcomes between patients treated with polymer-free versus durable polymer DES. The incidence of stent thrombosis was low and comparable in both groups. High overall adverse clinical event rates were observed during extended follow-up. (Test Efficacy of Sirolimus- and Probucol-Eluting Versus Zotarolimus-Eluting Stents [ISAR-TEST-5]; NCT00598533)., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Coronary percutaneous interventions have evolved from plain old balloon angioplasty (POBA) to stent implantation, which itself evolved from bare-metal stents (BMS) to the new biodegradable stents which try to restore endothelial function. Currently, the most commonly used stent is the everolimus-eluting stent., Areas Covered: This review will cover the current status of durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent, its history, and future perspectives. Nowadays, the everolimus-eluting stent is the most used device in the acute and chronic settings due to its safety and efficacy., Expert Opinion: Durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent, supported by much evidence, has demonstrated its efficacy and safety, not only in de novo artery lesions, but in multiples scenarios, such as the acute setting and diabetic population, becoming one of the most polyvalent stents available. Nowadays, research is focused on the reduction of antiplatelet treatment duration. Similar rates of stent thrombosis with short dual antiplatelet treatment regimens of 1 to 3 months compared to pronged treatment have been observed. However, specific studies should be performed to evaluate this possibility.

Very long-term data of the biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents (BP-DES) in comparison with the contemporary durable polymer DES (DP-DES) are still to be investigated. We aimed to investigate the very long-term clinical performance of contemporary BP-DES against the DP-DES. We performed a systematic review to evaluate very long-term clinical outcomes of BP-DES versus DP-DES. Inclusion criteria were randomized design comparing BP-DES against DP-DES and follow-up duration ≥ 36 months. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL without restricting language or publication status were searched up to December 2018. The primary efficacy and safety endpoints were target lesion failure (TLF; a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization) and definite/probable stent thrombosis (ST), respectively. Primary analysis was done for the contemporary thin-strut BP- and DP-DES (strut thickness < 100 µm). A total of 9 trials comprising 10,699 patients (BP-DES, n = 6241 versus DP-DES, n = 4458) were analyzed. The mean follow-up duration was 63 months. No significant difference was found in TLF [Odds ratio (95% CI) 1.04 (0.89-1.21)] and definite/probable ST (odds ratio (95% CI) 0.78 (0.59-1.01)] between the BP- and DP-DESs. The present meta-analysis suggested that the contemporary thin-strut BP- and DP-DES have similar efficacy and safety profile at 5-year follow-up.Clinical trial registration PROSPERO; CRD42018101983 https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display&#95;record.php?RecordID=101983.

We aimed to quantitatively assess a possible difference of the neointimal quality between biodegradable polymer- (BP-) and durable polymer drug-eluting stents (DP-DESs). We conducted a single-center all-comer prospective cohort study: the RESTORE registry (UMIN000033009). All patients who received successful OCT examination at planned 3-month follow-up after DES implantation were analyzed. Study population was divided into 2 groups, BP-DES versus DP-DES groups. We evaluated standard OCT variables, coverage percent, and the quantitative light property values including light intensity, attenuation, and backscatter. We performed OCT analyses of 121 lesions in 98 patients (BP-DES 55 lesions in 51 patients vs. DP-DES 66 lesions in DP-DES 53 patients). Lesion and procedural characteristics were overall well-balanced between both groups. At 3-month follow-up, neointimal thickness (BP-DES 49.3 [38.2, 57.7] µm versus DP-DES 54.7 [45.1, 70.7] µm, p = 0.059) and coverage percent (BP-DES 94.5 [89.8, 97.0]% vs. DP-DES 95.8 [91.1, 98.1]%, p = 0.083) did not significantly differ. Light intensity of superficial neointima in the BP-DES was lower than that in the DP-DES, whereas that of deep neointima did not differ between both groups. Both superficial and deep neointima of the BP-DES presented significantly lower light attenuation and backscatter than those of the DP-DES did. Almost complete coverage at 3 months in both contemporary BP- and DP-DES would support the ultra-short DAPT strategy in the upcoming decade. Nevertheless, there was a significant difference in the neointimal characteristics on OCT light property 3 months after BP- versus DP-DES implantation.Trial Registration UMIN000033009.

Aims: The biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents (BP-DES) offer controlled drug elution and complete degradation of the polymer over time, eventually lowering the risk for chronic inflammation and neoatherosclerosis, which can be particularly helpful in patients with diabetes. While BP-DES and durable polymer drug-eluting stents (DP-DES) have demonstrated comparable efficacy in all-comers population, their efficacy and safety in patients with diabetes remains uncertain., Methods and Results: Electronic databases were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing BP-DES with contemporary DP-DES in patients with diabetes. Study investigators were contacted to obtain additional data. The primary outcome was efficacy in terms of target-vessel revascularization (TVR) and target-lesion revascularization (TLR). We also evaluated the following safety outcomes separately: all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), and definite or probable stent thrombosis. Eleven RCTs including 5190 diabetic patients were included. At the longest available follow-up (mean 2.7 years), there was no significant difference in TLR [relative risk (RR): 1.02, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.85-1.24; P = 0.80] or TVR (RR: 1.04, 95% CI: 0.81-1.34; P = 0.76). Safety outcomes of all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, and MI were similar between the two groups. Stent thrombosis rates were also similar between BP-DES and DP-DES groups (1.66% vs. 1.83%; RR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.54-1.31; P = 0.45). The heterogeneity was low and fixed-effect model yielded similar results. Meta-regression analysis showed no relationship between insulin requiring diabetes and difference in TLR or stent thrombosis between BP-DES and DP-DES., Conclusion: Overall, BP-DESs have similar safety and efficacy profiles compared to contemporary DP-DES in patients with diabetes., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2019. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Purpose: We investigated the safety and efficacy of biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents (BP-DES) versus second-generation durable polymer drug-eluting stents (DP-DES) in a follow-up period of 5 years., Methods: A meta-analysis was performed using data from the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases. The primary endpoint was target lesion failure (TLF), a composite endpoint of safety and efficacy, which included cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction (MI), and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization (TLR). Secondary endpoints were all-cause death, MI, TLR, definite or probable stent thrombosis (ST), and definite or probable very late ST. In addition, we performed subgroup analyses based on patient and stent characteristics., Results: Nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in 11,817 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with second-generation DP-DES, BP-DES was not associated with increased risk of TLF (odds ratio (OR) 1.06, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.94-1.20; p = 0.33), all-cause death (OR 1.04, [0.92-1.18], p = 0.49), myocardial infarction (OR 0.97, [0.83-1.13], p = 0.67), target lesion revascularization (OR 1.08, [0.94-1.23], p = 0.27), definite or probable stent thrombosis (OR 0.85, [0.66-1.11], p = 0.24), or definite or probable very late stent thrombosis (OR 0.86, [0.58-1.26],p = 0.43). Furthermore, the subgroup analyses did not reveal any statistically significant differences between the stent groups., Conclusion: At 5 years of follow-up, the safety and efficacy of BP-DES are clinically comparable to those of second-generation DP-DES.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the vessel healing status 3 months after stent implantation of bioresorbable-polymer drug-eluting stents (BP-DESs) in comparison with durable-polymer DESs (DP-DESs) by angioscopy. Study design was a single-center all-comer prospective cohort study: the RESTORE registry (UMIN000033009). All patients who received successful angioscopic examination at planned 3-month follow-up after the DES implantation in the native coronary artery were enrolled. We evaluated main, maximum, minimum strut coverage grades and coverage heterogeneity score defined as a difference between maximum and minimum coverage grades. All lesions were divided into three segments: proximal, mid, and distal segments. A total of 108 patients (66.6 ± 10 years) with 124 lesions were analyzed (BP-DES 57 patients 61 lesions 226 segments vs. DP-DES 57 patients 63 lesions 203 segments; six patients had both BP-DES and DP-DES). Patient and lesion demographics, procedural characteristics were well balanced. Main coverage grade (mean ± standard error; 1.08 ± 0.02 vs. 1.05 ± 0.03, p = 0.354) and minimum coverage grade (1.00 ± 0.00 vs. 1.00 ± 0.00, p > 0.999) were not significantly different between BP-DES and DP-DES groups. Maximum coverage grade was significantly higher in the BP-DES than in the DP-DES (1.45 ± 0.04 vs. 1.35 ± 0.04, p = 0.049). Coverage heterogeneity score did not differ between BP-DES and DP-DES groups (1.05 ± 0.07 vs. 0.90 ± 0.07, p = 0.162). At 3-month follow-up, the current BP-DES had higher maximum stent coverage than the contemporary DP-DES, while main and minimum coverage grades and heterogeneity of the neointimal coverage were comparable. Further prospective randomized trials should be conducted to evaluate the clinical significance of the present imaging results.

Aims: The durable polymer (DP) of a drug-eluting stent (DES) serves no function once drug elution is complete. To ascertain the benefits of bioabsorbable polymer (BP) over DP-DESs requires a longer follow-up period, to overcome the time taken for polymer absorption. The primary aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the safety and efficacy of BP-DES with the DP-DES over mid (2 years) to long-term (3-5 years) follow-up., Methods and Results: A thorough computer-based search was performed using Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and PubMed databases. We only included randomized controlled studies comparing clinical outcomes between BP-DESs and DP-DESs. Only studies where data were available for a minimum of 2 years were included. A separate analysis of 2-year outcomes and 3- to 5-year outcomes were conducted. Data from 6 and 8 studies were included in 3- to 5-year and 2-year follow-up, respectively. There were no differences between stent groups in cardiac mortality, stent thrombosis (ST), target lesion revascularization, target vessel failure, and reinfarction rates for either 2-year or 3- to 5-year follow-up. Subgroup analysis according to strut thickness (<100 µm, >100 µm) of BP-DES demonstrated similar results. The analyses of ST and very late ST favoured BP-DESs but did not reach statistically significant level., Conclusion: There were no differences in clinical outcomes between BP-DESs and DP-DESs over mid- and long-term follow-up., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2018. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Aims: Despite similar efficacy and safety profile in pilot studies, bioresorbable polymer drug-eluting stents (BP-DES) could have potential benefit over latest generation durable polymer (DP)-DES by facilitating vessel healing, therefore reducing inflammation and neoatherosclerosis leading to enhanced clinical safety. Therefore, we sought to perform a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing the safety and efficacy of everolimus-eluting BP-DES (BP-EES) to second-generation DP-DES., Methods and Results: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the safety and efficacy of BP-EES in patients treated for coronary artery disease. We searched PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library through February 2018 for RCTs that included outcome data on BP-EES. We identified four eligible studies, which included a total of 4631 patients. Three studies reported a follow-up of one year and one study of five years. The BP-EES group, included 2315 patients and the DP-DES group included 2316 patients (1143 treated with DP-EES and 1173 treated with zotarolimus eluting DP-DES). Patient's characteristics were comparable between the two groups except for higher prevalence of prior MI in the DP-DES group (25.7 vs 22.5%, respectively, p = 0.001). Procedural characteristics were comparable among groups except for slightly longer lesions in the BP-EES group compared to the DP-DES group (mean 15.1 vs 14.9 mm, p = 0.04). No significant differences were observed for cardiac mortality (p = 0.72), occurrence of MI (p = 0.64), any TLR (p = 0.93), ST (p = 0.85) or major adverse cardiac events (p = 0.43)., Conclusion: Overall, based on the available data BP-EES had similar one-year outcomes to contemporary DP-DES. Whether these devices could enhance clinical safety remains to be evaluated at longer follow-up., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Polymer-free drug-eluting stents (PF-DES) were introduced with the aim of reducing the risk of stent thrombosis associated with durable polymer drug-eluting stents (DP-DES). The comparison of safety and efficacy profiles between these two stent platforms remains unclear., Materials and Methods: We conducted electronic database searches for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing patients treated with either PF-DES or DP-DES. Outcomes included definite or probable stent thrombosis (ST), myocardial infarction (MI), cardiac death, all-cause death, target lesion revascularization (TLR), and target vessel revascularization (TVR). A random-effects model was used to derive risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Subgroup analyses based on different variables were also performed. After screening a total of 1026 articles, the present meta-analysis included 13 RCTs comprising 8021 patients., Results: No significant differences were found for the risks of definite or probable ST (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.62-1.43; P  = 0.77), MI (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.85-1.33; P  = 0.61), cardiac death (RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.80-1.21; P  = 0.88), all-cause death (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.76-1.00; P  = 0.06), TLR (RR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.94-1.33; P  = 0.22), and TVR (RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.87-1.61; P  = 0.29). Similarly, no significant differences were found for all outcomes regardless of anti-proliferative drug, except for an increased risk of TLR for polymer-free paclitaxel-eluting stents compared with DP-DES (RR, 2.32, 95% CI, 1.30-4.14; P  = 0.005)., Conclusions: Our findings showed that PF-DES and DP-DES confer equivalent safety and efficacy profiles, with similar rates of stent thrombosis.

Purpose: Patients with high bleeding risk (HBR) who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention also have an increased risk of ischemic events and represent an overall high-risk population. The coating of durable polymer drug-eluting stents (DP-DES) may induce inflammation and delay arterial healing, which might be reduced by novel biodegradable polymer DES (BP-DES). We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of treating HBR patients with very thin-strut BP-DES versus thin-strut DP-DES., Methods: Participants in BIO-RESORT (NCT01674803), an investigator-initiated multicenter, randomized all-comers trial, were treated with very thin-strut BP-DES (Synergy or Orsiro) or thin-strut DP-DES (Resolute Integrity). For the present analysis, patients were classified following HBR criteria based on previous trials. The primary endpoint was target vessel failure: a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization at 1 year., Results: Of all 3514 patients, 1009 (28.7%) had HBR. HBR patients were older (p < 0.001) and had more co-morbidities than non-HBR patients (p < 0.001). At 1-year follow-up, HBR patients had significantly higher rates of target vessel failure (6.7 vs. 4.2%, p = 0.003), cardiac death (1.9 vs. 0.4%, p < 0.001), and major bleeding (3.3 vs. 1.5%, p = 0.001). Of all 1009 HBR patients, 673 (66.7%) received BP-DES and 336 (33.3%) had DP-DES. The primary endpoint was met by 43/673 (6.5%) patients treated with BP-DES and 24/336 (7.3%) treated with DP-DES (HR 0.88 [95%CI 0.54-1.46], p = 0.63). There were no significant between-group differences in the most global patient-oriented clinical endpoint (9.7 vs. 10.5%, HR 0.92 [95%CI 0.61-1.39], p = 0.69) and other secondary endpoints., Conclusions: At 1-year follow-up, very thin-strut BP-DES showed similar safety and efficacy for treating HBR patients as thin-strut DP-DES.

Aims: Biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents (BP-DES) were developed in hopes of reducing the risk of stent thrombosis. The comparison of this new stent platform with second-generation durable polymer drug-eluting stents (DP-DES) has not been well described. We, therefore, performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and efficacy profiles of BP-DES versus second-generation DP-DES in patients with coronary artery disease., Methods and Results: Electronic database searches were conducted, from their dates of inception to June 2018, to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing patients with either BP-DES or second-generation DP-DES. Risk estimates were expressed as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We also performed a landmark analysis beyond 1 year and sensitivity analyses based on different variables. A total of 24,406 patients from 19 RCTs were included in the present meta-analysis. There were no significant differences between BP-DES and second-generation DP-DES for the risks of definite or probable stent thrombosis (RR 0.88; 95% CI, 0.69-1.12; P  = 0.29), myocardial infarction (RR 0.97; 95% CI, 0.86-1.09; P  = 0.59), cardiac death (RR 1.08; 95% CI, 0.92-1.28; P  = 0.34), all-cause death (RR 1.02; 95% CI, 0.91-1.13; P  = 0.77), target lesion revascularization (RR 1.05; 95% CI, 0.94-1.17; P  = 0.38), and target vessel revascularization (RR 1.05; 95% CI, 0.95-1.16; P  = 0.36). Similar outcomes were observed regardless of anti-proliferative drug and duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (all P  > 0.05)., Conclusion: Our findings demonstrate similar safety and efficacy profiles between BP-DES and second-generation BP-DES, with comparable rates of stent thrombosis.

Background: The Orsiro biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (O-SES) is a new-generation biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stent with the thinnest strut thickness to date developed to improve the percutaneous treatment of patients with coronary artery disease. We perform a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy and safety of an ultra-thin, Orsiro biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (O-SES) compared with durable polymer drug-eluting stents (DP-DESs)., Methods: Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL databases were searched for randomized controlled trials comparing the safety and efficacy of O-SES versus DP-DES. Paired reviewers independently screened citations, assessed risk of bias of included studies, and extracted data. We used the Mantel-Haenszel method to calculate risk ratio (RR) by means of a random-effects model., Results: Six RCTs with a total of 6949 patients were selected. All included trials were rated as low risk of bias. The O-SES significantly reduced the risk of myocardial infarction (RR 0.78, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.62-0.98; I 2  = 0%; 10 fewer per 1000 [from 1 fewer to 18 fewer]; high quality) compared with the DP-DES. There was no significant difference between O-SES and DP-DES in the prevention of stent thrombosis (RR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.52-1.08), cardiac death (RR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.63-1.36), target lesion revascularization (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.86-1.42) and target vessel revascularization (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.78-1.21)., Conclusion: Among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, O-SES resulted in significantly lower rates of myocardial infarction than DP-DES and had a trend toward reduction in stent thrombosis.

Objectives: We aimed to compare the long-term outcomes of the novel biodegradable polymer cobalt-chromium sirolimus-eluting stent (BP-SES) versus the durable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (DP-SES) in the I-LOVE-IT2 trial., Backgrounds: Comparisons of the long-term safety and efficiency of the BP-DES versus the DP-DES are limited., Methods: A total of 2,737 patients eligible for coronary stenting were randomized to the BP-SES or DP-SES group at a 2:1 ratio. The primary endpoint of target lesion failure (TLF) was defined as a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction (MI), or clinically indicated target lesion revascularization., Results: A three-year clinical follow-up period was available for 2,663 (97.3%) patients. There were no significant differences in TLF (8.9% vs. 8.6%, P = 0.81), patient-oriented composite endpoint (PoCE) (15.2% vs.14.5%, P = 0.63), or individual components between the BP-SES and DP-SES. Definite/probable stent thrombosis (ST) was low and similar at 3 years (0.8% vs. 1.0%, P = 0.64). Landmark analysis of 1-3 years showed that the TLF (2.7% vs. 2.6%, P = 0.81), PoCE (6.2% vs. 5.1%, P = 0.28), and definite/probable ST (0.4% vs. 0.4%, P = 1.00) were comparable between the 2 arms., Conclusions: In this prospective randomized trial, the BP-SES showed similar clinical results versus the DP-SES in terms of safety and efficacy outcomes over a 3-year follow-up period., (© 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Objectives: This study sought to investigate endothelial coverage and barrier protein expression following stent implantation., Background: Biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents (BP-DES) have been purported to have biological advantages in vessel healing versus durable polymer DES (DP-DES), although clinical trial data suggest equipoise., Methods: Biodegradable polymer-sirolimus-eluting stents (BP-SES), durable polymer-everolimus-eluting stents (DP-EES), and bare-metal stents (BMS) were compared. In the rabbit model (28, 45, and 120 days), stented arteries underwent light microscopic analysis and immunostaining for the presence of vascular endothelium (VE)-cadherin, an endothelial barrier protein, and were subjected to confocal microscopy and scanning electron microscopy. A cell culture study in stented silicone tubes was performed to assess cell proliferation., Results: Light microscopic assessments were similar between BP-SES and DP-EES. BMS showed nearly complete expression of VE-cadherin at 28 days, whereas both DES showed significantly less with results favoring BP-SES versus DP-EES (39% coverage in BP-SES, 22% in DP-EES, 95% in BMS). Endothelial cell morphologic patterns differed according to stent type with BMS showing a spindle-like shape, DP-EES a cobblestone pattern, and BP-SES a shape in between. VE-cadherin-negative areas showed greater surface monocytes regardless of type of stent. Cell proliferation was suppressed in both DES with numerically less suppression in BP-SES versus DP-EES., Conclusions: This is the first study to examine VE-cadherin expression after DES. All DES demonstrated deficient barrier expression relative to BMS with results favoring BP-SES versus DP-EES. These findings may have important implications for the development of neoatherosclerosis in different stent types., (Copyright © 2017 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Polymers are an essential component of drug-eluting stents (DES) used to control drug release but remain the most controversial component of DES technology. There are two types of polymers employed in DES: durable polymer based DES (DP-DES) and biodegradable polymer DES (BP-DES). First-generation DES were exclusively composed of DP and demonstrated increased rates of late stent failure due in part to poor polymer biocompatibility. Newer generations DES use more biocompatible durable polymers or biodegradable polymers. Areas covered: We will cover issues identified with 1st-generation DP-DES, areas of success and failure in 2nd-generation DP-DES and examine the promise and shortcomings of BP-DES. Briefly, fluorinated polymers used in 2nd-generation DP-DES have excellent anti-thrombogenicity and better biocompatibility than 1st-generation DES polymers. However, these devices lead to persistent drug exposure to the endothelium which impairs endothelial function and predisposes towards neoatherosclerosis. Meanwhile, BP-DES has shortened the duration of drug exposure which might be beneficial for endothelial functional recovery leading to less neoatherosclerosis. However, it remains uncertain whether the long-term biocompatibility of bare metal surfaces is better than that of polymer-coated metals. Expert commentary: Each technology has distinct advantages, which can be optimized depending upon the particular characteristics of the patient being treated.

Introduction: Despite advances in drug-eluting stent (DES) technology, stent thrombosis (ST) remains the most feared complication with high morbidity and mortality. Areas covered: Stent related factors certainly play a role in the pathophysiology of ST and more recent data suggest coating technologies have the potential to favorable modify this risk though blood material interactions. Of the polymer coatings used in DES, fluorinated polymers in particular have shown significant promise in modifying the risk of ST through their preferential interactions with albumin which is believed to prevent the adhesion and aggregation of platelets to the stent surface and thus minimize thrombus formation. Preclinical data from the porcine arteriovenous fistula model and clinical data from large network meta-analysis support a role for fluorinated polymers in reducing ST. Expert commentary: The search for more biocompatible anti-thrombotic polymer coatings continues and it is likely that further modification of stent based surfaces will revolutionize the field of interventional cardiology by one day obviating the need for systemic anti-platelet therapies in patients receiving intravascular devices.

Objectives: The authors sought to perform a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing the safety and efficacy of biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents (BP-DES) to second-generation durable polymer drug-eluting stents (DP-DES)., Background: Prior meta-analyses have established the superiority of BP-DES over bare-metal stents and first-generation DP-DES; however, their advantage compared with second-generation DP-DES remains controversial., Methods: The authors searched PubMed and Scopus databases for RCTs comparing BP-DES to the second-generation DP-DES. Outcomes included target vessel revascularization (TVR) as efficacy outcome and cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), and definite or probable stent thrombosis (ST) as safety outcomes. In addition, we performed landmark analysis for endpoints beyond 1 year of follow-up and a subgroup analysis based on the stent characteristics., Results: The authors included 16 RCTs comprising 19,886 patients in the meta-analysis. At the longest available follow-up (mean duration 26 months), we observed no significant differences in TVR (p = 0.62), cardiac death (p = 0.46), MI (p = 0.98), or ST (risk ratio: 0.83, 95% confidence interval: 0.64 to 1.09; p = 0.19). Our landmark analysis showed that BP-DES were not associated with a reduction in the risk of very late ST (risk ratio: 0.87, 95% confidence interval: 0.49 to 1.53; p = 0.62). Similar outcomes were seen regardless of the eluting drug (biolimus vs. sirolimus), the stent platform (stainless steel vs. alloy), the kinetics of polymer degradation or drug release (<6 months vs. >6 months), the strut thickness of the BP-DES (thin <100 μm vs. thick >100 μm), or the DAPT duration (≥6 months vs. ≥12 months)., Conclusions: BP-DES have similar safety and efficacy profiles to second-generation DP-DES., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: A meta-analysis was performed to investigate the safety and efficacy of biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (BP-SESs) compared with durable polymer drug-eluting stents (DP-DESs)., Methods: Online databases, including PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library, were searched for randomized controlled trials that compared BP-SESs and DP-DESs and reported rates of overall and cardiac mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), stent thrombosis (ST), target lesion revascularization (TLR), target vessel revascularization (TVR) and late lumen loss (LLL)., Results: A total of 15 studies investigating 14,187 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The BP-SESs significantly reduced the risk of late ST (OR: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.33-0.98; p=0.04), very late ST (OR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.29-0.97; p=0.04) and in-stent LLL (MD: -0.06, 95% CI: -0.11 to -0.01; p=0.01) compared with the DP-DESs but did not improve mortality (OR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.81-1.11; p=0.52), cardiac mortality (OR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.72-1.10; p=0.27), MI (OR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.76-1.08; p=0.27), TLR (OR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.81-1.11; p=0.51), TVR (OR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.81-1.13; p=0.62) or in-segment LLL (MD: -0.03, 95% CI: -0.06-0.01; p=0.10)., Conclusions: In this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, the BP-SESs were superior to the DP-DESs in terms of late ST, very late ST and in-stent LLL. Further large randomized controlled trials with long-term follow-up are required to validate the benefits of BP-SESs., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The coronary stent has propelled our understanding of the term "biocompatibility." Stents are expanded at sites of arterial blockage and mechanically reestablish blood flow. This simplicity belies the complex reactions that occur when a stent contacts living substrates. Biocompatible seek to elicit the intended response; stents should perform rather than merely exist. Because performance is assessed in the patient, stent biocompatibility is the multiscale examination of material and cell, and of material, structure, and device in the context of cell, tissue, and organism. This review tracks major biomaterial advances in coronary stent design and discusses biocompatibility clinical performance., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Drug eluting stents and particularly the fully bioresorbable drug-eluting scaffolds herald a new era in percutaneous treatment of coronary artery disease. There has been tremendous progress in drug eluting stents with fully biodegradable coating polymers and polymer-free devices with reservoir technology planting the anti-proliferative drug. Despite significant decreases in in-stent restenosis rates with drug eluting stents, limitations still remain before we are able to develop fully bioresorbable scaffolds. Enhanced mechanical flexibility that provides superior conformability to the vessel wall, resumption of the vasoreactivity in the follow-up period and improving visualization on non-invasive imaging modalities are some of the supremacies of the fully bioresorbable scaffolds. In this review, we aim to give a general view on the latest developments in metallic drug eluting stents and fully bioresorbable scaffolds.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate the hypothesis that a novel biodegradable polymer-coated, cobalt-chromium (CoCr), sirolimus-eluting stent (BP-SES) is noninferior in safety and efficacy outcomes compared with a durable polymer (DP)-SES., Background: No randomized trials have the compared safety and efficacy of BP-SES versus DP-SES on similar CoCr platforms, thereby isolating the effect of the polymer type., Methods: In this prospective, single-blind, randomized trial conducted at 32 Chinese sites, 2,737 patients eligible for coronary stenting were treated with BP- or DP-SES in a 2:1 ratio. The primary endpoint was 12-month target lesion failure (TLF), a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically indicated target lesion revascularization. Secondary endpoints included TLF components, and definite/probable stent thrombosis., Results: At 12 months, the difference in the primary endpoint of TLF between BP-SES (6.3%) and DP-SES (6.1%) groups was 0.25% (95% confidence interval: -1.67% to 2.17%, p for noninferiority = 0.0002), demonstrating noninferiority of BP-SES to DP-SES. Individual TLF components of cardiac death (0.7% vs. 0.6%, p = 0.62), target vessel myocardial infarction (3.6% vs. 4.3%, p = 0.39), and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization (2.6% vs. 2.2%, p = 0.50) were similar, as were low definite/probable stent thrombosis rates (0.4% vs. 0.6%, p = 0.55)., Conclusions: In this large-scale real-world trial, BP-SES was noninferior to DP-SES for 1-year TLF. (Evaluate Safety and Effectiveness of the Tivoli ® DES and the Firebird ® DES for Treatment of Coronary Revascularization; NCT01681381)., (Copyright © 2014 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents have been proposed as an alternative to durable polymer DES, theoretically improving vessel healing and reducing the need for prolonged double anti platelet therapy (DAPT), however clinical significance of this technology is under debate. Therefore, we sought to compare the clinical outcomes of two Paclitaxel eluting stents (PES) containing different polymer-based eluting matrices., Methods: In this multicenter registry of 392 consecutive patients who underwent PCI between June 2006 and September 2008, we included patients with stable angina or NSTE-ACS displaying at least one significant lesion (>50% diameter stenosis) in native coronary arteries., Results: Biodegradable polymer PES (BP-PES, LUC Chopin(2) , Balton, Poland) was implanted in 206 patients, whereas durable polymer PES (DP-PES, Taxus, Boston Scientific, USA) was implanted in 186 patients. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between groups with the exception of increased diabetes and number of lesions for BP-PES. In risk-unadjusted analysis at 1-year follow-up, there were no significant differences in TLR (BP-PES: 8.4% vs., Dp-Pes: 6%; P = 0.36), TVR (BP-PES: 11.1% vs., Dp-Pes: 8.4%; P = 0.36) and incidence of stent thromboses (BP-PES: 2.15% vs., Dp-Pes: 3.4%; P = 0.42) between groups. There was also no difference in MACCE between groups (17.6% vs. 14.4%, P = 0.49). The mean dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) compliance at 1 year was 77% for BP-PES versus 92% for DP-PES (P = 0.03). Kaplan-Meier analysis showed a significantly higher long-term stroke free survival in BP-PES (P = 0.04). After adjustment, this was sustained with an additional tendency toward higher MI free survival for BP-PES (P = 0.059)., Conclusions: In this observational analysis, BP-PES were comparable to DP-PES, with regard to incidence of repeated revascularizations, stent thromboses and MACCE despite earlier DAPT discontinuation., (Copyright © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Objectives: 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., Background: The LEADERS trial is the first randomized study to evaluate biodegradable polymer-based drug-eluting stents (DES) against durable polymer DES., Methods: 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., Results: 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, p for 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)., Conclusions: 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)., (Copyright © 2013 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)