Search

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 Graphic abstract 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).

The comparison of bioabsorbable-polymer and durable-polymer stents has continued to be debated, and there is ongoing concern regarding vascular healing and late stent thrombosis. This study compared the vascular healing at 8-month follow-up by optical coherence tomography (OCT) between 4 different kinds of new generation drug-eluting stents (DESs). We enrolled 112 patients (112 de novo lesions) who underwent OCT guided percutaneous coronary intervention with 4 kinds of new generation DESs including bioabsorbable-polymer everolimus-eluting stents (BP-EESs), bioabsorbable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (BP-SESs), durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP-EESs), and durable-polymer zotarolimus-eluting stents (DP-ZESs) and an 8-month follow-up angiogram and OCT were performed between July 2016 and April 2018. We divided them into two groups, namely BP and DP groups. We compared the OCT parameters including the percentage of uncovered struts, malapposed struts and the mean neointimal hyperplasia (NIH) thickness between the two groups. BP group consisted of 51 lesions (BP-EESs were used in 27, BP-SESs in 24 lesions) and DP group consisted of 61 lesions (DP-EESs were used in 35 and DP-ZESs in 26 lesions). The percentage of uncovered struts and malapposed struts were significantly lower (7.2 ± 8.9 vs. 15.0 ± 17.1%, p = 0.01, 0.9 ± 1.7 vs. 2.7 ± 5.2%, p = 0.03) and the mean NIH thickness was significantly thicker in BP group than DP group (112 ± 54 vs. 83 ± 31 µm, p

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.

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; I2 = 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.

This paper reviews the current state of the art for coronary stent materials and surface coatings, with an emphasis on new technologies that followed on from first-generation bare metal and drug-eluting stents. These developments have been driven mainly by the need to improve long term outcomes, including late stent thrombosis. Biodegradable drug-eluting coatings aim to address the long term effects of residual durable polymer after drug elution; the SYNERGY, BioMatrix, and Nobori stents are all promising devices in this category, with minimal polymer through the use of abluminal coatings. Textured stent surfaces have been used to attached drug directly, without polymer; the Yukon Choice and BioFreedom stents have some promising data in this category, while a hydroxyapatite textured surface has had less success. The use of drug-filled reservoirs looked promising initially but the NEVO device has experienced both technical and commercial set-backs. However this approach may eventually make it to market if trials with the Drug-Filled Stent prove to be successful. Non-pharmacological coatings such as silicon carbide, carbon, and titanium-nitride-oxide are also proving to have potential to provide better performance than BMS, without some of the longer term issues associated with DES. In terms of biological coatings, the Genous stent which promotes attachment of endothelial progenitor cells has made good progress while gene-eluting stents still have some practical challenges to overcome. Perhaps the most advancement has been in the field of biodegradable stents. The BVS PLLA device is now seeing increasing clinical use in many complex indications while magnesium stents continue to make steady advancements.

Research and development in the field of coronary stent design is a fast-evolving and fascinating journey. A device that was once introduced to salvage acute closure associated with balloon angioplasty is now the standard of care for many patients with coronary artery disease. Newer generation stents are the product of remarkable progress in technology and innovation, driven by the need to make the stents easier to deliver and to improve their safety and efficacy. As such, the design of these stents has become quite sophisticated and complex. The number of available stents has increased giving patients and physicians more choices on one hand, but also created confusion in selecting the optimal stent for a given patient. Although a 'one size fits all' approach may not be reasonable, several randomized trials have attested to the efficacy and safety of newer generation durable polymer drug eluting stents. This article discusses the evidence base to support various stent choices in contemporary practice.

Coronary artery disease: Durable-polymer drug-eluting stents might not lead to very late stent thrombosis