Search

Background: Patients with diabetes have more extensive coronary disease, resulting in higher risks of adverse clinical events following stenting. In all-comer patients, contemporary DES have shown excellent safety and efficacy, but data on diabetic patients are scarce. Separately for the BIO-RESORT and BIONYX trials, we assessed the 2-year clinical outcomes of diabetic patients, treated with various contemporary drug-eluting stents (DES)., Methods: We performed two prespecified secondary analyses of two randomized DES trials, which both stratified for diabetes. The main endpoint was target vessel failure (TVF), a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization. Follow-up was finished before the COVID-19 pandemic., Results: In BIO-RESORT, 624/3514 (17.8%) had diabetes: 211 received Orsiro sirolimus-eluting stents (SES), 203 Synergy everolimus-eluting stents (EES), and 210 Resolute Integrity zotarolimus-eluting stents (RI-ZES). TVF did not differ between SES (10.2%) and EES (10.0%) versus RI-ZES (12.7%) (SES vs. RI-ZES HR:0.78, 95%-CI [0.44-1.40]; p = 0.40, EES vs. RI-ZES HR:0.79, 95%-CI [0.44-1.40]; p = 0.42). In BIONYX, 510/2488 (20.5%) patients had diabetes: 250 received SES and 260 Resolute Onyx zotarolimus-eluting stents (RO-ZES). There was no difference in TVF between SES (10.7%) versus RO-ZES (12.2%) (HR:0.88, 95%-CI [0.52-1.48]; p = 0.63)., Conclusions: There was no difference in 2-year clinical outcome among patients with diabetes, who were treated with SES, or EES, versus RI-ZES. In addition there was no difference in clinical outcome in diabetic patients, who were treated with SES versus RO-ZES. These findings may be considered as a signal of safety and efficacy of the studied DES in patients with diabetes., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest CvB reports that the research department of Thoraxcentrum Twente has received research grants provided by Abbott Vascular, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. All other authors declared that they have no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patients aged ≥80 years are often treated with new-generation drug-eluting stents (DES), but data from randomized studies are scarce owing to underrepresentation in most trials. We assessed 1-year clinical outcome of octogenarians treated with new-generation DES versus younger patients., Methods: We pooled patient-level data of 9,204 participants in the TWENTE, DUTCH PEERS, BIO-RESORT, and BIONYX (TWENTE I-IV) randomized trials. The main clinical end point was target vessel failure (TVF), a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction (MI), or clinically indicated target vessel revascularization., Results: The 671 octogenarian trial participants had significantly more comorbidities. TVF was higher in octogenarians than in 8,533 patients <80 years (7.3% vs 5.3%, hazard ratio [HR]: 1.36, 95% CI: 1.0-1.83, P = .04). The cardiac death rate was higher in octogenarians (3.9% vs 0.8%, P < .001). There was no significant between-group difference in target vessel MI (2.3% vs 2.3%, P = .88) and repeat target vessel revascularization (1.9% vs 2.8%, P = .16). In multivariate analyses, age ≥ 80 years showed no independent association with TVF (adjusted HR: 1.04, 95% CI: 0.76-1.42), whereas the risk of cardiac death remained higher in octogenarians (adjusted HR: 3.38, 95% CI: 2.07-5.52, P < .001). In 6,002 trial participants, in whom data on major bleeding were recorded, octogenarians (n = 459) showed a higher major bleeding risk (5.9% vs 1.9%; HR: 3.08, 95% CI: 2.01-4.74, P < .001)., Conclusions: Octogenarian participants in 4 large-scale randomized DES trials had more comorbidities and a higher incidence of the main end point TVF. Cardiac mortality was higher in octogenarians, whereas there was no increase in MI or target vessel revascularization rates. Treatment of octogenarian patients with new-generation DES appears to be safe and effective., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Numerous randomized clinical trials have demonstrated the superiority of thin-strut biodegradable polymer second-generation drug-eluting stent to the first-generation drug-eluting stent and the noninferiority to the thin-strut second-generation permanent polymer drug-eluting stent. Data on long-term clinical outcomes with a novel ultrathin drug-eluting stent, to date, are limited., Methods: The DESSOLVE III trial (Multicenter Randomized Study of the MiStent Sirolimus Eluting Absorbable Polymer Stent System for Revascularization of Coronary Arteries; n=1398) is a prospective, multicenter, single-blinded, all-comers, randomized controlled trial (NCT02385279), allocating in a 1:1 ratio to either ultrathin-strut biodegradable polymer MiStent sirolimus-eluting stent or to thin-strut permanent polymer Xience everolimus-eluting stent. The primary end point was device-oriented composite end point, defined as the composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically indicated target lesion revascularization. The secondary end point was patient-oriented composite end point, defined as the composite of all-cause mortality, any myocardial infarction, or any revascularization., Results: At 3 years, follow-up data were available in 1381 patients (98.8%). The primary end point of device-oriented composite end point occurred in 10.5% for MiStent sirolimus-eluting stent and in 11.5% for Xience everolimus-eluting stent ( P =0.55). Rates of cardiac death (3.9% versus 3.8%; P =0.88), target vessel myocardial infarction (3.2% versus 2.5%; P =0.43), and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization (5.2% versus 6.5%; P =0.30) did not differ significantly between the 2 devices. The rate of definite or probable stent thrombosis was infrequent and similar between the 2 arms (1.2% versus 1.5%; P =0.64). The 90-day landmark analysis showed no significant difference in device-oriented composite end point between the 2 groups after polymer degradation of MiStent. The risk of patient-oriented composite end point was comparable between the 2 groups (22.7% versus 22.9%; P =0.34)., Conclusions: In the DESSOLVE III trial, early safety and efficacy with MiStent sirolimus-eluting bioabsorbable polymer-coated stent are confirmed at a longer term follow-up when compared with Xience everolimus-eluting permanent polymer-coated stent in a large all-comers population. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02385279.

Background: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) remains challenging even with modern drug-eluting stents (DES) due to high rates of repeat revascularization. Everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffolds (EE-BRS) might allow for repeat intervention prolonging the time interval of percutaneous treatment options., Methods: The ABSORB DM Benelux Study is a dedicated prospective, international study to evaluate the midterm safety and efficacy of EE-BRS in DM patients. All DM patients that received ≥ 1 EE-BRS for any indication were enrolled and prospectively followed. Study endpoints were major adverse cardiac events (MACE): a composite of all-cause death, any myocardial infarction (MI) and ischemic-driven target vessel revascularization (TVR); target lesion failure (TLF): a composite of cardiac death (CD), target vessel MI, and ischemic-driven target lesion revascularization (TLR), as well as definite or probable scaffold thrombosis (ScT)., Results: Between April 2015 till March 2017, 150 DM patients and 188 lesions were treated and followed up to 3 years. Device implantation success was 100%. MACE occurred in 15.2% (event rate of 8.8 per 100 PY). TLF was reported in 11.7% (7.0 events per 100 PY). CD, target vessel MI, ischemic-driven TLR occurred in 3.4%, 3.6% and 5.5% respectively, while ScT was observed in 1.4%. There were no occurrences of late or very late ScT., Conclusion: EE-BRS treatment in DM patients shows comparable midterm safety and efficacy outcomes when historically compared with modern DES. New-generation EE-BRS might offer an attractive alternative to metallic DES in treatment of fast progressing atherosclerosis population as in DM patients. Trial registration NTR5447. Registered 05 October 2015, retrospectively registered.

Aim: The aim was to compare in a noninferiority trial the efficacy and safety of 2 contemporary drug-eluting stents (DESs): a novel, durable polymer-coated stent versus an established bioabsorbable polymer-coated stent., Methods and Results: The BIONYX trial (ClinicalTrials.gov-no.NCT02508714) is an investigator-initiated, prospective, randomized, patient- and assessor-blinded, international, multicenter study in all-comer patients with all types of clinical syndromes and lesions who require percutaneous coronary interventions with DES. Patients at 7 study sites in the Netherlands, Belgium, and Israel were randomly assigned (1:1, stratified for gender and diabetes mellitus) to treatment with the novel, zotarolimus-eluting, durable polymer-coated Resolute Onyx stent that has a radiopaque, thin-strut, CoreWire stent platform versus the sirolimus-eluting, bioresorbable polymer-coated Orsiro stent (reference device) that has a very thin-strut, cobalt-chromium stent backbone. The primary end point is the 1-year incidence of the composite clinical end point target vessel failure consisting of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or clinically indicated target vessel revascularization. A power calculation, assuming a target vessel failure rate of 6.0% (noninferiority margin 2.5%), revealed that 2,470 study patients would give the study 80% power (α level 5%), allowing for up to 3% loss to follow-up. The first patient was enrolled on October 7, 2015; on December 23, 2016, the last patient entered the study., Conclusions: BIONYX is a large-scale, prospective, randomized, international, multicenter trial comparing a novel DES with durable coating versus a reference DES with biodegradable coating in all-comers. The study is the first randomized assessment of the Resolute Onyx stent, which is an often-used DES outside the United States., (Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The study sought to evaluate for the first time the 5-year outcomes after treating an all-comers population with newer-generation cobalt chromium-based Resolute Integrity zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZES) (Medtronic, Santa Rosa, California) versus platinum chromium-based PROMUS Element everolimus eluting stents (EES) (Boston Scientific, Natick, Massachusetts)., Background: The DUTCH PEERS (TWENTE II) (DUrable polymer-based sTent CHallenge of Promus ElemEnt versus ReSolute integrity: TWENTE II) trial is a randomized, multicenter, single-blinded, investigator-initiated all-comers trial that found at its main analysis similar 1-year safety and efficacy for both drug-eluting stents. It is the first randomized trial ever to investigate the Resolute Integrity ZES and the first trial to compare both devices., Methods: In total, 1,811 patients were 1:1 randomized to ZES versus EES. We performed a pre-specified assessment of the 5-year clinical outcomes in terms of safety and efficacy. The main endpoint target vessel failure (TVF) is a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization. Secondary endpoints included the individual components of TVF, and stent thrombosis. The study was independently monitored, and adverse clinical events were independently adjudicated., Results: Five-year clinical follow-up data was available in 1,798 (99.3%) patients. The ZES and EES groups showed favorable outcomes, with similar 5-year incidence of TVF (13.2% vs. 14.2%; p log-rank  = 0.62) and its individual components: cardiac death (4.5% vs. 4.9%; p log-rank  = 0.69), target vessel-related myocardial infarction (3.1% vs. 2.6%; p log-rank  = 0.47), and target vessel revascularization (7.6% vs. 8.6%; p log-rank  = 0.46). The 5-year incidence of definite or probable stent thrombosis was similar (1.5% vs. 1.3%; p log-rank  = 0.83)., Conclusions: At 5-year follow-up, the Resolute Integrity ZES and PROMUS Element EES showed similar and sustained results in terms of safety and efficacy for treating a broad population of all-comers., (Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: MiStent is a drug-eluting stent with a fully absorbable polymer coating containing and embedding a microcrystalline form of sirolimus into the vessel wall. It was developed to overcome the limitation of current durable polymer drug-eluting stents eluting amorphous sirolimus. The clinical effect of MiStent sirolimus-eluting stent compared with a durable polymer drug-eluting stents has not been investigated in a large randomised trial in an all-comer population., Methods: We did a randomised, single-blind, multicentre, phase 3 study (DESSOLVE III) at 20 hospitals in Germany, France, Netherlands, and Poland. Eligible participants were any patients aged at least 18 years who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention in a lesion and had a reference vessel diameter of 2·50-3·75 mm. We randomly assigned patients (1:1) to implantation of either a sirolimus-eluting bioresorbable polymer stent (MiStent) or an everolimus-eluting durable polymer stent (Xience). Randomisation was done by local investigators via web-based software with random blocks according to centre. The primary endpoint was a non-inferiority comparison of a device-oriented composite endpoint (DOCE)-cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically indicated target lesion revascularisation-between the groups at 12 months after the procedure assessed by intention-to-treat. A margin of 4·0% was defined for non-inferiority of the MiStent group compared with the Xience group. All participants were included in the safety analyses. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02385279., Findings: Between March 20, and Dec 3, 2015, we randomly assigned 1398 patients with 2030 lesions; 703 patients with 1037 lesions were assigned to MiStent, of whom 697 received the index procedure, and 695 patients with 993 lesions were asssigned to Xience, of whom 690 received the index procedure. At 12 months, the primary endpoint had occurred in 40 patients (5·8%) in the sirolimus-eluting stent group and in 45 patients (6·5%) in the everolimus-eluting stent group (absolute difference -0·8% [95% CI -3·3 to 1·8], p non-inferiority =0·0001). Procedural complications occurred in 12 patients (1·7%) in the sirolimus-eluting stent group and ten patients (1·4%) in the everolimus-eluting stent group; no clinical adverse events could be attributed to these dislodgements through a minimum of 12 months of follow-up. The rate of stent thrombosis, a safety indicator, did not differ between groups and was low in both treatment groups., Interpretation: The sirolimus-eluting bioabsorbable polymer stent was non-inferior to the everolimus-eluting durable polymer stent for a device-oriented composite clinical endpoint at 12 months in an all-comer population. MiStent seems a reasonable alternative to other stents in clinical practice., Funding: The European Cardiovascular Research Institute, Micell Technologies (Durham, NC, USA), and Stentys (Paris, France)., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Limited data is available on the long-term outcome of patients with increased cardiovascular event risk, treated with newer-generation durable polymer drug-eluting stents (DES)., Methods: We therefore assessed 3-year follow-up data of high-risk versus low- to intermediate-risk patients of the randomized DUTCH PEERS trial (NCT01331707). In both risk groups we also compared patients treated with Resolute Integrity versus Promus Element DES. Patients were categorized as "high-risk" if they met ≥1 of the following criteria: (1) diabetes (17.9%); (2) previous myocardial infarction (21.9%); (3) previous coronary revascularization (25.8%); (4) chronic renal failure (3.5%); (5) left ventricular ejection fraction ≤30% (1.5%); and (6) age ≥75 years (17.3%)., Results: At the 3-year follow-up, the incidence of the composite endpoint target vessel failure (TVF) (13.2 vs. 7.5%; logrank p < 0.001) and 2 of its components - cardiac death (4.7 vs. 1.5%; logrank p < 0.001) and target vessel revascularization (7.3 vs. 4.7%; logrank p = 0.03) - was higher in high-risk (n = 957) versus low- to intermediate-risk patients (n = 854). Among high-risk patients, treatment with Resolute Integrity (n = 481) and Promus Element stents (n = 476) was similarly safe and efficacious (TVF: 13.3 vs. 13.1%; logrank p = 0.95; definite-or-probable stent thrombosis: 1.7 vs. 1.7%; logrank p = 1.00)., Conclusions: The newer-generation Resolute Integrity and Promus Element stents showed similar results in terms of safety and efficacy for treating high-risk patients, who had significantly higher event rates than patients with low-to-intermediate risk., (© 2017 S. Karger AG, Basel.)