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: Treatment of a coronary bifurcation lesion is often required in routine clinical practice, but data on the performance of very thin-strut biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents are scarce., Methods: Comparison of biodegradable polymer and durable polymer drug-eluting stents in an all comers population (BIO-RESORT) is a prospective, multicenter randomized clinical trial that included 3514 all-comer patients, who were randomized to very thin-strut biodegradable polymer-coated sirolimus- or everolimus-eluting stents, versus thin-strut durable polymer-coated zotarolimus-eluting stents. The approach of bifurcation stenting was left at the operator's discretion, and provisional stenting was generally preferred. This prespecified analysis assessed 3-year clinical outcome of all patients in whom treatment involved at least one bifurcation with a side-branch diameter ≥1.5 mm., Results: Of all BIO-RESORT trial participants, 1236 patients were treated in bifurcation lesions and analyzed. Single- and two-stent techniques were used in 85.8% and 14.2%, respectively. 'True' bifurcation lesions (main vessel and side-branch obstructed) were treated in 31.1%. Three-year follow-up was available in 1200/1236 (97.1%) patients. The main endpoint target vessel failure (composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization) occurred in sirolimus-eluting stents in 42/412 (10.3%) and in zotarolimus-eluting stents in 49/409 (12.1%) patients (P-logrank = 0.40). In everolimus-eluting stents, target vessel failure occurred in 40/415 (9.8%) patients (vs. zotarolimus-eluting stents: P-logrank = 0.26). There was no between-stent difference in individual components of target vessel failure. Findings were consistent in patients with single-vessel treatment and patients treated with a single-stent technique., Conclusions: Three years after stenting all-comers with bifurcation lesions, clinical outcome was similar with the sirolimus-eluting and everolimus-eluting stents versus the zotarolimus-eluting stent.

Objective: The objective was to assess the 2-year clinical performance of three drug-eluting stents in all-comer patients with severely calcified coronary lesions., Background: Severe lesion calcification increases cardiovascular event risk after coronary stenting, but there is a lack of data on the clinical outcome of all-comers with severely calcified lesions who were treated with more recently introduced drug-eluting stents., Methods: The BIO-RESORT trial (clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01674803) randomly assigned 3,514 all-comer patients to biodegradable polymer Synergy everolimus-eluting stents (EES) or Orsiro sirolimus-eluting stents (SES), versus durable polymer Resolute Integrity zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZES). In a post hoc analysis, we assessed 783 patients (22.3%) with at least one severely calcified target lesion., Results: At 2-year follow-up (available in 99% of patients), the main composite endpoint target vessel failure occurred in 19/252 (7.6%) of the EES and in 33/265 (12.6%) of the ZES-treated patients (p = .07). Target vessel failure occurred in 24/266 (9.1%) of the SES-treated patients (vs. ZES: p = .21). There was a difference in target vessel revascularization, which was required in EES in 6/252 (2.4%) patients and in ZES in 20/265 (7.7%) patients (p = .01); the target vessel revascularization rate in SES was 9/266 (3.4%, vs. ZES: p = .04). Multivariate analysis showed that implantation of EES, but not SES, was independently associated with lower target vessel revascularization rates than in ZES., Conclusions: In BIO-RESORT participants with severely calcified target lesions, treatment with EES was associated with a lower 2-year target vessel revascularization rate than treatment with ZES., (© 2020 The Authors. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

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.)

Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the 3-year safety and efficacy of treating all-comer patients with 3 contemporary drug-eluting stents (DES)., Background: The BIO-RESORT (Comparison of Biodegradable Polymer and Durable Polymer Drug-Eluting Stents in an All Comers Population) (TWENTE III) randomized trial (NCT01674803) found similar 1-year safety and efficacy for the 2 biodegradable-polymer DES (i.e., ultrathin-strut cobalt-chromium Orsiro sirolimus-eluting stent [SES] and very-thin-strut platinum-chromium Synergy everolimus-eluting stent) compared with the durable-polymer thin-strut cobalt-chromium Resolute Integrity zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES). Two-year follow-up suggested that the SES might reduce repeat revascularizations beyond 1 year compared with the ZES., Methods: A total of 3,514 all-comer patients were treated at 4 centers for coronary intervention. The main clinical endpoint, target vessel failure, was a composite of safety (cardiac death or target vessel-related myocardial infarction) and efficacy (target vessel revascularization). Secondary endpoints included the individual components of target vessel failure and stent thrombosis., Results: Three-year follow-up data were available for 3,393 of 3,514 patients (96.6%). Target vessel failure occurred in 8.5% with SES and 10.0% with ZES (p log rank  = 0.22) and in 8.8% with everolimus-eluting stents (vs. ZES, p log rank  = 0.32). Rates of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization were similar between stent groups. Landmark analyses found no statistically significant between-stent difference in repeat revascularization between 1 and 3 years. Definite or probable stent thrombosis rates were low (SES, 1.1%; everolimus-eluting stent, 1.1%; ZES, 0.9%) and similar with all 3 DES., Conclusions: Despite substantial differences in stent backbone and polymer coating, all 3 DES showed favorable 3-year safety and efficacy in all comers, without significant between-stent differences. Further follow-up is required to definitely answer the question of whether one stent might improve clinical outcomes at a later stage., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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: In patients with coronary artery disease, treated with durable polymer-coated drug-eluting stents, the life-long presence of the polymer might delay arterial healing. Novel very thin strut biodegradable polymer stents, which leave only a bare metal stent after polymer resorption, might improve long-term outcome. We investigated in allcomers the safety and efficacy of three stents eluting either everolimus, sirolimus, or zotarolimus, often clinically used but never compared, of which the biodegradable polymer everolimus-eluting stent was never before assessed in allcomers., Methods: The large-scale, investigator-initiated, multicentre, assessor and patient blinded, three-arm, randomised, BIO-RESORT non-inferiority trial was done at four clinical sites in the Netherlands. All-comer patients were aged 18 years or older, capable of providing informed consent, and required a percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stent implantation according to clinical guidelines or the operators' judgment. Exclusion criteria were: participation in another randomised drug or device study before reaching the primary endpoint of that study; planned surgery necessitating interruption of dual antiplatelet therapy within the first 6 months; known intolerance to components of the investigational product or medication required; uncertainty about the adherence to follow-up procedures or an assumed life expectancy of less than 1 year; or known pregnancy. Web-based computer-generated allocation sequences randomly assigned patients (1:1:1) to treatment with very thin strut biodegradable polymer everolimus-eluting or sirolimus-eluting stents (which differ substantially in type, amount, distribution, and resorption speed of their respective coating), or thin strut durable polymer zotarolimus-eluting stents. The primary endpoint was a composite of safety (cardiac death or target vessel-related myocardial infarction) and efficacy (target vessel revascularisation) at 12 months of follow up with a very thin strut biodegradable polymer of either everolimus-eluting or sirolimus-eluting stents, compared with durable polymer zotarolimus-eluting stents, analysed by intention to treat (non-inferiority margin 3·5%). This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01674803., Findings: From Dec 21, 2012, to Aug 24, 2015, 3514 patients were enrolled and analysed, of whom 2449 (70%) had acute coronary syndromes, which included 1073 (31%) ST-elevation myocardial infarctions. 12 month follow-up of 3490 (99%) patients (three lost to follow-up; 21 withdrawals) was available. The primary endpoint was met by 55 (5%) of 1172 patients assigned to everolimus-eluting stents, 55 (5%) of 1169 assigned to sirolimus-eluting stents and 63 (5%) of 1173 assigned to zotarolimus-eluting stents. Non-inferiority of the everolimus-eluting stents and sirolimus-eluting stents compared with zotarolimus-eluting stents was confirmed (both -0·7% absolute risk difference, 95% CI -2·4 to 1·1; upper limit of one sided 95% CI 0·8%, p non-inferiority <0·0001). Definite stent thrombosis (defined by the Academic Research Consortium) occurred in four (0·3%) of 1172 patients who were allocated to everolimus-eluting stents, four (0·3%) of 1169 patients who were allocated to sirolimus-eluting stents, and three (0·3%) of 1173 patients who were allocated to zotarolimus-eluting stents (log-rank p=0·70 for both comparisons with zotarolimus-eluting stents)., Interpretation: At 12 month follow-up, both very thin strut drug-eluting stents with dissimilar biodegradable polymer coatings (eluting either everolimus or sirolimus) were non-inferior to the durable polymer stent (eluting zotarolimus) in treating allcomers with a high proportion of patients with acute coronary syndromes. The absence of a loss of 1 year safety and efficacy with the use of these two biodegradable polymer-coated stents is a prerequisite before assessing their potential longer-term benefits., Funding: Biotronik, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)