Search

BACKGROUND: Data on direct comparison between various drug-eluting stents with short duration dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) are limited, especially in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). AIMS: We sought to compare biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stents (BP-BES) with durable polymer everolimus-eluting (DP-EES) and zotarolimus-eluting stents (DP-ZES) in patients with ACS according to different durations of DAPT. METHODS: In the SMART-DATE trial, 2,712 patients with ACS underwent randomisation for allocation of DAPT (6 months [n=1,357] or 12 months or longer [n=1,355]) and type of stent (BP-BES [n=901]), DP-EES [n=904], or DP-ZES [n=907]). The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis. RESULTS: At 18 months, the primary endpoint was attained by 2.6% with BP-BES, 2.0% with DP-EES, and 2.1% with DP-ZES (HR 1.29, 95% CI: 0.70-2.39, p=0.42 for BP-BES vs DP-EES and HR 1.23, 95% CI: 0.67-2.26, p=0.50 for BP-BES vs DP-ZES). The treatment effect of BP-BES for the primary endpoint was consistent among patients receiving 6-month DAPT as well as those receiving 12-month or longer DAPT (BP-BES vs. DP-EES, pinteraction=0.48 and BP-BES vs DP-ZES, pinteraction=0.87). After excluding 179 patients (101 in the BP-BES group) who did not receive allocated DES, the per-protocol analysis showed similar results. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis was not significantly different between patients receiving BP-BES versus DP-EES or DP-ZES across a short or prolonged duration of DAPT after ACS.

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).

Literature on bioresorbable-polymer-stents (BPS) and second-generation durable-polymer-stents (DPS) in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for all comer CAD is conflicting.Randomized controlled studies comparing PCI among BPS and second-generation DPS were identified up until May-2020 from online databases. Primary outcomes included are all-cause myocardial infarction (MI), cardiac-death, target-vessel-revascularization (TVR), target-vessel MI (TVMI), and stent-thrombosis (ST). Random effect method of risk ratio and confidence interval of 95% was used.25 prospective randomized controlled trials with 31,822 patients (BPSPatients undergoing PCI treated with BPS had comparable outcomes in terms of cardiac death, TVR, ST, TVMI, and all-cause MI to patients treated with second-generation DPS; however, BPS had higher rates of TVR for follow-up of ≥5-years.

Background: Large-scale randomized comparison of drug-eluting stents (DES) based on durable polymer versus biodegradable polymer technology is currently insufficient in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The present study aimed to prove the noninferiority of the durable polymer DES (DP-DES) compared with the biodegradable polymer DES (BP-DES) in such patients. Methods: The HOST-REDUCE-POLYTECH-ACS (Harmonizing Optimal Strategy for Treatment of Coronary Artery Diseases—Comparison of Reduction of Prasugrel Dose or Polymer Technology in ACS Patients) trial is an investigator-initiated, randomized, open-label, adjudicator-blinded, multicenter, noninferiority trial comparing the efficacy and safety of DP-DES and BP-DES in patients with ACS. The primary end point was a patient-oriented composite outcome (a composite of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and any repeat revascularization) at 12 months. The key secondary end point was device-oriented composite outcome (a composite of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization) at 12 months. Results: A total of 3413 patients were randomized to receive the DP-DES (1713 patients) and BP-DES (1700 patients). At 12 months, patient-oriented composite outcome occurred in 5.2% in the DP-DES group and 6.4% in the BP-DES group (absolute risk difference, –1.2%; P non inferiority P =0.038), mostly because of a reduction in target lesion revascularization. The rate of spontaneous nonfatal myocardial infarction and stent thrombosis were extremely low, with no significant difference between the 2 groups (0.6% versus 0.8%; P =0.513 and 0.1% versus 0.4%; P =0.174, respectively). Conclusions: In ACS patients receiving percutaneous coronary intervention, DP-DES was noninferior to BP-DES with regard to patient-oriented composite outcomes at 12 months after index percutaneous coronary intervention. Registration: URL: https://wwwclinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT02193971.

Aims The Firehawk is a thin-strut coronary stent with a sirolimus and biodegradable polymer complex that are localized in abluminal grooves. The TARGET All Comers study found similar safety and efficacy of the Firehawk compared with the durable polymer everolimus-eluting XIENCE stent at 1- and 2-years follow-up. The aim of this study was to assess comparative clinical outcomes at 3 years. Methods and results The TARGET All Comer study is a prospective, multicenter, randomized, non-inferiority trial. A total of 1653 patients were randomly allocated to receive either the Firehawk or XIENCE stent. The primary endpoint was target lesion failure (TLF), a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization. At 3-year follow-up, TLF occurred in 11.9% in the Firehawk group and 11.5% in the XIENCE group (p=0.84). The event rates of individual components of TLF were comparable for the 2 groups. Landmark analyses between 1 and 3 years showed no significant difference of TLF for the Firehawk versus XIENCE stent. The incidence of very late definite or probable stent thrombosis was 0.8% in the Firehawk group and 1.4% in the XIENCE group (p=0.24). Conclusions The 3-year follow-up of the TARGET All Comers study showed comparable safety and efficacy profiles of the biodegradable polymer Firehawk and the durable polymer XIENCE stent.

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

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

Background The advantage of using bioresorbable-polymer drug-eluting stent (BP-DES) compared with second-generation durable-polymer drug-eluting stent (2G DP-DES) still remains controversial in clinical situations. The purpose of this study to evaluate the degree of re-endothelialization and the prevalence of high-grade yellow-colored plaque (YCP), which might concern arterial healing after BP-DES and 2G DP-DES implantation using a high-resolution coronary angioscopy (CAS). Methods In total, 104 DESs (52: 2G DP-DES and 52: BP-DES) were prospectively observed using CAS 12 ± 1 months after coronary intervention. The grade of neointimal coverage (NIC) over the stent was scored on a 4-point scale from 0 (no coverage) to 3 (complete coverage). YCP grade was also scored on a 4-point scale as 0 (white) to 3 (intensive yellow). High-grade YCP was defined as maximum grade ≥2. Moreover, the prevalence of high-grade YCP and the incidence of thrombus were investigated. Results BP-DES revealed better dominant NIC grade and less NIC heterogeneity than 2G DP-DES (p = 0.0001 and p = 0.015, respectively). The prevalence of high-grade YCP was lower for BP-DES than for 2G DP-DES (p = 0.05). However, the incidence of thrombus was not significantly different (p = 0.41). Multivariate analysis identified that low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels [odds ratio (OR), 1.03; 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.01–1.06, p = 0.01] and the usage of BP-DES [OR, 0.36; 95% CI: 0.14–0.91, p = 0.03] as independent predictors of high-grade YCP. Conclusions Compared with 2G DP-DES, BP-DES was less heterogeneous and well-covered NIC and less prevalence of the high-grade YCP implying optimal arterial healing.

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.

Background Studies comparing the clinical outcomes of second-generation biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents (BP-DES) and second-generation durable polymer drug-eluting stents (DP-DES) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) with follow-up duration of more than 1 year are still limited. Objective This study aimed to compare the 2-year clinical outcome of BP-DES with second-generation DP-DES in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). Methods This is a retrospective cohort study in patients with STEMI, the primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE) defined as recurrent myocardial infarction, total repeat revascularisation and cardiac death. The secondary endpoint was stent thrombosis (ST) defined as definite, probable or possible. Results A total of 400 patients were analysed (197 BP-DES groups and 203 DP-DES groups). BP-DES were independently associated with lower incidence of MACE (adjusted HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.91, p=0.005) and ST (adjusted HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.73, p Conclusions BP-DES were associated with better clinical outcomes compared to second-generation DP-DES in patients with STEMI undergoing PPCI.

Objectives The aim of this study was to compare late-term clinical outcomes among patients treated with ultrathin-strut (60-μm) bioresorbable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (BP SES) and ...

Introduction: The increasing complexity of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) regarding both coronary anatomy and comorbidities requires dedicated devices. The Resolute Onyx (R-Onyx, Medtronic, CA, USA) stent is a novel durable polymer zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) promising better deliverability, increased radiopacity and lower thrombogenicity.Areas covered: In this review, we discuss device features, preclinical evidence, and clinical studies including patients treated with R-Onyx. The BIONYX and Onyx ONE studies were two major landmark trials demonstrating non-inferiority of R-Onyx as compared to other latest generation devices. We also elaborate on alternative innovations in drug-eluting stent (DES) technology and how R-Onyx fits into this field.Expert opinion: R-Onyx is designed to address the challenges of contemporary PCI, but evidence on its clinical performance is largely derived from studies on older generation devices from the ZES family. Nonetheless, all clinical studies on R-Onyx consistently show excellent outcomes, with particularly low rates of stent thrombosis, making it a promising candidate for short dual antiplatelet regimens. In addition, R-Onyx is available with a wide range of stent diameters allowing accurate sizing for both very small and very large coronary vessels.

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.

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 Invasive angiography with subsequent revascularization is a widely used treatment method in patients with coronary heart disease. Although biodegradable polymer drug eluting stents (BP-DES) have been used for almost a decade now, clinical trials regarding their long-term outcomes are both sparse and inconsistent. We aimed to compare the long-term outcomes of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with BP-DES versus durable polymer drug eluting stents (DP-DES). Methods Among 11,517 PCIs with second generation drug eluting stents preformed in our institution between 2007 and 2019, we identified 8042 procedures performed using DP-DES and 3475 using BP-DES. The primary outcome was the composite of all-cause mortality, recurrent myocardial infarction (re-MI), target vessel revascularization (TVR) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Propensity score matching was used to create a well-balanced cohort. Results Mean follow up was 4.8 years. Of the 3,413 matched pairs, 21% were females, and the mean age was 66. At one year, the primary outcome occurred in 9.6% patients versus 8.3% (p=0.05), and TVR rate was 4.1% versus 3% (p=0.005) in patients with DP-DES and BP-DES respectively. Within 5 years, the primary outcome occurred in in 24.9% versus 24.8% (p=0.83), and the rate of TVR was 9.8% versus 9.1% (p=0.07) in patients with DP-DES and BP-DES respectively. Conclusions Similar rates of the composite outcome were observed throughout the entire follow-up. TVR rates were lower in the DP-DES group at 1-year but equalized within 5 years. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None.

Background Polymer-free (PF) stents were designed as an alternative to durable-polymer (DP) drug-eluting stents to minimize the time on dual antiplatelet treatment for patients at high-risk of bleeding. Nonetheless, the efficacy and safety of PF vs. DP stents in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remain controversial. Methods We performed a metanalysis with currently available studies that assessed the effect of PF-stents vs. DP-stents after performing a systematic search. The endpoints analyzed were all-cause death, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization (TLR) and probable or definite stent thrombosis. The raw numbers of incident end-points reported in each study were used. We performed analyses in short and long term (1 year follow-up) studies. Results We included 12464 patients from 8 studies (5 short-term and 3 long-term): 6723 treated with PF-stents and 5741 with DP stents. Females represented 23.3% (n=3284) and 33.7% (n=4202) were included in the setting of acute coronary syndromes. As shown in the figure, PF-stents were associated to lower incidence of all-cause mortality (HR: 0.91 95% CI 0.84–0.98; p=0.016) and TLR (HR: 0.88 95% CI 0.80–0.96; p=0.003). No differences were observed in the risk of cardiovascular death (HR: 0.96 95% CI 0.86–1.06 p=0.415), myocardial infarction (HR: 0.90 95% CI 0.80–1.01; p=0.061) or probable-definite stent thrombosis (HR: 0.92 95% CI 0.74–1.14; p=0.447). Finally, no differences in the primary end-point (HR: 0.92 95% CI 0.83–1.03; p=0.143) were detected with PF-stents vs. DP-stents. No significant heterogenicity was observed in any of the endpoints, except for the incidence of stent thrombosis. Conclusions Under current PCI techniques the use of PF-stent might be associated to better outcomes, especially in terms of all-cause mortality and TLR. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None.

Biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (BP-SES) are superior to durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP-EES) with respect to target lesion failure (TLF) at 1 year in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) ([1][1]). Beyond the biodegradable polymer, BP-SES

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.

Objectives We aimed to compare the coronary angioscopic appearance of neointimal coverage (NIC) over durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stents (XIENCE-EES) and bioresorbable-polymer everolimus-eluting stents (SYNERGY-EES) 1 year after implantation. Background XIENCE-EES and SYNERGY-EES have been developed to prevent delayed arterial healing associated with first generation drug-eluting stents. However, the process of arterial healing after XIENCE-EES and SYNERGY-EES implantation has not been clarified. Methods Patients who underwent implantation of XIENCE-EES (n = 20) or SYNERGY-EES (n = 20) were enrolled in this study. Coronary angiography and coronary angioscopy were performed 12 ± 1 months after stent implantation. The NIC over the stent was classified into four grades: grade 0, stent struts fully exposed; grade 1, stent struts bulging into the lumen and, still visible; grade 2, stent struts embedded in neointima but still visible; and grade 3, stent struts fully embedded and invisible. Stents exhibiting more than one NIC grade was defined as heterogeneous. Moreover, presence of thrombi was investigated. Results The distribution of dominant NIC grade (XIENCE-EES: grade 0, 0%; grade 1, 25%; grade 2, 50%; grade 3, 25%; SYNERGY-EES: grade 0, 0%; grade 1, 5%; grade 2, 15%; grade 3, 80%; P = 0.002) and NIC heterogeneity was significantly different (P = 0.004). Thrombi were more frequent in XIENCE-EES than in SYNERGY-EES (40 versus 10%, respectively; P = 0.03). Conclusion Compared with XIENCE-EES, SYNERGY-EES were well covered by neointima and accompanied by fewer thrombi. These findings implied arterial healing of SYNERGY-EES was better than that of XIENCE-EES.

Background Extended long‐term follow‐up data of new‐generation drug‐eluting stents in patients with diabetes mellitus is scant. The aim of this study is to assess the 10‐year clinical outcome of new‐generation biodegradable polymer‐based sirolimus‐eluting stents (Yukon Choice PC) versus permanent polymer‐based everolimus‐eluting stents (XIENCE) in patients with and without diabetes mellitus. Methods and Results In a prespecified subgroup analysis, outcomes of patients with or without diabetes mellitus treated with drug‐eluting stents were compared. The primary end point of this analysis was major adverse cardiac event, the composite of death, myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization. The analysis includes a total of 1951 patients (560 patients with and 1391 patients without diabetes mellitus) randomized to treatment with Yukon Choice PC (n=1299) or Xience (n=652). Regarding the primary end point, at 10 years patients with diabetes mellitus showed significantly higher major adverse cardiac event rates than patients without diabetes mellitus ( P P =0.91; HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.79–1.30) nor without diabetes mellitus ( P =0.50; HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.79–1.21). Rates of definite/probable stent thrombosis were 2.3% in patients with and 1.9% in patients without diabetes mellitus (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.34–2.60; P =0.52), without significant differences between study devices. Conclusions The clinical outcome of patients with diabetes after percutaneous coronary intervention with different new‐generation drug‐eluting stents is considerably worse than that of patients without diabetes mellitus, with event rates constantly increasing out to 10 years. Registration URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov . Unique Identifier: NCT00598676.

Aims We aimed to compare the long-term outcomes of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents (BP-DES) versus durable polymer drug-eluting stents (DP-DES). Methods and results Among 11 517 PCIs with second-generation DES performed in our institution between 2007 and 2019, we identified 8042 procedures performed using DP-DES and 3475 using BP-DES. The primary outcome was target lesion failure, the composite target lesion revascularization (TLR), target vessel myocardial infarction and death. Propensity score matching was used to create a well-balanced cohort. Mean follow-up was 4.8 years. Of the 3413 matched pairs, 21% were females, and the mean age was 66 years. At 1 year, the primary outcome occurred in 8.3% patients versus 7.1% (P = 0.07), and TLR rate was 3% versus 2% (P = 0.006) in patients with DP-DES and BP-DES respectively. Within 5 years, the primary outcome occurred in 23.1% versus 23.4% (P = 0.44), and the rate of TLR was 7.2% versus 6.5% (P = 0.07) in patients with DP-DES and BP-DES, respectively. Conclusion Similar rates of the composite outcome were observed throughout the entire follow-up. target vessel revascularization rates were lower in the DP-DES group at 1 year but equalized within 5 years.

Background: Uncertainty exists over whether stents commonly used for percutaneous coronary intervention have comparable short- and long-term safety. The objective of this study was to determine the outcomes of patients treated with bioabsorbable polymer everolimus-eluting (BP-EES; Synergy, Boston Scientific), durable polymer everolimus-eluting (DP-EES; XIENCE, Abbott Vascular), or durable polymer zotarolimus-eluting (DP-ZES; Resolute, Medtronic) stents in routine clinical practice. Methods: All percutaneous coronary intervention cases from 48 hospitals performed after the introduction of the BP-EES stent in 2015 until the first quarter of 2018 were included. Propensity-matched multivariable analysis was used to adjust for differences in baseline characteristics and procedural variables. After matching, we performed pair-wise comparisons between DP-EES and BP-EES, DP-EES and DP-ZES, and BP-EES and DP-ZES for in-hospital postpercutaneous coronary intervention outcomes. We also evaluated 2-year postdischarge mortality in a subset of patients who could be matched to Medicare data. Results: During the study period, 53 724 percutaneous coronary intervention cases were performed. A total of 59% of patients were treated with DP-EES stents, 14% with BP-EES stents, and 27% with DP-ZES stents. Although baseline characteristics of patients differed between stent types, these differences were attenuated after matching. In the matched cohort, there was no difference in in-hospital mortality, stent thrombosis, or postprocedural stroke (a falsification end point) between BP-EES, DP-EES, and DP-ZES. After matching, there was no difference in 2-year postdischarge mortality (DP-EES versus BP-EES hazard ratio 0.91, P =0.50; DP-EES versus DP-ZES hazard ratio 1.03, P =0.77; BP-EES versus DP-ZES hazard ratio 1.20, P =0.29). Conclusions: Our data suggest similar risk-adjusted in-hospital outcomes among drug-eluting stent platforms commonly used in clinical practice. The absence of a difference in 2-year mortality between BP-EES, DP-EES, and DP-ZES suggests that stent choice decisions could be made based on other factors, including durability, availability, and cost.

The TWILIGHT-SYNERGY subgroup analysis demonstrated comparable safety and efficacy of the bioabsorbable polymer (BP) everolimus-eluting stent versus durable polymer DES in high-risk patients undergoing PCI, as well as advantage of 3 months DAPT followed by ticagrelor monotherapy, as compared with long term DAPT, in term of ischemic and hemorrhagic profile irrespective of DES type. This study confirms and extends previous evidences about safety profile of BP-DES and short term DAPT also in high risk patients. Future studies should focus on further technological improvements and on particular clinical setting where these devices could prove potential superiority.

Background: We have previously demonstrated local persistent hypercoagulation after durable polymer (DP)-sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) implantation by measuring plasma prothrombin fragment 1+2 (F1+2) levels. The aim of this study is to evaluate local coagulative response after newer-generation ultrathin strut SES implantation. Method: Forty-five patients who were treated about 6-12 months earlier with coronary stenting, with no evidence of restenosis, were studied [DP-SES (Cypher): 26pts, biodegradable polymer (BP)-SES (older BP-SES, Ultimaster): 12pts and ultrathin strut BP-SES (newer BP-SES, Orsiro): 7pts]. We measured plasma levels of F1+2 sampled in coronary sinus (CS) and sinus of Valsalva (V). The transcardiac gradient (Δ) was defined as CS level minus V level. Results: No significant difference was observed in the percent diameter stenosis among DP-SES, older BP-SES, and newer BP-SES groups (10.1 ± 16.5 vs 13.1 ± 12.9 vs 12.1 ± 11.9 %). The ΔF1+2 was significantly lower in the BP-SES groups than in the DP-SES group (8.9 ± 10.1 vs 23.4 ± 21.1 pmol/l, p Conclusion: Suppressed local coagulative response after newer-generation ultrathin strut SES implantation was observed. These findings might indicate that lower strut thickness is more important factor than faster polymer resorption in the newer-generation DES era.

Background Biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents (BP-DES) has been developed to overcome the potential drawbacks of the first-generation durable polymer drug-eluting stents (DP-DES). However, it is still under debate whether BP-DES is associated with superior efficacy and safety over DP-DES. Purpose We sought to compare the effects of BP-DES and DP-DES in patients with coronary artery disease. Methods We performed systematic review and a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing BP-DES and DP-DES on clinical outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease using CE-mark approved drug-eluting stents (DES) with at least 1-year follow-up. We included 32 studies involving 39,686 patients (BP-DES: 21,439 patients, and DP-DES: 18,247 patients). Primary outcome measure was target vessel failure (TVF; equivalent to the composite of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization). We performed subgroup analysis according to the DP-DES generations (newer-generation DP-DES: 15,179patients, and first-generation DP-DES: 3,068 patients), and the effects of newer-generation DP-DES was compared with the BP-DES according to the BP-DES strut thickness (Ultra-thin strut [ Results The odds for TVF was not significantly different between the BP-DES group and the DP-DES group in the entire study population (odds ratio [OR] 0.96, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.90–1.02], P=0.20). The odds for TVF was significantly low in the BP-DES group relative to the first-generation DP-DES group, however the odds were comparable between the BP-DES group and the newer-generation DP-DES group (BP-DES versus first-generation DP-DES: OR 0.82, 95% CI [0.73–0.92], P Conclusions In this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials evaluating clinical outcomes, there was no significant differences between BP-DES and DP-DES. We found beneficial effects of BP-DES relative to the first-generation DP-DES, however, there was no statistical differences between BP-DES and newer-generation DP-DES, irrespective of the BP-DES strut thickness. Pooled odds ratios for clinical outcomes Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None

Background Orsiro ultrathin-strut bioresorbable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (BP-SES) might facilitate early vascular healing responses that seems to be associated with improved long-term clinical outcomes. We compared the early vascular healing responses to BP-SES and Xience durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stent (DP-EES) in patients with chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) using optical coherence tomography (OCT). Methods A total of 40 patients with CCS receiving OCT-guided PCI were included. 20 patients were assigned to BP-SES, and 20 to DP-EES. OCT was performed immediately after stent placement (post-procedure) and at 1 month follow-up. Struts were recorded as uncovered if any part was visibly exposed in the lumen or covered if a layer of tissue covered all reflecting surfaces. The incidence of intrastent thrombus (IS-Th) and irregular protrusion (IRP) were also assessed. Results At 1 month, the percentage of uncovered struts was significantly lower in the BP-SES compared with the DP-EES (2.8±1.6% vs. 5.8±1.8%, respectively; p Conclusion Early vascular healing response to Orsiro BP-SES implantation was revealed in CCS patients at 1 month compared with Xience DP-EES. Orsiro BP-SES may have a potential to shorten the dual antiplatelet therapy duration. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None

Background Newest generation drug-eluting stents (DES) combining ultrathin cobalt chromium platforms with biodegradable polymers may reduce target lesion failure (TLF) as compared to second generation DES among patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). While previous studies indicated a potential benefit within the first two years after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), it remains uncertain whether the clinical benefit persists after complete degradation of the polymer coating. Purpose To compare the long-term effects of ultrathin-strut biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (BP-SES) versus thin-strut durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP-EES) for PCI in patients with ACS. Methods We performed a subgroup analysis of ACS patients included into the BIOSCIENCE trial (NCT01443104), a randomized trial comparing BP-SES with DP-EES. The primary endpoint of the present post-hoc analysis was TLF, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction (MI) and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization (TLR), at 5 years. Results Among 2,119 patients enrolled between March 2012 and May 2013, 1,131 (53%) presented with ACS (ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, 36%). Compared to patients with stable CAD, ACS patients were younger, had a lower baseline cardiac risk profile, including a lower prevalence of hypertension, hypercholesterolaemia, diabetes mellitus, and peripheral artery disease, and had a greater incidence of previous revascularization procedures. At 5 years, TLF occurred similarly in 89 patients (cumulative incidence, 16.9%) treated with BP-SES and 85 patients (16.0%) treated with DP-EES (RR 1.04; 95% CI 0.78–1.41; p=0.78) in patients with ACS, and in 109 patients (24.1%) treated with BP-SES and 104 patients (21.8%) treated with DP-EES (RR 1.11; 95% CI 0.85–1.45; p=0.46) in stable CAD patients (p for interaction=0.77) (Figure 1, Panel A). Cumulative incidences of cardiac death (8% vs. 7%; p=0.66), target vessel MI (5.2% vs. 5.8%; p=0.66), clinically indicated TLR (8.9% vs. 8.3%; p=0.63) (Figure 1, Panel B-D), and definite thrombosis (1.4% vs. 1.0%; p=0.57) at 5 years were similar among ACS patients treated with ultrathin-strut BP-SES or thin-strut DP-EES. Overall, there was no interaction between clinical presentation and treatment effect of BP-SES versus DP-EES. Conclusion In a subgroup analysis of the BIOSCIENCE trial, we found no difference in long-term clinical outcomes between ACS patients treated with ultrathin-strut BP-SES or thin-strut DP-EES at five years. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: Private company. Main funding source(s): Unrestricted research grant to the institution from Biotronik AG, Switzerland

Background It is yet to be known whether mechanisms underlying restenosis in newer-generation durable-polymer (DP) and biodegradable-polymer (BP) drug-eluting stents (DES) are different. Purpose This study aims to assess the incidences and predictors of early restenosis and late catch-up phenomenon after newer-generation durable-polymer (DP) and biodegradable-polymer (BP) DES. Methods Between 2010 and 2017, 13858 lesions in 6350 patients were treated with DES (4393 BP-DES, 9465 DP-DES). The early-term (within 1 year) and late-term (from 1 to 2 years) follow-up angiographies were scheduled. Late catch-up phenomenon was defined as in-stent restenosis (ISR) in lesions that evaded ISR within 1 year after stent implantation. ISR was defined as angiographic restenosis of more than 50%. Results The mean patient age was 71 years, and 76.7% were male. Early-term angiographies were performed in 10955 lesions (79.0%). Of those without early-term ISR, late-term angiographies were performed in 7771 lesions (56.1%). The incidences of mid-term restenosis and late catch-up phenomenon were 6.6% and 3.9%, respectively. In the multivariate regression analyses, history of diabetes, hemodialysis and previous PCI were independent predictors of both early restenosis and late catch-up phenomenon. Also, some lesion characteristics such as chronic total occlusion, right coronary artery ostial lesion, small vessel (defined as reference diameter 30mm) and treatment of ISR lesion were independent predictors of both early restenosis and late catch-up phenomenon. Bifurcation lesion and heavily calcified lesion treated with rotablator were independent risk of early restenosis. Bypass graft lesion was an independent predictor of late catch-up phenomenon. Early restenosis was observed less frequently in DP-DES than in BP-DES (6.3% versus 7.4%, P=0.012). On the contrary, late catch-up phenomenon was observed more frequently in DP-DES than in BP-DES (4.3% versus 2.9%, P=0.026). Conclusions Some lesion characteristics were independent predictors of early restenosis and late catch-up phenomenon after newer-generation DES implantation. The deployment of BP-DES resulted in more early restenosis and less late catch-up phenomenon compared to that of DP-DES. Early Restenosis and Late Catch-Up Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None

Background New-generation biodegradable-polymer platinum chromium everolimus-eluting stent (BP-PtCr-EES) is available, which has different polymer and alloy compare to more established stent design, a durable-polymer cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stent (DP-CoCr-EES). Purpose To compare neointimal coverage (NIC) between BP-PtCr-EES and DP-CoCr-EES by using coronary angioscopy (CAS). Methods A total of 36 patients (44 stents) with BP-PtCr-EES or DP-CoCr-EES who underwent CAS at 1 year after stenting were investigated. We compared angioscopic findings assessed by angioscopy between BP-PtCr-EES (n=18) and DP-CoCr-EES (n=26). NIC grade and yellow plaque grade (YPG) was adopted from earlier reports from grade 0 to 3. We determined maximum (max-) and minimum (min-) NIC grade and heterogeneity score (HGS = max NIC grade minus min NIC grade). We also assessed YPG and the presence of thrombus (TH). Results Six lesions (33.3%) in BP-PtCr-EES group and 7 (26.9%) lesions in DP-CoCr-EES group were culprit lesions of acute coronary syndrome, which did not statistically differ between the two groups (p=0.74). And there were no significant differences in stent diameter (BP-PtCr-EES: 2.97±0.39 mm vs DP-CoCr-EES: 3.14±0.45 mm, p=0.22) and length (BP-PtCr-EES: 26.9±7.9 mm vs DP-CoCr-EES: 28.4±8.0 mm, p=0.54). In terms of CAS findings, BP-PtCr-EES group has better neointimal coverage than DP-CoCr-EES group (max NIC grade: 2.6±0.7 vs 2.0±0.9, p=0.01. min NIC grade: 1.1±0.8 vs 0.5±0.5, p Conclusion Superior neointimal coverage and less YPG or TH were observed by CAS in the BP-PtCr-EES group at 1 year after stenting. Clinical significance was still unknown because of no clinical events in both groups. Prospective and large populations studies may be required. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None

Background Bioabsorbable polymer drug eluting stents (BP-DESs) were designed to reduce a vascular inflammatory reaction compared to durable polymer drug eluting stents (DP-DESs). However, few studies have compared vascular responses to BP-DESs and DP-DESs. Methods We enrolled 88 consecutive patients with single culprit coronary artery lesions (31 lesions with acute coronary syndrome) undergoing a single stent-implantation. BP-DESs and DP-DESs were implanted in 50 (57%) and 38 patients (43%), respectively. All lesions underwent optical coherence tomography examination at chronic phase and intrastent OCT findings at the follow-up were evaluated in every 1-mm cross-sections (CSs). Results A total of 1887 CSs (BP-DES: 1096, DP-DES: 791) were analyzed. The median period of follow-up OCT was 293 (250–374) days. There were no differences in the patient, lesion, and initial clinical presentation of acute coronary syndrome (ACS). BP-DESs had significantly higher percent neointimal hyperplasia area, defined as neointimal hyperplasia area divided by stent area x 100 (18.4±9.0% vs. 16.1±9.9%, p Conclusion BP-DESs showed homogenous neointimal growth and complete stent coverage quantitatively. Meanwhile, the significant relationships of BP-DES with LIN may suggest that the neointimal quality remains immature in BP-DESs in this period. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None

Background The difference of chronic neointimal conditions of biodegradable polymer-coated and durable polymer-coated drug-eluting stent have not been well investigated. Objective We aimed to compare the angioscopic findings among SYNERGY biodegradable polymer-coated everolimus-eluting stent (BP-EES), ULTIMASTER biodegradable polymer-coated sirolimus-eluting stent (BP-SES), and XIENCE Alpine durable polymer-coated everolimus-eluting stent (DP-EES) 8 months after stent implantation. Methods Patients who underwent implantation of BP-EES (n = 30), BP-SES (n = 26), or DP-EES (n = 21) in Osaka Rosai Hospital from December 2015 to April 2017 were retrospectively enrolled. Coronary angioscopic evaluation including dominant grade of neointimal coverage (NIC) over the stent, maximum yellow plaque grade, and existence of red thrombi were performed 8 months after stent implantation. The incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) including cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization were assessed 1 year after coronary angioscopic evaluation among the three groups. Results The patient and lesion characteristics were similar among the three groups. Dominant grade of NIC and maximum yellow plaque grade were not significantly different among BP-EES, BP-SES, and DP-EES groups [mean ± SD, 1.50 ± 0.73, 1.58 ± 0.64, and 1.33 ± 0.48 (P = 0.38) and 0.83 ± 0.59, 0.81 ± 0.75, and 0.95 ± 0.38 (P = 0.68), respectively]. The existence of red thrombi was similar among the three groups [20, 12, and 19% (P = 0.67)]. There was no significant difference in the MACE 1 year after coronary angioscopic evaluation among the three groups [0, 8, and 0% (P = 0.13)]. Conclusions Coronary angioscopic findings revealed that BP-EES, BP-SES, and DP-EES produced similar favorable NIC 8 months after stent implantation.

Dutch researchers were among the first to perform clinical studies in bare metal coronary stents, the use of which was initially limited by a high incidence of in-stent restenosis. This problem was greatly solved by the introduction of drug-eluting stents (DES). Nevertheless, enthusiasm about first-generation DES was subdued by discussions about a higher risk of very-late stent thrombosis and mortality, which stimulated the development, refinement, and rapid adoption of new DES with more biocompatible durable polymer coatings, biodegradable polymer coatings, or no coating at all. In terms of clinical DES research, the 2010s were characterised by numerous large-scale randomised trials in all-comers and patients with minimal exclusion criteria. Bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) were developed and investigated. The Igaki-Tamai scaffold without drug elution was clinically tested in the Netherlands in 1999, followed by an everolimus-eluting BRS (Absorb) which showed favourable imaging and clinical results. Afterwards, multiple clinical trials comparing Absorb and its metallic counterpart were performed, revealing an increased rate of scaffold thrombosis during follow-up. Based on these studies, the commercialisation of the device was subsequently halted. Novel technologies are being developed to overcome shortcomings of first-generation BRS. In this narrative review, we look back on numerous devices and on the DES and BRS trials reported by Dutch researchers.

Clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for severely calcified lesions remain poor. The purpose of this study was to investigate the neointimal response after everolimus-eluting stents (EES) for severely calcified lesions treated with rotational atherectomy (RA) using optical coherence tomography (OCT).We retrospectively analyzed 34 lesions in which PCI was performed with EES deployment following RA and OCT was performed immediately after PCI and at follow-up (nine months). The EES was either durable-polymer (DP) EES (22 lesions) or bioabsorbable polymer (BP) -EES (12 lesions). Strut coverage and malapposition were evaluated at 1-mm intervals of cross-section (CS) by serial OCT analysis. Malapposed strut was defined as having the distance from luminal border > 100 μm.A total of 11,823 struts immediately after PCI and 11,720 struts at follow-up were analyzed. Immediately after PCI, the strut-level analysis showed no significant differences in the percentage of malapposed struts between the DP-EES group and the BP-EES group. At follow-up, the BP-EES group showed a more prevalent covered strut compared with the DP-EES group (strut-level analysis: 95% versus 97%, P = 0.045; CS-level analysis: 97% versus 100%, P < 0.01; lesion-level analysis: 27% versus 83%, P < 0.01, respectively).In severely calcified lesions requiring RA, the BP-EES group achieved better neointimal coverage than the DP-EES group at nine months. Additional prospective studies are needed.

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.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.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.

Coronary artery stenting is the treatment of choice for patients requiring coronary angioplasty. We describe the major advancements with this technology. There have been significant developments in the design of stents and adjunctive medical therapies. Newer-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) have almost negligible restenosis rates and, when combined with proper anti-platelet treatment and optimal deployment, a low risk of stent thrombosis. The introduction of newer-generation DES with thinner stent struts, novel durable or biodegradable polymer coatings, and new antiproliferative agents has further improved the safety profile of early-generation DES. In parallel the effectiveness has been kept, with a significant reduction in the risk of target lesion revascularization compared with the early-generation DES. However, to date, the development of completely bioresorbable vascular scaffolds has failed to achieve further clinical benefits and has been associated with increased thrombosis. Newer-generation DES-including both durable polymer as well as biodegradable polymer-have become the standard of care in all patient and lesion subsets, with excellent long-term results.

Background: Long-term outcomes in patients at high bleeding risk (HBR) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with a drug-eluting stent are unclear. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate long-term adverse events in HBR patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stent implantation. Methods: We analyzed stratified data from 4 all-comers postapproval registries. Patients with at least 1 of the following criteria were categorized as HBR: age ≥75 years, history of major bleeding (MB), history of stroke, chronic oral anticoagulant use, chronic kidney disease, anemia, or thrombocytopenia. Additionally, in a separate analysis, patients were categorized according to the recently published Academic Research Consortium HBR criteria. The Kaplan-Meier method was used for time-to-event analyses. Coronary thrombotic events (CTE) included myocardial infarction or definite/probable stent thrombosis. MB was defined according to the TIMI (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction) or GUSTO (Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Coronary Arteries) scales. Impact of CTE and MB on subsequent risk of mortality was assessed using multivariable Cox regression with MB and CTE included as time-updated covariates. Results: Of the total 10 502 patients included, 3507 (33%) were identified as HBR. Compared with non-HBR patients, those at HBR had more comorbidities, higher lesion complexity, and a higher risk of 4-year mortality (Hazard Ratio [HR] 4.38 [95% CI, 3.76–5.11]). Results were qualitatively similar when using Academic Research Consortium criteria to define HBR. Risk of mortality was increased after CTE (HR 5.02 [95% CI, 3.93–6.41]), as well as after MB (HR 4.92 [95% CI, 3.82–6.35]). Of note, this effect was consistent across the spectrum of bleeding risk ( P -interaction test 0.97 and 0.06, respectively). Conclusions: Compared with the non-HBR population, HBR patients experienced worse 4-year outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention with cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stent. Both CTE and MB had a significant impact on subsequent risk of mortality irrespective of bleeding risk.

Aim To compare the inflammatory response of polymer-free versus permanent polymer drug-eluting stents in patients with stable coronary artery disease undergoing elective PCI, and the effect of this inflammatory response on the 6 month clinical outcomes. Methods This randomized prospective comparative study was conducted on 100 patients with stable coronary artery disease planned for elective PCI divided into 50 patients with deployed permanent polymer DES (PP-DES) groups and 50 patients with polymer free DES (PF-DES). Blood samples were taken to assess serum level of hsCRP before the procedure and the first day after the procedure. The target end points were the recurrence of effort angina, incidence of target lesion revascularization (TLR) over a period of 6 months and the inflammatory response by measuring the percentage of rise in hsCRP level. Results There was no statistically significant difference in the clinical outcome in the first six months between the patients who had PP-DES and the patients who had PF-DES regarding recurrence of effort angina (p-value = 0.822) and TLR (p-value = 0.727), with no patients developing myocardial infarction or stent thrombosis. There was a statistically significant inflammatory response after stent deployment in both groups represented by a significant rise in the serum level of hsCRP on the first day after the procedure in both groups (p-value < 0.001), but there was no statistically significant difference in the inflammatory response between PP-DES and PF-DES (p-value = 0.978). The number of patients having recurrence of anginal symptoms and TLR with hsCRP rise ≥ 11.36% was higher than those having the same with hsCRP < 11.36%. However, this difference was not statistically significant regarding recurrence of anginal symptoms (p = 0.057) and TLR (p = 0.092). Conclusion The PF-DES was proved to be non-inferior to PP-DES regarding the short-term clinical outcome and the early inflammatory response. It was concluded that the presence of polymeric coating in PP-DES did not add to the magnitude of the inflammatory response and it did not significantly increase the incidence of recurrence of anginal symptoms and TLR in this group of patients.

Background: The ultrathin-strut bioresorbable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (BP-SES) demonstrated comparable performance to durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stent (DP-EES) in randomized controlled trials. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of a BP-SES compared with a DP-EES in calcified or small vessel lesions, which represent higher risk of restenosis. Methods: From the pooled BIOFLOW (BIOFLOW-II, IV, and V; BIOTRONIK - A Prospective Randomized Multicenter Study to Assess the Safety and Effectiveness of the Orsiro Sirolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Subjects With up to Three De Novo or Restenotic Coronary Artery Lesions ) randomized controlled trials, a total of 1553 BP-SES and 784 DP-EES patients with valid 1-year follow-up data were available. Coronary lesions were assessed for the presence of moderate-to-severe calcification or small vessels (reference vessel diameter, ≤2.75 mm) by core laboratory analysis. One-year clinical outcomes were assessed with or without the lesion subsets between BP-SES and DP-EES. Results: Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups. Among patients with small vessel disease, target lesion failure (8.0% versus 12.4%; P P P =0.056), and cardiac death (1.9% versus 0.3%; P =0.081) were numerically higher in DP-EES than in BP-SES. In the noncalcified lesion analysis, target vessel myocardial infarction in DP-EES was significantly higher than in BP-SES. Stent thrombosis was similar between the stents in both lesion groups. Conclusions: Among patients with more complex disease representing a higher risk of target lesion failure, the effectiveness of an ultrathin-strut BP-SES compared with a thin-strut DP-EES was maintained through 1 year. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifiers: NCT01356888, NCT01939249, NCT02389946.

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.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.There were no differences in clinical outcomes between BP-DESs and DP-DESs over mid- and long-term follow-up.

Objectives: The authors aimed to compare long-term data of an ultrathin cobalt-chromium stent with passive silicon carbide coating and an active biodegradable polymer that releases sirolimu...

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.

Summary Background The development of coronary drug-eluting stents has included use of new metal alloys, changes in stent architecture, and use of bioresorbable polymers. Whether these advancements improve clinical safety and efficacy has not been shown in previous randomised trials. We aimed to examine the clinical outcomes of a bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent compared with a durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent in a broad patient population undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Methods BIOFLOW V was an international, randomised trial done in patients undergoing elective and urgent percutaneous coronary intervention in 90 hospitals in 13 countries (Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Hungary, Israel, the Netherlands, New Zealand, South Korea, Spain, Switzerland, and the USA). Eligible patients were those aged 18 years or older with ischaemic heart disease undergoing planned stent implantation in de-novo, native coronary lesions. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to either an ultrathin strut (60 μm) bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent or to a durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent. Randomisation was via a central web-based data capture system (mixed blocks of 3 and 6), and stratified by study site. The primary endpoint was 12-month target lesion failure. The primary non-inferiority comparison combined these data from two additional randomised trials of bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent and durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent with Bayesian methods. Analysis was by intention to treat. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02389946. Findings Between May 8, 2015, and March 31, 2016, 4772 patients were recruited into the study. 1334 patients met inclusion criteria and were randomly assigned to treatment with bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (n=884) or durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (n=450). 52 (6%) of 883 patients in the bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent group and 41 (10%) of 427 patients in the durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent group met the 12-month primary endpoint of target lesion failure (95% CI −6·84 to −0·29, p=0·0399), with differences in target vessel myocardial infarction (39 [5%] of 831 patients vs 35 [8%] of 424 patients, p=0·0155). The posterior probability that the bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent is non-inferior to the durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent was 100% (Bayesian analysis, difference in target lesion failure frequency −2·6% [95% credible interval −5·5 to 0·1], non-inferiority margin 3·85%, n=2208). Interpretation The outperformance of the ultrathin, bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent over the durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent in a complex patient population undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention suggests a new direction in improving next generation drug-eluting stent technology. Funding BIOTRONIK.

New-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) represent the current standard of care in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Biodegradable polymer DES (BP-DES) were recently developed to overcome current limitations of newer-generation durable polymer DES (DP-DES) attributed to sustained inflammatory responses induced by permanent polymers. The Orsiro DES (Biotronik AG, Bülach, Switzerland) is a novel thin-strut cobalt-chromium sirolimus-eluting stent with biodegradable polymer that features some of the latest developments in DES technology. Areas covered: This article aims to review the currently available evidence on the clinical performance of the Orsiro BP-DES and its future perspectives. Expert commentary: The Orsiro DES is a recent newer-generation BP-DES that combines a highly deliverable thin-strut cobalt-chromium stent platform and a unique hybrid concept with passive and active coatings designed to enhance tissue biocompatibility. In preclinical and intravascular imaging studies, the Orsiro BP-DES was shown to induce low inflammation and promote very early arterial healing. Recently, large randomized non-inferiority clinical trials have shown similar short- and mid-term efficacy and safety outcomes with Orsiro BP-DES compared with currently established newer-generation DES among all-comers and high-risk subgroups. The potential clinical superiority of Orsiro BP-DES over Xience DP-DES in patients with STEMI is currently investigated in the BIOSTEMI trial (NCT02579031).

Objectives This analysis investigates the 5-year outcomes of the biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stent (BP-BES) and durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent (DP-EES) in an all-comers population undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Background Recent 1- and 3-year results from randomized trials have indicated similar safety and efficacy outcomes of BP-BES and DP-EES. Whether benefits of the biodegradable polymer device arise over longer follow-up is unknown. Moreover, in-depth, prospective, long-term follow-up data on metallic drug-eluting stents with durable or biodegradable polymers are scarce. Methods The COMPARE II trial (Abluminal Biodegradable Polymer Biolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stent) was a prospective, randomized, multicenter, all-comers trial in which 2,707 patients were randomly allocated (2:1) to BP-BES or DP-EES. The pre-specified endpoint at 5 years was major adverse cardiac events, a composite of cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization. Results Five-year follow-up was available in 2,657 patients (98%). At 5 years, major adverse cardiac events occurred in 310 patients (17.3%) in the BP-BES group and 142 patients (15.6%) in the DP-EES group (p = 0.26). The rate of the combined safety endpoint all-cause death or myocardial infarction was 15.0% in the BP-BES group versus 14.8% in the DP-EES group (p = 0.90), whereas the efficacy measure target vessel revascularization was 10.6% versus 9.0% (p = 0.18), respectively. Interestingly, definite stent thrombosis rates did not differ between groups (1.5% for BP-BES vs. 0.9% for DP-EES; p = 0.17). Conclusions The 5-year analysis comparing biodegradable polymer-coated BES and the durable polymer-coated EES confirms the initial early- and mid-term results regarding similar safety and efficacy outcomes in this all-comers percutaneous coronary intervention population.

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).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.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.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. thick100 μm), or the DAPT duration (≥6 months vs. ≥12 months).BP-DES have similar safety and efficacy profiles to second-generation DP-DES.