Impact of preprocedural left ventricular systolic function on the safety and durability of percutaneous coronary intervention.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is considered less safe in patients with reduced ejection fraction (EF), an impression based on older data. Whether the safety and durability of contemporary PCI are different in patients with reduced EF compared with normal EF patients is unknown. METHODS: Patients from the BIOFLOW II, IV and V clinical trials were grouped as normal EF (≥50%) and reduced EF (30%-50%). Using multivariable logistic regression and cox proportional hazards regression, we determined relations of EF category with procedural safety (a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, stroke and urgent coronary artery bypass grafting within 30 days of PCI) and target lesion failure (TLF; comprising cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization within 1 year of PCI) respectively. In sensitivity analyses, we regrouped patients into EF < 45% and ≥55% and repeated the aforementioned analyses. RESULTS: In 1685 patients with normal EF (mean age 65 years; 27% women; mean EF 61%) and 259 with low EF (mean age 64 years; 17% women; mean EF 41%), 101 safety and 148 TLF events occurred. Compared with patients in the normal EF group, those with reduced EF had neither a statistically significant higher proportion of safety events, nor a higher multivariable-adjusted risk for such events. Similarly, patients with reduced EF and normal EF did not differ in terms of TLF event proportions or multivariable-adjusted risk for TLF. The results were similar in sensitivity analyses with EF groups redefined to create a 10% between-group EF separation. CONCLUSION: PCI safety and durability outcomes are similar in patients with mild-moderately reduced EF and normal EF.

A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing BioMime Sirolimus-Eluting Stent With Everolimus-Eluting Stent: Two-Year Outcomes of the meriT-V Trial.

Background: Drug-eluting stents (DESs) based on biodegradable polymers (BPs) have been introduced to reduce the risk for late and very late stent thrombosis (ST), which were frequently observed with earlier generations of DES designs based on durable polymers (DPs); however, randomized controlled trials on these DES designs are scarce. The meriT-V trial is a randomized, active-controlled, non-inferiority trial with a prospective, multicenter design that evaluated the 2-year efficacy of a novel third-generation, ultra-thin strut, BP-based BioMime sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) versus the DP-based XIENCE everolimus-eluting stent (EES) for the treatment of de novo lesions. Methods: The meriT-V is a randomized trial that enrolled 256 patients at 15 centers across Europe and Brazil. Here, we report the outcomes of the extended follow-up period of 2 years. The randomization of enrolled patients was in a 2:1 ratio; the enrolled patients received either the BioMime SES (n = 170) or the XIENCE EES (n = 86). The three-point major adverse cardiac event (MACE), defined as a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), or ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization (ID-TVR), was considered as the composite safety and efficacy endpoint. Ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (ID-TLR) was evaluated as well as the frequency of definite/probable ST, based on the first Academic Research Consortium definitions. Results: The trial had a 2-year follow-up completion rate of 98.44% (n = 252/256 patients), and the clinical outcomes assessment showed a nonsignificant difference in the cumulative rate of three-point MACE between both arms (BioMime vs. XIENCE: 7.74% vs. 9.52%, P = 0.62). Even the MI incidences in the BioMime arm were insignificantly lower than those of the XIENCE arm (1.79% vs. 5.95%, P = 0.17). Late ST was observed in 1.19% cases of the XIENCE arm, while there were no such cases in the BioMime arm (P = 0.16). Conclusions: The objective comparisons between the novel BP-based BioMime SES and the well-established DP-based XIENCE EES in this randomized controlled trial show acceptable outcomes of both the devices in the cardiac deaths, MI, ID-TVR, and ST. Moreover, since there were no incidences of cardiac death in the entire study sample over the course of 2 years, we contend that the findings of the study are highly significant for both these DES designs. In this preliminary comparative trial, the device safety of BioMime SES can be affirmed to be acceptable, considering the lower three-point MACE rate and absence of late ST in the BioMime arm over the 2-year period.

A randomized controlled trial comparing BioMime Sirolimus-Eluting Stent with Everolimus-Eluting Stent: two-year outcomes of the meriT-V trial

BACKGROUND: Drug-eluting stents (DESs) based on biodegradable polymers (BPs) have been introduced to reduce the risk for late and very late stent thrombosis (ST), which were frequently observed with earlier generations of DES designs based on durable polymers (DPs); however, randomized controlled trials on these DES designs are scarce. The meriT-V trial is a randomized, active-controlled, non-inferiority trial with a prospective, multicenter design that evaluated the 2-year efficacy of a novel third-generation, ultra-thin strut, BP-based BioMime sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) versus the DP-based XIENCE everolimus-eluting stent (EES) for the treatment of de novo lesions. METHODS: The meriT-V is a randomized trial that enrolled 256 patients at 15 centers across Europe and Brazil. Here, we report the outcomes of the extended follow-up period of 2 years. The randomization of enrolled patients was in a 2:1 ratio; the enrolled patients received either the BioMime SES (n = 170) or the XIENCE EES (n = 86). The three-point major adverse cardiac event (MACE), defined as a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), or ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization (ID-TVR), was considered as the composite safety and efficacy endpoint. Ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (ID-TLR) was evaluated as well as the frequency of definite/probable ST, based on the first Academic Research Consortium definitions. RESULTS: The trial had a 2-year follow-up completion rate of 98.44% (n = 252/256 patients), and the clinical outcomes assessment showed a nonsignificant difference in the cumulative rate of three-point MACE between both arms (BioMime vs. XIENCE: 7.74% vs. 9.52%, P = 0.62). Even the MI incidences in the BioMime arm were insignificantly lower than those of the XIENCE arm (1.79% vs.

Ultrathin Bioresorbable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stents: BIOFLOW V Final 5-Year Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Randomized trials have demonstrated the superiority of ultrathin strut drug-eluting stents compared with alternative stent designs. Whether these differences persist over late-term follow-up is uncertain. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare late-term (5-year) clinical outcomes among patients treated with ultrathin strut (60 µm) bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (BP SES) and thin strut (81 µm) durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP EES). METHODS: BIOFLOW V (Biotronik 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 V) was an international, 2:1 randomized trial comparing percutaneous coronary intervention with ultrathin strut BP SES versus thin strut DP EES regarding the primary endpoint of 12-month target lesion failure (TLF). Prespecified outcomes through 5 years were assessed. RESULTS: Among 1,334 patients randomized to treatment with BP SES (n = 884) or DP EES (n = 450), the 5-year rates of TLF were 12.3% for BP SES and 15.3% for DP EES (P = 0.108). Revascularization with BP SES was associated with a significantly lower target vessel-related myocardial infarction (6.6% vs 10.3%, P = 0.015) and late/very late definite/probable stent thrombosis (0.3% vs 1.6%, P = 0.021). Ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization was numerically but not significantly lower with BP SES (5.9% vs 7.7%, P = 0.202). Cardiac death rates were 2.6% versus 1.9% (P = 0.495) for BP SES and DP EES, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In a large, randomized trial, TLF and the individual outcomes of cardiac death and target lesion revascularization at 5 years were similar among patients treated with BP SES versus DP EES. Both target vessel-related myocardial infarction and late/very late definite/probable stent thrombosis were significantly lower with BP SES. These results confirm the durability of safety and the effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention with ultrathin BP SES.

Impact of Coronary Calcification on Clinical Outcomes After Implantation of Newer-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents.

Background Percutaneous coronary intervention of calcified lesions was associated with worse outcomes in the era of bare-metal and first-generation drug-eluting stents. Data on percutaneous coronary intervention of calcified lesions with newer-generation drug-eluting stents are scarce. Therefore, we investigated the impact of lesion calcification on clinical outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with a bioresorbable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stent or a durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stent. Methods and Results Patients (n=2361) from BIOFLOW II, IV, and V trials were categorized into moderate/severe versus none/mild lesion calcification by a core laboratory. End points were target-lesion failure (TLF) (cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or target-lesion revascularization) and probable/definite stent thrombosis at 2 years. The agreement in calcification assessment between the operator and the core laboratory was weak (weighted κ, 0.23). Patients with moderate/severe calcification (n=303; 16%) had higher TLF (13.5% versus 8.4%; P=0.003) and stent thrombosis rates (2.1% versus 0.2%; P<0.0001), whereas target-lesion revascularization was not different between the groups (5.0% versus 3.9%; P=0.302). After adjustment, calcification did not emerge as an independent predictor of TLF (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.37; 95% CI, 0.89-2.08; P=0.148) but did for target-vessel myocardial infarction (aHR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.03-2.68; P=0.037). TLF rates were similar between bioresorbable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stent and durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stent (12.6% versus 15.4%, P=0.482) in moderate/severe calcification. In none/mild calcification, the bioresorbable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stent showed lower TLF (7.5% versus 10.3%, P=0.045). Conclusions With newer-generation drug-eluting stents, moderate/severe lesion calcification was not associated with more TLF after adjustment for the higher risk of patients with coronary calcification, whereas the rate of target-vessel myocardial infarction was higher. The bioresorbable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stent and durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stent were equally effective and safe in calcified lesions. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifiers: NCT01356888, NCT01939249, NCT02389946.

Biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents vs durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: A meta-analysis of individual patient data from 5 randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Newest generation drug-eluting stents combine biodegradable polymers with ultrathin stent platforms in order to minimize vessel injury and inflammatory response. Evidence from randomized controlled trials suggested that differences in stent design translate into differences in clinical outcome. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ultrathin strut, biodegradable polymer sirolimus eluting stents (BP SES) compared with thin strut, durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP EES) among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS: We pooled individual participant data from 5 randomized trials (NCT01356888, NCT01939249, NCT02389946, NCT01443104, NCT02579031) including a total of 5,780 patients, and performed a one-stage meta-analysis using a mixed effects Cox regression model. RESULTS: At a median duration of follow-up of 739 days (interquartile range 365-1,806 days), target-lesion failure occurred in 337 (10.3%) and 304 (12.2%) patients treated with BP SES and DP EES (HR 0.86, 95%CI 0.71-1.06, P = .16). There were no significant differences between BP SES and DP EES with regards to cardiac death (111 (3.4%) vs 102 (4.1%); HR 1.05, 95%CI 0.80-1.37, P = .73), target-vessel myocardial infarction (136 (4.1%) vs 126 (5.0%), HR 0.79, 95%CI 0.62-1.01, P = .061), and clinically-driven target-lesion revascularization (163 (5.0%) vs 147 (5.9%); HR 0.94, 95%CI 0.75-1.18, P = .61). The effect was consistent across major subgroups. In a landmark analysis, there was no significant interaction between treatment effect and timing of events. CONCLUSIONS: In this patient-level meta-analysis of 5 randomized controlled trials, BP SES were associated with a similar risk of target-lesion failure compared with DP EES among patients undergoing PCI. STUDY REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registry (CRD42018109098).

Individual patient data analysis of the BIOFLOW study program comparing safety and efficacy of a bioresorbable polymer sirolimus eluting stent to a durable polymer everolimus eluting stent.

OBJECTIVES: This analysis of pooled individual patient data (IPD) aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a bioresorbable polymer sirolimus eluting stent system (BP-SES; Orsiro) compared to a durable polymer everolimus eluting stent system (DP-EES; Xience) in the pooled population as well as in subgroups. METHODS: IPD with up to 12 months follow-up of the randomized controlled trials BIOFLOW-II (NCT01356888), -IV (NCT01939249), and -V (NCT02389946) as well as the all comers registry BIOFLOW-III (NCT01553526) were pooled. A total of 3,717 subjects (2,923 in BP-SES and 794 in DP-EES) with 5,328 lesions (4,225 lesions in BP-SES and 1,103 in DP-EES) were included in the IPD. The primary endpoint was target lesion failure (TLF) at 12 months follow-up. Subgroups analyzed included diabetes, age (≥65 years), gender, complex lesions (B2/C), small vessels (reference vessel diameter ≤2.75 mm), multivessel treatment, renal disease, and patients with acute coronary syndrome. RESULTS: Overall, TLF at 12 months was significantly lower with 5.2%in the BP-SES group versus 7.6% in the DP-EES group (p = .0098). Similarly, target vessel myocardial infarction (TV-MI) was 3.1 versus 5.7% (p = .0005). The rate of stent thrombosis was similar in both groups (0.004%). By regression analysis, an independent stent effect in favor of BP-SES was observed for TLF (p = .0043) and TV-MI (p = .0364) in small vessels. CONCLUSION: Results of this IPD analysis suggest that the BP-SES with ultrathin struts is as safe as and more efficacious than DP-EES in the overall cohort and especially in small vessels.

Ultrathin Bioresorbable-Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Thin Durable-Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stents for Coronary Revascularization: 3-Year Outcomes From the Randomized BIOFLOW V Trial.

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 thin-strut (81µm) durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP EES). BACKGROUND: Emerging evidence from comparative studies of drug-eluting stents demonstrates improved safety and efficacy with ultrathin-strut drug-eluting stents, but limited insight exists regarding late-term outcomes. METHODS: BIOFLOW V (Biotronik 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 V) is an international randomized trial comparing coronary revascularization with BP SES and DP EES regarding the primary endpoint of 12-month target lesion failure. Analysis of pre-specified 3-year clinical outcomes was performed. RESULTS: Among 1,334 patients randomized to treatment with BP SES (n = 884) or DP EES (n = 450), the 3-year rate of target lesion failure was 8.2% for BP SES and 13.6% for DP EES (p = 0.002), driven by differences in both target vessel myocardial infarction (MI) (5.0% vs. 9.2%; p = 0.003) and clinically driven target lesion revascularization (3.2% vs. 6.7%; p = 0.006). In landmark analysis, significant differences in target vessel MI and target lesion revascularization were observed favoring treatment with BP SES. Definite or probable late or very late stent thrombosis was significantly lower with BP SES (0.1% vs. 1.2%; p = 0.018). Cardiac death or MI rates were 7.7% and 11.7% (p = 0.017) for BP SES and DP EES, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In a large randomized trial, both target lesion failure and the outcomes of target vessel MI, clinically driven target lesion revascularization, and late or very late stent thrombosis at 3 years were significantly lower among patients treated with BP SES versus DP EES. The results endorse the continued superiority of ultrathin-strut BP SES compared with DP EES. (Safety and Effectiveness of the Orsiro Sirolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in Subjects With Coronary Artery Lesions [BIOFLOW-V]; NCT02389946).

Mechanism of Drug-Eluting Absorbable Metal Scaffold Restenosis: A Serial Optical Coherence Tomography Study.

BACKGROUND: The pathomechanisms underlying restenosis of the bioabsorbable sirolimus-eluting metallic scaffold (Magmaris) remain unknown. Using serial optical coherence tomography, we investigated causes of restenosis, including the contribution of late scaffold recoil versus neointimal hyperplasia. METHODS: Patients enrolled in BIOSOLVE-II undergoing serial angiography and optical coherence tomography (post-intervention and follow-up: 6 months and/or 1 year) were analyzed. Patients were divided into 2 groups according to angiographic in-scaffold late lumen loss (LLL) <0.5 or ≥0.5 mm. End points were late absolute scaffold recoil and neointimal hyperplasia area as assessed by optical coherence tomography. RESULTS: Serial data were available for analysis from 70 patients (LLL <0.5 mm: n=41; LLL ≥0.5 mm: n=29). Patient and lesion characteristics were comparable, and there was no significant difference in mean and minimal scaffold area between groups at post-intervention. Late absolute scaffold recoil was less among patients with LLL <0.5 mm (0.53±0.68 mm2) compared with those with LLL ≥0.5 mm (1.48±1.20 mm2; P<0.001). Neointimal hyperplasia area was smaller among patients with LLL <0.5 mm at follow-up (1.47±0.33 mm2) compared with patients with LLL ≥0.5 mm (1.68±0.34 mm2; P=0.013). In a matched-frame analysis (post-intervention and follow-up), late absolute scaffold recoil varied according to the underlying plaque type (lipid: 0.63±1.23 mm2; calcified: 0.81±1.44 mm2; and fibrous: 1.20±1.52 mm2; P <0.001), while there was no difference with regards to neointimal hyperplasia area (P=0.132). CONCLUSIONS: In addition to neointimal hyperplasia, late scaffold recoil contributed significantly to LLL of sirolimus-eluting absorbable metal scaffolds. The extent of late scaffold recoil was dependent on the underlying plaque morphology and was the highest among fibrotic lesions. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01960504.

Efficacy and Safety of Ultrathin, Bioresorbable-Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Thin, Durable-Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stents for Coronary Revascularization of Patients With Diabetes Mellitus.

Patients with diabetes mellitus are prone to increased adverse outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention, even with contemporary drug-eluting stents. Randomized controlled trials have demonstrated comparable clinical outcomes between an ultrathin bioresorbable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (BP-SES) and a thin-strut durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stent (DP-EES) that has specific labeling for patients with diabetes. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the BP-SES in patients with diabetes mellitus. To determine the performance of the BP-SES in diabetic patients, patient-level data from the BIOFLOW II, IV, and V randomized controlled trials were pooled. The primary end point was target lesion failure (TLF), defined as the composite of cardiovascular death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization, and definite or probable stent thrombosis, at 1 year. Among 1,553 BP-SES and 791 DP-EES patients, 757 diabetic patients were identified. Of the diabetic patients included in this analysis (494 BP-SES vs 263 DP-EES), the proportion of insulin- and noninsulin-treated patients was similar between groups. The 1-year TLF rate in the diabetic population was 6.3% in the BP-SES group and 8.7% in the DP-EES group (hazard ratio 0.82, 95% confidence interval 0.047 to 1.43, p = 0.493). There were no significant differences, based on stent type or diabetes treatment regimen, in TLF hazards. In a patient-level pooled analysis of the diabetic population from randomized trials, 1-year clinical safety and efficacy outcomes were similar in patients treated with ultrathin BP-SES and thin-strut DP-EES.

First Report of Edge Vascular Response at 12 Months of Magmaris, A Second-Generation Drug-Eluting Resorbable Magnesium Scaffold, Assessed by Grayscale Intravascular Ultrasound, Virtual Histology, and Optical Coherence Tomography. A Biosolve-II Trial Sub-Study.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: The edge vascular response (EVR) remains unknown in second generation drug-eluting Resorbable Magnesium Scaffold (RMS), such as Magmaris. The aim of the study was to evaluate tissue modifications in the RMS edges over time, assessed by different invasive imaging modalities. METHODS: The patients treated with the device were assessed by optical coherence tomography (OCT), grayscale intravascular ultrasound (IVUS), and virtual histology IVUS at baseline and 12 months. The EVR study performed a segment- and frame-level analysis of the 5 mm segments proximal and distal of the actual RMS. RESULTS: The segment-level grayscale IVUS (n = 10), virtual histology IVUS (n = 10), and OCT (n = 18) analysis did not show any significant changes after 12 months, except for a fibrous plaque area (FPA) reduction of 0.5mm2 (p = 0.017) in the proximal segment compared to baseline. In the frame-level analysis, IVUS evaluation revealed a vessel area decreased 2.80 ±â€¯1.43 mm2 (p = 0.012) and 2.49 ±â€¯1.53 mm2 (p = 0.022) in 2 proximal frames. This was accompanied by plaque area reduction of 0.88 ±â€¯0.70 mm2 (p = 0.048) and a FPA decreased by 0.63 ±â€¯0.48 mm2 (p = 0.004) in one proximal frame. In 1 distal frame, there was a dense calcium area reduction of 0.10 ±â€¯0.12 mm2 (p = 0.045), FPA and fibrous fatty plaque increased 0.54 ±â€¯0.53 mm2 (p = 0.023) and 0.17 ±â€¯0.16 mm2 (p = 0.016), respectively. By OCT, there was a lumen area decrease of 0.76 ±â€¯1.51 mm2 (p = 0.045) in a distal frame. CONCLUSION: At 12 months, Magmaris EVR assessment does not show overall significant changes, except for a fibrous plaque area reduction in the proximal segment. This could be translated as a benign healing process at the edges of the RMS. SUMMARY: The edge vascular response (EVR) remains unknown in second generation drug-eluting absorbable metal scaffolds (RMS), such as Magmaris. Patients treated with the device were assessed by multi invasive imaging modalities [i.e. optical coherence tomography (OCT), grayscale intravascular ultrasound (IVUS), and virtual histology IVUS] evaluating the tissue changes over time in the segment- and frame-level analysis of the 5 mm segments proximal and distal of the actual RMS. As a result, after 12 months, Magmaris EVR assessment does not show overall significant changes, except for a fibrous plaque area reduction in the proximal segment, translating a benign healing process at the edges of the RMS.

Subgroup Analysis Comparing Ultrathin, Bioresorbable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Thin, Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stents in Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients.

BACKGROUND: Presentation with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) constitutes a high-risk subset of patients with worse outcome after percutaneous coronary intervention. We report clinical outcomes in subjects with ACS from the BIOFLOW V trial (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) comparing an ultrathin strut (60 µm) bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (BP-SES) with a thin strut (81 µm) durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent (DP-EES). METHODS AND RESULTS: Among 1334 patients randomized to 2:1 treatment with either BP-SES or DP-EES, 677 (50.7%) ACS patients without ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (MI; 454 BP-SES and 223 DP-EES) were identified in the retrospective post hoc analysis. The primary end point of 12-month target lesion failure, individual component end points, and stent thrombosis were evaluated. Recurrent MI was defined as a ≥50% increase of creatine kinase-myocardial band or in the absence of creatine kinase-myocardial band, troponin >50% increase over previous level and >3× the upper limit of normal). All events were adjudicated by a blinded independent clinical events committee. Overall, baseline clinical, angiographic, and procedural characteristics of the ACS population were similar between the 2 treatment groups. At 12 months, target lesion failure occurred in 5.6% (24/426) of BP-SES patients versus 11.0% (23/209) in DP-EES patients ( P=0.02); target lesion failure composite components were cardiac death, 0% versus 1.0% ( P=0.11); target vessel-related MI, 3.5% versus 9.7% ( P=0.003); and clinically driven target lesion revascularization, 2.8% versus 3.4% ( P=0.80). Spontaneous target vessel MI was 0.5% (2/425) for BP-SES versus 2.4% (5/206) for DP-EES ( P=0.041). Stent thrombosis rates at 1 year were similar (0.5% versus 1.0%; P=0.601). CONCLUSIONS: In the ACS subgroup population of the BIOFLOW V study, treatment with BP-SES compared with DP-EES was associated with a significantly lower rate of 12-month target lesion failure, a difference driven by significantly lower periprocedural MI and spontaneous MI. These findings support treatment with an ultrathin strut BP-SES in ACS patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT02389946.