Impact of lesion calcification on angiographic outcomes after Absorb everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold implantation: an observation from the ABSORB Japan trial.

AIMS: We aimed to investigate the impact of lesion calcification on angiographic outcomes after Absorb everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) implantation in comparison with those after cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stent (CoCr-EES) implantation. METHODS AND RESULTS: The present post hoc analysis of the ABSORB Japan randomised trial compared post-procedure and 13-month angiographic outcomes between patients implanted with BVS and CoCr-EES based on the presence or absence of calcification, excluding extremely heavily calcified lesions or lesions requiring rotational atherectomy. The study population comprised 384 patients with 384 lesions (including 114 lesions [29.7%] with moderate or severe calcification), classified into two subgroups: calcification, 114 (BVS: n=72 and CoCr-EES: n=42) and non-calcification, 270 (BVS: n=181 and CoCr-EES: n=89). Follow-up angiography was performed in 94.8% of patients. Both post-procedure and follow-up in-device minimal lumen diameters were comparable in both the BVS arm (calcification vs. non-calcification: 2.43±0.32 mm vs. 2.43±0.39 mm, p=0.91 and 2.17±0.49 mm vs. 2.27±0.47 mm, p=0.17) and in the CoCr-EES arm (2.68±0.34 mm vs. 2.65±0.42 mm, p=0.62 and 2.57±0.52 mm vs. 2.47±0.53 mm, p=0.36). CONCLUSIONS: Moderate or severe lesion calcification (excluding patients with extremely heavily calcified lesions or lesions requiring rotational atherectomy) does not negatively affect angiographic outcomes at both post-procedure and 13-month follow-up after BVS implantation.

Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds Versus Metallic Stents in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: ABSORB China Trial.

BACKGROUND: The everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) is designed to achieve results comparable to metallic drug-eluting stents at 1 year, with improved long-term outcomes. Whether the 1-year clinical and angiographic results of BVS are noninferior to current-generation drug-eluting stents has not been established. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate the angiographic efficacy and clinical safety and effectiveness of BVS in a randomized trial designed to enable approval of the BVS in China. METHODS: Eligible patients with 1 or 2 de novo native coronary artery lesions were randomized to BVS or cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents (CoCr-EES) in a 1:1 ratio stratified by diabetes and the number of lesions treated. Angiographic and clinical follow-up were planned at 1 year in all patients. The primary endpoint was angiographic in-segment late loss (LL), powered for noninferiority with a margin of 0.15 mm. RESULTS: A total of 480 patients were randomized (241 BVS vs. 239 CoCr-EES) at 24 sites. Acute clinical device success (98.0% vs. 99.6%; p = 0.22) and procedural success (97.0% and 98.3%; p = 0.37) were comparable in BVS- and CoCr-EES-treated patients, respectively. The primary endpoint of in-segment LL at 1 year was 0.19 ± 0.38 mm for BVS versus 0.13 ± 0.38 mm for CoCr-EES; the 1-sided 97.5% upper confidence limit of the difference was 0.14 mm, achieving noninferiority of BVS compared with CoCr-EES (pnoninferiority = 0.01). BVS and CoCr-EES also had similar 1-year rates of target lesion failure (cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization; 3.4% vs. 4.2%, respectively; p = 0.62) and definite/probable scaffold/stent thrombosis (0.4% vs. 0.0%, respectively; p = 1.00). CONCLUSIONS: In the present multicenter randomized trial, BVS was noninferior to CoCr-EES for the primary endpoint of in-segment LL at 1 year. (A Clinical Evaluation of Absorb Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold [Absorb BVS] System in Chinese Population-ABSORB CHINA Randomized Controlled Trial [RCT]; NCT01923740).

Five-year follow-up of the Sirolimus-Eluting Stents vs Vascular Brachytherapy for Bare Metal In-Stent Restenosis (SISR) trial.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the 5-year clinical safety and efficacy outcomes of patients treated for in-stent restenosis of bare-metal stents (BMSs). BACKGROUND: The SISR trial is a prospective, randomized trial that compared the safety and efficacy of sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) vs vascular brachytherapy (VBT) for the treatment of BMS in-stent restenosis. METHODS: A total of 384 patients with BMS in-stent restenosis were randomized to treatment with SES (n = 259) or VBT (n = 125) and were followed for 5 years. RESULTS: At 5 years, the rates of target lesion revascularization (TLR) had narrowed and were nonsignificant between the SES and VBT groups, with TLR rates of 24.7% and 31.2% (95% CI -16.3% to 2.8%, P = .179) respectively. Target vessel failure was 33.6% vs 36.8% (95% CI -13.5% to 6.7% P = .568) for SES compared with VBT. The rate of major adverse cardiac event at 5 years was 34.0% vs 36.8% (95% CI -13.1% to7.1%, P = .648) for the SES compared with VBT. There were no differences between SES and VBT in terms of survival free from TLR (72.9% vs 66.4%, log-rank P = .08) or from target vessel failure (64.4% vs 61.3%, log-rank P = .349). There were no significant differences in the rates of definite/probable stent thrombosis (5.9% vs 2.5%, 95% CI -7.9% to 1.3%, P = .182) between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: At a 5-year follow-up, no differences in safety or efficacy outcomes were observed for treatment of BMS restenosis with SES vs VBT. There were no significant differences in survival free from TLR, target vessel revascularization, or major adverse cardiac events between the 2 groups at 5 years. Sirolimus-eluting stent is a viable treatment option compared with VBT for BMS restenosis.

The clinical evaluation of the Endeavor zotarolimus-eluting coronary stent in Japanese patients with de novo native coronary artery lesions: primary results and 3-year follow-up of the Endeavor Japan study.

BACKGROUND: Angiographic and clinical outcomes associated with coronary stents eluting the new molecular entity zotarolimus have been well characterized in a variety of geographies and patient subsets. The Endeavor Japan study is the first prospective clinical trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the Endeavor zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) in the treatment of Japanese patients with single de novo lesions in native coronary arteries. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This nonrandomized, prospective, multicenter, single-arm trial of 99 subjects with inclusion criteria (elective percutaneous revascularization of single native de novo coronary artery lesions with length ≥14 and ≤27 mm with reference vessel diameters between 2.25 and 3.5 mm) selected to enhance statistical comparability to the ENDEAVOR II randomized study as historical control. The primary end point was target vessel failure (TVF) at 9 months. RESULTS: At 9 months, the TVF rate was 5.2%, compared with 7.9% in the ZES arm of ENDEAVOR II (P=.412). Notable baseline differences between the Endeavor Japan and ENDEAVOR II populations were mean age (68.2 vs. 61.6 years; P<.001), diabetes (38.4% vs. 18.2%; P<.001), and unstable angina (4.6% vs. 30.3%; P<.001). Despite cohort differences, acute, 9-month, and 3-year clinical outcomes were similar in the two groups, as were 8-month angiographic indices. Finally, out to 3 years, no stent thrombosis was observed in Japanese subjects. CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrate that, in a Japanese population, the Endeavor ZES has similar safety and efficacy compared with other geographies, with sustained clinical benefit and safety to 3 years.

3-year follow-up of the SISR (Sirolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Vascular Brachytherapy for In-Stent Restenosis) trial.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate long-term outcome of patients treated for in-stent restenosis of bare-metal stents (BMS). BACKGROUND: Treatment of restenosis of BMS is characterized by high recurrence rates. Vascular brachytherapy (VBT) improved outcome although late catch-up events were documented. Drug-eluting stents tested against VBT in this setting were found superior for at least the first year; superiority at longer follow-up is uncertain. METHODS: We evaluated 3-year outcome of the multicenter SISR (Sirolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Vascular Brachytherapy for In-Stent Restenosis) trial, which randomized patients with restenosis of BMS to either a sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) or VBT. RESULTS: Target vessel failure (cardiac death, infarction, or target vessel revascularization [TVR]) at 9 months as previously reported was significantly improved with SES. Kaplan-Meier analysis at 3 years documented that survival free from target lesion revascularization (TLR) and TVR continues to be significantly improved with SES: freedom from TLR 81.0% versus 71.6% (log-rank p = 0.018), and TVR 78.2% versus 68.8% (log-rank p = 0.022), SES versus VBT. At 3 years, target vessel failure and major adverse cardiac events (death, infarction, emergency coronary artery bypass grafting, or repeat TLR) remained improved with SES, but did not reach statistical significance. There was no statistically significant difference in definite or probable stent thrombosis (3.5% for SES, 2.4% for VBT; p = 0.758). CONCLUSIONS: At 3 years of follow-up, after treatment of in-stent restenosis of BMS, patients treated with SES have improved survival free of TLR and TVR compared with patients treated with VBT. Stent thrombosis rates are not different between the 2 groups but are higher than reported in trials of treatment of de novo lesions.

Sirolimus-eluting stents vs vascular brachytherapy for in-stent restenosis within bare-metal stents: the SISR randomized trial.

CONTEXT: Although vascular brachytherapy is the only approved therapy for restenosis following bare-metal stent implantation, drug-eluting stents are now being used. Data on the relative merits of each are limited. OBJECTIVE: To determine the safety and efficacy of the sirolimus-eluting stent compared with vascular brachytherapy for the treatment of patients with restenosis within a bare-metal stent. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Prospective, multicenter, randomized trial of 384 patients with in-stent restenosis who were enrolled between February 2003 and July 2004 at 26 academic and community medical centers. Data presented represent all follow-up as of June 30, 2005. INTERVENTIONS: Vascular brachytherapy (n = 125) or the sirolimus-eluting stent (n = 259). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Target vessel failure (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization) at 9 months postprocedure. RESULTS: Baseline patient characteristics were well matched. Lesion length was similar between vascular brachytherapy and sirolimus-eluting stent patients (mean [SD], 16.76 [8.55] mm vs 17.22 [7.97] mm, respectively; P = .61). Procedural success was 99.2% (124/125) in the vascular brachytherapy group and 97.3% (250/257) in the sirolimus-eluting stent group (P = .28). The rate of target vessel failure was 21.6% (27/125) with vascular brachytherapy and 12.4% (32/259) with the sirolimus-eluting stent (relative risk [RR], 1.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-2.8; P = .02). Target lesion revascularization was required in 19.2% (24/125) of the vascular brachytherapy group and 8.5% (22/259) of the sirolimus-eluting stent group (RR, 2.3 [95% CI, 1.3-3.9]; P = .004). At follow-up angiography, the rate of binary angiographic restenosis for the analysis segment was 29.5% (31/105) for the vascular brachytherapy group and 19.8% (45/227) for the sirolimus-eluting stent group (RR, 1.5 [95% CI, 1.0-2.2]; P = .07). Compared with the vascular brachytherapy group, minimal lumen diameter was larger in the sirolimus-eluting stent group at 6-month follow-up (mean [SD], 1.52 [0.63] mm vs 1.80 [0.63] mm; P<.001), reflecting greater net lumen gain in the analysis segment (0.68 [0.60] vs 1.0 [0.61] mm; P<.001) due to stenting and no edge restenosis. CONCLUSION: Sirolimus-eluting stents result in superior clinical and angiographic outcomes compared with vascular brachytherapy for the treatment of restenosis within a bare-metal stent. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00231257.

Impact of sirolimus-eluting stents on outcome in diabetic patients: a SIRIUS (SIRolImUS-coated Bx Velocity balloon-expandable stent in the treatment of patients with de novo coronary artery lesions) substudy.

BACKGROUND: Randomized clinical trials have shown that a sirolimus-eluting stent significantly reduces restenosis after percutaneous coronary revascularization. Diabetic patients are known to have a higher risk of restenosis compared with nondiabetic patients. The purpose of this analysis was to determine the impact of sirolimus-eluting stents on outcomes of diabetic compared with nondiabetic patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: The SIRIUS (SIRolImUS-coated Bx Velocity balloon-expandable stent in the treatment of patients with de novo coronary artery lesions) trial is a randomized, double-blind study that compared sirolimus-eluting and bare metal stent implantation in 1058 patients with de novo native coronary artery lesions. Diabetes mellitus was present in 279 (26%) patients (diabetes mellitus group, 131 patients received sirolimus-eluting stents and 148 patients received bare metal stents) and was absent in 778 patients (no-diabetes mellitus group, 402 patients received sirolimus-eluting stents and 376 patients received bare metal stents). At 270 days, target lesion revascularization was reduced in diabetic patients from 22.3% with bare metal stents to 6.9% with sirolimus-eluting stents (P<0.001) and in nondiabetic patients from 14.1% to 2.99% (P<0.001), respectively. Major adverse cardiac events were reduced in diabetic patients from 25% with bare metal stents to 9.2% with sirolimus-eluting stents (P<0.001) and from 16.5% to 6.5% (P<0.001) in nondiabetic patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Implantation of sirolimus-eluting stents compared with bare metal stents in de novo coronary lesions reduces major adverse cardiac events in patients with and without diabetes mellitus. However, among patients receiving sirolimus-eluting stents, there remains a trend toward a higher frequency of repeat intervention in diabetic patients compared with nondiabetic patients, particularly in the insulin-requiring patients.