Abluminal biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stent versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent (COMPARE II): a randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Drug-eluting stents with durable biocompatible or biodegradable polymers have been developed to address the risk of thrombosis associated with first-generation drug-eluting stents. We aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of a biodegradable polymer-coated biolimus-eluting stent with a thin-strut everolimus-eluting stent coated with a durable biocompatible polymer. METHODS: This open-label, prospective, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial was undertaken at 12 sites across Europe. We used limited exclusion criteria (age >18 years, life expectancy >5 years, reference vessel diameter 2·0-4·0 mm) to enrol patients eligible for percutaneous coronary intervention. Patients were randomly allocated (2:1) by computer-generated random numbers to receive either a biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stent (Nobori, Terumo, Tokyo, Japan) or a durable fluoropolymer-based everolimus-eluting stent (Xience V or Prime, Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA, USA, or Promus, Boston Scientific, Natick, MA, USA). The primary endpoint was a composite of safety (cardiac death and non-fatal myocardial infarction) and efficacy (clinically indicated target vessel revascularisation) at 12 months, analysed by intention to treat. Patients received dual antiplatelet therapy for 12 months after discharge. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01233453. FINDINGS: From Jan 12, 2009, to Feb 7, 2011, we enrolled 2707 patients (4025 lesions), 1795 of whom were assigned to receive the biolimus-eluting stent (2638 lesions) and 912 to an everolimus-eluting stent (1387 lesions). 2688 (99·3%) patients completed 12 months' follow-up. Significantly more patients in the biolimus-eluting stent group received a non-assigned stent than did those in the everolimus-eluting stent group (105 [5·9%] vs 19 [2·1%]; p<0·0001). The primary endpoint occurred in 93 (5·2%) patients in the biolimus-eluting stent group and 44 (4·8%) patients in the everolimus-eluting stent group at 12 months (relative risk 1·07 [95% CI 0·75-1·52]; p(non-inferiority)<0·0001). Analysis per protocol did not change the outcome of this trial (p(non-inferiority)<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: Biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stents are as safe and efficacious as the current standard of a thin-strut everolimus-eluting stent with a durable biocompatible polymer. We need to follow-up patients for longer to show whether the biolimus-eluting stent reduces the risk of stent thrombosis after 1 year when compared with the everolimus-eluting stent. FUNDING: Terumo Europe (Leuven, Belgium) and the Research Foundation of the Cardiology Department, Maasstad Hospital (Rotterdam, Netherlands).

Second-generation everolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents in real-life practice (COMPARE): a randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Everolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents, compared with bare metal stents, reduced the risk of restenosis in clinical trials with strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. We compared the safety and efficacy of the second-generation everolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents in real-life practice. METHODS: We randomly assigned 1800 consecutive patients (aged 18-85 years) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention at one centre to treatment with everolimus-eluting or paclitaxel-eluting stents. The primary endpoint was a composite of safety and efficacy (all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularisation) within 12 months. Patients were not told which stent they had been allocated. Analysis was by intention to treat. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01016041. FINDINGS: Follow-up was completed in 1797 patients. The primary endpoint occurred in 56 (6%) of 897 patients in the everolimus-eluting stent group versus 82 (9%) of 903 in the paclitaxel-eluting stent group (relative risk 0.69 [95% CI 0.50-0.95], p value for superiority=0.02). The difference was attributable to a lower rate of stent thrombosis (6 [<1%] vs 23 [3%], 0.26 [0.11-0-64], p=0.002), myocardial infarction (25 [3%] vs 48 [5%], 0.52 [0.33-0.84], p=0.007), and target vessel revascularisation (21 [2%] vs 54 [6%], 0.39 [0.24-0.64], p=0.0001). Cardiac death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularisation occurred in 44 [5%] patients in the everolimus-eluting stent group versus 74 [8%] patients in the paclitaxel-eluting stent group, p value for superiority was 0.005. INTERPRETATION: The everolimus-eluting stent is better than the second generation paclitaxel-eluting stent in unselected patients in terms of safety and efficacy. On the basis of our results, we suggest that paclitaxel-eluting stents should no longer be used in everyday clinical practice. FUNDING: Unrestricted grants from Abbott Vascular and Boston Scientific.

Completeness of revascularisation in acute coronary syndrome patients with multivessel disease.

A significant proportion of patients presenting with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) have multivessel disease (MVD). Despite the abundance of clinical trials in this area, several questions regarding the procedure of complete coronary revascularisation remain unanswered. This state-of-the-art review summarises the latest evidence on complete revascularisation (CR) in this subset of patients and critically appraises clinical decision making based on non-culprit lesion (NCL) assessment. Future areas of research are put into perspective.

Comparison of endothelium-dependent and -independent vasomotor response after abluminal biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stent and persistent polymer everolimus-eluting stent implantation (COMPARE-IT).

BACKGROUND: Drug-eluting stents (DES) have been associated with local endothelial dysfunction in the segments proximal and distal to the stent (peristent segments) and increased thrombotic risk in long term follow-up. Little data exists on endothelial function post-implantation of new DES with biodegradable polymer. The aim of our study was to compare the local endothelial function assessed by exercise induced coronary vasomotion after implantation of a biolimus A9-eluting stent with biodegradable polymer (BES) with an everolimus-eluting stent with durable polymer (EES). METHODS: Coronary vasomotion was evaluated with quantitative coronary angiography at rest and during supine bicycle exercise in nine patients with EES and thirteen patients with BES, 16 months after stent implantation. Mean luminal diameter of the stent, peristent segments, and of a control vessel were determined at rest, during exercise, and after the administration of nitroglycerine. RESULTS: The control vessel showed exercise-induced vasodilatation in both groups (EES: +6.4±5.5%, p=0.07; BES: +7.8±10.1%, p=0.07). Vasomotion in the stented vessel segment was abolished. There was exercise-induced vasoconstriction in both groups in the segments proximal (EES: -9.6±4.5%; p=0.03; BES: -4.3±5.4%, p=0.02) and distal to the stent (EES: -3.2±9.3%; p=0.41, BES -8.6±8.0%, p<0.01). Sublingual nitroglycerin was associated with maximal vasodilatation of the peristent segments in both groups. CONCLUSION: Alike DES with durable polymer, stents with a biodegradable polymer are associated with exercise-induced paradoxical coronary vasoconstriction of the peristent segments. This data suggests that endothelial dysfunction after DES implantation is not primarily caused by the durability of the polymer coating.