Comparison of biodegradable and newer generation durable polymer drug-eluting stents with short-term dual antiplatelet therapy: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized trials comprising of 43,875 patients.

Newer generation durable polymer drug-eluting stents (DP-DES) and biodegradable polymer DES (BP-DES) have similar efficacy with dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) duration of > 6 months. However, this difference in outcomes have not been well studied in shorter DAPT regime. This study compares the safety and efficacy profiles of DP-DES and BP-DES based on short-term (1-3 months), intermediate-term (4-6 months) and standard DAPT (6-12 months) durations. A search was conducted on Embase and Medline for Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) comparing stent types, and DAPT durations. Primary endpoints include cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), definite stent thrombosis, stroke, target vessel revascularization (TVR) and major bleeding. Network analysis was conducted to summarize the evidence. A total of 15 RCTs involving 43,875 patients were included. DP-DES was associated with significantly lower major bleeding rates compared to BP-DES (RR 0.44, Crl 0.22-0.83) in short-term DAPT. Among DP-DES patients, short-term DAPT was associated with lower major bleeding risk compared to standard DAPT (RR 0.47, CrI 0.32-0.69). This favorable bleeding profile with short DAPT was not found in BP-DES patients. Cardiac death, MI, definite stent thrombosis, stroke and TVR rates were similar across the various DAPT durations and stent types. Our preliminary findings demonstrated comparable efficacy and safety outcomes between BP-DES and newer generation BP-DES across various DAPT durations. In patients requiring short DAPT, DP-DES had more favourable major bleeding profile compared to BP-DES, without compromising anti-thrombotic efficacy.

Hybrid PET/CT and PET/MRI imaging of vulnerable coronary plaque and myocardial scar tissue in acute myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: Following an acute coronary syndrome, combined CT and PET with 18F-NaF can identify coronary atherosclerotic plaques that have ruptured or eroded. However, the processes behind 18F-NaF uptake in vulnerable plaques remain unclear. METHODS AND RESULTS: Ten patients with STEMI were scanned after 18F-NaF injection, for 75 minutes in a Siemens PET/MR scanner using delayed enhancement (LGE). They were then scanned in a Siemens PET/CT scanner for 10 minutes. Tissue-to-background ratio (TBR) was compared between the culprit lesion in the IRA and remote non-culprit lesions in an effort to independently validate prior studies. Additionally, we performed a proof-of-principle study comparing TBR in scar tissue and remote myocardium using LGE images and PET/MR or PET/CT data. From the 33 coronary lesions detected on PET/CT, TBRs for culprit lesions were higher than for non-culprit lesions (TBR = 2.11 ± 0.45 vs 1.46 ± 0.48; P < 0.001). Interestingly, the TBR measured on the PET/CT was higher for infarcted myocardium than for remote myocardium (TBR = 0.81 ± 0.10 vs 0.71 ± 0.05; P = 0.003). These results were confirmed using the PET/MR data (TBR = 0.81 ± 0.10 for scar, TBR = 0.71 ± 0.06 for healthy myocardium, P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: We confirmed the potential of 18F-NaF PET/CT imaging to detect vulnerable coronary lesions. Moreover, we demonstrated proof-of-principle that 18F-NaF concurrently detects myocardial scar tissue.

Mandibular Advancement vs CPAP for Blood Pressure Reduction in Patients With Obstructive Sleep Apnea.

BACKGROUND: Hypertension guidelines recommend diagnosis and treatment of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) in patients with hypertension. The mandibular advancement device (MAD) is an oral appliance therapy for patients who decline or cannot tolerate continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). OBJECTIVES: We compared the relative effectiveness of MAD vs CPAP in reducing 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure (BP). METHODS: In an investigator-initiated, randomized, noninferiority trial (prespecified margin 1.5 mm Hg), 321 participants aged ≥40 years with hypertension and increased cardiovascular risk were recruited at 3 public hospitals for polysomnography. Of these, 220 participants with moderate-to-severe OSA (apnea-hypopnea index ≥15 events per hour) were randomized to either MAD or CPAP (1:1). The primary outcome was the difference between the 24-hour mean arterial BP at baseline and 6 months. RESULTS: Compared with baseline, the 24-hour mean arterial BP decreased by 2.5 mm Hg (P = 0.003) at 6 months in the MAD group, whereas no change was observed in the CPAP group (P = 0.374). The between-group difference was -1.6 mm Hg (95% CI: -3.51 to 0.24, noninferiority P < 0.001). The MAD group demonstrated a larger between-group reduction in all secondary ambulatory BP parameters compared with the CPAP group, with the most pronounced effects observed in the asleep BP parameters. Both the MAD and CPAP improved daytime sleepiness, with the between-group difference similar (P = 0.384). There were no between-group differences in cardiovascular biomarkers. CONCLUSIONS: MAD is noninferior to CPAP for reducing 24-hour mean arterial BP in participants with hypertension and increased cardiovascular risk. (Cardiosleep Research Program on Obstructive Sleep Apnea, Blood Pressure Control and Maladaptive Myocardial Remodeling-Non-inferiority Trial [CRESCENT]; NCT04119999).

Long-Term Clinical Outcomes of Biodegradable-Polymer Drug-Eluting Stents Versus Second-Generation Durable-Polymer Drug-Eluting Stents for ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: Biodegradable polymer drug eluting stents (BP-DES) may offer the advantage of vascular healing in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Long-term outcome data comparing BP-DES and second-generation durable polymer drug eluting stents (DP-DES) in STEMI is lacking. This study aims to compare the long-term clinical outcomes of BP-DES versus second-generation DP-DES in STEMI. METHODS: This is an observational study of consecutive patients with STEMI who received either BP-DES (n = 854) or DP-DES (n = 708) during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) from 1st February 2007 to 31st December 2016. The primary outcome was target lesion failure (TLF), a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction (MI), and target lesion revascularization with follow up till 30th November 2019. RESULTS: The baseline demographics, lesion and procedural characteristic were similar between the two groups except for more prior MI and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the BP-DES group. At a median follow up of 4.2 years (interquartile range: 2.6-6.2 years), the incidence of TLF was similar between BP-DES and DP-DES (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.70-1.26). Likewise, incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE: all-cause death, any MI or target vessel revascularization) and definite stent thrombosis were similar in both groups (MACE: adjusted HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.82-1.32; definite stent thrombosis: adjusted HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.31-3.64). CONCLUSION: Among patients with STEMI who underwent primary PCI, BP-DES and DP-DES implantation was associated with similar long-term clinical outcomes.

A propensity score-matched comparison of biodegradable polymer vs second-generation durable polymer drug-eluting stents in a real-world population.

AIMS: The safety and efficacy of BP-DES compared to second-generation DP-DES remain unclear in the real-world setting. We compared the clinical outcomes of biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents (BP-DES) with second-generation durable polymer drug-eluting stents (DP-DES) in an all-comer percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) registry. METHODS/RESULTS: The study included a cohort of 1065 patients treated with either BP-DES or DP-DES from January 2009 through October 2015. Propensity score matching was performed to account for potential confounders and produced 497 matched pairs of patients. The primary endpoint was target lesion failure (TLF) at one-year follow-up. The rates of TLF were comparable between BP-DES and DP-DES (8.7% vs 9.1%, P = .823) at 1 year. The rates of stent thrombosis at 30 days (0.4% vs 0.4%, P = 1.00) and 1 year (0.8% vs 0.8%, P = 1.00) did not differ between BP-DES and DP-DES. There were no significant differences in other clinical outcomes including target vessel failure (8.9% vs 9.5%, P = .741), in-stent restenosis (1.8% vs 1.0%, P = .282), and cardiac death (6.4% vs 7.4%, P = .533) at 1 year. Multivariate cox regression analysis showed that the risk of TLF at one-year did not differ significantly between BP-DES and DP-DES (hazard ratio 0.94, P = .763). CONCLUSIONS: Efficacy and safety of BP-DES were not better than DP-DES at one-year follow-up.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of biodegradable polymer versus durable polymer drug-eluting stents incorporating real-world evidence.

AIM: Compared with second-generation durable polymer drug-eluting stents (DP-DES), the cost-effectiveness of biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents (BP-DES) remains unclear in the real-world setting. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of BP-DES in patients with coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS: We developed a decision-analytic model to compare the cost-effectiveness of BP-DES to DP-DES over 1 year and 5 years from healthcare payer perspective. Relative treatment effects during the first year post-PCI were obtained from a real-world population analysis while clinical event risks in the subsequent 4 years were derived from a meta-analysis of published studies. RESULTS: At 1 year, based on the clinical data analysis of 497 propensity-score matched pairs of patients, BP-DES were associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of USD20 503 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. At 5 years, BP-DES yielded an ICER of USD4062 per QALY gained. At the willingness-to-pay threshold of USD50 400 (one gross domestic product per capita in Singapore in 2015), BP-DES were cost-effective. Sensitivity analysis showed that the cost of stents had a significant impact on the cost-effectiveness of BP-DES. Threshold analysis demonstrated that if the cost difference between BP-DES and DP-DES exceeded USD493, BP-DES would not be cost-effective in patients with 1 year of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents were cost-effective compared with DP-DES in patients with coronary artery disease at 1 year and 5 years after PCI. It is worth noting that the cost of stents had a significant impact on the findings.

Effectiveness and safety of the genous endothelial progenitor cell-capture stent in acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction.

The endothelial progenitor cell (EPC)-capture stent promotes endothelialization and preliminary studies have suggested its safety and feasibility in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Detailed late clinical follow-up and angiographic analyses are, however, limited. We sought to determine late angiographic and clinical outcomes of the Genous EPC-capture stent in primary angioplasty. EPC-capture stents were implanted during primary angioplasty in 489 consecutive patients presenting with STEMI from 2004 through 2008. The first 100 consenting patients undergoing successful stent implantation scheduled to undergo relook coronary angiography at 6 to 12 months were enrolled. Ninety-five patients with 96 lesions were analyzed independently. Mean duration of follow-up coronary angiography was 245 days. In-stent late luminal loss measured 0.87 ± 0.67 mm. Binary restenosis (defined as >50% diameter stenosis) was 28%, with diffuse in-stent restenosis (Mehran class II) as the predominant pattern. Of 27 patients with binary restenosis, 14 (52%) were symptomatic, with 10 patients undergoing target lesion revascularization. Asymptomatic patients had significantly larger reference vessel and in-stent minimal luminal diameters (2.77 ± 0.39 vs 2.54 ± 0.44 mm, p = 0.040; 2.74 ± 0.34 vs 2.31 ± 0.72 mm, p = 0.004, respectively). Follow-up late loss and diameter stenoses were also in favor of the asymptomatic group. Major adverse cardiac event rate was 16% at a mean follow-up of 34 months. There were no cases of Academic Research Consortium-defined stent thrombosis. In conclusion, implantation of the EPC-capture stent during primary angioplasty is associated with a favorable late clinical outcome but with higher than anticipated angiographic late loss.

Sirolimus-eluting, bioabsorbable polymer-coated constant stent (Cura) in acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a clinical and angiographic study (CURAMI Registry).

BACKGROUND: There are safety concerns over the current polymer-based drug-eluting stents (DES) on the possible delayed healing process and adverse reactions to the polymer when drug elution is completed. Cura (Orbus Neich) is a sirolimus-eluting, bioabsorbable, polymer-coated constant stent. METHODS: From March 1 to June 30, 2005, Cura stent implantation was instituted as the default strategy for percutaneous coronary intervention in 49 consecutive ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI) patients (male 86%; average age 55 +/- 10 years; diabetes 31%). RESULTS: The angiographic success rate was 100%. In-hospital adverse events consisted of 1 in-hospital death (2% heart failure). A total of 27 patients (56%) underwent 8-month angiographic follow up. Binary restenosis occurred in 6 patients (22%), and late loss was 0.74 +/- 0.89 mm. At 9-month follow up, a total of 5 patients had 6 major adverse events (1 death, 1 reinfarction, and 4 target lesion revascularizations). There was no incidence of stent thrombosis. CONCLUSION: Cura stent implantation appears to be feasible and safe in the treatment of STEMI. However, the binary restenosis rate and late loss at angiographic follow up were similar to that of bare-metal stents, and therefore compare unfavorably with other proven benchmark DES.