Difference in one-year late lumen loss between high- and low-dose paclitaxel-coated balloons for femoropopliteal disease.

The objective of the study is to investigate the difference in 1-year late lumen loss (LLL) between the high- (IN.PACT Admiral) and low-dose (Lutonix) paclitaxel-coated balloon (PCB). Although a recent randomized clinical trial demonstrated no difference in efficacy endpoint between high- and low-dose PCB, it remains unclear whether high-dose PCB was superior to low-dose PCB in actual clinical practice. We enrolled 64 patients with 67 de novo femoropopliteal lesions who underwent PCB angioplasty at Kokura Memorial Hospital from May 2014 to March 2020 and subsequent follow-up angiography after 1 year. The primary endpoint was 1-year LLL, whereas the secondary endpoints were binary restenosis and clinically driven target lesion revascularization (CD-TLR) after 1 year. The high- and low-dose PCB groups had 45 and 22 lesions, respectively. Although the low-dose PCB group had higher rates of coronary artery disease, hemodialysis, and chronic limb-threatening ischemia than the high-dose PCB group, the latter had a longer lesion length and more lesions with a TASC classification C or D than the former. The high-dose PCB group had a significantly lower LLL than the low-dose PCB group (0.40 ± 1.05 vs. 1.19 ± 1.03 mm; P = 0.003, respectively). Moreover, the high-dose PCB group had significantly lower rates of binary restenosis at 1 year than the low-dose PCB group (22.2% vs. 50.0%; P = 0.02, respectively). Moreover, negative LLL was only observed in the high-dose PCB group (33.3% vs. 0%, P = 0.005). The high-dose PCB group had a significantly lower LLL than the low-dose PCB group.

1-Year Safety of 3-Month Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Followed by Aspirin or P2Y12 Receptor Inhibitor Monotherapy Using a Bioabsorbable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stent.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the safety of 3-month dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after implantation of a bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (BP-SES) and compared P2Y12inhibitor with aspirin monotherapy 3 months after DAPT.Methods and Results:Patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention using BP-SES were enrolled and followed for 1 year. Patients with a history of stent thrombosis were excluded. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke (ischemic and hemorrhagic), definite or probable stent thrombosis, and severe bleeding at 12 months. The BP-SES arm of the CENTURY II trial was used as a conventional DAPT group for comparison. After DAPT, patients were maintained on either aspirin (n=846) or a P2Y12inhibitor (n=674 patients).In all, 1,695 patients were enrolled in the study across 65 centers. The primary endpoint occurred in 4.3% of patients at 1 year. After propensity score adjustment, the incidence of the primary endpoint was not inferior in those receiving DAPT for 3 months compared with conventional DAPT (5.5%; Pnon-inferiority<0.0001). The incidence of the primary endpoint and severe bleeding did not differ between the aspirin and P2Y12inhibitor monotherapy groups. CONCLUSIONS: After adjustment, 3-month DAPT was not inferior to longer DAPT after BP-SES implantation in terms of net adverse clinical events. There was no difference in bleeding and thrombotic events between P2Y12inhibitor and aspirin monotherapy after 3 months DAPT.

Biodegradable or durable polymer drug-eluting stents in patients with coronary artery disease: ten-year outcomes of the randomised NEXT Trial.

BACKGROUND: There are no randomised trials reporting clinical outcomes of biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stents (BP-BES) and durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP-EES) at 10 years. AIMS: We aimed to compare the 10-year clinical outcomes between BP-BES and DP-EES. METHODS: The randomised NOBORI Biolimus-Eluting Versus XIENCE/PROMUS Everolimus-eluting Stent Trial (NEXT) was originally designed to evaluate the non-inferiority of BP-BES relative to DP-EES with the primary efficacy endpoint of target lesion revascularisation (TLR) at 1 year and the primary safety endpoint of death or myocardial infarction (MI) at 3 years. In this extended follow-up study, clinical outcomes were compared from 1 year after stent implantation up to 10 years between patients with BP-BES and DP-EES. RESULTS: From May to October 2011, NEXT enrolled a total of 3,241 patients from 98 centres in Japan. The current study population consisted of 2,417 patients (1,204 patients with BP-BES and 1,213 with DP-EES) from 66 centres that agreed to participate in the extended study. Complete 10-year follow-up was achieved in 87.5% of patients. The cumulative 10-year incidence of death or MI was 34.0% in the BP-BES group and 33.1% in the DP-EES group (hazard ratio [HR] 1.04, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.90-1.20; p=0.58). TLR occurred in 15.9% of patients in the BP-BES group and in 14.1% of the DP-EES group (HR 1.12, 95% CI: 0.90-1.40; p=0.32). In a landmark analysis at 1 year, the cumulative incidences of death or MI and TLR were not significantly different between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: The safety and efficacy outcomes for BP-BES were not significantly different from those for DP-EES at 1 year and up to 10 years after stent implantation.

Ultrathin, Biodegradable-Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stent vs Thin, Durable-Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stent.

BACKGROUND: Previous trials suggested the superiority of ultrathin- over thin-strut drug-eluting stents (DES) concerning target lesion failure (TLF) at 1 year after index percutaneous coronary intervention. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this randomized comparison study of ultrathin-strut and thin-strut DES (CASTLE [Randomized Comparison All-Comer Study of Ultrathin Strut and Thin Strut Drug-Eluting Stent]; jRCTs032180084) was to examine the impact of differences in strut thickness of DES on clinical outcomes when implanted with angiography and intravascular ultrasound or optical coherence tomographic guidance. METHODS: CASTLE was a multicenter, prospective, noninferiority study conducted at 65 institutions in Japan. Percutaneous coronary intervention patients were assigned (1:1) to an ultrathin, biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (BP-SES) or a thin, durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stent (DP-EES). The primary endpoint was TLF, defined as a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, and clinically driven target lesion revascularization at 1-year follow-up. RESULTS: Between May 2019 and March 2020, 1,440 patients were randomly assigned to BP-SES (n = 722) or DP-EES (n = 718). TLF occurred in 6.0% and 5.7% of patients, respectively. Noninferiority (P = 0.040) was met because the upper limit (2.67%) of the 1-sided 95% CI between the groups was lower than the prespecified noninferiority margin (3.3%). No significant interactions were observed in the relative rates of TLF between prespecified subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: The BP-SES was noninferior to the DP-EES regarding 1-year TLF. This demonstrates that strut thickness differences among DES have little impact on clinical outcomes when implanted with intravascular imaging guidance.

Two-year vascular responses to drug-eluting stents with biodegradable polymer versus durable polymer: An optical coherence tomography sub-study of the NEXT.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to compare very late vascular response after stent implantation between everolimus-eluting stent (EES) with a thin, non-adhesive, durable, biocompatible fluorinated polymer and biolimus-eluting stent (BES) with a biodegradable polymer by optical coherence tomography (OCT). METHODS AND RESULTS: In the NOBORI-BES Versus XIENCE V/PROMUS-EES Trial (NEXT), a formal OCT substudy investigated 48 patients (27 EES-treated lesions in 23 patients and 28 BES-treated lesions in 25 patients) with 2-year (18-30 months) follow-up imaging at 18 centers. The percentage of uncovered strut by neointima was significantly lower in EES compared with BES (2.1±4.7% vs. 7.9±10.8%, p=0.013). The percentage of malapposed strut was not different between EES and BES (0.1±0.3% vs. 0.5±1.3%, p=0.138). The frequency of stent with evagination, which is identified as outward bulges in the luminal contour between struts, was significantly lower in EES compared with BES (22% vs. 86%, p<0.001). The frequency of neoatherosclerosis was not different between EES and BES (11% vs. 11%, p=1.000). CONCLUSIONS: At 2 years after stent implantation, uncovered stent strut by neointima and evagination were less frequently observed in EES compared with BES. This OCT study suggests that the very late vascular response is different between EES and BES.

Pathological analyses of long-term intracoronary Palmaz-Schatz stenting; Is its efficacy permanent?

BACKGROUND: Angiographic regression of luminal narrowing occurs 6 months to 3 years poststenting. However, after 4 years lesions progressed gradually and late restenosis was observed in 28% of 179 Palmaz-Schatz-stented lesions during the past 10 years. Elucidating its pathogenesis is pivotal to developing preventive strategies. METHODS AND RESULTS: Histopathological and immunohistochemical studies were performed in 19 stented coronary arteries obtained from 19 patients autopsied after noncardiac death 2-7 years poststenting. The quality/severity of chronic inflammatory cells (T lymphocytes, macrophages and multinucleated giant cells) infiltration around the stent struts that is observed even in the absence of restenosis depended on the time elapsed from stenting: a) 2 years postprocedure, in spite of angiographic regression during the first year and pathologically expressed as maturation of the neointimal scar, there was chronic inflammatory response evidence: neovascularization and lymphocyte infiltration, b) > or = 3 years: the neointimal smooth muscle cells were sparse with abundant proliferation of collagen fibers. Presence of slight helper/inducer T lymphocytes and mild macrophage infiltration around the stent struts was evident immunohistochemically, c) > or = 4 years: prominent infiltration by lipid-laden macrophages with strong collagen-degrading matrix metalloproteinase immunoreactivity was observed around the struts. In two of these arteries, the surface contacting the stent was focally disrupted and covered by nonocclusive mural thrombi. CONCLUSIONS: Stainless steel stents evoke a remarkable foreign-body inflammatory reaction to the metal. These persistent peri-strut chronic inflammatory cells may accelerate new indolent atherosclerotic changes and consequent plaque vulnerability.

Biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stent versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent: a randomized, controlled, noninferiority trial.

OBJECTIVES: NEXT (NOBORI Biolimus-Eluting Versus XIENCE/PROMUS Everolimus-Eluting Stent Trial) was designed for evaluating the noninferiority of a biolimus-eluting stent (BES) relative to an everolimus-eluting stent (EES) in terms of target lesion revascularization (TLR) at 1 year. BACKGROUND: Efficacy and safety data comparing biodegradable polymer BES with durable polymer cobalt-chromium EES are currently limited. METHODS: The NEXT trial is a prospective, multicenter, randomized, open-label, noninferiority trial comparing BES with EES. Between May and October 2011, 3,235 patients were randomly assigned to receive either BES (n = 1,617) or EES (n = 1,618). RESULTS: At 1 year, the primary efficacy endpoint of TLR occurred in 67 patients (4.2%) in the BES group, and in 66 patients (4.2%) in the EES group, demonstrating noninferiority of BES relative to EES (p for noninferiority <0.0001, and p for superiority = 0.93). Cumulative incidence of definite stent thrombosis was low and similar between the 2 groups (0.25% vs. 0.06%, p = 0.18). An angiographic substudy enrolling 528 patients (BES: n = 263, and EES: n = 265) demonstrated noninferiority of BES relative to EES regarding the primary angiographic endpoint of in-segment late loss (0.03 ± 0.39 mm vs. 0.06 ± 0.45 mm, p for noninferiority <0.0001, and p for superiority = 0.52) at 266 ± 43 days after stent implantation. CONCLUSIONS: One-year clinical and angiographic outcome after BES implantation was noninferior to and not different from that after EES implantation in a mostly stable coronary artery disease population. One-year clinical outcome after both BES and EES use was excellent, with a low rate of TLR and extremely low rate of stent thrombosis.