Randomised comparison of a biodegradable polymer ultra-thin sirolimus-eluting stent versus a durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent in patients with de novo native coronary artery lesions: the meriT-V trial.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the BioMime sirolimus-eluting coronary stent (SES) compared to the XIENCE family of everolimus-eluting coronary stents (EES) in the treatment of patients with de novo native coronary artery lesions. METHODS AND RESULTS: The meriT-V is a prospective, multicentre, randomised, open-label, active-controlled, non-inferiority trial. A total of 256 patients with up to two de novo native coronary artery lesions were enrolled and randomly assigned (2:1) to BioMime SES or XIENCE EES. BioMime SES was non-inferior to XIENCE EES for the primary endpoint of in-stent late lumen loss (0.15±0.27 mm vs. 0.15±0.29 mm; difference: -0.006 mm; 95% confidence interval: -0.085 to 0.072; p=0.87; p for non-inferiority <0.0001) at nine-month follow-up. The major adverse cardiac events rate was numerically lower in the BioMime SES group (2.98% vs. 7.14%; p=0.13), driven by a statistically significant lower risk of any myocardial infarction (0.60% vs. 4.76%; p=0.03), when compared with the XIENCE EES group. There was no difference in target vessel myocardial infarction (p=0.62) between the groups. There was no definite or probable stent thrombosis in either group. CONCLUSIONS: In the treatment of de novo native coronary artery lesions, the biodegradable polymer ultra-thin SES (BioMime) was non-inferior to a durable polymer EES (XIENCE) at nine-month follow-up. Further studies powered for clinical endpoints are needed.

Five-year clinical performance of a biodegradable polymer-coated biolimus-eluting stent in unselected patients.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the long-term follow-up of the unrestricted use of a biodegradable polymer-coated drug-eluting stent in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS: The Nobori 2 study was a prospective, multicentre, observational registry evaluating the safety and the efficacy of the biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stent (BP-BES) among 3067 patients recruited at 125 international sites. The primary combined endpoint was a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction and target-lesion revascularisation (TLR). RESULTS: Five-year follow-up was available in 2738 (89.3%) patients. The combined endpoint occurred in 268 patients (10%, 95% CIs 8.9% to 11.3%) at 5 years, with 3.9% of events during the first year and 6.2% during years 1-5 of follow-up. Cumulative rates of TLR and definite/probable stent thrombosis were 5.3% (95% CI 4.5% to 6.3%) and 1.1% (95% CI 0.8% to 1.6%), respectively. Between 1 and 5 years, TLR and very late stent thrombosis rates were 3.5% (95% CI 2.8% to 4.4%) and 0.6% (95% CI 0.3% to 1.1%), respectively. Previous PCI (HR, 2.05, 95% CI 1.68 to 2.50), moderate-to-severe renal disease (HR, 1.89, 95% CI 1.30 to 2.74) and peripheral vascular disease (HR, 1.86, 95% CI 1.38 to 2.52) were the three most powerful independent predictors of the combined endpoint at 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: The final 5-year follow-up of the Nobori 2 registry demonstrates the safety and effectiveness of the BP-BES in an unselected, broadly inclusive cohort of PCI patients, highlighting the excellent performance of this coronary stent technology after polymer biodegradation. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN81649913; Results.

Clinical performance of a drug-eluting stent with a biodegradable polymer in an unselected patient population: the NOBORI 2 study.

AIMS: Previous studies for approved indications (on-label) have shown the good safety and efficacy profiles of the Nobori DES. We conducted a prospective, multicentre study to validate the clinical performance of this stent in a real-world setting. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 3,067 consecutive patients undergoing a percutaneous coronary intervention with the Nobori DES were enrolled in the NOBORI 2 registry. At one and two years, 97% and 95% of patients, respectively, were available for follow-up. The rates of target lesion failure (TLF), cardiac death, myocardial infarction and target lesion revascularisations were: 3.9%, 1.2%, 1.9% and 2.2% at one year and 5.1%, 1.6%, 2.4% and 3.0% at two years. Overall, 2,242 patients (73%) were treated for at least one off-label indication. When comparing off-label and on-label groups, the results were: TLF 4.5% vs. 2.2%, p=0.003 at one year and 5.9% vs. 2.8%, p=0.001 at two years. The rate of stent thrombosis was 0.68%, and 0.80% at one and two years, respectively with no difference between the off-label and on-label groups (0.76% vs. 0.48%, p=0.6 and 0.89% vs. 0.61%, p=0.5). CONCLUSIONS: The promising results previously observed in lower risk patients can be replicated in daily practice. As expected, in off-label indications, rates of adverse events were higher. Nevertheless, our results suggest the good and sustained performance of this stent system in high-risk patients with significant comorbidities and/or complex lesions.

Drug-eluting stents for the treatment of in-stent restenosis--'real world' double centre experience in consecutive patients.

OBJECTIVES: We evaluated clinical outcome of consecutive patients with in stent restenosis (ISR) treated with drug-eluting stents (DES) at two intervention centres from April 2002 to April 2004, reflecting 'real world' practice. BACKGROUND: ISR is the major limitation to successful long-term outcome after implantation of bare metal stents during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The optimal strategy for the treatment of ISR has yet to be determined. METHODS: 121 consecutive patients with significant ISR were treated with DES. Sirolimus DES were used in 60 patients and paclitaxel DES in the remainder. All patients were followed up to evaluate the incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), angina class and clinically driven angiography. Data were collected between 7 and 27 months after the procedure (mean follow up of 16.5 months). RESULTS: Overall MACE rate at 16.5 months was 13.2% (16 patients) including 4 deaths (3%). Fifteen (12.3%) patients underwent clinically driven angiography. Eight patients (6.6%) developed ISR within the treated segment, of whom, four underwent further PCI and 4 CABG. Mean Canadian angina class decreased from 2.46+/-0.7 pre-procedure to 0.69+/-0.6 at follow up. All patients achieved an improvement in angina, with 59% being rendered angina free and 87% free of MACE. There were no differences in clinical outcome in those who received a paclitaxel and sirolimus DES. CONCLUSIONS: The use of DES implantation for the treatment of ISR is safe, effective and associated with low recurrence rates in a 'real world' large cohort of patients with a complex mix of anatomical and clinical factors.