Polymer-based or Polymer-free Stents in Patients at High Bleeding Risk.

BACKGROUND: Polymer-free drug-coated stents provide superior clinical outcomes to bare-metal stents in patients at high bleeding risk who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and are treated with 1 month of dual antiplatelet therapy. Data on the use of polymer-based drug-eluting stents, as compared with polymer-free drug-coated stents, in such patients are limited. METHODS: In an international, randomized, single-blind trial, we compared polymer-based zotarolimus-eluting stents with polymer-free umirolimus-coated stents in patients at high bleeding risk. After PCI, patients were treated with 1 month of dual antiplatelet therapy, followed by single antiplatelet therapy. The primary outcome was a safety composite of death from cardiac causes, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis at 1 year. The principal secondary outcome was target-lesion failure, an effectiveness composite of death from cardiac causes, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically indicated target-lesion revascularization. Both outcomes were powered for noninferiority. RESULTS: A total of 1996 patients at high bleeding risk were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive zotarolimus-eluting stents (1003 patients) or polymer-free drug-coated stents (993 patients). At 1 year, the primary outcome was observed in 169 of 988 patients (17.1%) in the zotarolimus-eluting stent group and in 164 of 969 (16.9%) in the polymer-free drug-coated stent group (risk difference, 0.2 percentage points; upper boundary of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval [CI], 3.5; noninferiority margin, 4.1; P = 0.01 for noninferiority). The principal secondary outcome was observed in 174 patients (17.6%) in the zotarolimus-eluting stent group and in 169 (17.4%) in the polymer-free drug-coated stent group (risk difference, 0.2 percentage points; upper boundary of the one-sided 97.5% CI, 3.5; noninferiority margin, 4.4; P = 0.007 for noninferiority). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients at high bleeding risk who received 1 month of dual antiplatelet therapy after PCI, use of polymer-based zotarolimus-eluting stents was noninferior to use of polymer-free drug-coated stents with regard to safety and effectiveness composite outcomes. (Funded by Medtronic; ONYX ONE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03344653.).

Ultrathin bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents in US patients undergoing coronary revascularization: 1-Year outcomes from the BIOFLOW VII trial.

BACKGROUND: Ultrathin strut coronary drug-eluting stents (DES) have demonstrated improved safety and efficacy in large contemporary trials. The evaluation of an ultrathin strut DES in a post-market United States (US) patient population was undertaken. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this post-approval study is to confirm that the clinical performance of an ultrathin strut bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (BP SES) in clinical practice is similar to that observed with BP SES in the BIOFLOW V pivotal trial. METHODS: BIOFLOW VII is a prospective, multicenter, single-arm US post-market approval study to confirm the clinical performance of BP SES in a real-world setting. The primary endpoint of 1-year target lesion failure (TLF) was compared with a performance goal of 6.9% based on an adapted BIOFLOW V trial BP SES TLF rate and TLF rates from other US market-released DES utilizing the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions definition for peri-procedural myocardial infarction (MI). Subjects undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with BP SES were consented within 24 h post-index procedure with planned follow-up through 5 years. RESULTS: Among 556 enrolled patients, clinical demographics included: 34.7% female, 35.6% with diabetes mellitus, and 56.8% with acute coronary syndromes. The average stent length (mean ± standard deviation) was 20.2 ± 11.8 mm, and the mean number of stents per patient was 1.3 ± 0.6. Procedure success was 99.1% (551/556), and device success was 99.9% (689/690). Among 531 subjects included in the primary endpoint analysis, the 1-year rate of TLF rate was 1.7% (9/531), and the primary endpoint was met compared with the performance goal (p < 0.0001, 95% confidence interval: 0.69%, 3.43%). Rates of target vessel MI and clinically driven target lesion revascularization were 1.3% (7/531) and 0.9% (5/531), with no occurrence of cardiac death. Definite stent thrombosis was observed for two cases (0.4%; 2/556) with one acute (≤24 h) and one late (>30 days and ≤1 year) event. CONCLUSION: In a post-approval study, 1-year clinical outcomes with BP SES were consistent with prior trials supporting the safety and effectiveness of ultrathin BP SES.

Biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents vs durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: A meta-analysis of individual patient data from 5 randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Newest generation drug-eluting stents combine biodegradable polymers with ultrathin stent platforms in order to minimize vessel injury and inflammatory response. Evidence from randomized controlled trials suggested that differences in stent design translate into differences in clinical outcome. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ultrathin strut, biodegradable polymer sirolimus eluting stents (BP SES) compared with thin strut, durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP EES) among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS: We pooled individual participant data from 5 randomized trials (NCT01356888, NCT01939249, NCT02389946, NCT01443104, NCT02579031) including a total of 5,780 patients, and performed a one-stage meta-analysis using a mixed effects Cox regression model. RESULTS: At a median duration of follow-up of 739 days (interquartile range 365-1,806 days), target-lesion failure occurred in 337 (10.3%) and 304 (12.2%) patients treated with BP SES and DP EES (HR 0.86, 95%CI 0.71-1.06, P = .16). There were no significant differences between BP SES and DP EES with regards to cardiac death (111 (3.4%) vs 102 (4.1%); HR 1.05, 95%CI 0.80-1.37, P = .73), target-vessel myocardial infarction (136 (4.1%) vs 126 (5.0%), HR 0.79, 95%CI 0.62-1.01, P = .061), and clinically-driven target-lesion revascularization (163 (5.0%) vs 147 (5.9%); HR 0.94, 95%CI 0.75-1.18, P = .61). The effect was consistent across major subgroups. In a landmark analysis, there was no significant interaction between treatment effect and timing of events. CONCLUSIONS: In this patient-level meta-analysis of 5 randomized controlled trials, BP SES were associated with a similar risk of target-lesion failure compared with DP EES among patients undergoing PCI. STUDY REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registry (CRD42018109098).

Individual patient data analysis of the BIOFLOW study program comparing safety and efficacy of a bioresorbable polymer sirolimus eluting stent to a durable polymer everolimus eluting stent.

OBJECTIVES: This analysis of pooled individual patient data (IPD) aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a bioresorbable polymer sirolimus eluting stent system (BP-SES; Orsiro) compared to a durable polymer everolimus eluting stent system (DP-EES; Xience) in the pooled population as well as in subgroups. METHODS: IPD with up to 12 months follow-up of the randomized controlled trials BIOFLOW-II (NCT01356888), -IV (NCT01939249), and -V (NCT02389946) as well as the all comers registry BIOFLOW-III (NCT01553526) were pooled. A total of 3,717 subjects (2,923 in BP-SES and 794 in DP-EES) with 5,328 lesions (4,225 lesions in BP-SES and 1,103 in DP-EES) were included in the IPD. The primary endpoint was target lesion failure (TLF) at 12 months follow-up. Subgroups analyzed included diabetes, age (≥65 years), gender, complex lesions (B2/C), small vessels (reference vessel diameter ≤2.75 mm), multivessel treatment, renal disease, and patients with acute coronary syndrome. RESULTS: Overall, TLF at 12 months was significantly lower with 5.2%in the BP-SES group versus 7.6% in the DP-EES group (p = .0098). Similarly, target vessel myocardial infarction (TV-MI) was 3.1 versus 5.7% (p = .0005). The rate of stent thrombosis was similar in both groups (0.004%). By regression analysis, an independent stent effect in favor of BP-SES was observed for TLF (p = .0043) and TV-MI (p = .0364) in small vessels. CONCLUSION: Results of this IPD analysis suggest that the BP-SES with ultrathin struts is as safe as and more efficacious than DP-EES in the overall cohort and especially in small vessels.

Ultrathin, bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents versus thin, durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents in patients undergoing coronary revascularisation (BIOFLOW V): a randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: The development of coronary drug-eluting stents has included use of new metal alloys, changes in stent architecture, and use of bioresorbable polymers. Whether these advancements improve clinical safety and efficacy has not been shown in previous randomised trials. We aimed to examine the clinical outcomes of a bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent compared with a durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent in a broad patient population undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS: BIOFLOW V was an international, randomised trial done in patients undergoing elective and urgent percutaneous coronary intervention in 90 hospitals in 13 countries (Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Hungary, Israel, the Netherlands, New Zealand, South Korea, Spain, Switzerland, and the USA). Eligible patients were those aged 18 years or older with ischaemic heart disease undergoing planned stent implantation in de-novo, native coronary lesions. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to either an ultrathin strut (60 µm) bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent or to a durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent. Randomisation was via a central web-based data capture system (mixed blocks of 3 and 6), and stratified by study site. The primary endpoint was 12-month target lesion failure. The primary non-inferiority comparison combined these data from two additional randomised trials of bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent and durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent with Bayesian methods. Analysis was by intention to treat. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02389946. FINDINGS: Between May 8, 2015, and March 31, 2016, 4772 patients were recruited into the study. 1334 patients met inclusion criteria and were randomly assigned to treatment with bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (n=884) or durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (n=450). 52 (6%) of 883 patients in the bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent group and 41 (10%) of 427 patients in the durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent group met the 12-month primary endpoint of target lesion failure (95% CI -6·84 to -0·29, p=0·0399), with differences in target vessel myocardial infarction (39 [5%] of 831 patients vs 35 [8%] of 424 patients, p=0·0155). The posterior probability that the bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent is non-inferior to the durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent was 100% (Bayesian analysis, difference in target lesion failure frequency -2·6% [95% credible interval -5·5 to 0·1], non-inferiority margin 3·85%, n=2208). INTERPRETATION: The outperformance of the ultrathin, bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent over the durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent in a complex patient population undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention suggests a new direction in improving next generation drug-eluting stent technology. FUNDING: BIOTRONIK.

Ultrathin Bioresorbable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stents: BIOFLOW V Final 5-Year Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Randomized trials have demonstrated the superiority of ultrathin strut drug-eluting stents compared with alternative stent designs. Whether these differences persist over late-term follow-up is uncertain. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare late-term (5-year) clinical outcomes among patients treated with ultrathin strut (60 µm) bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (BP SES) and thin strut (81 µm) durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP EES). METHODS: BIOFLOW V (Biotronik Prospective Randomized Multicenter Study to Assess the Safety and Effectiveness of the Orsiro Sirolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Subjects with Up to Three De Novo or Restenotic Coronary Artery Lesions V) was an international, 2:1 randomized trial comparing percutaneous coronary intervention with ultrathin strut BP SES versus thin strut DP EES regarding the primary endpoint of 12-month target lesion failure (TLF). Prespecified outcomes through 5 years were assessed. RESULTS: Among 1,334 patients randomized to treatment with BP SES (n = 884) or DP EES (n = 450), the 5-year rates of TLF were 12.3% for BP SES and 15.3% for DP EES (P = 0.108). Revascularization with BP SES was associated with a significantly lower target vessel-related myocardial infarction (6.6% vs 10.3%, P = 0.015) and late/very late definite/probable stent thrombosis (0.3% vs 1.6%, P = 0.021). Ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization was numerically but not significantly lower with BP SES (5.9% vs 7.7%, P = 0.202). Cardiac death rates were 2.6% versus 1.9% (P = 0.495) for BP SES and DP EES, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In a large, randomized trial, TLF and the individual outcomes of cardiac death and target lesion revascularization at 5 years were similar among patients treated with BP SES versus DP EES. Both target vessel-related myocardial infarction and late/very late definite/probable stent thrombosis were significantly lower with BP SES. These results confirm the durability of safety and the effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention with ultrathin BP SES.

Polymer-Based Versus Polymer-Free Stents in High Bleeding Risk Patients: Final 2-Year Results From Onyx ONE.

BACKGROUND: Resolute Onyx polymer-based zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZES) were noninferior in safety and effectiveness to BioFreedom polymer-free biolimus A9-coated stents (DCS) in high-bleeding-risk (HBR) patients treated with 1-month dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) followed by single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) at 1 year. OBJECTIVES: This study reports the final 2-year results of the randomized Onyx ONE trial. METHODS: The Onyx ONE (A Randomized Controlled Trial With Resolute Onyx in One Month Dual Antiplatelet Therapy (DAPT) for High-Bleeding Risk Patients) trial randomly assigned HBR patients to treatment with ZES or DCS. Following 1-month DAPT, event-free patients received SAPT (either aspirin or a P2Y12 inhibitor at physician discretion). The primary safety endpoint, a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis at 1 year, was determined at 1 year. Rates of primary and secondary endpoints were calculated after final follow-up at 2 years. RESULTS: A total of 1,003 patients were randomly allocated to ZES and 993 patients to DCS. Follow-up was complete in 980 (97.7%) ZES patients and 962 (96.9%) DCS patients at 2 years. The primary safety endpoint occurred in 208 (21.2%) patients in the ZES group and 199 (20.7%) patients in the DCS group (risk difference: 0.5%; 95% CI: -3.1% to 4.2%; P = 0.78) at 2 years without significant differences in individual components of the composite endpoint. The secondary effectiveness endpoint occurred in 217 (22.1%) patients in the ZES group and 202 (21.0%) patients in the DCS group (risk difference: 1.1%; 95% CI: -2.5% to 4.8%; P = 0.54). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients at HBR treated with 1-month DAPT followed by SAPT, the Resolute Onyx polymer-based ZES had similar 2-year outcomes for the primary safety and secondary effectiveness endpoint compared with the BioFreedom polymer-free DCS. (A Randomized Controlled Trial With Resolute Onyx in One Month Dual Antiplatelet Therapy [DAPT] for High-Bleeding Risk Patients [Onyx ONE]; NCT03344653).

Ultrathin Bioresorbable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Thin Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stents.

BACKGROUND: Coronary drug-eluting stent development has introduced new metal alloys, changes in stent architecture, and bioresorbable polymers. Whether these advancements improve long-term clinical safety and efficacy has been inconsistent in prior studies. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to compare late-term clinical outcomes among patients treated with an ultrathin strut (60 µm) bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (BP SES) and a thin strut (81 µm) durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent (DP EES) in a large randomized trial. METHODS: BIOFLOW V (Biotronik Prospective Randomized Multicenter Study to Assess the Safety and Effectiveness of the Orsiro Sirolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Subjects with Up to Three De Novo or Restenotic Coronary Artery Lesions V) was an international randomized trial comparing coronary revascularization with BP SES and DP EES regarding the primary endpoint of 12-month target lesion failure (TLF). Analysis of pre-specified 2-year clinical outcomes was performed. RESULTS: Among 1,334 patients randomized to treatment with BP SES (n = 884) or DP EES (n = 450), the 2-year TLF rate was 7.5% for BP SES and 11.9% for DP EES (-4.33% treatment difference; 95% confidence interval: -8.16% to -0.91%; p = 0.015), driven by differences in target vessel myocardial infarction (MI) (5.3% vs. 9.5%; p = 0.01) and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (2.6% vs. 4.9%; p = 0.04). Rates of cardiac death or MI were 7.0% versus 10.4% for BP SES and DP EES, respectively (p = 0.047). Late/very late definite stent thrombosis was statistically lower for BP SES compared with DP EES (0.1% vs. 1.0%; p = 0.045). CONCLUSIONS: In a large randomized trial, significant differences in both TLF and target vessel-related MI persisted through 2 years, favoring treatment with BP SES over DP EES. Significantly lower cumulative target lesion revascularization and late/very late stent thrombosis were also observed with BP SES. (Safety and Effectiveness of the Orsiro Sirolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in Subjects With Coronary Artery Lesions [BIOFLOW-V]; NCT02389946).

Subgroup Analysis Comparing Ultrathin, Bioresorbable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Thin, Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stents in Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients.

BACKGROUND: Presentation with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) constitutes a high-risk subset of patients with worse outcome after percutaneous coronary intervention. We report clinical outcomes in subjects with ACS from the BIOFLOW V trial (BIOTRONIK - A Prospective Randomized Multicenter Study to Assess the Safety and Effectiveness of the Orsiro Sirolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Subjects With up to Three De Novo or Restenotic Coronary Artery Lesions) comparing an ultrathin strut (60 µm) bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (BP-SES) with a thin strut (81 µm) durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent (DP-EES). METHODS AND RESULTS: Among 1334 patients randomized to 2:1 treatment with either BP-SES or DP-EES, 677 (50.7%) ACS patients without ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (MI; 454 BP-SES and 223 DP-EES) were identified in the retrospective post hoc analysis. The primary end point of 12-month target lesion failure, individual component end points, and stent thrombosis were evaluated. Recurrent MI was defined as a ≥50% increase of creatine kinase-myocardial band or in the absence of creatine kinase-myocardial band, troponin >50% increase over previous level and >3× the upper limit of normal). All events were adjudicated by a blinded independent clinical events committee. Overall, baseline clinical, angiographic, and procedural characteristics of the ACS population were similar between the 2 treatment groups. At 12 months, target lesion failure occurred in 5.6% (24/426) of BP-SES patients versus 11.0% (23/209) in DP-EES patients ( P=0.02); target lesion failure composite components were cardiac death, 0% versus 1.0% ( P=0.11); target vessel-related MI, 3.5% versus 9.7% ( P=0.003); and clinically driven target lesion revascularization, 2.8% versus 3.4% ( P=0.80). Spontaneous target vessel MI was 0.5% (2/425) for BP-SES versus 2.4% (5/206) for DP-EES ( P=0.041). Stent thrombosis rates at 1 year were similar (0.5% versus 1.0%; P=0.601). CONCLUSIONS: In the ACS subgroup population of the BIOFLOW V study, treatment with BP-SES compared with DP-EES was associated with a significantly lower rate of 12-month target lesion failure, a difference driven by significantly lower periprocedural MI and spontaneous MI. These findings support treatment with an ultrathin strut BP-SES in ACS patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT02389946.

Clinical and angiographic efficacy of a self-expanding nitinol stent in saphenous vein graft atherosclerotic disease: the Stent Comparative Restenosis (SCORES) Saphenous Vein Graft Registry.

BACKGROUND: The Stent Comparative Restenosis (SCORES) Saphenous Vein Graft (SVG) Registry was a multicenter, prospective registry designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a self-expanding, nickel-titanium (nitinol) stent for de novo SVG lesions. METHODS: In all, 159 patients with de novo vein graft lesions > or =2.75 and < or =4.25 mm in diameter and <30 mm in length underwent stenting with the Radius self-expanding stent. The primary end point was target vessel failure (TVF) at 9 months, which was defined as a composite of procedural failure, death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization. RESULTS: Procedural success was achieved in 96.8% of patients, and the 30-day incidence of major adverse cardiac events was 2.5%. The binary rate of restenosis at 6 months was 28.6%. By 9 months, the rate of TVF was 24.5%, and the rate of major adverse cardiac events was 23.1%. The 9-month Kaplan-Meier survival rates for freedom from TVF and target lesion revascularization were 76.0% and 87.9%, respectively. No clinical or angiographic characteristic was predictive of restenosis. CONCLUSIONS: In de novo atherosclerotic SVG disease, the use of a self-expanding, nitinol stent was associated with high initial procedural success and favorable early and intermediate outcomes. Because few studies have examined the influence of stent composition and design in SVG disease, these findings not only show the safety and efficacy of this self-expanding stent in de novo SVG disease, but also merit further comparison with balloon-expandable stents.

First-in-human evaluation of a bioabsorbable polymer-coated sirolimus-eluting stent: imaging and clinical results of the DESSOLVE I Trial (DES with sirolimus and a bioabsorbable polymer for the treatment of patients with de novo lesion in the native coronary arteries).

OBJECTIVES: This first-in-human multicenter study sought to examine prospectively the safety and efficacy of a new, cobalt chromium thin-strut, coronary absorbable polymer-coated, sirolimus-eluting stent. BACKGROUND: Bioabsorbable polymers on drug-eluting stents may lower the long-term risks of inflammation, delayed healing, and adverse events. METHODS: We enrolled patients with symptomatic coronary artery disease with stable or unstable angina pectoris and >50% diameter stenosis, amenable to coverage with a ≤23-mm long stent in a vessel 2.5 to 3.5 mm in diameter. All patients received dual antiplatelet therapy after implantation. Patients, in groups of 10, underwent repeat angiography, intravascular ultrasound, and optical coherence tomography at 4, 6, or 8 months, and all patients were seen or contacted at 18 months of follow-up. RESULTS: The median (range) in-stent late lumen loss (LLL) was 0.03 mm (-0.22 to 0.21 mm), 0.10 mm (-0.03 to 1.2 mm), and 0.08 mm (-0.01 to 0.28 mm), at 4, 6, and 8 months, respectively. At 18 months, the median in-stent LLL was 0.08 mm (-0.30 to 0.46 mm). On optical coherence tomography, the proportion of uncovered stent struts decreased from a median of 7.3% (range 0.4% to 46.3%) at 4 months to 0% (range: 0% to 3.4%) at 18 months. The percentage of neointimal volume obstruction by intravascular ultrasound increased from a median of 5.3% to 9.1% between 4 and 6 months and remained nearly unchanged thereafter through 18 months of follow-up. The only recorded major adverse cardiac event was a myocardial infarction. CONCLUSIONS: At 18 months of follow-up, this absorbable polymer-coated, cobalt chromium sirolimus-eluting stent was associated with a low and stable in-stent LLL, complete strut coverage, and no stent thrombosis. (First-In-Human Trial of the MiStent Drug-Eluting Stent [DES] in Coronary Artery Disease [DESSOLVE-I]; NCT01247428).

Safety and efficacy outcomes of first and second generation durable polymer drug eluting stents and biodegradable polymer biolimus eluting stents in clinical practice: comprehensive network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the safety and efficacy of durable polymer drug eluting stents (DES) and biodegradable polymer biolimus eluting stents (biolimus-ES). DESIGN: Network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: Medline, Google Scholar, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) database search for randomised controlled trials comparing at least two of durable polymer sirolimus eluting stents (sirolimus-ES) and paclitaxel eluting stents (paclitaxel-ES), newer durable polymer everolimus eluting stents (everolimus-ES), Endeavor and Resolute zotarolimus eluting stents (zotarolimus-ES), and biodegradable polymer biolimus-ES. PRIMARY OUTCOMES: Safety (death, myocardial infarction, definite or probable stent thrombosis) and efficacy (target lesion and target vessel revascularisation) assessed at up to one year and beyond. RESULTS: 60 randomised controlled trials were compared involving 63,242 patients with stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndrome treated with a DES. At one year, there were no differences in mortality among devices. Resolute and Endeavor zotarolimus-ES, everolimus-ES, and sirolimus-ES, but not biodegradable polymer biolimus-ES, were associated with significantly reduced odds of myocardial infarction (by 29-34%) compared with paclitaxel-ES. Compared with everolimus-ES, biodegradable polymer biolimus-ES were associated with significantly increased odds of myocardial infarction (by 29%), while Endeavor zotarolimus-ES and paclitaxel-ES were associated with significantly increased odds of stent thrombosis. All investigated DES were similar with regards to efficacy endpoints, except for Endeavor zotarolimus-ES and paclitaxel-ES, which were associated with significantly increased the odds of target lesion and target vessel revascularisations compared with other devices. Direction of results beyond one year did not diverge from the findings for up to one year follow-up. Bayesian probability curves showed a gradient in the magnitude of effect, with everolimus-ES and Resolute zotarolimus-ES offering the highest safety profiles. CONCLUSIONS: The newer durable polymer everolimus-ES and Resolute zotarolimus-ES and the biodegradable polymer biolimus-ES maintain the efficacy of sirolimus-ES; however, for safety endpoints, differences become apparent, with everolimus-ES and Resolute zotarolimus-ES emerging as the safest stents to date.

Intravascular ultrasound results from the ENDEAVOR IV trial: randomized comparison between zotarolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents in patients with coronary artery disease.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the vessel response between zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) using intravascular ultrasound. BACKGROUND: The ENDEAVOR IV (Randomized Comparison of Zotarolimus- and Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease) trial was a randomized controlled study of zotarolimus-eluting, phosphorylcholine-coated, cobalt-alloy stents for the treatment of de novo coronary lesions compared with using PES for the same treatment. METHODS: Data were obtained from patients with serial (baseline and 8-months follow-up) intravascular ultrasound analysis available (n = 198). Volumetric analysis was performed for vessel, lumen, plaque, stent, and neointima. Cross-sectional narrowing (given as percentage) was defined as neointimal area divided by stent area. Neointima-free frame ratio was calculated as the number of frames without intravascular ultrasound-detectable neointima divided by the total number of frames within the stent. Subsegment analysis was performed at every matched 1-mm subsegment throughout the stent. RESULTS: At follow-up, the ZES group showed significantly greater percentage of neointimal obstruction (16.6 +/- 12.0% vs. 9.9 +/- 8.9%, p < 0.01) and maximum cross-sectional narrowing (31.8 +/- 16.1% vs. 25.2 +/- 14.9%, p < 0.01) with smaller minimum lumen area than the PES group did. However, the incidence of maximum cross-sectional narrowing >50% was similar in the 2 groups. Neointima-free frame ratio was significantly lower in the ZES group. In overall analysis, whereas the PES group showed positive remodeling during follow-up (13.7 +/- 4.2 mm(3)/mm to 14.3 +/- 4.3 mm(3)/mm), the ZES group showed no significant difference (12.7 +/- 3.6 mm(3)/mm to 12.9 +/- 3.5 mm(3)/mm). In subsegment analysis, significant focal positive vessel remodeling was observed in 5% of ZES and 25% of PES cases (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: There were different global and focal vessel responses for ZES and PES. Both drug-eluting stents showed a similar incidence of lesions with severe narrowing despite ZES having a moderate increase in neointimal hyperplasia compared with neointimal hyperplasia in PES. There was a relatively lower neointima-free frame ratio in ZES, suggesting a greater extent of neointimal coverage. (The ENDEAVOR IV Clinical Trial: A Trial of a Coronary Stent System in Coronary Artery Lesions; NCT00217269).

Overview of pharmacology and clinical trials program with the zotarolimus-eluting endeavor stent.

Despite considerable benefits associated with current drug-eluting stents (DES), continued attention to the safety, efficacy, and deliverability of first-generation DES has led to the development of new antiproliferative agents with alternative stent platforms and different drug carrier systems. Zotarolimus is a recently developed pharmacologic agent with both antiproliferative and anti-inflammatory properties. The Endeavor drug-eluting stent (Medtronic Vascular, Santa Rosa, CA) represents the combination of zotarolimus, a low-profile cobalt alloy stent platform, and a biocompatible phosphorylcholine drug carrier system. At present, four clinical trials examining the safety and efficacy of the Endeavor stent have been performed. Although these studies have enrolled patients with similar clinical and angiographic characteristics, they have differed in trial design and study population size and have been performed across a broad geographic and physician distribution. Despite these differences, the results of these trials demonstrate consistently low rates of angiographic restenosis and repeat revascularization in addition to a favorable safety profile, with no occurrences of late stent thrombosis through 1 year of follow-up. This review describes the pharmacology and design on the Endeavor stent, summarizes results from recent clinical trials evaluating the Endeavor stent, and provides an overview of ongoing and future directions for clinical investigation.

The thrill is gone: catheter-based exclusion of a posttraumatic arteriovenous fistula with a covered stent graft.

Posttraumatic arteriovenous (AV) fistulae of the lower extremities may result from accidental trauma or iatrogenic surgical injuries. Large high-flow fistulae are commonly associated with disabling localized symptoms and impaired wound healing. Therapeutic options are particularly challenging for AV fistulae involving the infrapopliteal circulation. Surgical repair may further delay healing and contribute to greater morbidity. Alternatively, percutaneous coil occlusion in large high-flow fistulae mayenable coil embolization to the pulmonary circulation. Using a balloon-expandable covered stent graft, we describe the percutaneous exclusion of a large posttraumatic infrapopliteal AV fistula with immediate clinical symptom improvement and resolution within 3 months following intervention. No clinical symptom recurrence was documented at a 9-month follow-up visit.

Late thrombosis following treatment of in-stent restenosis with drug-eluting stents after discontinuation of antiplatelet therapy.

Drug-eluting stent usage has become commonplace for the percutaneous treatment of de novo coronary lesions, but the safety and efficacy profile for their evolving usage in restenotic lesions is largely unknown. We report three cases of angiographically confirmed drug-eluting stent thrombosis following treatment of restenotic lesions that occurred late (193, 237, and 535 days) and shortly after interruption of antiplatelet therapy. All three patients suffered ST elevation myocardial infarction, and there was one death. Further studies are necessary to better define the associated risk and ideal duration of antiplatelet therapy necessary in this cohort of patients with restenotic lesions.

Coronary artery stents: evaluating new designs for contemporary percutaneous intervention.

Intracoronary stents have markedly improved the short- and long-term safety and efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention by improving acute gains in luminal dimensions, decreasing abrupt vessel occlusion, and reducing restenosis. At present, nearly 90% of all coronary interventions involve stenting. A variety of advances in stent technology and design have expanded the clinical application of stenting to include complex coronary lesions, multivessel disease, and small-diameter vessels. In addition, the development of stents as drug delivery systems for antithrombotic or antiproliferative agents has the potential to expand the role of coronary stenting, and early clinical experience appears promising. The purpose of this review is to describe recent developments in stent design, examine the results of clinical trials of contemporary stents, and present future directions for investigation of new stent technologies.