Ten-Year Clinical Outcomes From a Trial of Three Limus-Eluting Stents With Different Polymer Coatings in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease.

BACKGROUND: New-generation drug-eluting stents offer the potential for enhanced late outcomes in comparison with early generation drug-eluting stents. However, assessment of extended long-term outcomes for these devices is lacking, especially regarding the comparison between new-generation drug-eluting stents with biodegradable or permanent polymers. The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of biodegradable polymer-based sirolimus-eluting stents (BP-SES; Yukon Choice PC) versus permanent polymer-based everolimus-eluting stents (PP-EES; Xience) versus early generation permanent polymer-based sirolimus-eluting stents (PP-SES; Cypher) at 10-year follow-up. METHODS: Overall, 2603 patients were randomized to treatment with BP-SES (n=1299), PP-EES (n=652), or PP-SES (n=652). The primary end point of this analysis was major adverse cardiac event, the composite of death, myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization. The main secondary end point of interest was definite/probable stent thrombosis. Follow-up at 10 years was available in 83% of the study patients. RESULTS: The 10-year incidence of major adverse cardiac event (BP-SES 47.7% versus PP-EES 46.0% versus PP-SES 54.9%, P=0.003) and mortality (BP-SES 31.8% versus PP-EES 30.3% versus PP-SES 37.2%, P=0.02) was different among the groups. Definite/probable stent thrombosis was not significantly different among the groups (BP-SES 1.8% versus PP-EES 2.5% versus PP-SES 3.7%, P=0.09). Definite stent thrombosis was significantly different among the groups (BP-SES 1.1% versus PP-EES 0.8% versus PP-SES 2.4%, P=0.03). There were no significant differences between BP-SES and PP-EES. CONCLUSIONS: In this unique long-term outcome analysis, BP-SES and PP-EES showed comparable clinical outcomes out to 10 years. PP-SES had higher rates of major adverse cardiac events and definite stent thrombosis. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00598676.

Efficacy of drug-coated balloon angioplasty in early versus late occurring drug-eluting stent restenosis: A pooled analysis from the randomized ISAR DESIRE 3 and DESIRE 4 trials.

BACKGROUND: Whether there exist differences concerning clinical outcomes between patients presenting with early versus late DES-ISR undergoing treatment with drug-coated balloons (DCB) remains a scientific knowledge gap. METHODS: This is a pooled analysis including patients with DES-ISR assigned to treatment with DCB in the setting of the ISAR DESIRE 3 and 4 trials. Clinical outcomes were evaluated according to time of occurrence of ISR after DES implantation, in patients presenting with early (≤12 months) versus late DES-ISR (>12 months) undergoing treatment with DCB. The primary endpoint of this analysis was major adverse cardiac event (MACE), defined as the combined incidence of death, myocardial infarction and target lesion revascularization (TLR) at 12 months after DCB treatment. Secondary endpoints included the incidence of death, myocardial infarction, TLR and target lesion thrombosis at 12 months after DCB treatment. RESULTS: This analysis included 352 patients, 199 patients presented with early-ISR, 153 patients with late-ISR. Concerning the primary endpoint, patients with early-DES-ISR as compared those with late-DES-ISR showed significant higher risk (25.9% vs. 17.0%; p = .04). In a multivariate analysis including diabetic status, clinical presentation, previous coronary bypass graft and diameter stenosis after DCB-treatment, the adjusted hazard ratio showed significant higher risk for MACE of early-DES-ISR as compared to late-DES-ISR (HRadj = 1.8, [95% CI = 1.1-3.0], p = .02). CONCLUSION: Clinical outcome at 12 months after treatment of DES-ISR with DCB, showed significant higher clinical event rates in patients presenting with early DES restenosis, as compared with patients presenting with late DES restenosis.

Outcome after new generation single-layer polytetrafluoroethylene-covered stent implantation for the treatment of coronary artery perforation.

AIMS: Coronary artery perforation (CAP) is a rare but severe complication during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Implantation of covered stents (CS) represents a potentially life-saving treatment. Concerns exist regarding limited efficacy and high stent thrombosis (ST) rates related to early generation CS. The aim of this study was to evaluate angiographic and clinical outcomes of patients with CAP treated with a new generation single-layer polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)-CS. METHODS: Between May 2013 and November 2017, we identified a total of 61 patients who underwent implantation of 71 single layer PTFE-CS after CAP. We analyzed angiographic results at follow up (including binary angiographic restenosis [BAR] and late-lumen-loss [LLL]) and clinical outcomes in hospital and at follow up, including target lesion revascularization (TLR), cardiovascular-, and all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI) and stent thrombosis (ST). RESULTS: Procedural success was achieved in all but two patients (96.7%). Procedure related MI, occurred in 19 cases (31.1%), in hospital death occurred in five cases (8.2%). At follow-up, TLR occurred in 11 cases (18.0%), two patients (3.3%) died from non-cardiovascular cause, there was no case of MI or ST. CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective analysis, implantation of a new generation PTFE-CS, for the treatment of CAP showed high technical success rates. Although, periprocedural MI-and in-hospital-death rates remain not inconsiderable, new generation PTFE-CS showed favorable angiographic and clinical efficacy and high safety profile, especially with regard to thrombotic events.

Five-year follow-up of polymer-free sirolimus- and probucol-eluting stents versus new generation zotarolimus-eluting stents in patients presenting with st-elevation myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: Patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation are at increased risk of late adverse events, partly explained by an exaggerated inflammatory reaction to durable-polymer stent coatings. OBJECTIVES: We sought to investigate whether implantation of polymer-free DES would reduce this risk. METHODS: In the ISAR-TEST 5 (the Intracoronary Stenting and Angiographic Results: Test Efficacy of Sirolimus- and Probucol- and Zotarolimus-Eluting Stents) trial, patients were randomly allocated to receive a polymer-free sirolimus- and probucol-eluting stent or a new generation durable-polymer zotarolimus-eluting stent. We analyzed late clinical outcomes in the subgroup of patients presenting with STEMI. The primary endpoint was the combined incidence of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction or target lesion revascularization at 5 years. RESULTS: 311 patients with STEMI were randomized to receive sirolimus- and probucol-eluting stents (n = 215) or zotarolimus-eluting stents (n = 96). At 5 years, there was no difference in the incidence of the primary endpoint in patients treated with sirolimus- and probucol-eluting stents versus zotarolimus-eluting stents (18.3% versus 20.1% respectively, hazard ratio = 0.87, 95% CI, 0.50-1.51; P = 0.62). Rates of the individual components of the primary endpoint were also comparable in both groups. The incidence of definite/probable stent thrombosis was 1.4% versus 1.0% respectively (hazard ratio = 1.35, 95% CI, 0.14-12.94, P = 0.80). CONCLUSIONS: Long-term outcomes of patients with STEMI treated with polymer-free sirolimus- and probucol-eluting stents versus durable-polymer zotarolimus-eluting stents were similar. Stent thrombosis rates were low and comparable in both treatment groups, with no events beyond 12 months. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier NCT 00598533) © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Recurrent Revascularization at 10 Years After Percutaneous Treatment of Drug-Eluting Stent Restenosis.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of patients with recurrence of in-stent restenosis (ISR) remains particularly challenging, with data and guideline recommendations for repeat percutaneous coronary intervention being scant. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate the long-term incidence of recurrent revascularization events after percutaneous treatment of drug-eluting stent (DES) ISR. METHODS: In this post hoc analysis, 402 patients (500 lesions) assigned to plain balloon (PB), drug-coated balloon (DCB), or DES treatment in the randomized ISAR-DESIRE 3 (Efficacy Study of Paclitaxel-Eluting Balloon, -Stent vs. Plain Angioplasty for Drug-Eluting Stent Restenosis) trial were followed up over a median of 10.3 years. The primary endpoint was total repeat target lesion revascularization (R-TLR) including all, first and recurrent, events. RESULTS: At the end of follow-up, first R-TLR was required in 204 lesions, 82 in the PB group, 70 in the DCB group, and 52 in the DES group. The total number of R-TLRs was 373: 162 in the PB group, 124 in the DCB group, and 87 in the DES group. During the first year of follow-up, the risk for total R-TLR was reduced by DCB (HR: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.24-0.54) and DES (HR: 0.23; 95% CI: 0.14-0.38) treatment compared with PB treatment. After 1 year, the risk for total R-TLR was nonsignificantly reduced by DCB treatment (HR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.51-1.16) and significantly reduced by DES treatment (HR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.39-0.95) compared with PB treatment. Risk in the DCB and DES groups was similar during (HR: 1.54; 95% CI: 0.89-2.69) and after (HR: 1.26; 95% CI: 0.82-1.92) 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: The total number of R-TLRs over 10 years after treatment of patients with DES ISR was high. DCBs and particularly DES were able to reduce the need for both first and recurrent revascularization compared with PB treatment.

Five-year clinical outcomes of a polymer-free sirolimus-eluting stent versus a permanent polymer paclitaxel-eluting stent: final results of the intracoronary stenting and angiographic restenosis - test equivalence between two drug-eluting stents (ISAR-TEST) trial.

BACKGROUND: Limited evidence exists regarding the long-term performance of polymer-free (PF) drug-eluting stents (DES) in comparison to permanent polymer DES. This study investigated the 5-year efficacy and safety of a PF sirolimus-eluting stent (PF-SES) versus a permanent polymer paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) in the setting of the Intracoronary Stenting and Angiographic Restenosis-Test Equivalence Between Two Drug-Eluting Stents (ISAR-TEST) randomized trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 450 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention were randomized to receive either PF-SES (Yukon, Translumina; n = 225) or PES (Taxus, Boston Scientific; n = 225). Clinical follow-up was performed to 5 years after enrollment. The endpoints were major adverse cardiac events (MACE), target lesion revascularization (TLR), the composite of death or any myocardial infarction (MI) and stent thrombosis (ST). The incidence of MACE at 5 years was 27.3% (57 patients) in the PF-SES group and 31.7% (65 patients) in the PES group [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.87 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) = 0.61-1.24]; P = 0.40]. The combined incidence of death or MI was 16.6% (34 patients) in the PF-SES group and 20.0% (39 patients) in the PES group (HR = 0.86 [95% CI = 0.54-1.36]; P = 0.52). The incidence of TLR was 16.5% (34 patients) in the PF-SES group and 16.4% (33 patients) in the PES group (HR = 1.03 [95% CI = 0.64-1.66]; P = 0.89). ST occurred in 0.5% (one patient) in the PF-SES group and 1.6% (three patients) in the PES group (HR = 0.33 [95% CI = 0.03-3.14]; P = 0.32). CONCLUSION: Overall there was no significant difference in clinical outcomes between PF-SES and PES to 5 years. Extended follow-up supports the durability of efficacy and safety of PF-SES.

Clinical Safety and Efficacy of New-Generation Single-Layer Polytetrafluorethylene Covered Coronary Stents.

BACKGROUND: Early-generation "sandwich-design" polytetrafluorethylene (PTFE) covered coronary stents (CS) are associated with a high frequency of adverse events. New-generation single layer PTFE-CS offers the potential to enhanced procedural efficacy and improves clinical safety. Data from a dedicated study, concerning outcomes after treatment with single-layer PTFE-CS in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention are scant. METHODS: This is a retrospective multicenter registry including 30 patients undergoing implantation of 39 single-layer PTFE-CS (BeGraft-coronary Stent Graft System, Bentley InnoMed GmbH, Hechingen, Germany) in native coronary arteries or saphenous bypass grafts, in 3 centers in Europe, between May 2013 and May 2019. Endpoints of interest were procedural success (placement of covered stent), binary-angiographic restenosis (BAR), percent diameter stenosis (% DS) and late-lumen loss at 6-8 months follow-up angiography, rates of target lesion revascularization (TLR), myocardial infarction (MI), stent thrombosis (ST) and mortality at 12 months. RESULTS: 28 patients underwent implantation of 37 CS due to coronary artery perforation 2 patients due to coronary artery aneurysm. Technical success was achieved in all patients (100 %). More than one stent was implanted in 7 patients (25 %) all in the perforation group. Follow-up angiography was available in 23 patients (77 %) showing favorable results: BAR = 21.8 %, %DS = 30.3 ± 27.5; LLL = 0.16 ± 0.81 mm. At 12 months all patients were alive, rates of TLR were low (3 patients, 10.0 %), there was one case of late stent thrombosis (3.3 %) and one MI (3.3 %). CONCLUSIONS: In this dedicated study, implantation of a new single layer PTFE-CS for the treatment of native coronary arteries or saphenous vein grafts after perforation or due to aneurysm showed high technical success rates and favorable angiographic and clinical efficacy. Clinical safety outcomes are encouraging, but larger prospective studies are needed to determine long-term safety of this device.

Ten-year clinical outcomes of drug-eluting stents with different polymer coating strategies by degree of coronary calcification: a pooled analysis of the ISAR-TEST 4 and 5 randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Long-term data concerning the efficacy of different polymer-coating strategies of new-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients with coronary artery calcification (CAC) are scant. AIMS: We aimed to investigate 10-year outcomes by degree of CAC after new-generation DES implantation with different polymer-coating strategies. METHODS: We analysed individual patient and lesion characteristics of patients randomised to treatment with polymer-free sirolimus-eluting, biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting and permanent-polymer zotarolimus- or everolimus-eluting stents. Endpoints of interest at 10 years were all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularisation (TLR) and definite or probable stent thrombosis (ST) according to the degree of CAC (no, mild, moderate or severe) and coating strategy (polymer-free vs biodegradable-polymer vs permanent-polymer). RESULTS: A total of 4,953 patients with 6,924 lesions were included. No, mild, moderate or severe CAC was present in 24.5%, 41.8%, 25.8% and 8.0% of patients, respectively. At 10-year follow-up, overall event rates were high, with an incremental increase according to the degree of CAC (all-cause mortality: no 25.3%, mild 32.1%, moderate 41.7%, severe CAC 46.5%; adjusted [adj.] p=0.004; TLR: no 17.4%, mild 16.5%, moderate 19.8%, severe CAC 28.7%; adj. p=0.001; MI: no 4.9%, mild 5.9%, moderate 6.0%, severe CAC 10.5%; adj. p=0.02; and ST: no 1.3%, mild 1.4%, moderate 1.8%, severe CAC 3.6%; adj. p=0.57). In patients with moderate-severe CAC, event rates were comparable, regardless of the DES polymer-coating strategy. CONCLUSIONS: At 10 years after PCI with new-generation DES, there was an incremental increase in adverse events by degree of coronary calcification. These detrimental effects do not seem to be impacted by different polymer-coating strategies.

Very long-term outlook of acute coronary syndromes after percutaneous coronary intervention with implantation of polymer-free versus durable-polymer new-generation drug-eluting stents.

BACKGROUND: Detailed long-term follow-up data on patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) in general, and those with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) in particular, are limited. We aimed to appraise the long-term outlook of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with state-of-the-art coronary stents for STEMI, other types of ACS and stable coronary artery disease (CAD), and also explore the potential beneficial impact of new-generation polymer-free drug-eluting stents (DES) in this setting. METHODS: Baseline, procedural and very long-term outcome data on patients undergoing PCI and randomized to implantation of new-generation polymer-free vs. durable polymer DES were systematically collected, explicitly distinguishing subjects with admission diagnosis of STEMI, non-ST-elevation ACS (NSTEACS), and stable CAD. Outcomes of interest included death, myocardial infarction, revascularization (i.e. patient-oriented composite endpoints [POCE]), major adverse cardiac events (MACE), and device-oriented composite endpoints (DOCE). RESULTS: A total of 3002 patients were included, 1770 (59.0%) with stable CAD, 921 (30.7%) with NSTEACS, and 311 (10.4%) with STEMI. At long-term follow-up (7.5±3.1 years), all clinical events were significantly more common in the NSTEACS group and, to a lesser extent, in the stable CAD group (e.g. POCE occurred in, respectively, 637 [44.7%] vs. 964 [37.9%] vs. 133 [31.5%], P<0.001). While these differences were largely attributable to adverse coexisting features in patients with NSTEACS (e.g. advanced age, insulin-dependent diabetes, and extent of CAD), the unfavorable outlook of patients presenting with NSTEACS persisted even after multivariable adjustment including several prognostically relevant factors (hazard ratio [HR] of NSTEACS vs. stable CAD 1.19 [95% confidence interval 1.03-1.38], P=0.016). Notably, even after encompassing all prognostically impactful features, no difference between polymer-free and permanent polymer drug-eluting stents appeared (HR=0.96 [0.84-1.10], P=0.560). CONCLUSIONS: Unstable coronary artery disease, especially when presenting without ST-elevation, represents an informative marker of adverse long-term prognosis in current state-of-the-art invasive cardiology practice. Even considering admission diagnosis, and despite of using no polymer, polymer-free DES showed similar results with regards to safety and efficacy when compared with DES with permanent polymer.

Biolimus-eluting vs. other limus-eluting stents in NSTE-ACS: A pooled analysis of GLASSY and TWILIGHT.

BACKGROUND: Biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stents (BP-BES) may be associated with better outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared to other current-generation limus-eluting stents (LES). AIMS: To compare BP-BES with other current-generation LES in ACS patients undergoing PCI. METHODS: We pooled individual data of Non-ST-segment elevation (NSTE)-ACS patients from two large randomized controlled trials (GLASSY and TWILIGHT). The BP-BES groups consisted mostly of GLASSY patients, while the control group (other current-generation LES) included exclusively TWILIGHT patients. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), including cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis; the key secondary outcome was target-vessel failure (TVF). To account for trial design differences, outcomes were assessed at 3 months (short-term) and between 3 and 12 months (long-term) after PCI and subsequently pooled to estimate the 12-month hazards. RESULTS: Of 7107 and 6053 NSTE-ACS patients included in the short- and long-term analysis, 32.7% and 36.5% received a BP-BES, respectively. Risk of MACE associated with BP-BES versus other LES was similar at short-term (1.1% vs 1.3%, adjusted HR 0.86, 95%CI 0.53-1.38), lower at long-term (1.7% vs 3.1%, adjusted HR 0.49, 95%CI 0.34-0.72), and lower in the entire 12-month period (pooled adjusted HR 0.61, 95%CI 0.45-0.82). The cumulative 12-month risk of TVF was reduced with BP-BES (adjusted HR 0.52, 95%CI 0.38-0.70). CONCLUSION: BP-BES was associated with lower 12-month risks of MACE and TVF compared to other current generation LES among NSTE-ACS patients treated with abbreviated or standard ticagrelor-based DAPT. These non-randomized findings are hypothesis-generating. CONDENSED ABSTRACT: Differences in clinical outcomes may exist between biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stents (BP-BES) and other current-generation limus-eluting stent (LES) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). We pooled individual data of about 7000 Non-ST-segment elevation ACS patients undergoing PCI and treated with ticagrelor with or without aspirin from two large randomized controlled trials (GLASSY and TWILIGHT). BP-BES patients derived very largely from GLASSY and other LES patients from TWILIGHT. In this population, BP-BES compared to other current generation LES, were associated with a lower 12-month risk of major adverse cardiovascular events and target-vessel failure.

Polymer-free sirolimus- and probucol-eluting versus new generation zotarolimus-eluting stents in coronary artery disease: the Intracoronary Stenting and Angiographic Results: Test Efficacy of Sirolimus- and Probucol-Eluting versus Zotarolimus-eluting Stents (ISAR-TEST 5) trial.

BACKGROUND: Durable polymer coatings have been implicated in mid- and long-term adverse events after drug-eluting stent implantation. A polymer-free dual-drug sirolimus- and probucol-eluting stent and a new generation permanent polymer zotarolimus-eluting stent are recently developed technologies demonstrating encouraging results. METHODS AND RESULTS: In a clinical trial with minimal exclusion criteria, we randomly assigned 3002 patients to treatment with sirolimus- and probucol-eluting stents versus zotarolimus-eluting stents. The trial was designed to demonstrate noninferiority of the sirolimus- and probucol-eluting stents. The primary end point was the combined incidence of cardiac death, target-vessel-related myocardial infarction, or target-lesion revascularization at 1-year follow-up. Follow-up angiography was scheduled at 6 to 8 months. The sirolimus- and probucol-eluting stent was noninferior to the zotarolimus-eluting stent in terms of occurrence of the primary end point (13.1% versus 13.5%, respectively, P(noninferiority)=0.006; hazard ratio=0.97, 95% confidence interval, 0.78 to 1.19; P(superiority)=0.74). The incidence of definite/probable stent thrombosis was low in both groups (1.1% versus 1.2%, respectively; hazard ratio=0.91 [95% confidence interval, 0.45 to 1.84], P=0.80). With regard to angiographic efficacy, there were no differences between the sirolimus- and probucol-eluting stent and the zotarolimus-eluting stent in terms of either in-segment binary angiographic restenosis (13.3% versus 13.4% respectively; P=0.95) or in-stent late luminal loss (0.31±0.58 mm versus 0.29±0.56 mm, respectively; P=0.46). CONCLUSION: In this large-scale study powered for clinical end points, a polymer-free sirolimus- and probucol-eluting stent was noninferior to a new generation durable polymer-based zotarolimus-eluting stent out to 12 months. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier NCT 00598533.

Drug-eluting versus bare-metal stents in saphenous vein graft lesions (ISAR-CABG): a randomised controlled superiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Comparative assessment of clinical outcomes after use of drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents for treatment of aortocoronary saphenous vein graft lesions has not been undertaken in large randomised trials. We aimed to undertake a comparison in a randomised trial powered for clinical endpoints. METHODS: In this randomised superiority trial, patients with de-novo saphenous vein graft lesions were assigned by computer-generated sequence (1:1:1:3) to receive either drug-eluting stents (one of three types: permanent-polymer paclitaxel-eluting stents, permanent-polymer sirolimus-eluting stents, or biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stents) or bare-metal stents. Randomisation took place immediately after crossing of the lesion with a guidewire, and was stratified for each participating centre. Investigators assessing data were masked to treatment allocation; patients were not masked to allocation. The primary endpoint was the combined incidence of death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularisation at 1 year. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00611910. FINDINGS: 610 patients were allocated to treatment groups (303 drug-eluting stent, 307 bare-metal stent). Drug-eluting stents reduced the incidence of the primary endpoint compared with bare-metal stents (44 [15%] vs 66 [22%] patients; hazard ratio [HR] 0.64, 95% CI 0.44-0.94; p=0.02). Target lesion revascularisation rate was reduced by drug-eluting stents (19 [7%] vs 37 [13%] patients; HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.28-0.86; p=0.01). No significant differences were seen between drug-eluting stents and bare-metal stents regarding all-cause mortality (15 [5%] vs 14 [5%] patients; HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.52-2.24; p=0.83), myocardial infarction (12 [4%] vs 18 [6%]; HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.32-1.37; p=0.27), or definite or probable stent thrombosis (2 [1%] in both groups; HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.14-7.10; p=0.99). INTERPRETATION: In patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for de-novo saphenous vein graft lesions, drug-eluting stents are the preferred treatment option because they reduce the risk of adverse events compared with bare-metal stents. FUNDING: Deutsches Herzzentrum.

Ten-Year Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome Treated With Biodegradable, Permanent-Polymer or Polymer-Free Drug-Eluting Stents.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare 10-year clinical outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) treated with new-generation biodegradable-polymer (BP-DES), polymer-free (PF-DES), and permanent-polymer drug-eluting stents (PPDES). METHODS: We analyzed 10-year clinical outcomes for 2042 patients with ACS enrolled in the ISAR-TEST 4 and ISAR-TEST 5 randomized controlled trials. Patients were divided into 3 groups: new-generation PP-DES, BP-DES, and PF-DES. Endpoints of interest included a device-oriented composite endpoint (DOCE) and a patient-oriented composite endpoint (POCE) at 10 years. RESULTS: BP-DES as compared with PP-DES demonstrated a lower DOCE frequency, but this did not meet statistical significance (BP-DES vs PP-DES, 35.4% vs 41.5%, respectively; adjusted hazard ratio (HR), 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68-1.00; P=.05). There was a significantly lower POCE frequency in patients treated with BP-DES compared with PP-DES (65.3% vs 69.0%, respectively; HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.75-0.99; P=.04). The relative frequency of the DOCE (41.4% vs 41.5%; HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.83-1.15; P=.76) and the POCE (66.8% vs 69.0%; HR, 0.99; 0.87-1.12; P=.82) were comparable in patients treated with PF-DES and PP-DES. CONCLUSION: In patients with ACS, BP-DES were associated with a lower relative frequency of a POCE compared with new-generation PP-DES at 10 years. The relative frequencies of both device- and patient-related outcomes were comparable in patients treated with PF-DES and PP-DES at 10 years.

Angiographic outcomes with biodegradable polymer and permanent polymer drug-eluting stents.

BACKGROUND: In the Intracoronary Stenting and Angiographic Results: Test Efficacy of 3 Limus-Eluting Stents (ISAR-TEST-4) trial, we demonstrated the noninferiority of biodegradable polymer (BP) sirolimus-eluting stent to permanent polymer (PP) sirolimus/everolimus-eluting stent (Cypher/Xience-V) on the basis of clinical outcomes. In this study, we compare the antirestenotic efficacy of these stents in ISAR-TEST-4 patients with paired angiographic studies. METHODS: Patients with de novo coronary lesions in native vessels (excluding left main lesions) were randomly assigned to receive a BP stent or a PP stent. Endpoints of interest of this study were in-stent late lumen loss, in-segment binary restenosis, and restenosis morphology at 6-8-month follow-up angiogram. RESULTS: Of the 2,603 patients (3,372 lesions) enrolled in ISAR TEST-4 trial, 2,016 patients (2,637 lesions) underwent repeat angiographic examination 6-8 months after randomization: 1,006 patients (1,323 lesions) treated with BP stents and 1,010 patients (1,314 lesions) treated with PP stents. No difference was observed between BP and PP stents in in-stent late lumen loss (0.24 ± 0.6 vs. 0.26 ± 0.5 mm, respectively, P = 0.49) or in in-segment binary restenosis (11.6% [153 lesions] vs. 11.8% [155 lesions], P = 0.85). Focal pattern of restenosis was observed in the majority of patients receiving either BP or PP stents. The diffuse pattern of restenosis was observed in 26.8% of patients treated with BP stent and 26.5% of patients treated with PP stent (P = 0.79). CONCLUSION: Angiographic characteristics of restenosis after BP-based limus-eluting stents are similar to those of PP-based limus-eluting stents.

Ten-year clinical outcomes of polymer-free versus durable polymer new-generation drug-eluting stent in patients with coronary artery disease with and without diabetes mellitus : Results of the Intracoronary Stenting and Angiographic Results: Test Efficacy of Sirolimus- and Probucol- and Zotarolimus-Eluting Stents (ISAR-TEST 5) trial.

BACKGROUND: Very long-term outcomes according to diabetic status of patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with new-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) are scant. Both, the durable polymer zotarolimus-eluting stent (DP-ZES), the first DES to gain FDA-approval for specific use in patients with diabetes mellitus, and the polymer-free sirolimus- and probucol-eluting stent (PF-SES), with a unique design that enables effective drug release without the need of a polymer offer the potential to enhance clinical long-term outcomes especially in patients with diabetes mellitus. METHODS: We investigate 10-year clinical outcomes of the prespecified subgroups of patients with and without diabetes mellitus, randomly assigned to treatment with PF-SES versus DP-ZES in the ISAR-TEST 5 trial. The primary endpoint of interest was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as the composite of all-cause death, any myocardial infarction or any revascularization. Further endpoints of interest were cardiac death, myocardial infarction related to the target vessel and target lesion revascularization as well as the individual components of the primary composite endpoint and the incidence of definite or probable stent thrombosis at 10 years. RESULTS: This analysis includes a total of 3002 patients randomly assigned to PF-SES (n = 2002) or DP-ZES (n = 1000). Prevalence of diabetes mellitus was high and comparable, 575 Patients (28.7%) in PF-SES group and 295 patients (29.5%) in DP-ZES group (P = 0.66). At 10 years 53.5% of patients with diabetes mellitus and 68.5% of patients without diabetes mellitus were alive. Regarding major adverse cardiac events, PF-SES as compared to DP-ZES showed comparable event rates in patients with diabetes mellitus (74.8% vs. 79.6%; hazard ratio 0.86; 95% CI 0.73-1.02; P = 0.08) and in patients without diabetes (PF-SES 62.5% vs. DP-ZES 62.2%; hazard ratio 0.99; 95% CI 0.88-1.11; P = 0.88). CONCLUSION: At 10 years, both new-generation DES show comparable clinical outcome irrespective of diabetic status or polymer strategy. Event rates after PCI in patients with diabetes mellitus are considerable higher than in patients without diabetes mellitus and continue to accrue over time. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00598533, Registered 10 January 2008, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00598533?term=NCT00598533 Kaplan-Meier estimates of endpoints of interest for patients with vs. without diabetes mellitus treated with PF-SES vs. DP-ZES. Bar graphs: Kaplan-Meier estimates as percentages. PF-SES: polymer-free sirolimus-eluting stent; DP-ZES: durable polymer zotarolimus-eluting stent; DM: diabetes mellitus. Comparison of event rates of individual endpoints in patients with and without diabetes mellitus treated with PF-SES vs. DP-ZES all without statistically significant differences. Comparison of event rates of individual endpoints in overall patients with vs. without diabetes mellitus significantly different (P ≤ 0.01 for all comparisons).

Ten-Year Clinical Outcomes of Biodegradable Versus Durable Polymer New-Generation Drug-Eluting Stent in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease With and Without Diabetes Mellitus.

Background Extended long-term follow-up data of new-generation drug-eluting stents in patients with diabetes mellitus is scant. The aim of this study is to assess the 10-year clinical outcome of new-generation biodegradable polymer-based sirolimus-eluting stents (Yukon Choice PC) versus permanent polymer-based everolimus-eluting stents (XIENCE) in patients with and without diabetes mellitus. Methods and Results In a prespecified subgroup analysis, outcomes of patients with or without diabetes mellitus treated with drug-eluting stents were compared. The primary end point of this analysis was major adverse cardiac event, the composite of death, myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization. The analysis includes a total of 1951 patients (560 patients with and 1391 patients without diabetes mellitus) randomized to treatment with Yukon Choice PC (n=1299) or Xience (n=652). Regarding the primary end point, at 10 years patients with diabetes mellitus showed significantly higher major adverse cardiac event rates than patients without diabetes mellitus (P<0.001; hazard ratio [HR], 1.41; 95% CI, 1.22-1.63). There was no significant difference between patients treated with Yukon Choice PC versus Xience, neither in the subgroup of patients with (P=0.91; HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.79-1.30) nor without diabetes mellitus (P=0.50; HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.79-1.21). Rates of definite/probable stent thrombosis were 2.3% in patients with and 1.9% in patients without diabetes mellitus (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.34-2.60; P=0.52), without significant differences between study devices. Conclusions The clinical outcome of patients with diabetes after percutaneous coronary intervention with different new-generation drug-eluting stents is considerably worse than that of patients without diabetes mellitus, with event rates constantly increasing out to 10 years. Registration URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov. Unique Identifier: NCT00598676.

A polymer-free dual drug-eluting stent in patients with coronary artery disease: a randomized trial vs. polymer-based drug-eluting stents.

AIMS: Long-term polymer residue in the coronary milieu is a consequence of current drug-eluting stent (DES) therapy and has been implicated in late adverse events. We developed a novel polymer-free rapamycin- and probucol-eluting stent (Dual-DES) and compared its efficacy against commercially available permanent polymer-based sirolimus-eluting (SES; Cypher) and zotarolimus-eluting (ZES; Endeavor) stents. METHODS AND RESULTS: Between March 2006 and July 2007, a total of 1007 patients undergoing coronary stenting of de novo lesions, in native vessels, were randomized to treatment with SES (n = 335), Dual-DES (n = 333), or ZES (n = 339). The primary endpoint was binary angiographic restenosis at 6-8 month follow-up angiography. Secondary endpoints were angiographic in-stent late loss; and target lesion revascularization (TLR), death/myocardial infarction and stent thrombosis at 12 months. Follow-up angiographic data were available for 828 (82.2%) patients. There was a significant difference in both binary restenosis and TLR across treatment groups (P = 0.003 and P < 0.001, respectively). Binary restenosis in the Dual-DES group (11.0%) was significantly lower than that in the ZES group (19.3%; P = 0.002) but comparable with that in the SES group (12.0%; P = 0.68). Similarly, TLR with Dual-DES (6.8%) was significantly lower than ZES (13.6%; P = 0.001) but not different to that of SES (7.2%; P = 0.83). These differences were mirrored in the extent of late loss across the groups. No differences were observed between stent groups in terms of death/myocardial infarction or stent thrombosis. CONCLUSION: A novel polymer-free Dual-DES is associated with high anti-restenotic efficacy without recourse to carrier polymer. Potential long-term clinical advantage of this platform remains subject to investigation. Study registered at ClinicalTrials.gov. Identifier number: NCT00332397.

Do outcomes following intervention for drug-eluting stent restenosis depend on whether the restenosed stent was polymer-free or polymer-coated?

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Outcomes of patients undergoing percutaneous intervention for drug-eluting stent (DES) restenosis are poorer than those in patients with bare-metal stent restenosis. It is unknown if this is related to the presence of polymer coating. We sought to compare outcomes after interventions for in-stent restenosis (ISR) of polymer-free DES vs durable polymer DES. METHODS: Patients enrolled in the ISAR-TEST 5 randomized trial who underwent repeat percutaneous intervention for ISR during follow-up were included. Angiographic outcomes at 6 to 8 months and clinical outcomes at 2 years were analyzed and compared between 2 groups according to whether the restenosed stent was a polymer-free or a durable polymer DES. Multivariate analysis was used to adjust for differences between groups. RESULTS: A total of 326 patients with ISR were included: 220 with ISR in polymer-free DES and 106 with ISR in durable polymer DES. Angiographic follow-up was available for 83.4% of patients. No difference was observed in recurrent binary restenosis between the 2 groups (31.7% vs 27.0%; P=.38; Padjusted=.29). At 2 years, the composite of death, myocardial infarction, or repeat target lesion revascularization were similar between the 2 groups (35.7% vs 34.0%; HR=1.04, 95%CI, 0.70-1.55; P=.83; Padjusted=.79). The rate of repeat target lesion revascularization was also similar in the 2 groups (29.8% vs 31.5%; HR=0.91, 95%CI, 0.60-1.39; P=.68; Padjusted=.62). CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing reintervention for DES-ISR, we found no evidence of differences in outcomes according to whether the restenosed stent was a polymer-free or durable polymer DES.

10-Year Outcomes From a Randomized Trial of Polymer-Free Versus Durable Polymer Drug-Eluting Coronary Stents.

BACKGROUND: Outcome data after extended long-term follow-up of patients with coronary artery disease treated with drug-eluting stents (DES) in randomized clinical trials are scant. OBJECTIVES: Performance differences among devices may be expected to emerge over time depending on whether stenting is done with polymer-free or durable polymer DES. This study assessed the 10-year outcomes of patients enrolled in the ISAR-TEST-5 (Test Efficacy of Sirolimus- and Probucol-Eluting Versus Zotarolimus-Eluting Stents) trial. METHODS: A total of 3,002 patients were randomized to treatment with either polymer-free sirolimus- and probucol-eluting stents (n = 2,002) or durable polymer zotarolimus-eluting stents (n = 1,000). The primary endpoint was the composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization (a device-oriented composite endpoint [DOCE]). Additional endpoints of interest were the patient-oriented composite endpoint (POCE), including all-cause death, any myocardial infarction, or any revascularization; individual components of the composite endpoints; and definite or probable stent thrombosis. RESULTS: The median age of the patients at randomization was 67.8 years. At 10 years, 63.9% of patients were alive. The rates of DOCE and POCE were high in both groups with no difference in the incidence between polymer-free sirolimus- and probucol-eluting stents and durable polymer zotarolimus-eluting stents (DOCE: 43.8% vs. 43.0%, respectively; hazard ratio: 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.89 to 1.14; p = 0.90; POCE: 66.2% vs. 67.7%, respectively; hazard ratio: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.04; p = 0.22). The rates of the individual components of the composite endpoints were comparable in both groups. The incidence of definite/probable stent thrombosis over 10 years was low and comparable in both groups (1.6% vs. 1.9%; hazard ratio: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.46 to 1.54; p = 0.58). CONCLUSIONS: At 10 years, there were no measurable differences in outcomes between patients treated with polymer-free versus durable polymer DES. The incidence of stent thrombosis was low and comparable in both groups. High overall adverse clinical event rates were observed during extended follow-up. (Test Efficacy of Sirolimus- and Probucol-Eluting Versus Zotarolimus-Eluting Stents [ISAR-TEST-5]; NCT00598533).