Thin composite wire strut, durable polymer-coated (Resolute Onyx) versus ultrathin cobalt-chromium strut, bioresorbable polymer-coated (Orsiro) drug-eluting stents in allcomers with coronary artery disease (BIONYX): an international, single-blind, randomised non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: During the past decade, many patients had zotarolimus-eluting stents implanted, which had circular shape cobalt-chromium struts with limited radiographic visibility. The Resolute Onyx stent was developed to improve visibility while reducing strut thickness, which was achieved by using a novel composite wire with a dense platinum-iridium core and an outer cobalt-chromium layer. We did the first randomised clinical trial to assess the safety and efficacy of this often-used stent compared with the Orsiro stent, which consists of ultrathin cobalt-chromium struts. METHODS: We did an investigator-initiated, assessor-blinded and patient-blinded, randomised non-inferiority trial in an allcomers population at seven independently monitored centres in Belgium, Israel, and the Netherlands. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older and required percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents. After guide wire passage with or without predilation, members of the catheterisation laboratory team used web-based computer-generated allocation sequences to randomly assign patients (1:1) to either the Resolute Onyx or the Orsiro stent. Randomisation was stratified by sex and diabetes status. Patients and assessors were masked to allocated stents, but treating clinicians were not. The primary endpoint was target vessel failure at 1 year, a composite of cardiac death, target-vessel-related myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularisation, and was assessed by intention to treat (non-inferiority margin 2·5%) on the basis of outcomes adjudicated by an independent event committee. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02508714. FINDINGS: Between Oct 7, 2015, and Dec 23, 2016, 2516 patients were enrolled, 2488 of whom were included in the intention-to-treat analysis (28 withdrawals or screening failures). 1243 participants were assigned to the Resolute Onyx group, and 1245 to the Orsiro group. Overall, 1765 (70·9%) participants presented with acute coronary syndromes and 1275 (51·2%) had myocardial infarctions. 1-year follow-up was available for 2478 (99·6%) patients. The primary endpoint was met by 55 (4·5%) patients in the Resolute Onyx group and 58 (4·7%) in the Orsiro group. Non-inferiority of Resolute Onyx to Orsiro was thus established (absolute risk difference -0·2% [95% CI -1·9 to 1·4]; upper limit of the one-sided 95% CI 1·1%; pnon-inferiority=0·0005). Definite or probable stent thrombosis occurred in one (0·1%) participant in the Resolute Onyx group and nine (0·7%) in the Orsiro group (hazard ratio 0·11 [95% CI 0·01-0·87]; p=0·0112). INTERPRETATION: The Resolute Onyx stent was non-inferior to Orsiro for a combined safety and efficacy endpoint at 1-year follow-up in allcomers. The low event rate in both groups suggests that both stents are safe, and the very low rate of stent thrombosis in the Resolute Onyx group warrants further clinical investigation. FUNDING: Biotronik and Medtronic.

Bioresorbable Polymer-Coated Orsiro Versus Durable Polymer-Coated Resolute Onyx Stents (BIONYX): Rationale and design of the randomized TWENTE IV multicenter trial.

AIM: The aim was to compare in a noninferiority trial the efficacy and safety of 2 contemporary drug-eluting stents (DESs): a novel, durable polymer-coated stent versus an established bioabsorbable polymer-coated stent. METHODS AND RESULTS: The BIONYX trial (ClinicalTrials.gov-no.NCT02508714) is an investigator-initiated, prospective, randomized, patient- and assessor-blinded, international, multicenter study in all-comer patients with all types of clinical syndromes and lesions who require percutaneous coronary interventions with DES. Patients at 7 study sites in the Netherlands, Belgium, and Israel were randomly assigned (1:1, stratified for gender and diabetes mellitus) to treatment with the novel, zotarolimus-eluting, durable polymer-coated Resolute Onyx stent that has a radiopaque, thin-strut, CoreWire stent platform versus the sirolimus-eluting, bioresorbable polymer-coated Orsiro stent (reference device) that has a very thin-strut, cobalt-chromium stent backbone. The primary end point is the 1-year incidence of the composite clinical end point target vessel failure consisting of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or clinically indicated target vessel revascularization. A power calculation, assuming a target vessel failure rate of 6.0% (noninferiority margin 2.5%), revealed that 2,470 study patients would give the study 80% power (α level 5%), allowing for up to 3% loss to follow-up. The first patient was enrolled on October 7, 2015; on December 23, 2016, the last patient entered the study. CONCLUSIONS: BIONYX is a large-scale, prospective, randomized, international, multicenter trial comparing a novel DES with durable coating versus a reference DES with biodegradable coating in all-comers. The study is the first randomized assessment of the Resolute Onyx stent, which is an often-used DES outside the United States.

High Bleeding Risk Patients Treated with Very Thin-Strut Biodegradable Polymer or Thin-Strut Durable Polymer Drug-Eluting Stents in the BIO-RESORT Trial.

PURPOSE: Patients with high bleeding risk (HBR) who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention also have an increased risk of ischemic events and represent an overall high-risk population. The coating of durable polymer drug-eluting stents (DP-DES) may induce inflammation and delay arterial healing, which might be reduced by novel biodegradable polymer DES (BP-DES). We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of treating HBR patients with very thin-strut BP-DES versus thin-strut DP-DES. METHODS: Participants in BIO-RESORT (NCT01674803), an investigator-initiated multicenter, randomized all-comers trial, were treated with very thin-strut BP-DES (Synergy or Orsiro) or thin-strut DP-DES (Resolute Integrity). For the present analysis, patients were classified following HBR criteria based on previous trials. The primary endpoint was target vessel failure: a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization at 1 year. RESULTS: Of all 3514 patients, 1009 (28.7%) had HBR. HBR patients were older (p < 0.001) and had more co-morbidities than non-HBR patients (p < 0.001). At 1-year follow-up, HBR patients had significantly higher rates of target vessel failure (6.7 vs. 4.2%, p = 0.003), cardiac death (1.9 vs. 0.4%, p < 0.001), and major bleeding (3.3 vs. 1.5%, p = 0.001). Of all 1009 HBR patients, 673 (66.7%) received BP-DES and 336 (33.3%) had DP-DES. The primary endpoint was met by 43/673 (6.5%) patients treated with BP-DES and 24/336 (7.3%) treated with DP-DES (HR 0.88 [95%CI 0.54-1.46], p = 0.63). There were no significant between-group differences in the most global patient-oriented clinical endpoint (9.7 vs. 10.5%, HR 0.92 [95%CI 0.61-1.39], p = 0.69) and other secondary endpoints. CONCLUSIONS: At 1-year follow-up, very thin-strut BP-DES showed similar safety and efficacy for treating HBR patients as thin-strut DP-DES.

Very thin strut biodegradable polymer everolimus-eluting and sirolimus-eluting stents versus durable polymer zotarolimus-eluting stents in allcomers with coronary artery disease (BIO-RESORT): a three-arm, randomised, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: In patients with coronary artery disease, treated with durable polymer-coated drug-eluting stents, the life-long presence of the polymer might delay arterial healing. Novel very thin strut biodegradable polymer stents, which leave only a bare metal stent after polymer resorption, might improve long-term outcome. We investigated in allcomers the safety and efficacy of three stents eluting either everolimus, sirolimus, or zotarolimus, often clinically used but never compared, of which the biodegradable polymer everolimus-eluting stent was never before assessed in allcomers. METHODS: The large-scale, investigator-initiated, multicentre, assessor and patient blinded, three-arm, randomised, BIO-RESORT non-inferiority trial was done at four clinical sites in the Netherlands. All-comer patients were aged 18 years or older, capable of providing informed consent, and required a percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stent implantation according to clinical guidelines or the operators' judgment. Exclusion criteria were: participation in another randomised drug or device study before reaching the primary endpoint of that study; planned surgery necessitating interruption of dual antiplatelet therapy within the first 6 months; known intolerance to components of the investigational product or medication required; uncertainty about the adherence to follow-up procedures or an assumed life expectancy of less than 1 year; or known pregnancy. Web-based computer-generated allocation sequences randomly assigned patients (1:1:1) to treatment with very thin strut biodegradable polymer everolimus-eluting or sirolimus-eluting stents (which differ substantially in type, amount, distribution, and resorption speed of their respective coating), or thin strut durable polymer zotarolimus-eluting stents. The primary endpoint was a composite of safety (cardiac death or target vessel-related myocardial infarction) and efficacy (target vessel revascularisation) at 12 months of follow up with a very thin strut biodegradable polymer of either everolimus-eluting or sirolimus-eluting stents, compared with durable polymer zotarolimus-eluting stents, analysed by intention to treat (non-inferiority margin 3·5%). This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01674803. FINDINGS: From Dec 21, 2012, to Aug 24, 2015, 3514 patients were enrolled and analysed, of whom 2449 (70%) had acute coronary syndromes, which included 1073 (31%) ST-elevation myocardial infarctions. 12 month follow-up of 3490 (99%) patients (three lost to follow-up; 21 withdrawals) was available. The primary endpoint was met by 55 (5%) of 1172 patients assigned to everolimus-eluting stents, 55 (5%) of 1169 assigned to sirolimus-eluting stents and 63 (5%) of 1173 assigned to zotarolimus-eluting stents. Non-inferiority of the everolimus-eluting stents and sirolimus-eluting stents compared with zotarolimus-eluting stents was confirmed (both -0·7% absolute risk difference, 95% CI -2·4 to 1·1; upper limit of one sided 95% CI 0·8%, pnon-inferiority<0·0001). Definite stent thrombosis (defined by the Academic Research Consortium) occurred in four (0·3%) of 1172 patients who were allocated to everolimus-eluting stents, four (0·3%) of 1169 patients who were allocated to sirolimus-eluting stents, and three (0·3%) of 1173 patients who were allocated to zotarolimus-eluting stents (log-rank p=0·70 for both comparisons with zotarolimus-eluting stents). INTERPRETATION: At 12 month follow-up, both very thin strut drug-eluting stents with dissimilar biodegradable polymer coatings (eluting either everolimus or sirolimus) were non-inferior to the durable polymer stent (eluting zotarolimus) in treating allcomers with a high proportion of patients with acute coronary syndromes. The absence of a loss of 1 year safety and efficacy with the use of these two biodegradable polymer-coated stents is a prerequisite before assessing their potential longer-term benefits. FUNDING: Biotronik, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic.

Impact of severe lesion calcification on clinical outcome of patients with stable angina, treated with newer generation permanent polymer-coated drug-eluting stents: A patient-level pooled analysis from TWENTE and DUTCH PEERS (TWENTE II).

BACKGROUND: The outcome of percutaneous coronary intervention with newer generation permanent polymer-coated drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients with severely calcified lesions is greatly unknown. We assessed the impact of severe lesion calcification on clinical outcome in patients with stable angina who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention with newer generation DES. METHODS: TWENTE and DUTCH PEERS randomized trials enrolled 1423 patients with stable angina, who were categorized into patients with versus without severe target lesion calcification. A patient-level pooled analysis assessed clinical outcome, including target vessel failure (TVF), a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization (TVR). RESULTS: Patients with severe calcification (n = 342) were older (66.6 ± 9.1 vs 64.2 ± 9.8 years, P < .001) and had more diabetes (25.7% vs 20.4%, P = .04) than other patients (n = 1081). Patients with calcified lesions had higher rates of TVF (16.4% vs 9.8%, pLogrank = .001), cardiac death (4.4% vs 1.5%, P = .03), target vessel myocardial infarction (7.6% vs 3.4%, P = .001), and definite stent thrombosis (1.8% vs 0.4%, P = .02). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that severe calcification was an independent risk factor of 2-year TVF (HR 1.42, 95% CI: 1.02-1.99, pLogrank = .04); landmark analysis showed that this was based on a difference during the first year (periprocedural: 5.8% vs. 3.1%, pLogrank = .02; first year: 7.5% vs. 3.8%, pLogrank = .007; second year: 4.1% vs. 3.3%, pLogrank = .54). CONCLUSION: In patients with stable angina, severe target lesion calcification is associated with an increased risk of adverse cardiovascular events following treatment with newer generation permanent polymer-coated DES. This increase in risk is restricted to the first year of follow-up, which is an encouraging finding.

Final 5-Year Report of the Randomized BIO-RESORT Trial Comparing 3 Contemporary Drug-Eluting Stents in All-Comers.

Background In a previous trial, higher 5-year mortality was observed following treatment with biodegradable polymer Orsiro sirolimus-eluting stents (SES). We assessed 5-year safety and efficacy of all-comers as well as patients with diabetes treated with SES or Synergy everolimus-eluting stents (EES) versus durable polymer Resolute Integrity zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZES). Methods and Results The randomized BIO-RESORT (Comparison of Biodegradable Polymer and Durable Polymer Drug-Eluting Stents in an All Comers Population) trial enrolled 3514 all-comer patients at 4 Dutch cardiac centers. Patients aged ≥18 years who required percutaneous coronary intervention were eligible. Participants were stratified for diabetes and randomized to treatment with SES, EES, or ZES (1:1:1). The main end point was target vessel failure (cardiac mortality, target vessel myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization). Five-year follow-up was available in 3183 of 3514 (90.6%) patients. The main end point target vessel failure occurred in 142 of 1169 (12.7%) patients treated with SES, 130 of 1172 (11.6%) treated with EES, versus 157 of 1173 (14.1%) treated with ZES (hazard ratio [HR], 0.89 [95% CI, 0.71-1.12], Plog-rank=0.31; and HR, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.65-1.04], Plog-rank=0.10, respectively). Individual components of target vessel failure showed no significant between-stent difference. Very late definite stent thrombosis rates were low and similar (SES, 1.1%; EES, 0.6%; ZES, 0.9%). In patients with diabetes, target vessel failure did not differ significantly between stent-groups (SES, 19.8%; EES, 19.2%; versus ZES, 21.1% [Plog-rank=0.69 and Plog-rank=0.63]). Conclusions Orsiro SES, Synergy EES, and Resolute Integrity ZES showed similar 5-year outcomes of safety and efficacy, including mortality. A prespecified stent comparison in patients with diabetes also revealed no significant differences in 5-year clinical outcomes. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01674803.

Treating diabetic all-comers with contemporary drug-eluting stents: Prespecified comparisons from the BIO-RESORT and the BIONYX randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Patients with diabetes have more extensive coronary disease, resulting in higher risks of adverse clinical events following stenting. In all-comer patients, contemporary DES have shown excellent safety and efficacy, but data on diabetic patients are scarce. Separately for the BIO-RESORT and BIONYX trials, we assessed the 2-year clinical outcomes of diabetic patients, treated with various contemporary drug-eluting stents (DES). METHODS: We performed two prespecified secondary analyses of two randomized DES trials, which both stratified for diabetes. The main endpoint was target vessel failure (TVF), a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization. Follow-up was finished before the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: In BIO-RESORT, 624/3514 (17.8%) had diabetes: 211 received Orsiro sirolimus-eluting stents (SES), 203 Synergy everolimus-eluting stents (EES), and 210 Resolute Integrity zotarolimus-eluting stents (RI-ZES). TVF did not differ between SES (10.2%) and EES (10.0%) versus RI-ZES (12.7%) (SES vs. RI-ZES HR:0.78, 95%-CI [0.44-1.40]; p = 0.40, EES vs. RI-ZES HR:0.79, 95%-CI [0.44-1.40]; p = 0.42). In BIONYX, 510/2488 (20.5%) patients had diabetes: 250 received SES and 260 Resolute Onyx zotarolimus-eluting stents (RO-ZES). There was no difference in TVF between SES (10.7%) versus RO-ZES (12.2%) (HR:0.88, 95%-CI [0.52-1.48]; p = 0.63). CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in 2-year clinical outcome among patients with diabetes, who were treated with SES, or EES, versus RI-ZES. In addition there was no difference in clinical outcome in diabetic patients, who were treated with SES versus RO-ZES. These findings may be considered as a signal of safety and efficacy of the studied DES in patients with diabetes.

1-Year Clinical Outcomes of All Comers Treated With 2 Bioresorbable Polymer-Coated Sirolimus-Eluting Stents: Propensity Score-Matched Comparison of the COMBO and Ultrathin-Strut Orsiro Stents.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine 1-year safety and efficacy after treatment with the COMBO and Orsiro stents. BACKGROUND: The COMBO stainless-steel stent has an anti-CD34+ antibody coating to capture endothelial progenitor cells, thereby promoting faster endothelialization. The Orsiro is an ultrathin-strut cobalt-chromium stent, covered by an extremely thin layer of amorphous silicon carbide to minimize ion leakage. Both devices elute sirolimus from biodegradable polymers. METHODS: For this analysis we included European patients from the COMBO collaboration, a patient-level pooling of 2 prospective all-comers registries of COMBO stent implantation (n = 2,775), and all patients randomized to the Orsiro stent (n = 1,169) from the Dutch BIO-RESORT (Comparison of Biodegradable Polymer and Durable Polymer Drug-Eluting Stents in an All Comers Population) randomized trial. The main outcome of interest was 1-year target lesion failure, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically driven target lesion revascularization evaluated using propensity score-matched analysis. RESULTS: At baseline, COMBO patients were older and had more insulin-treated diabetes, renal insufficiency, and other comorbidities. However, Orsiro patients included more current smokers and more acute coronary syndrome presentations. Orsiro patients also received longer stents and had more complex target lesions. After propensity score-matched analysis (n = 862/arm), 1-year target lesion failure occurred in 4.1% of COMBO-treated and 2.7% of Orsiro-treated patients (hazard ratio: 1.55; 95% confidence interval: 0.92 to 2.62; p = 0.10). Definite stent thrombosis occurred in 0.5% of COMBO-treated and 0.5% of Orsiro-treated patients (p = 0.99). CONCLUSIONS: A propensity score-matched comparison of all comers treated with the COMBO or Orsiro stent showed no statistically significant differences. Stent thrombosis risk was low and similar between the stents. (Comparison of Biodegradable Polymer and Durable Polymer Drug-Eluting Stents in an All Comers Population [BIO-RESORT], NCT01674803; MASCOT-Post Marketing Registry [MASCOT], NCT02183454; Prospective Registry to Assess the Long-term Safety and Performance of the Combo Stent [REMEDEE Reg], NCT01874002).

Thin, Very Thin, or Ultrathin Strut Biodegradable or Durable Polymer-Coated Drug-Eluting Stents: 3-Year Outcomes of BIO-RESORT.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the 3-year safety and efficacy of treating all-comer patients with 3 contemporary drug-eluting stents (DES). BACKGROUND: The BIO-RESORT (Comparison of Biodegradable Polymer and Durable Polymer Drug-Eluting Stents in an All Comers Population) (TWENTE III) randomized trial (NCT01674803) found similar 1-year safety and efficacy for the 2 biodegradable-polymer DES (i.e., ultrathin-strut cobalt-chromium Orsiro sirolimus-eluting stent [SES] and very-thin-strut platinum-chromium Synergy everolimus-eluting stent) compared with the durable-polymer thin-strut cobalt-chromium Resolute Integrity zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES). Two-year follow-up suggested that the SES might reduce repeat revascularizations beyond 1 year compared with the ZES. METHODS: A total of 3,514 all-comer patients were treated at 4 centers for coronary intervention. The main clinical endpoint, target vessel failure, was a composite of safety (cardiac death or target vessel-related myocardial infarction) and efficacy (target vessel revascularization). Secondary endpoints included the individual components of target vessel failure and stent thrombosis. RESULTS: Three-year follow-up data were available for 3,393 of 3,514 patients (96.6%). Target vessel failure occurred in 8.5% with SES and 10.0% with ZES (plog rank = 0.22) and in 8.8% with everolimus-eluting stents (vs. ZES, plog rank = 0.32). Rates of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization were similar between stent groups. Landmark analyses found no statistically significant between-stent difference in repeat revascularization between 1 and 3 years. Definite or probable stent thrombosis rates were low (SES, 1.1%; everolimus-eluting stent, 1.1%; ZES, 0.9%) and similar with all 3 DES. CONCLUSIONS: Despite substantial differences in stent backbone and polymer coating, all 3 DES showed favorable 3-year safety and efficacy in all comers, without significant between-stent differences. Further follow-up is required to definitely answer the question of whether one stent might improve clinical outcomes at a later stage.

Two-year clinical outcome of all-comers treated with three highly dissimilar contemporary coronary drug-eluting stents in the randomised BIO-RESORT trial.

AIMS: The aim of the study was to evaluate the two-year clinical outcome of all-comer trial participants who were treated with two very different thin-strut biodegradable polymer versus thin-strut durable polymer drug-eluting stents (DES). Prolonged clinical outcome after discontinuation of dual antiplatelet therapy is of particular interest, given the highly dissimilar polymer types, amount, distribution, and degradation speed of both biodegradable polymer DES. METHODS AND RESULTS: The BIO-RESORT trial (NCT01674803) randomly assigned 3,514 patients to treatment with biodegradable polymer SYNERGY everolimus-eluting stents (EES) or Orsiro sirolimus-eluting stents (SES), or durable polymer Resolute Integrity zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZES). At two-year follow-up (available in 98.8%), the rate of the primary composite endpoint target vessel failure (TVF) was 8.3% in ZES versus 6.8% in EES (p=0.19) and 6.6% in SES (p=0.12). Landmark analyses at one year revealed differences between SES and ZES in the rates of target lesion revascularisation and target lesion failure (0.6% vs. 1.5%, p=0.04, and 1.1% vs. 2.4%, p=0.02, respectively) as well as other composite secondary endpoints that reached statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: At two-year follow-up, there was no significant between-DES difference in the rates of the primary endpoint. Landmark analyses provided a signal that the use of SES versus ZES might reduce the risk of repeat revascularisation after one-year follow-up.