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.).

Randomized clinical trial of abluminus DES+ sirolimus-eluting stent versus everolimus-eluting DES for percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with diabetes mellitus: An optical coherence tomography study.

BACKGROUND: Diabetic patients are at higher risk of recurrent adverse events following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) than the nondiabetics. Despite the introduction of new generation drug-eluting stents, their efficacy in the diabetics is still limited. AIMS: To evaluate the efficacy of the Abluminus DES+ biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent in reducing neointimal hyperplasia in diabetic patients, compared to a durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent (DP-EES). METHODS: A total of 131 patients with diabetes and coronary artery disease were enrolled in six Italian centers and randomized in a 2:1 fashion to PCI with Abluminus DES+ or DP-EES: 85 were assigned to Abluminus DES+ and 46 to DP-EES. The primary endpoint was optimal coherence tomography (OCT)-derived neointimal volume at 9-12 months. Secondary endpoints included OCT-derived neointimal area, neointimal volume obstruction and adverse clinical events. RESULTS: The primary endpoint, neointimal volume, did not differ between Abluminus DES+ and DP-EES (29.11 ± 18.90 mm3 vs. 25.48 ± 17.04 mm3 , p = 0.40) at 9-12-month follow-up. This finding remained consistent after weighing for the sum of stents lengths (1.14 ± 0.68 mm3 vs. 0.99 ± 0.74 mm3 for Abluminus DES+ and DP-EES, respectively, p = 0.38). Similarly, other OCT-derived and clinical secondary endpoints did not significantly differ between the two groups. Rate of target lesion failure was high in both groups (21.2% for Abluminus DES+ and 19.6% for DP-EES). CONCLUSIONS: This preliminary study failed to demonstrate the superiority of the Abluminus DES+ over the DP-EES in diabetic patients in terms of neointimal proliferation.

Acute and long-term outcomes after polytetrafluoroethylene or pericardium covered stenting for grade 3 coronary artery perforations: Insights from G3-CAP registry.

BACKGROUND: Covered stent (CS) implantation is considered a useful device in the setting of Grade III Coronary Perforation (G3CP), one of the most harmful PCI complication. However, data regarding efficacy of this device and clinical outcomes are still limited. METHODS AND RESULTS: From 1993 to 2015, among 97,779 patients from 9 European centres undergoing PCI, 224 patients had G3CP (0.23%), and 102 patients were managed with CS implantation (96 with PTFE, 6 with pericardium). Device oriented composite endpoint (DOCE), a composite of cardiac death, target lesion revascularization, and stent thrombosis (ST) in-hospital and at long term follow-up were evaluated. G3-CP perforations were successfully sealed with CS in 88 patients (86.3%) with need of intraprocedural pericardiocentesis in one-third of cases. Protamine as heparin reversal agent was administered in 36 (35%) of cases. The cumulative incidence of in-hospital DOCE were 16.6% (17/102): death 14.7%, TLR 2.9%, ST 3.9%. At long-term follow-up (mean 42 ± 38 months), DOCE rates occurred in 19.7%: death 7.4%, TLR 11%, and ST 6.2%. Indication to Dual Antiplatelet Therapy (DAPT) was lifelong in 20% of cases, 1 to 6 months in 22.5% and 12-months in 57.5% without differences in long-term DOCE before and after DAPT interruption (8.0 vs. 6.6%, respectively, P = 0.20). CONCLUSIONS: Use of CS was successful in sealing grade 3 coronary artery perforations in the majority of cases. Beside the high rate of clinical events at short and long-term, ST remains the leading cause of device failure.

Bioresorbable vascular scaffold versus everolimus-eluting stents or drug eluting balloon for the treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis: 1-Year follow-up of a propensity score matching comparison (the BIORESOLVE-ISR Study).

OBJECTIVES: to compare the 1-year outcome between bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS), everolimus-eluting stent (EES), and drug-eluting balloon (DEB) for in-stent restenosis (ISR) treatment. BACKGROUND: BVS has been proposed as alternative for ISR treatment. To date a direct comparison between BVS and DES or DEB for ISR treatment is lacking. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed all ISR lesions treated with BVS, DEB, and EES from January 2012 to December 2014. A total of 548 lesions (498 patients) were included. By applying two propensity-score matching, 93 lesions treated with BVS were compared with 93 lesions treated with DEB, and 100 lesions treated with BVS were compared to 100 lesions treated with EES. RESULTS: At 1-year follow-up the incidence of device-oriented cardiovascular events (DOCE) and its components did not significantly differ between BVS and DEB (DOCE: 10.9 vs. 11.8%, HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.33-2.52; P = 0.86; Cardiac death: 2.2 vs. 1.2%, HR, 1.74, 95% CI 0.16-18.80, P = 0.65; ID-TLR: 8.9 vs. 10.7%, HR, 0.81, 95% CI 0.27-2.48, P = 0.71; TV-MI: 3.3 vs. 1.2%, HR, 2.39, 95% CI 0.27-21.32, P = 0.43) and BVS vs. EES (DOCE: 10.1 vs. 5.2% HR, 1.81, 95% CI, 0.63-5.25; P = 0.27; Cardiac death: 3.0 vs. 1.1%; HR, 2.83, 95% CI 0.29-27.4, P = 0.37; ID-TLR: 7.2 vs. 4.2%, HR, 1.57, 95% CI 0.47-5.23, P = 0.46; TV-MI: 3.1 vs. 0%). CONCLUSION: At 1-year follow-up the use of BVS as ISR treatment is associated with a higher, even if not significant, DOCE rate compared with EES while a similar rate compared to DEB.

A prospective evaluation of a standardized strategy for the use of a polymeric everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: Rationale and design of the BVS STEMI STRATEGY-IT study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the feasibility and the clinical results following a prespecified bioresorbable vascular scaffold (Absorb BVS) implantation strategy in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients. BACKGROUNDS: Concerns raised about the BVS safety in STEMI setting because a not negligible thrombosis rate was reported within 30 days and 12 months after implantation. Technical procedural issues related to the structural BVS features were advocated as probable causes for the thrombotic events. METHODS: This is an investigators-owned and -directed, prospective, nonrandomized, single-arm multicenter registry intended to obtain data from 500 consecutive STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI with BVS (1.1 or GT1) following a prespecified implantation protocol. The study is recorded in ClinicalTrials.gov with the identifier: NCT02601781. RESULTS: The primary endpoint is a device-oriented composite end-point (DOCE) of cardiac death, any myocardial infarction clearly attributable to the intervention culprit vessel and ischemic-driven target lesion revascularization within 30 days after the index procedure. The DOCE will be assessed even at 6-month, 1-, 3-, and 5-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: This will be the first study investigating the feasibility and the early- and long-term clinical impact of a prespecified BVS implantation protocol in thrombotic lesions causing STEMI. Here, we describe the rationale and the design of the study. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

A propensity score matched comparative study between paclitaxel-coated balloon and everolimus-eluting stents for the treatment of small coronary vessels.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the long-term clinical outcomes of paclitaxel drug-coated-balloons (DCB) and everolimus-eluting-stents (EES) following the treatment of de novo small vessel coronary artery disease. BACKGROUND: It is currently unclear whether treatment of de novo small vessel coronary disease with DCB is comparable to second generation drug-eluting stents, which are the current standard of care. METHODS: The present study enrolled 90 patients with small vessel coronary disease from the DCB treatment arm of the BELLO (Balloon Elution and Late Loss Optimization) trial and 2,000 patients treated with EES at the San Raffaele Scientific Institute. Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for differences in baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics, yielding a total of 181 patients: 90 patients with 94 lesions receiving DCB and 91 patients with 94 lesions receiving EES. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) were defined as the composite of cardiac death, recurrent non-fatal myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization. RESULTS: After propensity score matching, baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics were similar between the two groups. The cumulative MACE rate at 1-year was 12.2% with DCB and 15.4% with EES (P = 0.538). Patients in the DCB group had similar TLR rates as compared to EES over the same interval (4.4% vs. 5.6%; P = 0.720). There were no cases of definite or probable stent or vessel thrombosis. CONCLUSIONS: The use of paclitaxel-DCB appears to be associated with similar clinical outcomes when compared to second-generation-EES in small coronary artery disease. The findings of this study should be confirmed with larger prospective randomized studies with longer follow-up. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Treatment of drug-eluting stent restenosis: Comparison between drug-eluting balloon versus second-generation drug-eluting stents from a retrospective observational study.

OBJECTIVES: To compare drug-eluting balloons (DEBs) versus second-generation DES in the treatment of drug-eluting stent restenosis (DES-ISR). BACKGROUND: The optimal treatment of DES-ISR remains unclear. Several modes of treatment ranging from plain-old balloon angioplasty to repeated use of DES have yielded disappointing results. DEBs are increasingly been used in restenotic lesions; however, their use in DES-ISR is less established. METHODS: We evaluated all procedures between 2009 and 2011, involving DES-ISR that were treated either with DEB or second-generation DES. The measured end-points during the follow-up period were cardiac-death, target-vessel MI, TLR, TVR, and MACE defined as composite of cardiac-death, TV-MI, and TVR. RESULTS: Two hundred and forty-seven patients (302 lesions) with DES-ISR were treated with either DEB (81 patients; 104 lesions) or second-generation DES (166 patients; 198 lesions). The mean age of patients was 66.1 ± 9.4 years. There were higher numbers of patients with diabetes in the DEB group (DEB 47% vs DES 33%; p = 0.03). The mean length of DEB was significantly longer than the DES (35.4 vs 19.8 mm; p < 0.001). During the 12-month follow-up, there were no significant differences in the MACE rates (12.3% vs 8.4%; p = 0.3) and TLR rates (9.9% vs 7.8%; p = 0.6) between DEB and DES, respectively. On the multivariate analysis, use of DEB or DES was not the predictor of MACE (hazard ratio: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.46-1.85; p = 0.6). There were no cases of definite or probable stent thrombosis in either group. CONCLUSION: There were no significant differences in the clinical outcomes between DEB and second-generation DES in the treatment of DES-ISR. These results should encourage operators to consider DEB in the treatment of DES-ISR, which offers certain advantages over DES. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Clinical outcomes following target lesion revascularization for bioresorbable scaffold failure.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate clinical outcomes following target lesion revascularization (TLR) for bioresorbable scaffold (BRS) failure in a real world population. BACKGROUND: BRS has become a new option in percutaneous coronary intervention, and may be potentially advantages because of the absence of a permanent metallic cage and the possibility for restoration of vasomotion and endothelial function. However, the requirement for TLR following BRS has been reported, but data on outcomes following reintervention are currently lacking. METHODS: Eighteen patients (20 lesions) who underwent TLR for BRS failure were identified at two high-volume centers in Milan, Italy. Clinical outcomes including all cause death, myocardial infarction, and repeat TLR after TLR for BRS failure were examined. RESULTS: The type of scaffold failure at TLR was classified into focal pattern in 15 lesions, diffuse pattern in two lesions, restenosis at side branch ostium in one lesion and scaffold thrombosis in two lesions. TLR was treated with plain old balloon angioplasty (POBA) in two lesions, with drug-coating balloon in three lesions, drug eluting stent implantation in 11 lesions, further BRS implantation in four lesions. During the followup (median: 345 days after TLR), one sudden death and three repeat TLRs were observed. CONCLUSION: In our series, we observed an adverse event rate of 20% of during the followup period following TLR for BRS failure. The optimal treatment option for these patients remains to be determined.

Clinical outcomes of real-world patients treated with an amphilimus polymer-free stent versus new generation everolimus-eluting stents.

OBJECTIVES/BACKGROUND: To compare the 1-year clinical outcomes after implantation of the amphilimus, polymer-free stent (Cre8) versus new generation everolimus-eluting stents (EESs) in a real-world patient registry. METHODS: A total of 187 consecutive patients treated with Cre8 between January 2011 and August 2013 in four Italian centers were included. These were propensity matched with 150 patients treated with new generation EES during the same period. Primary outcome was 1-year major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization. RESULTS: Both groups had similar baseline characteristics, including diabetes (28% Cre8 vs. 27.3% EES, P = 0.972) and previous percutaneous coronary intervention (56% Cre8 vs. 58% EES, P = 0.726). There was a higher prevalence of B2/C lesions in the EES group (70.1% vs. 83.8%, P < 0.001). Total stent length per patient was similar. There were no significant differences in 1-year estimated MACE (7.4% Cre8 vs. 10.2% EES, P = 0.261), all-cause mortality (1.3% Cre8 vs. 1.4% EES, P = 0.823), target vessel revascularization (5.2% Cre8 vs. 8.8% EES, P = 0.169), and target lesion revascularization (3% Cre8 vs. 7.4% EES, P = 0.108) between the two groups. When adjusting for differences in baseline lesion characteristics, hazard ratio(Cre8/EES) for MACE was not significantly different between the two groups (0.75, 95% confidence interval 0.37-1.53, P(noninferiority) = 0.001, P(superiority) = 0.432). In patients with diabetes (Cre8, n = 42; EEE, n = 41), 1-year target lesion revascularization was 2.5% in the Cre8 group versus 14.6% in the EES group (P = 0.056). CONCLUSIONS: In a "real-world" patient registry, the Cre8 stent is associated with noninferior 1-year MACE rates compared with that of new generation EES. Trends of superior efficacy in patients with diabetes treated with Cre8 require further investigation.

Comparison of 2-year outcomes between zotarolimus-eluting and everolimus-eluting new-generation cobalt-chromium alloy stents in real-world diabetic patients.

BACKGROUND: To date, it remains unknown whether different types of new-generation drug-eluting stents have a differential impact on long-term outcomes in diabetic patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this historical cohort study (two Italian centers), we analyzed 400 diabetic patients with 553 coronary lesions treated with new-generation CoCr zotarolimus-eluting stents (R-ZES: 136 patients, 196 lesions) or everolimus-eluting stents (EES: 264 patients, 357 lesions) between October 2006 and August 2012. Primary endpoint was the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) over a 2-year follow-up period. MACE was defined as all-cause mortality, any myocardial infarction (MI) and/or target lesion revascularization (TLR). Multivessel revascularization, intervention for restenotic lesion and use of intravascular ultrasound were significantly higher in the R-ZES group, whereas small stent (≤2.5 mm) deployment was significantly higher in the EES group. At 2-year follow-up, there was no significant difference in occurrence of MACE (R-ZES vs EES: 22.8% vs 18.9%, P = 0.39). Similarly, no significant differences were observed in the composite endpoint of all-cause mortality/MI (10.0% vs 10.3%, P = 0.86) or TLR (12.4% vs 7.4%, P = 0.11). Adjustment for confounders and baseline propensity-score matching did not alter the aforementioned associations. CONCLUSION: After 2 years of follow up similar outcomes (MACE, all-cause mortality/MI, TLR) were observed in real-world diabetic patients, including those with complex lesions and patient characteristics, treated with R-ZES and EES.

Comparison of early clinical outcomes between ABSORB bioresorbable vascular scaffold and everolimus-eluting stent implantation in a real-world population.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the early clinical outcomes between ABSORB bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA) and cobalt chromium everolimus-eluting stents in real-world patients with mostly complex disease. BACKGROUND: BVS represents the most interesting development in the drug-eluting stent field over recent years with promising results emerging from clinical trials. Available data however on the use of the ABSORB in real-world patients is limited. METHODS: All patients (n = 92) treated with BVS and 1296 patients treated with EES were included in this study. Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for differences in baseline clinical characteristics, yielding 92 patient pairs (BVS = 92 patients with 137 lesions and EES = 92 patients with 124 lesions). Clinical outcomes were examined between the 2 groups at 6-months. RESULTS: In both groups, most lesions were classified as either B2 or C (83.9% vs. 77.4%, P = 0.19). Predilatation (97.8% vs. 75.8%, P < 0.01) as well as postdilation (99.3% vs. 77.4%, P < 0.01) was more common in the BVS group. Clinical outcomes at 6-months were similar between the two groups with respect to both target lesion revascularization (3.3% vs. 5.4%, P = 0.41) and major adverse cardiac events (defined as the composite of target vessel revascularization, follow-up myocardial infraction and all-cause death) (3.3% vs. 7.6%, P = 0.19). CONCLUSIONS: ABSORB BVS for the treatment of complex lesions appears to be associated with good procedural and early clinical outcomes similar to those observed with conventional drug-eluting stents. Larger studies with long-term follow-up are required in order to fully assess the role of BVS in the treatment of such lesions and how this compares with that of conventional stents. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Comparison of abluminal biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stents and durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents in the treatment of coronary bifurcations.

OBJECTIVES: To compare biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting (BES) with abluminal drug elution and durable polymer everolimus-eluting (EES) stents in the treatment of bifurcation lesions. BACKGROUND: The persistence of a polymer in drug-eluting stents (DES) following drug elution has been viewed as a possible culprit for restenosis. DES with biodegradable polymer may thus be associated with improved clinical outcomes, especially in high-risk lesions such as those at bifurcation sites. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of consecutive de novo bifurcation lesions treated with EES between October 2006 and October 2011 and BES between February 2008 and March 2012. Study endpoints included major adverse cardiac events (MACE) defined as all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), including peri-procedural MI, and target vessel revascularization (TVR) as well as target lesion revascularization (TLR) separately. RESULTS: We analyzed 236 bifurcation lesions treated with either BES (79 lesions in 69 patients) or EES (157 lesions in 154 patients). Patient and procedural characteristics were broadly similar between the two groups. Estimated MACE and TVR rates at 2-year follow-up were similar between the BES and EES groups (MACE = 13.6 ± 4.6% vs. 14.6 ± 3.2% (P = 0.871); TVR = 6.9 ± 3.5% vs. 8.0 ± 2.7% (P = 0.889). No significant differences were noted between the two groups following propensity-score matched analysis. There was no probable or definite stent thrombosis. CONCLUSION: BES use in the treatment of bifurcation lesions appears to be associated with good clinical outcomes, comparable to those seen with EES, at long-term follow-up. These results are hypothesis-generating and need to be validated with larger studies.

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).

Paclitaxel Drug-Coated Balloon for the Treatment of De Novo Small-Vessel and Restenotic Coronary Artery Lesions: 12-Month Results of the Prospective, Multicenter, Single-Arm PREVAIL Study.

OBJECTIVES: The PREVAIL study evaluated the safety and effectiveness of a paclitaxel-coated percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty balloon catheter for the treatment of coronary de novo and in-stent restenosis (ISR) lesions in patients with symptomatic ischemic heart disease. METHODS: PREVAIL was a prospective, multicenter, single-arm study that enrolled patients with clinical evidence of ischemia who had coronary lesions (de novo or first ISR) amenable to treatment with a drug-coated balloon (DCB). The study included 50 subjects (53 target lesions) who were treated with a Prevail DCB (Medtronic) during the index procedure and followed for 12 months. Mean lesion length was 14.5 ± 7.6 mm. The primary endpoint was in-stent (in-balloon) late lumen loss (LLL) by quantitative coronary angiography at 6 months post procedure. If the mean in-stent (in-balloon) LLL was less than the maximum acceptance rate of 0.50 mm at 6 months, then the study was considered successful. RESULTS: Mean in-stent (in-balloon) LLL was 0.05 ± 0.44 mm at 6 months post procedure. There were no deaths, myocardial infarctions, or stent (lesion) thrombosis events within 12 months. The incidence of clinically driven target-lesion revascularization was 6.0% at 12 months and clinically driven target-vessel revascularization was 10.0%. CONCLUSIONS: Paclitaxel DCB treatment of coronary de novo and first ISR lesions led to low LLL at 6 months and low rates of revascularization and safety events through 12 months.

Clinical performance of a novel sirolimus-coated balloon in coronary artery disease: EASTBOURNE registry.

AIMS: The purpose of the EASTBOURNE registry is to evaluate the immediate and long-term clinical performance of a novel sirolimus-coated balloon (SCB) in a real-world population of patients with coronary artery disease. We here present the prespecified interim analysis after the enrollment of the first 642 patients who obtained 1-year clinical follow-up. METHODS: EASTBOURNE is a prospective, international, multicenter, all-comer investigator-driven clinical registry, which is enrolling consecutive patients treated with SCB at 42 European and Asiatic centers. Primary study endpoint is target-lesion revascularization (TLR) at 12 months. Secondary endpoints are procedural success and major adverse cardiac events through 36 months. RESULTS: Diabetes mellitus was present in 41% of patients. Acute coronary syndrome was present in 45% of patients and de novo lesions were 55%; 83% of the in-stent restenosis (ISR) patients had drug-eluting stents restenosis. Lesion predilatation was performed in 95% of the cases and bailout stenting occurred in 7.5%. So far, 642 patients have a complete 12-month follow-up. TLR occurred in 2.5%, myocardial infarction in 2.3%, total death in 1% and major adverse cardiac events in 5.8% of patients. A prespecified analysis of comparison between ISR and de-novo lesions showed a significantly higher occurrence of TLR in the ISR population (5.4 vs. 0.2%, P = 0.0008). CONCLUSION: The current interim analysis of 12-month follow-up of the EASTBOURNE registry shows good immediate performance and an adequate and encouraging safety profile through 12 months for this novel SCB.

A Polymeric Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold Versus an Everolimus-Eluting Stent in ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction.

Bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BRS) devices deliver both short-term coronary artery support and drugs. This could potentially be advantageous in patients suffering from STEMI featuring large and necrotic thrombus-rich lesions, which are often associated with stent-related complications. We performed a meta-analysis comparing polymeric BRS vs everolimus-eluting stent in STEMI patients.

Hybrid Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds in Combination With Drug-Eluting Stents or Drug-Coated Balloons for Complex Coronary Lesions.

Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) have become an attractive option in the percutaneous coronary intervention field due to the potential advantages associated with the complete resorption process that occurs within a few years. However, current-generation BVS have several limitations including thicker struts, reduced radial strength, and limited expansion capability when compared with drug-eluting stents (DES). As a result, complex coronary disease often contains BVS-inappropriate/unfavorable segments. This does not necessarily mean that BVS use must be completely avoided, and minimizing the length of permanent metallic caging may still be advantageous. Operators should fully understand the limitations of current BVS, and when to consider a hybrid strategy of BVS in combination with DES or drug-coated balloons.

Long-term outcome of full plastic jacket treatment for bare metal in-stent restenosis.

We report the long-term outcome of a case of "full plastic jacket" treatment consisting of three bioresorbable scaffolds to manage a subtotally occluded left anterior descending artery with associated severe bare metal in-stent restenosis. Angiography 36months' post procedure revealed an excellent result with negative fractional flow reserve result. Bioresorbable scaffolds may be an attractive option for in-stent restenosis due to the avoidance of an additional metallic layer, and this case is unusual regarding the total scaffold length used and long term angiographic follow-up.

Bioresorbable Everolimus-Eluting Vascular Scaffold for Long Coronary Lesions: A Subanalysis of the International, Multicenter GHOST-EU Registry.

OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to investigate 1-year outcomes in patients treated with bioresorbable everolimus-eluting vascular scaffolds (BVS) for "long coronary lesions." BACKGROUND: The present substudy derived from the GHOST-EU registry included 1,722 lesions in 1,468 consecutive patients, enrolled between November 2011 and September 2014 at 11 European centers. METHODS: The lesions were divided into 3 groups according to continuous BVS length: 1) shorter than 30 mm; 2) between 30 and 60 mm; and 3) longer than 60 mm. Primary device-oriented endpoint (target lesion failure [TLF]) was defined as a combination of cardiovascular death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target lesion revascularization. RESULTS: Patients with lesions ≥60 mm had more comorbidities and more complex lesion characteristics, including chronic total occlusions (37%), bifurcation lesions (40.3%), higher Syntax score (16.4 ± 7.8), and higher number of scaffolds implanted per lesion (3.3 ± 0.9 mm). The main target vessel was the left anterior coronary artery in all groups. Median follow-up was 384 (interquartile range: 359 to 459) days. One-year follow-up was completed in 70.3% of patients. TLF at 1 year was significantly higher in group C (group A 4.8%, group B 4.5%, group C 14.3%; overall p = 0.001), whereas there were no significant differences between groups A and B. Finally, a numerically higher (but not statistically significant) number of scaffold thromboses were observed in group C when compared with shorter lesions (group A 2.1%, group B 1.1%, group C 3.8%; overall p = 0.29). CONCLUSIONS: In a real-world setting, treatment of long coronary lesions with BVS ≥60 mm was associated with a higher TLF rate, driven by myocardial infarction and clinically driven target lesion revascularization.

Comparison of paclitaxel drug-eluting balloon and paclitaxel-eluting stent in small coronary vessels in diabetic and nondiabetic patients - results from the BELLO (balloon elution and late loss optimization) trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of diabetes on the efficacy of drug-eluting balloon (DEB) as compared to paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) for the reduction of restenosis in small vessels according to the presence of diabetes in patients enrolled in the BELLO (Balloon Elution and Late Loss Optimization) trial. BACKGROUND: Small vessel disease is common in diabetic patients but currently there are no available data regarding DEB in these patients. METHODS: In the BELLO trial, 182 patients with lesions in small vessels were randomized 1:1 to receive DEB or PES. In the current sub analysis, patients were stratified according to the presence of diabetes. The diabetic group consisted of 74 patients (DEB=39, PES=35) and the nondiabetic group of 108 patients (DEB=51, PES=57). Angiographic endpoints examined were in-stent/in-balloon and in-segment late loss and binary restenosis at 6 months. Clinical endpoints were major adverse cardiac events (MACE; death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization) at 1 year. RESULTS: In-stent/in-balloon late loss was significantly less with DEB as compared to PES in both diabetic (0.05±0.41 vs. 0.30±0.51mm, p=0.033) and nondiabetic patients (0.10±0.36 vs. 0.29±0.40mm, p=0.015). In patients with diabetes, angiographic restenosis and in-segment late loss were significantly lower with DEB as compared to PES (respectively, 6.3% vs. 25.0%; p=0.039 and -0.013±0.39 vs. 0.25±0.53; p=0.023), with no differences noted in nondiabetic patients. The cumulative MACE rate at 1 year was similar between DEB and PES in both the diabetic (13.2% vs. 25%, p=0.194) and nondiabetic groups (11.8% vs. 14.3%, p=0.699). CONCLUSIONS: Diabetes does not appear to have a negative impact on the efficacy of DEB in small vessels, which were associated with better angiographic outcomes at 6 months in this complex subgroup. Larger studies are needed to confirm these findings.