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.

One-Month Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Bioresorbable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stents in High Bleeding Risk Patients.

Background It is unknown whether contemporary drug-eluting stents have a similar safety profile in high bleeding risk patients treated with 1-month dual antiplatelet therapy following percutaneous coronary interventions. Methods and Results We performed an interventional, prospective, multicenter, single-arm trial, powered for noninferiority with respect to an objective performance criterion to evaluate the safety of percutaneous coronary interventions with Synergy bioresorbable-polymer everolimus-eluting stent followed by 1-month dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with high bleeding risk. In case of need for an oral anticoagulant, patients received an oral anticoagulant in addition to a P2Y12 inhibitor for 1 month, followed by an oral anticoagulant only. The primary end point was the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or definite or probable stent thrombosis at 1-year follow-up. The study was prematurely interrupted because of slow recruitment. From April 2017 to October 2019, 443 patients (age, 74.8±9.2 years; women, 29.1%) at 10 Italian centers were included. The 1-year primary outcome occurred in 4.82% (95% CI, 3.17%-7.31%) of patients, meeting the noninferiority compared with the predefined objective performance criterion of 9.4% and the noninferiority margin of 3.85% (Pnoninferiority<0.001) notwithstanding the lower-than-expected sample size. The rates of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and definite or probable stent thrombosis were 1.88% (95% CI, 0.36%-2.50%), 3.42% (95% CI, 2.08%-5.62%), and 0.94% (95% CI, 0.35%-2.49%), respectively. Conclusions Among high bleeding risk patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions with the Synergy bioresorbable-polymer everolimus-eluting stent, a 1-month dual antiplatelet therapy regimen is safe, with low rates of ischemic and bleeding events. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03112707.

Clinical outcomes of bioresorbable versus durable polymer-coated everolimus-eluting stents in real-world complex patients.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy profile of new-generation, SYNERGY everolimus-eluting stents (S-EES) as compared to XIENCE everolimus-eluting stents (X-EES) with a durable polymer coating in "complex patients". METHODS AND RESULTS: We included 2,001 consecutive patients treated with S-EES (n=400) or X-EES (n=1,601) at two Italian centres between May 2013 and May 2015. We used propensity score matching to obtain two cohorts of patients with similar baseline risk profiles. Patients were stratified according to baseline complexity based on the EVOLVE II trial exclusion criteria. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as the composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), and target lesion revascularisation (TLR), at one year. Among 391 matched pairs of patients treated with S-EES or X-EES, we identified 253 (63%) as complex. At one-year follow-up, among "complex" patients, MACE rates did not differ between the S-EES and X-EES groups (9.9% vs. 9.5%, p=0.830, HR 1.04, CI: 0.72-1.48). Similarly, death, MI, and TLR, stratified for complexity, were comparable between S-EES and X-EES treated patients at one year. Of note, no definite ST was observed in either the S-EES or the X-EES cohort. CONCLUSIONS: New-generation S-EES with a bioresorbable polymer coating appear to be safe and effective irrespective of patient complexity as compared to X-EES.

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.

Polymer-free amphilimus-eluting stent versus biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stent in patients with and without diabetes mellitus.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare clinical outcome of polymer-free amphilimus-eluting stent (PF-AES) versus biodegradable-polymer biolimus-eluting stent (BD-BES) in "all-comer" diabetes mellitus (DM) and non-DM patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention. BACKGROUND: The PF-AES has shown promising preliminary results in patients with DM. METHODS: Data from 2 multicentre-national registries (the ASTUTE and the INSPIRE-1) were used to analyse 1776 patients stratified in non-DM and DM. A double 1:1 propensity-score matched analysis (PF-AES vs. BD-BES) was performed in each group to adjust for clinical and procedural characteristics. Primary stent-efficacy and stent-safety endpoints were 1-year target-lesion revascularization (TLR) and target-lesion failure (TLF, composed of cardiac-death, target-vessel myocardial infarction and any TLR). RESULTS: After propensity-score matching, 850 patients were stratified as non-DM (425 PF-AES/425 BD-BES) and 480 as DM patients (240 PF-AES/240 BD-BES). Both TLF (20 of 425 [5%] vs. 24 of 425 [6%]; Plog-rank=0.527) and TLR (9 of 425 [2%] vs. 18 of 425 [4%]; Plog-rank=0.079) were similar between PF-AES and BD-BES in non-DM patients. In DM, TLF (12 of 240 [5%] vs. 31 of 240 [13%]; Plog-rank=0.002) and TLR (9 of 240 [4%] vs. 21 of 240 [9%]; Plog-rank=0.019) were significantly lower in PF-AES compared to BD-BES. Upon multivariate analysis, the most powerful predictors of TLF were chronic kidney disease in non-DM (OR 4.24, 95% CI: 2.07-8.70, p<0.001) and stent type in DM patients (OR 2.76, 1.36-5.56, p=0.005). CONCLUSIONS: This matched-cohort study suggests that PF-AES has better safety and efficacy profile than BD-BES in patients with DM.

Randomized evaluation of polytetrafluoroethylene-covered stent in saphenous vein grafts: the Randomized Evaluation of polytetrafluoroethylene COVERed stent in Saphenous vein grafts (RECOVERS) Trial.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of lesions located in saphenous vein grafts (SVGs) is associated with increased procedural risk and a high rate of restenosis. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a randomized, multicenter trial to evaluate the usefulness of a polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)-covered stent compared with a bare stainless steel (SS) stent for prevention of restenosis and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in patients undergoing SVG treatment. The primary end point was angiographic restenosis at 6 months. Secondary end points were 30-day and 6-month MACE rates, defined as the cumulative of death, myocardial infarction (MI), and target lesion revascularization. Between September 1999 and January 2002, 301 patients with SVG lesions were randomized to either the PTFE-covered JoStent coronary stent graft (PTFE group, n=156) or the SS JoFlex stent (control group, n=145). Angiographic and procedural success rates were similar between the 2 groups (97.4% versus 97.9% and 87.3% versus 93.8%, respectively). The incidence of 30-day MACE was higher in the PTFE group (10.9% versus 4.1%, P=0.047) and was mainly attributed to MI (10.3% versus 3.4%, P=0.037). The primary end point, the restenosis rate at 6-month follow-up, was similar between the 2 groups (24.2% versus 24.8%, P=0.237). Although the 6-month non-Q-wave MI rate was higher in the PTFE group (12.8% versus 4.1%, P=0.013), the cumulative MACE rate was not different (23.1% versus 15.9%, P=0.153). CONCLUSIONS: The study did not demonstrate a difference in restenosis rate and 6-month clinical outcome between the PTFE-covered stent and the SS stent for treatment of SVG lesions. However, a higher incidence of nonfatal myocardial infarctions was found in patients treated with the PTFE-covered stent.

17-beta-estradiol eluting stent versus phosphorylcholine-coated stent for the treatment of native coronary artery disease.

In this study we randomly compared the estradiol eluting stent (17-beta-E) with phosphorylcholine (PC)-coated stents in native coronary arteries. The incidence of angiographic restenosis was 23% in the 17-beta-E group and 31% in the PC group (p = 0.34). The major adverse cardiovascular event rates were also similar in the 2 groups (17% in the 17-beta-E group vs 22% in the PC group, p = 0.47). The mid-term clinical and angiographic outcomes did not indicate superiority of the 17-beta-E eluting stent over the control PC stent.

Restenosis treatment in the drug-eluting stent era.

Despite recent advances, the in-stent restenosis (ISR) remains a challenging problem in interventional cardiology with an estimated overall restenosis rate of 20%, 25-30% in bare metal stents and 12% in drug-eluting stents (DES). In this review, we provide an overview of therapeutic options which include balloon angioplasty, cutting balloon, debulking techniques, brachytherapy and DES. Intracoronary brachytherapy using beta or gamma radiation had been considered the standard of care for some years. However, the use of DES to treat ISR has been shown to be safe, effective and ease-of-use for the prevention of recurrent restenosis. ISR after DES when focal angiographic pattern is present can be often treated with balloon angioplasty whereas if a non-focal pattern is recognized a new DES implantation is indicated. Waiting for a definitive answer regarding the optimal treatment of ISR from ongoing trials, we present our current approach to ISR.

One-year outcome of biolimus eluting stent with biodegradable polymer in all comers: the Italian Nobori Stent Prospective Registry.

OBJECTIVES: INSPIRE-1 (Italian Nobori Stent ProspectIve REgistry-1) was designed and conducted to assess clinical performance of Nobori biolimus A9-eluting stent (BES) implantation in an unrestricted "real-world" cohort of patients. METHODS: Unrestricted consecutive high-risk patients treated with BES with biodegradable polymer (Nobori, Terumo, Tokyo, Japan) between February 2008 and July 2012 were prospectively enrolled in an independent multicenter registry and divided in two groups: complex and non complex lesions. RESULTS: 1066 patients (1589 lesions) treated with Nobori BES were analyzed. The majority of patients (57%) were treated for at least one complex lesion and presented a high-risk clinical profile (previous CABG 17.6%, diabetes mellitus 33.1%, chronic kidney disease 14.3%). Angiographic success rate was achieved in 96.2% cases. At 1 year, the primary endpoint, (composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and clinically driven target vessel revascularization), occurred in 39 (4.0%) patients, and was higher in the complex lesions (5.2% vs. 2.5%, P = 0.032). Target lesion failure (TLF, secondary endpoint) occurred in 45 (4.6%) patients, and was more frequent in the complex lesions group (6.2% vs. 2.7%, P = 0.011), mainly due to a higher incidence of any target lesion revascularization (4.8% vs. 2.7%; P = 0.095). Definite and probable stent thrombosis (ST) rate was 0.6% and 0.5% respectively, with no difference between groups. CONCLUSIONS: In unrestricted daily practice, BESs were implanted predominantly in high risk patients with complex lesions. Despite this, the Nobori BES was associated with a relatively low rate of primary endpoint and TLF, with a higher risk in patients with complex lesions.