Magnesium-Based Resorbable Scaffold Versus Permanent Metallic Sirolimus-Eluting Stent in Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: The MAGSTEMI Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: The use of poly-l-lactide acid-based bioresorbable scaffolds is limited in daily clinical practice because of safety concerns and lack of physiological benefit. Magnesium-based bioresorbable scaffold (MgBRS) presents a short resorption period (<1 year) and have the potential of being thromboresistant and exhibiting early restoration of vasomotor function. To date, however, no randomized clinical trial has investigated the performance of MgBRS. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the in-stent/scaffold vasomotion between MgBRS and permanent metallic sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) at 12-month follow-up in ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction patients. METHODS: This investigator-driven, multicenter, randomized, single-blind, controlled trial randomized ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction patients 1:1 to SES or MgBRS at 11 academic centers. The primary end point was the rate of increase (≥3%) after nitroglycerin in mean lumen diameter of the in-stent/scaffold segment at 12 months with superiority of MgBRS over SES in the as-treated population. The main secondary end points included angiographic parameters of restenosis, device-oriented composite end point, their individual components, and device thrombosis rate. Besides, endothelial-dependent vasomotor response to acetylcholine (ie, endothelial function) was also assessed in a subgroup of patients (n=69). RESULTS: Between June 2017 and June 2018, 150 ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction patients were randomized (MgBRS, n=74; SES, n=76). At 1 year, the primary end point was significantly higher in the MgBRS arm (56.5% versus 33.8%; P=0.010). Conversely, late lumen loss was significantly lower in the SES group (in-segment: 0.39±0.49mm versus 0.02±0.27mm, P<0.001; in-device: 0.61±0.55mm versus 0.06±0.21mm; P<0.001). The device-oriented composite end point was higher in the MgBRS arm driven by an increase in ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization rate (12[16.2%] versus 4[5.2%], P=0.030). Definite thrombosis rate was similar between groups (1[1.4%] in the MgBRS arm versus 2[2.6%] in the SES group; P=1.0). Endothelial function assessment at device segment evidenced a more pronounced vasoconstrictive response to maximal dose of acetylcholine in the MgBRS arm (-8.3±3.5% versus -2.4±1.3% in the SES group, P=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: When compared to SES, MgBRS demonstrated a higher capacity of vasomotor response to pharmacological agents (either endothelium-independent or endothelium-dependent) at 1 year. However, MgBRS was associated with a lower angiographic efficacy, a higher rate of target lesion revascularization, without thrombotic safety concerns. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT03234348.

Percutaneous complete revascularization strategies using sirolimus-eluting biodegradable polymer-coated stents in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome and multivessel disease: Rationale and design of the BIOVASC trial.

BACKGROUND: Complete revascularization in patients with an acute coronary syndrome and multivessel disease is superior compared to culprit-only treatment. However, it is unknown whether direct complete or staged complete revascularization should be pursued. METHODS: The BIOVASC study is an investigator-initiated, prospective, multicenter, randomized, 2-arm, international, open-label, noninferiority trial. We will randomize 1,525 patients 1:1 to immediate complete revascularization (experimental arm) or culprit-only plus staged complete revascularization (control arm). Patients will be enrolled in approximately 30 sites in Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands, and Spain. The primary end point is a composite of all-cause mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, any unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization (excluding staged procedures in the control arm at the predetermined time), and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) at 1 year post index procedure. CONCLUSIONS: The BIOVASC study aims to further refine the treatment algorithm for acute coronary syndrome patients with multivessel disease in terms of optimal timing for complete revascularization (Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03621501).

Comparison of an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold with an everolimus-eluting metallic stent for the treatment of coronary artery stenosis (ABSORB II): a 3 year, randomised, controlled, single-blind, multicentre clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: No medium-term data are available on the random comparison between everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds and everolimus-eluting metallic stents. The study aims to demonstrate two mechanistic properties of the bioresorbable scaffold: increase in luminal dimensions as a result of recovered vasomotion of the scaffolded vessel. METHODS: The ABSORB II trial is a prospective, randomised, active-controlled, single-blind, parallel two-group, multicentre clinical trial. We enrolled eligible patients aged 18-85 years with evidence of myocardial ischaemia and one or two de-novo native lesions in different epicardial vessels. We randomly assigned patients (2:1) to receive treatment with an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold (Absorb; Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA, USA) or treatment with an everolimus-eluting metallic stent (Xience; Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA, USA). Randomisation was stratified by diabetes status and number of planned target lesions. At 3 year follow-up, the primary endpoint was superiority of the Absorb bioresorbable scaffold versus the Xience metallic stent in angiographic vasomotor reactivity after administration of intracoronary nitrate. The co-primary endpoint is the non-inferiority of angiographic late luminal loss. For the endpoint of vasomotion, the comparison was tested using a two-sided t test. For the endpoint of late luminal loss, non-inferiority was tested using a one-sided asymptotic test, against a non-inferiority margin of 0·14 mm. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01425281. FINDINGS: Between Nov 28, 2011, and June 4, 2013, we enrolled 501 patients and randomly assigned them to the Absorb group (335 patients, 364 lesions) or the Xience group (166 patients, 182 lesions). The vasomotor reactivity at 3 years was not statistically different (Absorb group 0·047 mm [SD 0·109] vs Xience group 0·056 mm [0·117]; psuperiority=0·49), whereas the late luminal loss was larger in the Absorb group than in the Xience group (0·37 mm [0·45] vs 0·25 mm [0·25]; pnon-inferiority=0·78). This difference in luminal dimension was confirmed by intravascular ultrasound assessment of the minimum lumen area (4·32 mm2 [SD 1·48] vs 5·38 mm2 [1·51]; p<0·0001). The secondary endpoints of patient-oriented composite endpoint, Seattle Angina Questionnaire score, and exercise testing were not statistically different in both groups. However, a device-oriented composite endpoint was significantly different between the Absorb group and the Xience group (10% vs 5%, hazard ratio 2·17 [95% CI 1·01-4·70]; log-rank test p=0·0425), mainly driven by target vessel myocardial infarction (6% vs 1%; p=0·0108), including peri-procedural myocardial infarction (4% vs 1%; p=0·16). INTERPRETATION: The trial did not meet its co-primary endpoints of superior vasomotor reactivity and non-inferior late luminal loss for the Absorb bioresorbable scaffold with respect to the metallic stent, which was found to have significantly lower late luminal loss than the Absorb scaffold. A higher rate of device-oriented composite endpoint due to target vessel myocardial infarction, including peri-procedural myocardial infarction, was observed in the Absorb group. The patient-oriented composite endpoint, anginal status, and exercise testing, were not statistically different between both devices at 3 years. Future studies should investigate the clinical impact of accurate intravascular imaging in sizing the device and in optimising the scaffold implantation. The benefit and need for prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy after bioresorbable scaffold implantation could also become a topic for future clinical research. FUNDING: Abbott Vascular.

Cost-effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention with cobalt-chromium everolimus eluting stents versus bare metal stents: Results from a patient level meta-analysis of randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Second-generation drug eluting stents (DES) may reduce costs and improve clinical outcomes compared to first-generation DES with improved cost-effectiveness when compared to bare metal stents (BMS). We aimed to conduct an economic evaluation of a cobalt-chromium everolimus eluting stent (Co-Cr EES) compared with BMS in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). OBJECTIVE: To conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of a cobalt-chromium everolimus eluting stent (Co-Cr EES) versus BMS in PCI. METHODS: A Markov state transition model with a 2-year time horizon was applied from a US Medicare setting with patients undergoing PCI with Co-Cr EES or BMS. Baseline characteristics, treatment effects, and safety measures were taken from a patient level meta-analysis of 5 RCTs (n = 4,896). The base-case analysis evaluated stent-related outcomes; a secondary analysis considered the broader set of outcomes reported in the meta-analysis. RESULTS: The base-case and secondary analyses reported an additional 0.018 and 0.013 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and cost savings of $236 and $288, respectively with Co-Cr EES versus BMS. Results were robust to sensitivity analyses and were most sensitive to the price of clopidogrel. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, Co-Cr EES was associated with a greater than 99% chance of being cost saving or cost effective (at a cost per QALY threshold of $50,000) versus BMS. CONCLUSIONS: Using data from a recent patient level meta-analysis and contemporary cost data, this analysis found that PCI with Co-Cr EES is more effective and less costly than PCI with BMS. © 2016 The Authors. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Everolimus-eluting bioresorbable stent vs. durable polymer everolimus-eluting metallic stent in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: results of the randomized ABSORB ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction-TROFI II trial.

AIMS: Patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) feature thrombus-rich lesions with large necrotic core, which are usually associated with delayed arterial healing and impaired stent-related outcomes. The use of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (Absorb) has the potential to overcome these limitations owing to restoration of native vessel lumen and physiology at long term. The purpose of this randomized trial was to compare the arterial healing response at short term, as a surrogate for safety and efficacy, between the Absorb and the metallic everolimus-eluting stent (EES) in patients with STEMI. METHODS AND RESULTS: ABSORB-STEMI TROFI II was a multicentre, single-blind, non-inferiority, randomized controlled trial. Patients with STEMI who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention were randomly allocated 1:1 to treatment with the Absorb or EES. The primary endpoint was the 6-month optical frequency domain imaging healing score (HS) based on the presence of uncovered and/or malapposed stent struts and intraluminal filling defects. Main secondary endpoint included the device-oriented composite endpoint (DOCE) according to the Academic Research Consortium definition. Between 06 January 2014 and 21 September 2014, 191 patients (Absorb [n = 95] or EES [n = 96]; mean age 58.6 years old; 17.8% females) were enrolled at eight centres. At 6 months, HS was lower in the Absorb arm when compared with EES arm [1.74 (2.39) vs. 2.80 (4.44); difference (90% CI) -1.06 (-1.96, -0.16); Pnon-inferiority < 0.001]. Device-oriented composite endpoint was also comparably low between groups (1.1% Absorb vs. 0% EES). One case of definite subacute stent thrombosis occurred in the Absorb arm (1.1% vs. 0% EES; P = ns). CONCLUSION: Stenting of culprit lesions with Absorb in the setting of STEMI resulted in a nearly complete arterial healing which was comparable with that of metallic EES at 6 months. These findings provide the basis for further exploration in clinically oriented outcome trials.

Edge vascular response after polymer-free vs. polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stent implantation.

BACKGROUND: It is unknown if lack of polymer can provoke a different edge response in drug-eluting stents. The aim of this study was to compare edge vascular response between polymer-free paclitaxel-eluting stent (PF-PES) and polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stents (PB-PES). METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 165 eligible patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention were prospectively randomized 1:1 to receive either PF-PES or PB-PES. Those patients with paired intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) after procedure and at 9-month follow-up were included in this analysis.Seventy-six patients with 84 lesions, divided into PB-PES (38 patients, 41 lesions) and PF-PES groups (38 patients, 43 lesions) had paired post-procedure and 9-month follow-up IVUS and were therefore included in this substudy. There was a significant lumen decrease at the proximal edge of PF-PES (from 9.02±3.06 mm(2)to 8.47±3.05 mm(2); P=0.040), and a significant plaque increase at the distal edges of PF-PES (from 4.39±2.73 mm(2)to 4.78±2.63 mm(2); P=0.004). At the distal edge there was a significant plaque increase in the PF-PES compared to PB-PES (+8.0% vs. -0.6%, respectively; P=0.015) with subsequent lumen reduction (-5.2% vs. +6.0%, respectively; P=0.024). CONCLUSIONS: PF-PES had significant plaque increase and lumen reduction at the distal edge as compared to PB-PES, probably due to difference in polymer-based drug-release kinetics between the 2 platforms.

SYNERGY-Everolimus-Eluting Stent With a Bioabsorbable Polymer in ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: CLEAR SYNERGY OASIS-9 Registry.

Our objective was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of the SYNERGY stent (Boston Scientific Corporation, Marlborough, Massachusetts) in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). The only drug-eluting stent approved for treatment of STEMI by the Food and Drug Administration is the Taxus stent (Boston Scientific) which is no longer commercially available, so further data are needed. The CLEAR (Colchicine and spironolactone in patients with myocardial infarction) SYNERGY stent registry was embedded into a larger randomized trial of patients with STEMI (n = 7,000), comparing colchicine versus placebo and spironolactone versus placebo. The primary outcome for the SYNERGY stent registry is major adverse cardiac events (MACE) as defined by cardiovascular death, recurrent MI, or unplanned ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization within 12 months. We estimated a MACE rate of 6.3% at 12 months after primary percutaneous coronary intervention for STEMI based on the Thrombectomy vs percutaneous coronary intervention alone in STEMI (TOTAL) trial. Success was defined as upper bound of confidence interval (CI) to be less than the performance goal of 9.45%. Overall, 733 patients were enrolled from 8 countries with a mean age 60 years, 19.4% diabetes mellitus, 41.3% anterior MI, and median door-to-balloon time of 72 minutes. The MACE rate was 4.8% (95% CI 3.2 to 6.3%) at 12 months which met the success criteria against performance goal of 9.45%. The rates of cardiovascular death, recurrent MI, or target vessel revascularization were 2.7%, 1.9%, 1.0%, respectively. The rates of acute definite stent thrombosis were 0.3%, subacute 0.4%, late 0.4%, and cumulative stent thrombosis of 1.1% at 12 months. In conclusion, the SYNERGY stent in STEMI performed well and was successful compared with the performance goal based on previous trials.

Everolimus-eluting stent versus bare-metal stent in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (EXAMINATION): 1 year results of a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Everolimus-eluting stent (EES) reduces the risk of restenosis in elective percutaneous coronary intervention. However, the use of drug-eluting stent in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is still controversial. Data regarding the performance of second-generation EES in this setting are scarce. We report the 1-year result of the EXAMINATION (clinical Evaluation of the Xience-V stent in Acute Myocardial INfArcTION) trial, comparing EES with bare-metal stents (BMS) in patients with STEMI. METHODS: This multicentre, prospective, randomised, all-comer controlled trial was done in 12 medical centres in three countries. Between Dec 31, 2008, and May 15, 2010, we recruited patients with STEMI up to 48 h after the onset of symptoms requiring emergent percutaneous coronary intervention. Patients were randomly assigned (ratio 1:1) to receive EES or BMS. Randomisation was in blocks of four or six patients, stratified by centre and centralised by telephone. Patients were masked to treatment. The primary endpoint was the patient-oriented combined endpoint of all-cause death, any recurrent myocardial infarction, and any revascularisation at 1 year and was analysed by intention to treat. The secondary endpoints of the study included the device-oriented combined endpoint of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction or target lesion revascularisation, and rates of all cause or cardiac death, recurrent myocardial infarction, target lesion or target vessel revascularisation, stent thrombosis, device and procedure success, and major and minor bleeding. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00828087. FINDINGS: Of the 1504 patients randomised, 1498 patients were randomly assigned to receive EES (n=751) or BMS (n=747). The primary endpoint was similar in both groups (89 [11·9%] of 751 patients in the EES group vs 106 [14·2%] of 747 patients in the BMS group; difference -2·34 [95% CI -5·75 to 1·07]; p=0·19). Device-oriented endpoint (44 [5·9%] in the EES group vs 63 [8·4%] in the BMS group; difference -2·57 [95% CI -5·18 to 0·03]; p=0·05) did not differ between groups, although rates of target lesion and vessel revascularisation were significantly lower in the EES group (16 [2·1%] vs 37 [5·0%], p=0·003, and 28 [3·7%] vs 51 [6·8%], p=0·0077, respectively). Rates of all cause (26 [3·5%] for EES vs 26 [3·5%] for BMS, p=1·00) or cardiac death (24 [3·2%] for EES vs 21 [2·8%] for BMS, p=0·76) or myocardial infarction (10 [1·3%] vs 15 [2·0%], p=0·32) did not differ between groups. Stent thrombosis rates were significantly lower in the EES group (4 [0·5%] patients with definite stent thrombosis in the EES group vs 14 [1·9%] in the BMS group and seven [0·9%] patients with definite or probable stent thrombosis in the EES group vs 19 [2·5%] in the BMS group, both p=0·019). Although device success rate was similar between groups, procedure success rate was significantly higher in the EES group (731 [97·5%] vs 705 [94·6%]; p=0·0050). Finally, Bleeding rates at 1 year were comparable between groups (29 [3·9%] patients in the EES group vs 39 [5·2%] in the BMS group; p=0·19). INTERPRETATION: The use of EES compared with BMS in the setting of STEMI did not lower the patient-oriented endpoint. However, at the stent level both rates of target lesion revascularisation and stent thrombosis were reduced in recipients of EES. FUNDING: Spanish Heart Foundation.

Design and rationale of a prospective, randomized, non-inferiority trial to determine the safety and efficacy of the Biolimus A9™ drug coated balloon for the treatment of in-stent restenosis: First-in-man trial (REFORM).

BACKGROUND: Drug-coated balloon (DCB) angioplasty with paclitaxel-eluting devices is an established treatment for coronary in-stent restenosis (ISR). Biolimus A9™ (BA9), a sirolimus analogue with enhanced lipophilicity, may facilitate enhanced local drug delivery into vascular tissue. A novel DCB coated with Biolimus A9™ represents an alternative to traditional paclitaxel- and sirolimus-coated devices. Hence, we sought to investigate the safety and efficacy of this novel DCB in the treatment of coronary ISR. METHODS AND DESIGN: REFORM (NCT04079192) is a prospective, multicenter, single blind, randomized controlled trial comparing the BA9-DCB (Biosensors Europe SA, Morges, Switzerland) to the paclitaxel-coated SeQuent® Please DCB (Braun Melsungen AG, Germany) in the treatment of coronary ISR. A total of 201 patients with coronary artery disease and an indication for interventional treatment of ISR in a bare-metal stent (BMS) or drug-eluting stent (DES) have been randomized 2:1 to receive treatment with the BA9- or the paclitaxel-DCB comparator. Patients were enrolled across 24 investigational centers in Europe and Asia. The primary endpoint is percent diameter stenosis (%DS) of the target segment as assessed by quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) at 6 months. Key secondary endpoints are in-stent late lumen loss, binary restenosis, target lesion failure, target vessel failure, myocardial infarction and death at 6 months. Subjects will be followed for 24 months from enrolment. IMPLICATIONS: The REFORM trial will seek to prove that the BA9-DCB is non-inferior to the standard paclitaxel-DCB comparator in the treatment of coronary ISR with respect to %DS at 6 months and has similar safety characteristics.

Thin- versus thick-strut polymer-free biolimus-eluting stents: the BioFreedom QCA randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: The BioFreedom drug-coated stent with a stainless steel platform (BF-SS) has been demonstrated to be efficacious in patients at high bleeding risk and receiv-ing only one-month dual antiplatelet therapy. AIMS: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of the new BioFreedom Ultra drug-coated stent with a thin-strut cobalt-chromium platform (BF-CoCr) compared to the BF-SS in an all-comers population undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS: This was a prospective, multicentre, non-inferiority trial. The primary endpoint was in-stent late lumen loss (LLL) as determined by quantitative coronary angiography at nine-month follow-up. Clinical evaluation was performed at one year. RESULTS: A total of 200 patients were randomised (1:1) to either the BF-CoCr or the BF-SS stent at eight centres in Spain and Denmark. Baseline clinical and lesion characteristics were similar between the groups. Mean age was 66 years and 23% were female. The mean number of stents implanted per patient was 1.5. At nine-month follow-up, mean in-stent LLL was 0.34±0.49 mm in the BF-CoCr group versus 0.29±0.37 mm in the BF-SS group, p=0.005 for non-inferiority. At one year, target lesion failure was similar between the groups (7.3% in BF-CoCr vs 9.3% in the BF-SS group; p=0.60). CONCLUSIONS: The BF-CoCr was non-inferior to the BF-SS in terms of in-stent LLL at nine months. Larger studies powered for clinical endpoints are warranted to compare the efficacy of this new platform with currently available DES.

Coronary Endothelium-Dependent Vasomotor Function After Drug-Eluting Stent and Bioresorbable Scaffold Implantation.

Background Early generation drug-eluting stents (DESs) showed a high grade of coronary endothelial dysfunction that was attributed to lack of stent reendothelialization. Endothelium-dependent vasomotor response of current DESs and bioresorbable scaffolds (BRSs) remains unknown. This study sought to assess the device-related endothelial function of current devices and to correlate neointima healing with endothelial function. Methods and Results A total of 206 patients from 4 randomized trials treated with the durable-polymer everolimus-eluting Xience (n=44), bioresorbable-polymer sirolimus-eluting Orsiro (n=35), polymer-free biolimus-eluting Biofreedom (n=24), bioactive endothelial-progenitor cell-capturing sirolimus-eluting Combo DES (n=25), polymer-based everolimus-eluting Absorb (n=44), and Mg-based sirolimus-eluting Magmaris BRS (n=34) underwent endothelium-dependent vasomotor tests and optical coherence tomography imaging, as per protocol, at follow-up. Crude vasomotor responses of distal segments to low-dose acetylcholine (10-6 mol/L) were different between groups: bioresorbablepolymer DEShad the worst (-8.4%±12.6%) and durable-polymer DES had the most physiologic (-0.4%±11.8%; P=0.014). High-dose acetylcholine (10-4 mol/L) showed similar responses between groups (ranging from -10.8%±11.6% to -18.1%±15.4%; P=0.229). Device healing was different between devices. Uncovered struts ranged from 6.3%±7.1% (bioresorbable-polymer DES) to 2.5%±4.5% (bioactive DES; P=0.056). In multivariate models, endothelium-dependent vasomotor response was associated with age, bioresorbable-polymer DES, and angiographic lumen loss, but not with strut coverage nor plaque type. Endothelial dysfunction (defined as ≥4% vasoconstriction) was observed in 46.6% of patients with low-dose and 68.9% with high-dose acetylcholine, without differences between groups. Conclusions At follow-up, endothelial dysfunction was frequently observed in distal segments treated with current stents without remarkable differences between devices. Although neointima healing was different between devices, poor healing was not associated with endothelial dysfunction.

Coronary endothelial and microvascular function distal to polymer-free and endothelial cell-capturing drug-eluting stents. The randomized FUNCOMBO trial.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: The vasomotor function of new-generation drug-eluting stents designed to enhance stent healing and reendothelialization is unknown. This study aimed to compare the endothelial function of the infarct-related artery (IRA) treated with bioactive circulating endothelial progenitor cell-capturing sirolimus-eluting stents (COMBO) vs polymer-free biolimus-eluting stents (BioFreedom) in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients at 6 months. Secondary objectives were to compare the microcirculatory function of the IRA and stent healing at 6 months. METHODS: Sixty patients were randomized to bioactive sirolimus-eluting stent vs polymer-free biolimus-eluting stents implantation. At 6 months, patients underwent coronary angiography with vasomotor, microcirculatory and optical coherence tomography examinations. Endothelial dysfunction of the distal coronary segment was defined as ≥ 4% vasoconstriction to intracoronary acetylcholine infusion. RESULTS: Endothelial dysfunction was similarly observed between groups (64.0% vs 62.5%, respectively; P=.913). Mean lumen diameter decreased by 16.0 ±20.2% vs 16.1 ±21.6% during acetylcholine infusion (P=.983). Microcirculatory function was similar in the 2 groups: coronary flow reserve was 3.23 ±1.77 vs 3.23±1.62 (P=.992) and the index of microcirculatory resistance was 24.8±16.8 vs 21.3±12.0 (P=.440). Optical coherence tomography findings were similar: uncovered struts (2.3% vs 3.2%; P=.466), malapposed struts (0.1% vs 0.3%; P=.519) and major evaginations (7.1% vs 5.6%; P=.708) were observed in few cases. CONCLUSIONS: Endothelial dysfunction of the IRA was frequent and was similarly observed with new-generation drug-eluting stents designed to enhance stent reendothelialization at 6 months. Endothelial dysfunction was observed despite almost preserved microcirculatory function and complete stent coverage. Larger and clinically powered studies are needed to assess the role of residual endothelial dysfunction in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients. Registered in ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04202172.

A randomised controlled trial of the sirolimus-eluting biodegradable polymer ultra-thin Supraflex stent versus the everolimus-eluting biodegradable polymer SYNERGY stent for three-vessel coronary artery disease: rationale and design of the Multivessel TALENT trial.

AIMS: The purpose of the Multivessel TALENT trial is to compare clinical outcomes of the novel Supraflex Cruz stent with those of the SYNERGY stent in patients with three-vessel disease (3VD) undergoing state-of-the-art percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS AND RESULTS: In this prospective, randomised, 1:1 balanced, multicentre, open-label trial, 1,550 patients with de novo 3VD without left main disease will be assigned to the Supraflex Cruz or SYNERGY arm. The following treatment principles of "best practice" PCI will be applied: Heart Team consensus based on SYNTAX score II treatment recommendation, functional lesion evaluation by quantitative flow ratio (QFR), stent optimisation by intravascular imaging, optimal pharmacological treatment and prasugrel monotherapy. The primary endpoint is a non-inferiority comparison of the patient-oriented composite endpoint (POCE) of all-cause death, any stroke, any myocardial infarction, or any revascularisation, at 12 months post procedure. The powered secondary endpoint is a superiority comparison of the vessel-oriented composite endpoint (VOCE), defined as vessel-related cardiovascular death, vessel-related myocardial infarction, or clinically and physiologically indicated target vessel revascularisation, at 24 months. CONCLUSIONS: The Multivessel TALENT trial will be evaluating a novel treatment strategy for complex coronary artery disease with state-of-the-art PCI based on angiography-derived QFR with novel ultra-thin Supraflex Cruz stents, compared with SYNERGY stents. Clinical Trial Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04390672. Unique Identifier: NCT04390672

Comparison of a Novel Biodegradable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stent With a Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stent: 5-Year Outcomes of the Randomized BIOFLOW-II Trial.

OBJECTIVES: The authors aimed to compare long-term data of an ultrathin cobalt-chromium stent with passive silicon carbide coating and an active biodegradable polymer that releases sirolimus (O-SES) (Orsiro, BIOTRONIK, Bülach, Switzerland) with the durable polymer-based Xience Prime everolimus-eluting stent (X-EES) (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, California). BACKGROUND: Biodegradable polymer stents have been developed aiming to overcome long-term detrimental effects of durable polymer stents, ultimately leaving a bare-metal stent in the vessel. METHODS: This multicenter, assessor-blinded trial randomized 452 patients with 505 lesions to either O-SES or X-EES in a 2:1 fashion. Endpoints at 5 years were target lesion failure (TLF), its components, and stent thrombosis. RESULTS: TLF occurred in 10.4% (n = 30) of O-SES patients versus 12.7% (n = 19) of X-EES patients (p = 0.473), overall stent thrombosis occurred in 0.7% (n = 2) versus 2.8% (n = 4) (p = 0.088), and definite stent thrombosis in 0% versus 0.7% (n = 1) (p = 0.341). Post hoc analysis was performed in diabetic patients (n = 128) and vessels ≤2.75 mm (n = 259). In diabetic patients, the O-SES group had numerically more target lesion revascularizations (13.5% vs. 4.5%; p = 0.138), but fewer cardiac deaths (1.3% vs. 6.9%; p = 0.089) and stent thrombosis (0% vs. 6.9%; p = 0.039). In small vessels, the O-SES group had a significantly lower 5-year mortality (3.7% vs. 11.3%; p = 0.022). CONCLUSIONS: At 5 years, the biodegradable polymer O-SES demonstrated low TLF rates comparable to the durable polymer X-EES, confirming its long-term safety and performance. Particularly encouraging is the absence of definite stent thrombosis.

Long-Term Coronary Functional Assessment of the Infarct-Related Artery Treated With Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffolds or Everolimus-Eluting Metallic Stents: Insights of the TROFI II Trial.

OBJECTIVES: The study sought to compare the vasomotor and microcirculatory function of the infarct-related artery (IRA) between bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) and everolimus-eluting stents (EES) at 3 years. BACKGROUND: The ABSORB STEMI TROFI II study showed similar outcomes between BVS and EES in the context of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction at 3 years. METHODS: Sixty-three consecutive event-free patients of the randomized TROFI II study were screened to undergo coronary angiography with vasomotor, microcirculatory, and optical coherence tomography (OCT) examination at 3 years. Vasomotion was defined as >4% change in mean lumen diameter to acetylcholine (ACH) and nitroglycerin as assessed by quantitative angiography. Microcirculatory examination was performed with pressure or thermodilution techniques. RESULTS: A total of 38 patients (20 BVS and 18 EES) were included. At 3 years, ≥60% of patients exhibited paradoxical vasoconstriction to ACH in the periscaffold or stent segments. Vasoconstriction to ACH and vasodilatation to nitroglycerin were more often observed in the scaffold or stent segment with BVS than with EES (77.8% vs. 25.0%; p = 0.008 and 61.1% vs. 18.8%; p = 0.018). The IRA-depending microcirculation showed similar index of resistance (23.8 vs. 22.4; p = 0.781), coronary flow reserve (2.4 vs. 1.9; p = 0.523), fractional flow reserve (0.91 vs. 0.93; p = 0.317), and absolute flow (135.5 ml/min vs. 147.3 ml/min; p = 0.791). OCT showed remaining strut footprints and larger number of intraluminal scaffold dismantling (26.3% vs. 0%; p = 0.049) in the BVS group. CONCLUSIONS: Both endothelium-dependent and -independent vasomotion of the IRA were more evident with BVS, as compared with EES, at 3 years. Functional microcirculatory parameters were mostly adequate and similar between BVS and EES. Clinical implications of these findings warrant further investigations.

Functional comparison between the BuMA Supreme biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent and a durable polymer zotarolimus-eluting coronary stent using quantitative flow ratio: PIONEER QFR substudy.

AIMS: Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) based on three-dimensional quantitative coronary angiography (3D-QCA) is a novel method to assess physiological functionality after treatment with stents. The current study aimed to evaluate the difference in physiological functionality nine months after implantation of a bioresorbable polymer-based sirolimus-eluting stent with an electrografting base layer (BuMA Supreme: B-SES) versus a durable polymer-based zotarolimus-eluting stent (Resolute: R-ZES). METHODS AND RESULTS: The current post hoc analysis was performed in the PIONEER randomised trial (1:1 randomisation to B-SES [83 patients/95 lesions] and R-ZES [87 patients/101 lesions]). QFR was measured in stented vessels in both arms at preprocedural, post-procedural and nine-month angiography without pharmacologically induced hyperaemia (contrast QFR). At nine months, both the values of QFR distal to the stent (B-SES: 0.89±0.10 vs. R-ZES: 0.89±0.11, p=0.97) and the number of vessels with QFR ≤0.8 were not significantly different between the two groups (11.0% vs. 12.8%, p=0.72), while the in-stent binary restenosis rate was also comparable (3.7% vs. 3.5%, p=1.00). QFR gradient across the device (∆QFR) at nine months was also similar between the groups (B-SES: 0.03±0.04 vs. R-ZES: 0.03±0.07, p=0.95). CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative flow assessment nine months after stenting did not differ between B-SES and R-ZES, despite a significant difference in in-stent late lumen loss.

Effect of Post-Dilatation Following Primary PCI With Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffold Versus Everolimus-Eluting Metallic Stent Implantation: An Angiographic and Optical Coherence Tomography TROFI II Substudy.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to investigate the effect of post-dilatation on angiographic and intracoronary imaging parameters in the setting of primary percutaneous coronary intervention comparing the everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold (BRS) with the everolimus-eluting metallic stent (EES). BACKGROUND: Routine post-dilatation of BRS has been suggested to improve post-procedural angiographic and subsequent device-related clinical outcomes. METHODS: In the ABSORB STEMI TROFI II trial, 191 patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction were randomly assigned to treatment with BRS (n = 95) or EES (n = 96). Minimal lumen area and healing score as assessed by optical coherence tomography at 6 months were compared between BRS- and EES-treated patients stratified according to post-dilatation status. RESULTS: Primary percutaneous coronary intervention with post-dilatation was performed in 48 (50.5%) BRS- and 25 (25.5%) EES-treated lesions. There were no differences in baseline characteristics and post-procedural minimal lumen diameter between groups. In the BRS group, lesions with post-dilatation were associated with a trend toward a smaller minimal lumen area at 6 months (5.07 ± 1.68 mm2 vs. 5.72 ± 1.77 mm2; p = 0.09) and significantly larger angiographic late lumen loss (0.28 ± 0.34 mm vs. 0.12 ± 0.25 mm; p = 0.02), whereas no difference was observed in the EES arm (5.46 ± 2.18 mm2 vs. 5.55 ± 1.77 mm2; p = 0.85). The neointimal healing score was low and comparable between groups with and without post-dilation (BRS: 1.55 ± 2.61 vs. 1.92 ± 2.17; p = 0.48; EES: 2.50 ± 3.33 vs. 2.90 ± 4.80; p = 0.72). CONCLUSIONS: In the setting of selected patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention with BRS or EES, post-dilatation did not translate into larger lumen area or improved arterial healing at follow-up. (ABSORB STEMI: The TROFI II; NCT01986803).

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.

Drug-eluting stent thrombosis: results from a pooled analysis including 10 randomized studies.

OBJECTIVES: We compared the risk of stent thrombosis (ST) after drug-eluting stents (DES) versus bare-metal stents (BMS), and tested the hypothesis that the risk of DES thrombosis is related to stent length. BACKGROUND: Whether DES increase the risk of ST remains unclear. Given the very low restenosis rate after drug-eluting stenting, longer stents are frequently implanted for the same lesion length in comparison to BMS. METHODS: We included in a meta-analysis 10 randomized studies comparing DES and BMS. Overall, 5,030 patients were included (2,602 were allocated to DES and 2,428 to BMS). The risk of thrombosis after DES versus BMS was compared, and the relationship between the rate of DES thrombosis and stent length was evaluated. RESULTS: Incidence of ST was not increased in patients receiving DES (0.58% vs. 0.54% for BMS; odds ratio: 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.51 to 2.15; p = 1.000). The overall rate of ST did not differ significantly between patients receiving sirolimus- or paclitaxel-eluting stents (0.57% vs. 0.58%; p = 1.000). We found a significant relation between the rate of ST and the stented length (Y = -1.455 + 0.121 X; 95% CI for beta: 0.014 to 0.227; R = 0.716; p = 0.031). In patients with DES, mean stented length was longer in those suffering ST (23.4 +/- 8.1 mm vs. 21.3 +/- 4.1 mm, p = 0.025). CONCLUSIONS: Drug-eluting stents do not increase the risk of ST, at least under appropriate anti-platelet therapy. The risk of ST after DES implantation is related to stent length.