Biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents vs durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: A meta-analysis of individual patient data from 5 randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Newest generation drug-eluting stents combine biodegradable polymers with ultrathin stent platforms in order to minimize vessel injury and inflammatory response. Evidence from randomized controlled trials suggested that differences in stent design translate into differences in clinical outcome. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ultrathin strut, biodegradable polymer sirolimus eluting stents (BP SES) compared with thin strut, durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP EES) among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS: We pooled individual participant data from 5 randomized trials (NCT01356888, NCT01939249, NCT02389946, NCT01443104, NCT02579031) including a total of 5,780 patients, and performed a one-stage meta-analysis using a mixed effects Cox regression model. RESULTS: At a median duration of follow-up of 739 days (interquartile range 365-1,806 days), target-lesion failure occurred in 337 (10.3%) and 304 (12.2%) patients treated with BP SES and DP EES (HR 0.86, 95%CI 0.71-1.06, P = .16). There were no significant differences between BP SES and DP EES with regards to cardiac death (111 (3.4%) vs 102 (4.1%); HR 1.05, 95%CI 0.80-1.37, P = .73), target-vessel myocardial infarction (136 (4.1%) vs 126 (5.0%), HR 0.79, 95%CI 0.62-1.01, P = .061), and clinically-driven target-lesion revascularization (163 (5.0%) vs 147 (5.9%); HR 0.94, 95%CI 0.75-1.18, P = .61). The effect was consistent across major subgroups. In a landmark analysis, there was no significant interaction between treatment effect and timing of events. CONCLUSIONS: In this patient-level meta-analysis of 5 randomized controlled trials, BP SES were associated with a similar risk of target-lesion failure compared with DP EES among patients undergoing PCI. STUDY REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registry (CRD42018109098).

Individual patient data analysis of the BIOFLOW study program comparing safety and efficacy of a bioresorbable polymer sirolimus eluting stent to a durable polymer everolimus eluting stent.

OBJECTIVES: This analysis of pooled individual patient data (IPD) aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a bioresorbable polymer sirolimus eluting stent system (BP-SES; Orsiro) compared to a durable polymer everolimus eluting stent system (DP-EES; Xience) in the pooled population as well as in subgroups. METHODS: IPD with up to 12 months follow-up of the randomized controlled trials BIOFLOW-II (NCT01356888), -IV (NCT01939249), and -V (NCT02389946) as well as the all comers registry BIOFLOW-III (NCT01553526) were pooled. A total of 3,717 subjects (2,923 in BP-SES and 794 in DP-EES) with 5,328 lesions (4,225 lesions in BP-SES and 1,103 in DP-EES) were included in the IPD. The primary endpoint was target lesion failure (TLF) at 12 months follow-up. Subgroups analyzed included diabetes, age (≥65 years), gender, complex lesions (B2/C), small vessels (reference vessel diameter ≤2.75 mm), multivessel treatment, renal disease, and patients with acute coronary syndrome. RESULTS: Overall, TLF at 12 months was significantly lower with 5.2%in the BP-SES group versus 7.6% in the DP-EES group (p = .0098). Similarly, target vessel myocardial infarction (TV-MI) was 3.1 versus 5.7% (p = .0005). The rate of stent thrombosis was similar in both groups (0.004%). By regression analysis, an independent stent effect in favor of BP-SES was observed for TLF (p = .0043) and TV-MI (p = .0364) in small vessels. CONCLUSION: Results of this IPD analysis suggest that the BP-SES with ultrathin struts is as safe as and more efficacious than DP-EES in the overall cohort and especially in small vessels.

REVascularization with paclitaxEL-coated balloon angioplasty versus drug-eluting stenting in acute myocardial infarcTION-A randomized controlled trial: Rationale and design of the REVELATION trial.

AIM: In primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), stenting has proved to reduce the need for repeat revascularization compared with balloon angioplasty alone. The incidence of cardiac death or recurrent myocardial infarction, though, is not reduced by stenting. This is in part attributable to stent-related complications like stent thrombosis which may occur even years after implantation. A strategy of drug coated balloon (DCB) angioplasty without stenting would abolish the potential disadvantages of stent implantation while reducing the probability of restenosis observed in plain old balloon angioplasty. Our aim is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a DCB only strategy versus drug-eluting stents (DES) in PPCI for STEMI. STUDY DESIGN: The REVELATION trial is a prospective, single center, randomized study, in which 120 patients presenting with STEMI will be allocated to treatment with a DCB versus DES. Appertaining to the established prognostic value of fractional flow reserve (FFR) rather than angiographic lesion severity, the functional assessment of the infarct-related lesion by FFR at 9 months after initial treatment is the primary end point. Assuming an FFR value of 0.90 after stenting and an increased risk of adverse events if post-PCI FFR <0.85, we decided to accept an FFR value of ≥0.85 after DCB only at follow-up as noninferiority margin. Secondary end points include major adverse cardiac events up to 5-year follow-up. CONCLUSION: Our trial will address the efficacy and safety of DCB angioplasty versus DES in the setting of PPCI for STEMI. The REVELATION trial will introduce the recognized prognostic significance of physiologic assessment of the infarct-related lesion by FFR at 9 months follow-up as primary end point. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Abluminal biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stent versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent (COMPARE II): a randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Drug-eluting stents with durable biocompatible or biodegradable polymers have been developed to address the risk of thrombosis associated with first-generation drug-eluting stents. We aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of a biodegradable polymer-coated biolimus-eluting stent with a thin-strut everolimus-eluting stent coated with a durable biocompatible polymer. METHODS: This open-label, prospective, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial was undertaken at 12 sites across Europe. We used limited exclusion criteria (age >18 years, life expectancy >5 years, reference vessel diameter 2·0-4·0 mm) to enrol patients eligible for percutaneous coronary intervention. Patients were randomly allocated (2:1) by computer-generated random numbers to receive either a biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stent (Nobori, Terumo, Tokyo, Japan) or a durable fluoropolymer-based everolimus-eluting stent (Xience V or Prime, Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA, USA, or Promus, Boston Scientific, Natick, MA, USA). The primary endpoint was a composite of safety (cardiac death and non-fatal myocardial infarction) and efficacy (clinically indicated target vessel revascularisation) at 12 months, analysed by intention to treat. Patients received dual antiplatelet therapy for 12 months after discharge. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01233453. FINDINGS: From Jan 12, 2009, to Feb 7, 2011, we enrolled 2707 patients (4025 lesions), 1795 of whom were assigned to receive the biolimus-eluting stent (2638 lesions) and 912 to an everolimus-eluting stent (1387 lesions). 2688 (99·3%) patients completed 12 months' follow-up. Significantly more patients in the biolimus-eluting stent group received a non-assigned stent than did those in the everolimus-eluting stent group (105 [5·9%] vs 19 [2·1%]; p<0·0001). The primary endpoint occurred in 93 (5·2%) patients in the biolimus-eluting stent group and 44 (4·8%) patients in the everolimus-eluting stent group at 12 months (relative risk 1·07 [95% CI 0·75-1·52]; p(non-inferiority)<0·0001). Analysis per protocol did not change the outcome of this trial (p(non-inferiority)<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: Biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stents are as safe and efficacious as the current standard of a thin-strut everolimus-eluting stent with a durable biocompatible polymer. We need to follow-up patients for longer to show whether the biolimus-eluting stent reduces the risk of stent thrombosis after 1 year when compared with the everolimus-eluting stent. FUNDING: Terumo Europe (Leuven, Belgium) and the Research Foundation of the Cardiology Department, Maasstad Hospital (Rotterdam, Netherlands).

Targeted therapy with a localised abluminal groove, low-dose sirolimus-eluting, biodegradable-polymer coronary stent - five-year results of the TARGET All Comers randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: In the prospective, multicentre, randomised TARGET All Comers study, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with the FIREHAWK biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (BP-SES) was non-inferior to the durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stent (DP-EES) for the primary endpoint of target lesion failure (TLF) at 12 months. AIMS: We aimed to report the final study outcomes at 5 years. METHODS: Patients referred for PCI were randomised to receive either a BP-SES or DP-EES in a 1:1 ratio in 10 European countries. Randomisation was stratified by centre and ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) presentation, and clinical follow-up extended to 5 years. The primary endpoint was TLF (composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction [MI], or ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularisation). Secondary endpoints included patient-oriented composite events (POCE; composite of all-cause death, all MI, or any revascularisation and its components). RESULTS: From December 2015 to October 2016, 1,653 patients were randomly assigned to the BP-SES or DP-EES groups, of which 93.8% completed 5-year clinical follow-up or were deceased. At 5 years, TLF occurred in 17.1% of the BP-SES group and in 16.3% of the DP-EES group (p=0.68). POCE occurred in 34.0% of the BP-SES group and 32.7% of the DP-EES group (p=0.58). Revascularisation was the most common POCE, occurring in 19.3% of patients receiving BP-SES and 19.2% receiving DP-EES, of which less than one-third was ischaemia-driven target lesion-related. In the landmark analysis, there were no differences in the rates of TLF and POCE between groups from 1 to 5 years, and these results were consistent across all subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: In an all-comers population requiring stent implantation for myocardial ischaemia, the BP-SES was non-inferior to the DP-EES for the primary endpoint of TLF at 12 months, and results were sustained at 5 years, confirming the long-term safety and efficacy of the FIREHAWK BP-SES.

Two-Year Clinical Outcomes of the REVELATION Study: Sustained Safety and Feasibility of Paclitaxel-Coated Balloon Angioplasty Versus Drug-Eluting Stent in Acute Myocardial Infarction.

OBJECTIVES: The randomized REVELATION (REVascularization With PaclitaxEL-Coated Balloon Angioplasty Versus Drug-Eluting Stenting in Acute Myocardial InfarcTION) trial showed that in the setting of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), a drug-coated balloon (DCB) strategy was non-inferior to a drug-eluting stent (DES) strategy in terms of fractional flow reserve assessed at 9 months. The aim of the present study is to evaluate the long-term clinical outcome of this treatment strategy. METHODS: Between October 2014 and November 2017, a total of 120 patients with a non-severely calcified culprit lesion in a native coronary artery and a residual stenosis of <50% after predilation were randomized to treatment with DCB or DES. Primary clinical endpoint was the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events, defined as death, recurrent myocardial infarction, or target-lesion revascularization, the occurrence of definite ST, and non-coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) major bleeding. RESULTS: Complete clinical follow-up at 2 years was available for 109 patients (91%). A major adverse cardiac event occurred in 3 patients (5.4%) in the DCB group and 1 patient (1.9%) in the DES group (hazard ratio, 2.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.30-27.53; P=.34). Between 9 months and 2 years, only 1 additional event occurred (target-lesion revascularization in a patient randomized to DCB). CONCLUSION: In this randomized study of DCB vs DES in selected patients presenting with STEMI, 2-year clinical outcome was excellent and comparable between the DCB and DES groups.

Paclitaxel-Coated Balloon Angioplasty Versus Drug-Eluting Stent in Acute Myocardial Infarction: The REVELATION Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to assess the efficacy and safety of a drug-coated balloon (DCB) strategy versus drug-eluting stent (DES) in primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). BACKGROUND: In primary percutaneous coronary intervention for STEMI, stenting has proved to be beneficial with regard to repeat revascularization, but not recurrent myocardial infarction or death, compared with balloon angioplasty alone. A strategy of DCB angioplasty without stenting might abolish the potential disadvantages of stent implantation while reducing the probability of restenosis observed in plain old balloon angioplasty. METHODS: In the prospective, randomized, single-center REVELATION trial, we compared DCB with DES in patients presenting with STEMI. Patients with a new, nonseverely calcified culprit lesion in a native coronary artery and a residual stenosis of <50% after pre-dilatation were randomized to treatment with a DCB or DES. The primary endpoint was fractional flow reserve at 9 months, allowing for a functional measurement of the infarct-related lesion. RESULTS: A total of 120 patients were included. At 9 months after enrolment, the mean fractional flow reserve value was 0.92 ± 0.05 in the DCB group (n = 35) and 0.91 ± 0.06 in the DES group (n = 38) (p = 0.27). One abrupt vessel closure requiring treatment occurred after treatment with DCB. Up to 9-months follow-up, 2 patients required nonurgent target lesion revascularization (1 in each group). CONCLUSIONS: In the setting of STEMI, the DCB strategy was noninferior to DES in terms of fractional flow reserve assessed at 9 months. Furthermore, it seemed to be a safe and feasible strategy. (Revascularization With Paclitaxel-Coated Balloon Angioplasty Versus Drug-Eluting Stenting in Acute Myocardial Infarction [REVELATION]; NCT02219802).

2-Year Clinical Outcomes of an Abluminal Groove-Filled Biodegradable-Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Compared With a Durable-Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stent.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the 2-year clinical outcomes of the Firehawk stent (Shanghai MicroPort Medical Group, Shanghai, China), a novel abluminal groove-filled biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting coronary stent, compared with XIENCE (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, California), a durable-polymer everolimus-eluting coronary stent. BACKGROUND: The long-term outcomes of the Firehawk stent have not been evaluated beyond 1 year in a randomized all-comers clinical trial. METHODS: The TARGET All Comers study is a prospective, multicenter, all-comers, randomized, noninferiority trial conducted in Europe. A total of 1,653 patients were randomly assigned to undergo implantation of either the Firehawk or the XIENCE stent. The primary endpoint was target lesion failure, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization. RESULTS: At 2-year follow-up, the incidence of target lesion failure was 8.7% in the Firehawk group versus 8.6% in the XIENCE group (p = 0.92). The event rates of individual components of the primary endpoint were comparable for the 2 groups. Landmark analyses between 1- and 2-year follow-up revealed no statistically significant difference of TLF for the Firehawk versus the XIENCE stent. Beyond 1 year, very late definite or probable stent thrombosis occurred in 3 patients (0.4%) in the Firehawk group and in 7 patients (0.9%) in the XIENCE group (p = 0.34). CONCLUSIONS: The 2-year follow-up of the TARGET All Comers study confirms comparable safety and efficacy profiles of the Firehawk and XIENCE stents.

Long-term clinical outcomes of a crystalline sirolimus-eluting coronary stent with a fully bioabsorbable polymer coating: five-year outcomes from the DESSOLVE I and II trials.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to evaluate the five-year clinical results of a sirolimus-eluting stent (MiStent SES) with a bioabsorbable coating designed for sustained drug delivery during and after rapid polymer dissolution. METHODS AND RESULTS: The five-year results from the DESSOLVE I and II trials including major adverse cardiac events (MACE), target lesion failure (TLF), target vessel failure (TVF), and stent thrombosis (ST) at five-year follow-up are reported. In DESSOLVE I, 10.3% of patients receiving the MiStent SES (3/29) had a MACE event up to five years without TLF. In DESSOLVE II, 15.1% of patients in the MiStent group (18/119) had a five-year MACE event compared to 22.0% of patients in the Endeavor group (p=0.295). TLF was 9.2% in the MiStent group and 8.5% in the Endeavor group (p=1.00). TVF was 10.1% for MiStent versus 15.3% for Endeavor (p=0.331). Up to five-year follow-up, the MiStent SES has continued to demonstrate low rates of TLR across DESSOLVE I (0.0%) and DESSOLVE II (3.4%). No ST was reported with the MiStent up to five years in the DESSOLVE I trial. In DESSOLVE II, definite or probable ST was 0.0% with MiStent and 1.7% with Endeavor up to five years. CONCLUSIONS: The MiStent SES demonstrated long-term safety and effectiveness with low rates of five-year MACE, TLF, and TVF across these two clinical trials.

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.

The SABRE Trial (Sirolimus Angioplasty Balloon for Coronary In-Stent Restenosis): Angiographic Results and 1-Year Clinical Outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this first-in-human study was to assess the safety and effectiveness of the Virtue sirolimus-eluting balloon in a cohort of patients with in-stent restenosis (ISR). BACKGROUND: Angioplasty balloons coated with the cytotoxic drug paclitaxel have been widely used for ISR treatment. The Virtue angioplasty balloon (Caliber Therapeutics, New Hope, Pennsylvania) delivers sirolimus in a nanoencapsulated liquid formulation. This clinical trial is the first to examine a sirolimus-eluting balloon for ISR. METHODS: In this prospective, single-arm feasibility study at 9 European centers, 50 ISR patients were treated with the Virtue balloon. Angiographic measurements at 6 months are reported, along with 12-month clinical follow-up. RESULTS: Procedural success in the intention-to-treat population was 100%. The primary safety endpoint was target lesion failure (TLF) (cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically driven target lesion revascularization) assessed at 30 days (0%, n = 50). The primary performance endpoint was in-segment late lumen loss (LLL) at 6 months (0.31 ± 0.52 mm; n = 47). Secondary 6-month endpoints include binary restenosis (19.1%), diameter stenosis (30.3 ± 19.9%), and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (10.2%, n = 49). In the 36-patient per-protocol population (excluding major protocol violations and previously stented ISR), LLL was 0.12 ± 0.33 mm at 6 months. Clinical outcomes at 1 year for the intention-to-treat group were 12.2% TLF and 14.3% MACE and for the per-protocol population were 2.8% TLF and 2.8% MACE. CONCLUSIONS: This first-in-human study showed excellent procedural success for the Virtue sirolimus-eluting angioplasty balloon, 6-month LLL rates in line with current stent-free ISR treatment options, and clinical outcomes that warrant further evaluation in dedicated randomized studies.

Biodegradable Polymer Biolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stents in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: Final 5-Year Report From the COMPARE II Trial (Abluminal Biodegradable Polymer Biolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stent).

OBJECTIVES: This analysis investigates the 5-year outcomes of the biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stent (BP-BES) and durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent (DP-EES) in an all-comers population undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. BACKGROUND: Recent 1- and 3-year results from randomized trials have indicated similar safety and efficacy outcomes of BP-BES and DP-EES. Whether benefits of the biodegradable polymer device arise over longer follow-up is unknown. Moreover, in-depth, prospective, long-term follow-up data on metallic drug-eluting stents with durable or biodegradable polymers are scarce. METHODS: The COMPARE II trial (Abluminal Biodegradable Polymer Biolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stent) was a prospective, randomized, multicenter, all-comers trial in which 2,707 patients were randomly allocated (2:1) to BP-BES or DP-EES. The pre-specified endpoint at 5 years was major adverse cardiac events, a composite of cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization. RESULTS: Five-year follow-up was available in 2,657 patients (98%). At 5 years, major adverse cardiac events occurred in 310 patients (17.3%) in the BP-BES group and 142 patients (15.6%) in the DP-EES group (p = 0.26). The rate of the combined safety endpoint all-cause death or myocardial infarction was 15.0% in the BP-BES group versus 14.8% in the DP-EES group (p = 0.90), whereas the efficacy measure target vessel revascularization was 10.6% versus 9.0% (p = 0.18), respectively. Interestingly, definite stent thrombosis rates did not differ between groups (1.5% for BP-BES vs. 0.9% for DP-EES; p = 0.17). CONCLUSIONS: The 5-year analysis comparing biodegradable polymer-coated BES and the durable polymer-coated EES confirms the initial early- and mid-term results regarding similar safety and efficacy outcomes in this all-comers percutaneous coronary intervention population.

Dedicated Bifurcation Stent for the Treatment of Bifurcation Lesions Involving Large Side Branches: Outcomes From the Tryton Confirmatory Study.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to prospectively study and confirm the safety and efficacy of the Tryton Side Branch Stent in the treatment of coronary artery bifurcations involving large side branches (SBs). BACKGROUND: The TRYTON Pivotal randomized controlled trial (RCT) was designed to compare the Tryton stent with standard provisional SB stenting in large vessels. The trial inadvertently enrolled patients with too small SBs (<2.25 mm). The overall trial did not meet its primary endpoint, because of an increased rate of periprocedural myocardial infarction in the Tryton stent arm. A post hoc analysis restricted to the intended population showed that the trial would have met its endpoint if only patients with SBs ≥2.25 mm in diameter (by core laboratory quantitative coronary angiography) had been enrolled. METHODS: The Tryton Confirmatory Study was a prospective, single-arm extension of the TRYTON Pivotal RCT that enrolled an additional 133 patients treated with the Tryton Side Branch Stent. It was designed to confirm the results of the post hoc analysis and emphasized the inclusion of appropriately sized SBs. The primary endpoint was noninferiority with regard to periprocedural myocardial infarction (creatine kinase myocardial band 3 times the upper limit of normal) compared with a performance goal based on the TRYTON Pivotal RCT. RESULTS: Among the 133 enrolled patients, 132 (99.2%) had SBs ≥2.25 mm. Baseline clinical and angiographic parameters were similar in this study and the RCT. Periprocedural myocardial infarction occurred in 10.5% of patients, which was numerically lower than the provisional group in the TRYTON Pivotal RCT (11.9%). The 95% confidence bounds did not extend beyond the pre-defined performance goal of 17.9%, meeting the noninferiority primary endpoint. CONCLUSIONS: The Tryton Confirmatory Study, in conjunction with the post hoc analysis of the intended population in the TRYTON Pivotal RCT, supports the safety and efficacy of the Tryton Side Branch Stent for treatment of bifurcation lesions involving large SBs.

Randomised study of a bioabsorbable polymer-coated sirolimus-eluting stent: results of the DESSOLVE II trial.

AIMS: To compare the efficacy and safety of the MiStent absorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (APSES) with a zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES). METHODS AND RESULTS: The trial was a 2:1 randomisation at 26 sites of 184 patients implanted with an APSES (n=123) versus a ZES (n=61). Following stent implantation, all patients underwent quantitative coronary angiography at baseline and at nine months of follow-up, while a select subgroup also underwent optical coherence tomography (OCT). The primary efficacy hypothesis was superiority of in-stent late lumen loss (LLL) of APSES compared to ZES. At nine months, the primary endpoint was met, with a mean in-stent LLL of 0.27±0.46 mm in 103 APSES patients versus 0.58±0.41 mm in 52 ZES patients (p<0.001). The proportion of uncovered stent struts by OCT at nine months was very low in both groups. The mean neointimal thickness of covered struts (p=0.002) and percent net volume obstruction (p≤0.003) were significantly lower in the APSES than in the ZES group. Major adverse cardiac event and stent thrombosis rates were low and comparable between groups. CONCLUSIONS: The DESSOLVE II trial demonstrated superiority in the primary efficacy endpoint of nine-month mean LLL for APSES compared to ZES. Strut coverage by OCT was high with both stents and the clinical safety endpoints including stent thrombosis were equally low in both groups. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01294748.

Long-term clinical outcomes of biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stents versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents in patients with coronary artery disease: three-year follow-up of the COMPARE II (Abluminal biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stent versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent) trial.

AIMS: The aim of this analysis was to compare the long-term safety and efficacy of the biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stent (BES) with that of the durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent (EES). METHODS AND RESULTS: The COMPARE II study was a prospective, randomised, multicentre, all-comers trial in which 2,707 patients were randomly allocated (2:1) to BES or EES. The pre-specified endpoint at three years was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), a composite of cardiac death, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), or target vessel revascularisation (TVR). Moreover, the combined endpoint all-cause death or MI was analysed as a safety, and TVR as an efficacy measure. Three-year follow-up was available in 2,683 patients (99.1%). At three years, MACE occurred in 213 patients (11.9%) in the BES group and in 101 patients (11.1 %) in the EES group (p=0.57). The rate of the combined safety endpoint all-cause death or MI was 9.3% in the BES group vs. 8.4% (p=0.52), while the efficacy measure TVR was 7.6% in BES vs. 6.5% (p=0.27). Interestingly, definite stent thrombosis rates did not differ between groups (1.2% for BES vs. 0.8%, p=0.33). CONCLUSIONS: At three-year follow-up, MACE as well as safety and efficacy measures including stent thrombosis were not statistically different between the biodegradable polymer-coated BES and the durable polymer-coated EES. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01233453.

Comparison of a novel biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent with a durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent: results of the randomized BIOFLOW-II trial.

BACKGROUND: Biodegradable polymers for release of antiproliferative drugs from drug-eluting stents aim to improve vascular healing. We assessed noninferiority of a novel ultrathin strut drug-eluting stent releasing sirolimus from a biodegradable polymer (Orsiro, O-SES) compared with the durable polymer Xience Prime everolimus-eluting stent (X-EES) in terms of the primary end point in-stent late lumen loss at 9 months. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 452 patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to treatment with O-SES (298 patients, 332 lesions) or X-EES (154 patients, 173 lesions) in a multicenter, noninferiority trial. The primary end point was in-stent late loss at 9 months. O-SES was noninferior to X-EES for the primary end point (0.10±0.32 versus 0.11±0.29 mm; difference=0.00063 mm; 95% confidence interval, -0.06 to 0.07; Pnoninferiority<0.0001). Clinical outcome showed similar rates of target-lesion failure at 1 year (O-SES 6.5% versus X-EES 8.0%; hazard ratio=0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.40-1.68; log-rank test: P=0.58) without cases of stent thrombosis. A subgroup of patients (n=55) underwent serial optical coherence tomography at 9 months, which demonstrated similar neointimal thickness among lesions allocated to O-SES and X-EES (0.10±0.04 mm versus 0.11±0.04 mm; -0.01 [-0.04, -0.01]; P=0.37). Another subgroup of patients (n=56) underwent serial intravascular ultrasound at baseline and 9 months indicating a potential difference in neointimal area at follow-up (O-SES, 0.16±0.33 mm(2) versus X-EES, 0.43±0.56 mm(2); P=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with durable polymer X-EES, novel biodegradable polymer-based O-SES was found noninferior for the primary end point in-stent late lumen loss at 9 months. Clinical event rates were comparable without cases of stent thrombosis throughout 1 year of follow-up. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01356888.

Prospective, multi-center evaluation of a silicon carbide coated cobalt chromium bare metal stent for percutaneous coronary interventions: two-year results of the ENERGY Registry.

BACKGROUND: Novel bare metal stents with improved stent design may become a viable alternative to drug-eluting stents in certain patient groups, particularly, when long-term dual antiplatelet therapy should be avoided. PURPOSE: The ENERGY registry aimed to assess the safety and benefits of a cobalt-chromium thin strut bare metal stent with a passive coating in a large series of patients under real-world conditions. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This prospective registry recruited 1016 patients with 1074 lesions in 48 centers from April to November 2010. The primary endpoint was the rate of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction and clinically driven target lesion revascularization. RESULTS: More than half of the lesions (61.0%) were type A/B1 lesions, mean lesion length was 14.5±6.5mm and mean reference vessel diameter 3.2±0.5mm. MACE rates at 6, 12 and 24months were 4.9%, 8.1% and 9.4%, target lesion revascularization rates 2.8%, 4.9% and 5.4% and definite stent thrombosis rates 0.5%, 0.6% and 0.6%. Subgroups showed significant differences in baseline and procedural characteristics which did not translate into significantly different clinical outcomes. Specifically, MACE rates at 24months were 13.5% in diabetics, 8.6% in small stents and 9.6% in acute coronary syndrome patients. CONCLUSION: The population of ENERGY reflects real-world conditions with bare metal stents being mainly used in simple lesions. In this setting, percutaneous coronary intervention using a cobalt-chromium thin strut bare metal stent with a passive coating showed very good results up to 24months. (ClinicalTrials.gov:NCT01056120) SUMMARY FOR ANNOTATED TABLE OF CONTENTS: The ENERGY international registry evaluated the safety and benefits of a cobalt-chromium thin strut bare metal stent with passive coating in 1016 patients under real-world conditions until 2years. Results were encouraging with a low composite rate of cardiac death, myocardial infarction and clinically driven target lesion revascularization, even in the pre-defined high risk groups of diabetes, stents ≤2.75mm and acute coronary syndrome.

Effect of paclitaxel elution from reservoirs with bioabsorbable polymer compared to a bare metal stent for the elective percutaneous treatment of de novo coronary stenosis: the EUROSTAR-II randomised clinical trial.

AIMS: To compare the angiographic and clinical performance of a paclitaxel-eluting stent using reservoirs technology and a bioabsorbable polymer, without surface coating (CoStar), vs. an equivalent bare metal stent (BMS) using an identical metallic platform. METHODS AND RESULTS: Three hundred and three (303) patients (335 lesions) with de novo coronary artery stenosis suitable for elective percutaneous treatment were randomised in an international multicentre single-blind trial to receive the CoStar stent (n=152) or the equivalent BMS (n=151). At eight months, the primary endpoint of in-segment binary restenosis was significantly lower in the CoStar than in the BMS group (17.6 vs. 30.3%, p=0.029). In-stent late loss (0.41 vs. 0.81 mm; p<0.0001) and all the other angiographic secondary endpoints also favoured CoStar. The composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction related to the target vessel and target lesion revascularisation was significantly lower at eight months in the CoStar arm (19.7 vs. 29.1%; hazard ratio 0.54, 95% CI: 0.34-0.87; p=0.010), mainly due to lower incidence of target lesion revascularisation (15.1 vs. 26.5%; 95% CI: hazard ratio 0.45, 95% CI: 0.27-0.76; p=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: As compared with a bare metal stent of identical design, the paclitaxel elution from reservoirs results in significantly less binary restenosis, less late loss and lower revascularisation rates at eight months. Therefore, based on these data, the CoStar paclitaxel-eluting stent was found to be effective and safe.

Hydrophilic coating aids radial sheath withdrawal and reduces patient discomfort following transradial coronary intervention: a randomized double-blind comparison of coated and uncoated sheaths.

Radial artery spasm may cause severe discomfort during radial artery sheath removal. A hydrophilic-coated sheath may reduce the force required to remove a radial sheath. This force may be quantified using an automatic pullback device (APD). The objective of this study was to assess if a hydrophilic coating reduces the required force and discomfort associated with removal of a radial sheath following transradial coronary intervention. Ninety patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention via the radial artery were randomly assigned to two groups receiving either coated or uncoated introducer sheaths. Radifocus Introducer II (Terumo) 25 cm, 6 Fr radial sheaths and sheaths that were identical apart from the presence of the coating were used in all patients. The APD was used for sheath removal at the end of the procedure. Three patients (7%) in the coated group experienced discomfort during automatic sheath removal, compared to 12 patients (27%) in the uncoated group (P = 0.02). The maximum pullback force (MPF) was significantly lower in the coated compared to the uncoated group (0.24 +/- 0.31 vs. 0.44 +/- 0.33 kg; P = 0.003). Similarly, the mean pullback force was significantly lower in the coated group (0.14 +/- 0.23 vs. 0.32 +/- 0.24 kg; P < 0.001). Only one patient (2%) in each group had an MPF greater than 1.0 kg together with clinical evidence of radial artery spasm. Removal of the coated Terumo Radifocus sheath requires less force than an identical uncoated sheath. The coated sheath was also associated with less discomfort for the patient.