One-year clinical outcome of biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent in patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction: Insight from the ULISSE registry.

BACKGROUND: The ULISSE registry has demonstrated the real-world performance of the Ultimaster biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (BP-SES) in a large cohort of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, including a large proportion of patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). METHODS: We performed a subgroup analysis of the ULISSE registry in AMI patients and compared the outcomes of this vulnerable cohort with that of patients presenting without AMI (non-AMI). The primary end point was the incidence of 1-year target lesion failure (TLF), a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction (TV-MI), and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization (TLR). RESULTS: Of 1,660 patients included in the ULISSE registry, 381(23%) presented with AMI, 207(54.3%) non-ST elevation myocardial infarction, and 174(45.7%) ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Compared with non-AMI patients, those with AMI were more frequently female and smokers, with lower left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and chronic kidney disease requiring dialysis. At 1 year, TLF rate was significantly higher in AMI than non-AMI patients (7.9 vs. 4.1%; HR 1.98, CI 95% 1.22-3.23; p = .005) driven by higher rate of cardiac death (4.0 vs. 1.1%; HR 3.59, CI 95% 1.64-7.88; p = .01) and TV-MI (2.8 vs 0.9%; HR 2.99,CI 95% 1.22-7.37; p = .01), without differences in TLR rate (4.3 vs. 2.9%,HR 0.66, CI95% 0.35-1.25; p = .2). At multivariate Cox regression analysis, eGFR <40 mL/min (HR: 2.868) and LVEF <40% (HR: 2.394) were the only independent predictors of TLF. CONCLUSIONS: In AMI patients, Ultimaster BP-SES implantation was associated with higher rate of TLF and definite stent thrombosis compared with non-AMI patients. The high incidence of adverse events was mainly driven by the unfavorable baseline risk profile.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Polymer-Free Biolimus-Eluting Stents or Polymer-Based Zotarolimus-Eluting Stents for Coronary Bifurcation Lesions.

BACKGROUND: A polymer-free biolimus-eluting stent (PF-BES) and a zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) recently showed similar clinical profiles and appear to be competing options in specific clinical settings of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Whether they perform similarly also in complex procedural settings as coronary bifurcation lesions remains unaddressed. METHODS: All consecutive patients undergoing coronary bifurcation PCI with PF-BES or the new iteration of the ZES from three large multicenter real-world registries were included. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR) and stent thrombosis (ST). Multiple analyses to adjust for baseline differences were carried out including propensity-score matching, propensity-score stratification and inverse-probability-weighting. Outcomes are reported according to Cox proportional hazard models censored at 400-day follow-up. RESULTS: 1169 patients treated with PF-BES (n = 440) or ZES (n = 729) on the main branch of a coronary bifurcation lesion were included (mean age 69 ± 11 years, 75.4% male, 53.8% acute coronary syndrome at presentation, 26.6% left main bifurcation, median dual antiplatelet therapy duration 12 [range 12-12] months). MACE, all-cause death, TLR and ST tended towards non-statistically higher rates with the PF-BES as compared to the ZES. Higher MI and target vessel revascularization occurrence was observed with PF-BES. CONCLUSIONS: In this large contemporary cohort of patients undergoing coronary bifurcation PCI, the occurrence of MACE was non-statistically different with the use of PF-BES and ZES devices. However, differences favoring the ZES device that may entail clinical relevance were observed. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings and explore whether they remain valid when a short dual antiplatelet therapy is adopted.

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

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

One-year clinical outcome of biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent in patients needing short dual antiplatelet therapy. Insight from the ULISSE registry (ULtimaster Italian multicenter all comerS Stent rEgistry).

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate real-world clinical outcome of patients needing short dual antiplatelet therapy (S-DAPT) following PCI with Ultimaster® thin-strut, biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (BP-SES), which was supposed to induce faster stent endothelialization and reduce device thrombogenicity. METHODS: In this sub-group analysis of patients enrolled in the ULISSE registry, two groups were identified: 1) patients discharged with S-DAPT (≤3-month) due to high bleeding risk or need for urgent major non-cardiac surgery and 2) patients discharged with recommended DAPT (R-DAPT) duration (≥6-month). The primary ischemic-safety and bleeding-safety endpoints were TLF (composite of cardiac-death, target vessel MI, and clinically driven target lesion revascularization), and BARC major bleedings (≥type-3a) at 1-year follow-up. To account for events occurring before DAPT discontinuation we performed 3-month landmark analysis. RESULTS: 82 patients (5%) were discharged with ≤3-month DAPT (57 ±â€¯27 days), and 1558 patients (94%) were discharged with ≥6-month DAPT (318 ±â€¯75 days). No significant differences between S-DAPT and R-DAPT group were observed in TLF at 1-year (7.9% vs. 4.6%). The rate of BARC major bleeding resulted significantly higher in S-DAPT group (3.9% vs. 0.3%; p = 0.001), with the majority of bleeding events occurring within 3 months. The landmark analysis showed no significant differences in BARC major bleedings between groups (1.4% vs. 0.3%; p = 0.142). CONCLUSIONS: As compared to those treated with R-DAPT (≥6-month), patients needing -S-DAPT (≤3-month) after PCI with Ultimaster® BP-SES had similar rates of 1-year TLF and BARC major bleedings following early DAPT discontinuation.

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.

Through the drug-eluting stent labyrinth.

For interventional cardiologists restenosis has represented the main limit for the successful long-term treatment of coronary artery disease. The past 2 years witnessed the extraordinary results of drug-eluting stents (DES), putting this technique at the center stage. The safety and efficacy of sirolimus and paclitaxel-eluting stents have been proved in large prospective, multicenter, randomized trials (RAVEL, SIRIUS, TAXUS II). It is possible that the introduction of DES will lead to substantial changes in the therapeutic and/or the economic strategies of the treatment of ischemic coronary artery disease (increase in the complexity of patients treated, reduction in surgical indications, growing costs). Realizing the potential value of this technology will require the successful management of more complex coronary situations (for lesions and patients characteristics). Many extreme situations are still unexplored, although for some of them studies are currently in progress or already being planned.

Drug-eluting versus bare metal coronary stents: long-term human pathology. Findings from different coronary arteries in the same patient.

A 71-year-old woman underwent right coronary artery (RCA) bare metal stenting during an acute myocardial infarction. Seven months later the patient received a sirolimus-eluting stent as treatment for an 80% left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD) stenosis. She remained asymptomatic until she presented with unstable angina 16 months later. Angiography demonstrated subtotal occlusion of the left obtuse marginal branch. The LAD sirolimus-eluting stent showed 0% stenosis. The RCA stent showed 30% restenosis. The left obtuse marginal branch lesion was successfully stented, but the patient suffered a fatal stroke 24 hours after the coronary intervention. At autopsy the 16-month-old LAD sirolimus-eluting stent was widely patent with a minute thrombus near the ostium of a small side branch. The stent surface appeared free of any other irregularities. Scanning light microscopy showed mild neointimal thickening. Scanning electron microscopy showed > 80% endothelialization of the stent. The 24-month-old RCA bare metal stent showed mild to moderate neointimal growth with > 90% endothelialization.

Rationale and design of the EXAMINATION trial: a randomised comparison between everolimus-eluting stents and cobalt-chromium bare-metal stents in ST-elevation myocardial infarction.

AIMS: To assess the performance of the everolimus-eluting stent (EES) versus cobalt chromium bare-metal stent (BMS) in the setting of primary percutaneous coronary intervention for treatment of patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). The implantation of a drug-eluting stent in the setting of an acute myocardial infarction is still controversial. In several registries this clinical scenario has been associated with the development of stent thrombosis. The EES has demonstrated to reduce the stent thrombosis rate as compared to paclitaxel-eluting stent in randomised controlled trials, mainly performed in patients in stable clinical conditions. There are however few data regarding the effectiveness of EES in the context of STEMI. METHODS AND RESULTS: This is an investigator-driven, prospective, multicentre, multinational, randomised, single blind, two-arm, controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT00828087). This trial, with an all comer design, randomises approximately 1,500 patients 1:1 to EES or BMS. Overall, any patient presenting with STEMI up to 48 hours who requires emergent percutaneous coronary intervention can be included. The primary endpoint is the patient-oriented combined endpoint of all-cause death, any myocardial infarction and any revascularisation at 1-year according to the Academic Research Consortium. Clinical follow-up will be scheduled at 30 days, six months, one year and yearly up to five years. No angiographic follow-up is mandated per protocol. CONCLUSIONS: This trial with broad inclusion and few exclusion criteria will shed light on the performance of the second generation EES in the complex scenario of STEMI.