Amphilimus- vs. zotarolimus-eluting stents in patients with diabetes mellitus and coronary artery disease: the SUGAR trial.

AIM: Patients with diabetes mellitus are at high risk of adverse events after percutaneous revascularization, with no differences in outcomes between most contemporary drug-eluting stents. The Cre8 EVO stent releases a formulation of sirolimus with an amphiphilic carrier from laser-dug wells, and has shown clinical benefits in diabetes. We aimed to compare Cre8 EVO stents to Resolute Onyx stents (a contemporary polymer-based zotarolimus-eluting stent) in patients with diabetes. METHODS AND RESULTS: We did an investigator-initiated, randomized, controlled, assessor-blinded trial at 23 sites in Spain. Eligible patients had diabetes and required percutaneous coronary intervention. A total of 1175 patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive Cre8 EVO or Resolute Onyx stents. The primary endpoint was target-lesion failure, defined as a composite of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically indicated target-lesion revascularization at 1-year follow-up. The trial had a non-inferiority design with a 4% margin for the primary endpoint. A superiority analysis was planned if non-inferiority was confirmed. There were 106 primary events, 42 (7.2%) in the Cre8 EVO group and 64 (10.9%) in the Resolute Onyx group [hazard ratio (HR): 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.44-0.96; Pnon-inferiority < 0.001; Psuperiority = 0.030]. Among the secondary endpoints, Cre8 EVO stents had significantly lower rate than Resolute Onyx stents of target-vessel failure (7.5% vs. 11.1%, HR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.46-0.99; P = 0.042). Probable or definite stent thrombosis and all-cause death were not significantly different between groups. CONCLUSION: In patients with diabetes, Cre8 EVO stents were non-inferior to Resolute Onyx stents with regard to target-lesion failure composite outcome. An exploratory analysis for superiority at 1 year suggests that the Cre8 EVO stents might be superior to Resolute Onyx stents with regard to the same outcome. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03321032.

Long-Term Results of Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds in Patients With In-Stent Restenosis: The RIBS VI Study.

BACKGROUND: In patients with in-stent restenosis (ISR) bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) provide similar results to drug-coated balloons (DCBs) but are inferior to drug-eluting stents (DES) at 1 year. However, the long-term efficacy of BVS in these patients remains unknown. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to assess the long-term safety and efficacy of BVS in patients with ISR. METHODS: RIBS VI (Restenosis Intrastent: Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds Treatment; NCT02672878) and RIBS VI Scoring (Restenosis Intrastent: Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds Treatment With Scoring Balloon; NTC03069066) are prospective multicenter studies designed to evaluate the results of BVS in patients with ISR (N = 220). The inclusion and exclusion criteria were identical to those used in the RIBS IV (ISR of DES) (Restenosis Intra-stent of Drug-eluting Stents: Drug-eluting Balloon vs Everolimus-eluting Stent; NCT01239940) and RIBS V (ISR of bare-metal stents) (Restenosis Intra-stent of Bare Metal Stents: Paclitaxel-eluting Balloon vs Everolimus-eluting Stent; NCT01239953) randomized trials (including 249 ISR patients treated with DCBs and 249 ISR patients treated with DES). A prespecified comparison of the long-term results obtained with these treatment modalities (ie, DES, DCBs, and BVS) was performed. RESULTS: Clinical follow-up at 3 years was obtained in all (100%) 718 patients. The 3-year target lesion revascularization rate after BVS was 14.1% (vs 12.9% after DCBs [not significant], and 5.2% after DES [HR: 2.80; 95% CI: 1.47-5.36; P = 0.001]). In a landmark analysis (>1 year), the target lesion revascularization rate after BVS was higher than after DES (adjusted HR: 3.41; 95% CI: 1.15-10.08) and DCBs (adjusted HR: 3.33; 95% CI: 1.14-9.70). Very late vessel thrombosis was also more frequent with BVS (BVS: 1.8%, DCBs: 0.4%, DES: 0%; P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ISR, late clinical results of DES are superior to those obtained with DCBs and BVS. Beyond the first year, DCBs are safer and more effective than BVS.