Ultrathin Bioresorbable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stents: BIOFLOW V Final 5-Year Outcomes

BackgroundRandomized trials have demonstrated the superiority of ultrathin strut drug-eluting stents compared with alternative stent designs. Whether these differences persist over late-term follow-up is uncertain.ObjectivesThis study sought to compare late-term (5-year) clinical outcomes among patients treated with ultrathin strut (60 µm) bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (BP SES) and thin strut (81 µm) durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP EES).MethodsBIOFLOW V (Biotronik Prospective Randomized Multicenter Study to Assess the Safety and Effectiveness of the Orsiro Sirolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Subjects with Up to Three De Novo or Restenotic Coronary Artery Lesions V) was an international, 2:1 randomized trial comparing percutaneous coronary intervention with ultrathin strut BP SES versus thin strut DP EES regarding the primary endpoint of 12-month target lesion failure (TLF). Prespecified outcomes through 5 years were assessed.ResultsAmong 1,334 patients randomized to treatment with BP SES (n = 884) or DP EES (n = 450), the 5-year rates of TLF were 12.3% for BP SES and 15.3% for DP EES (P = 0.108). Revascularization with BP SES was associated with a significantly lower target vessel–related myocardial infarction (6.6% vs 10.3%, P = 0.015) and late/very late definite/probable stent thrombosis (0.3% vs 1.6%, P = 0.021). Ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization was numerically but not significantly lower with BP SES (5.9% vs 7.7%, P = 0.202). Cardiac death rates were 2.6% versus 1.9% (P = 0.495) for BP SES and DP EES, respectively.ConclusionsIn a large, randomized trial, TLF and the individual outcomes of cardiac death and target lesion revascularization at 5 years were similar among patients treated with BP SES versus DP EES. Both target vessel–related myocardial infarction and late/very late definite/probable stent thrombosis were significantly lower with BP SES. These results confirm the durability of safety and the effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention with ultrathin BP SES.     

Thin Composite-Wire-Strut Zotarolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Ultrathin-Strut Sirolimus-Eluting Stents in BIONYX at 2 Years

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to assess 2-year safety and efficacy of the current-generation thin composite-wire-strut durable-polymer Resolute Onyx zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES), compared with the ultrathin-strut biodegradable-polymer Orsiro sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) in all-comers and a pre-specified small-vessel subgroup analysis.BackgroundThe Resolute Onyx ZES is widely used in clinical practice, but no follow-up data beyond 1 year have been published. The randomized BIONYX (Bioresorbable Polymer-Coated Orsiro Versus Durable Polymer-Coated Resolute Onyx Stents) trial (NCT02508714) established the noninferiority of ZES versus SES regarding target vessel failure (TVF) rates.MethodsA total of 2,488 all-comer patients were treated at 7 coronary intervention centers in Belgium, Israel, and the Netherlands. The main endpoint, TVF, was a composite of safety (cardiac death or target vessel–related myocardial infarction) and efficacy (clinically indicated target vessel revascularization). Two-year follow-up data were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier methods.ResultsTwo-year follow-up data were available for 2,460 of 2,488 patients (98.9%). TVF occurred in 93 of 1,243 patients (7.6%) assigned to ZES versus 87 of 1,245 patients (7.1%) assigned to SES (log-rank p = 0.66). There was no significant between-stent difference in individual components of this endpoint. The incidence of definite-or-probable stent thrombosis was low for both treatment arms (0.4% vs. 1.1%; log-rank p = 0.057). In patients stented in small vessels, there was no between-stent difference (TVF 8.2% vs. 8.7% [log-rank p = 0.75], target lesion revascularization 4.0% vs. 4.4% [log-rank p = 0.77]).ConclusionsAt 2-year follow-up, the novel thin composite-wire-strut durable-polymer Resolute Onyx ZES showed in all-comers similar safety and efficacy compared with the ultrathin cobalt-chromium-strut biodegradable-polymer Orsiro SES. The analysis of patients who were treated in small vessels also suggested no advantage for either stent.     

10-Year Follow-Up of Patients With Everolimus-Eluting Versus Bare-Metal Stents After ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction

BackgroundOutcomes data for a durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stent (EES) at extended long-term follow-up in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) are unknown.ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to assess the 10-year outcomes of patients enrolled in the EXAMINATION (A Clinical Evaluation of Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stents in the Treatment of Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction) trial.MethodsThe EXAMINATION-EXTEND (10-Years Follow-Up of the EXAMINATION Trial) study is an investigator-driven 10-year follow-up of the EXAMINATION trial, which randomly assigned 1,498 patients with STEMI in a 1:1 ratio to receive either EES (n = 751) or bare-metal stents (n = 747). The primary endpoint was a patient-oriented composite endpoint of all-cause death, any myocardial infarction, or any revascularization. Secondary endpoints included a device-oriented composite endpoint of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization; the individual components of the combined endpoints; and stent thrombosis.ResultsComplete 10-year clinical follow-up was obtained in 94.5% of the EES group and 95.9% of the bare-metal stent group. Rates of the patient-oriented composite endpoint and device-oriented composite endpoint were significantly reduced in the EES group (32.4% vs. 38.0% [hazard ratio: 0.81; 95% confidence interval: 0.68 to 0.96; p = 0.013] and 13.6% vs. 18.4% [hazard ratio: 0.72; 95% confidence interval: 0.55 to 0.93; p = 0.012], respectively), driven mainly by target lesion revascularization (5.7% vs. 8.8%; p = 0.018). The rate of definite stent thrombosis was similar in both groups (2.2% vs. 2.5%; p = 0.590). No differences were found between the groups in terms of target lesion revascularization (1.4% vs. 1.3%; p = 0.963) and definite or probable stent thrombosis (0.6% vs. 0.4%; p = 0.703) between 5 and 10 years.ConclusionsAt 10-year follow-up, EES demonstrated confirmed superiority in combined patient- and device-oriented composite endpoints compared with bare-metal stents in patients with STEMI requiring primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Between 5- and 10-year follow-up, a low incidence of adverse cardiovascular events related to device failure was found in both groups. (10-Years Follow-Up of the EXAMINATION Trial; NCT04462315)     

Titanium-Nitride-Oxide–Coated Versus Everolimus-Eluting Stents in Acute Coronary Syndrome: The Randomized TIDES-ACS Trial

ObjectivesThis study sought to compare next-generation cobalt-chromium–based titanium-nitride-oxide (TiNO)–coated stents with a platinum-chromium–based biodegradable polymer everolimus-eluting stent (EES) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS).BackgroundPrevious generation TiNO-coated stents showed acceptable performance in patients with ACS.MethodsIn a multicenter, randomized trial, we randomly assigned 1,491 ACS patients (2:1) to receive either a TiNO-coated stent (n = 989) or EES (n = 502). The primary endpoint was the rate of a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization at 12-month follow-up. The co-primary endpoint was a composite of cardiac death, MI, or major bleeding at 18 months.ResultsA primary endpoint event occurred in 6.3% of patients in the TiNO-coated stent group versus in 7.0% in the EES group (hazard ratio: 0.93; 95% confidence interval: 0.71 to 1.22; p = 0.66 for superiority; p < 0.001 for noninferiority). A co-primary endpoint event occurred in 3.7% of the patients in the TiNO group and in 7.8% in the EES group (hazard ratio: 0.64; 95% confidence interval: 0.51 to 0.80; p = 0.001). TiNO-coated stents were associated with lower rates of cardiac death (0.6% vs. 2.6%; p = 0.002) and MI (2.2% vs. 5.0%; p = 0.007) at 18 months of follow-up. Rates of target lesion revascularization were not significantly different at 18 months (5.8% vs. 4.4%; p = 0.27).ConclusionsIn patients with ACS, cobalt-chromium–based TiNO-coated stents were noninferior to platinum-chromium–based biodegradable polymer EES for major cardiac events at 12 months, and were superior for the co-primary endpoint of cardiac death, MI, and bleeding at 18 months. (Comparison of Titanium-Nitride-Oxide-Coated Bio-Active-Stent (Optimax™) to the Drug (Everolimus) -Eluting Stent (Synergy™) in Acute Coronary Syndrome [TIDES-ACS]; NCT02049229)     

1-Year Clinical Outcomes of All Comers Treated With 2 Bioresorbable Polymer-Coated Sirolimus-Eluting Stents: Propensity Score–Matched Comparison of the COMBO and Ultrathin-Strut Orsiro Stents

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to determine 1-year safety and efficacy after treatment with the COMBO and Orsiro stents.BackgroundThe COMBO stainless-steel stent has an anti-CD34⁺ antibody coating to capture endothelial progenitor cells, thereby promoting faster endothelialization. The Orsiro is an ultrathin-strut cobalt-chromium stent, covered by an extremely thin layer of amorphous silicon carbide to minimize ion leakage. Both devices elute sirolimus from biodegradable polymers.MethodsFor this analysis we included European patients from the COMBO collaboration, a patient-level pooling of 2 prospective all-comers registries of COMBO stent implantation (n = 2,775), and all patients randomized to the Orsiro stent (n = 1,169) from the Dutch BIO-RESORT (Comparison of Biodegradable Polymer and Durable Polymer Drug-Eluting Stents in an All Comers Population) randomized trial. The main outcome of interest was 1-year target lesion failure, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically driven target lesion revascularization evaluated using propensity score–matched analysis.ResultsAt baseline, COMBO patients were older and had more insulin-treated diabetes, renal insufficiency, and other comorbidities. However, Orsiro patients included more current smokers and more acute coronary syndrome presentations. Orsiro patients also received longer stents and had more complex target lesions. After propensity score–matched analysis (n = 862/arm), 1-year target lesion failure occurred in 4.1% of COMBO-treated and 2.7% of Orsiro-treated patients (hazard ratio: 1.55; 95% confidence interval: 0.92 to 2.62; p = 0.10). Definite stent thrombosis occurred in 0.5% of COMBO-treated and 0.5% of Orsiro-treated patients (p = 0.99).ConclusionsA propensity score–matched comparison of all comers treated with the COMBO or Orsiro stent showed no statistically significant differences. Stent thrombosis risk was low and similar between the stents. (Comparison of Biodegradable Polymer and Durable Polymer Drug-Eluting Stents in an All Comers Population [BIO-RESORT], NCT01674803; MASCOT–Post Marketing Registry [MASCOT], NCT02183454; Prospective Registry to Assess the Long-term Safety and Performance of the Combo Stent [REMEDEE Reg], NCT01874002)     

Randomized Comparison of Ridaforolimus-Eluting and Zotarolimus-Eluting Coronary Stents: 2-Year Clinical Outcomes From the BIONICS and NIREUS Trials

ObjectivesThis study sought to determine clinical outcomes between treatment groups over long-term follow-up.BackgroundThe safety and efficacy of a ridaforolimus-eluting stent (RES) was evaluated in the BIONICS (BioNIR Ridaforolimus-Eluting Coronary Stent System in Coronary Stenosis) and NIREUS (BioNIR Ridaforolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System [BioNIR] European Angiography Study) trials, demonstrating noninferiority of RES in comparison with a zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) regarding 1-year target lesion failure (TLF) and 6-month angiographic late lumen loss, respectively.MethodsPatient-level data from the BIONICS (N = 1,919) and NIREUS (N = 302) randomized trials were pooled, and outcomes in patients implanted with RES and ZES compared. Broad inclusion criteria allowed enrollment of patients with acute coronary syndromes and complex lesions. The primary endpoint was the 2-year rate of TLF or clinically driven target lesion revascularization.ResultsA total of 2,221 patients (age 63.2 ± 10.3 years; 79.7% men) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with RES (n = 1,159) or ZES (n = 1,062) were included. Clinical and angiographic characteristics were similar between groups. At 2 years, the primary endpoint of TLF was similar among patients implanted with RES and ZES (7.0% vs. 7.2%; p = 0.94). Rates of target lesion revascularization (4.8% RES vs. 4.1% ZES; p = 0.41) and target vessel–related myocardial infarction (3.1% RES vs. 3.8% ZES; p = 0.52) did not differ between groups. The overall rate of stent thrombosis was also similar (0.5% RES vs. 0.9% ZES; p = 0.39).ConclusionsIn a pooled analysis of 2 randomized trials, 2-year clinical outcomes were similar between patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with RES and ZES. These results support the long-term safety and efficacy of RES for the treatment of a broad population of patients with coronary artery disease.     

Target Lesion Failure With Current Drug-Eluting Stents: Evidence From a Comprehensive Network Meta-Analysis

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of currently used drug-eluting stents (DES).BackgroundHead-to-head comparisons among newer DES have shown conflicting results.MethodsFor this network meta-analysis, randomized controlled trials comparing different types of currently used DES were searched in PubMed, Scopus, and proceedings of international meetings. The primary endpoint was target lesion failure (TLF) at 1 year and at long-term follow-up.ResultsSeventy-seven trials with 99,039 patients were selected for this network meta-analysis. Among the 10 DES included in the meta-analysis, 4 received the most extensive investigation: Orsiro, XIENCE, Nobori/BioMatrix, and Resolute. At 1 year, the Orsiro stent was associated with lower rates of TLF compared with XIENCE (odds ratio [OR]: 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.71 to 0.98; p = 0.03), Resolute (OR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.68 to 0.95; p = 0.01), and Nobori/BioMatrix (OR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.67 to 0.98; p = 0.03). Orsiro had the highest probability to be the best (70.8%), with a surface under the cumulative ranking curve value of 95.9%. However, after a median follow-up period of 50 months (range: 24 to 60 months), no significant difference was apparent in the rates of TLF between any DES, although Orsiro still ranked as the best stent (58.6% probability to be the best). In addition, Orsiro had a lower rate of long-term definite stent thrombosis compared with Nobori/BioMatrix (OR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.36 to 0.98; p = 0.04) and lower rates of definite and probable stent thrombosis compared with Resolute (OR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.45 to 0.99; p = 0.04). No differences in cardiac mortality between any DES were observed.ConclusionsOrsiro is associated with a lower 1-year rate of TLF compared with XIENCE, Resolute, and Nobori/BioMatrix but with an attenuation of the efficacy signal at long-term follow-up.     

Drug-Coated Balloon Versus Drug-Eluting Stent for Small Coronary Vessel Disease: PICCOLETO II Randomized Clinical Trial

ObjectivesThis study sought to compare the performance of a novel drug-coated balloon (DCB) (Elutax SV, Aachen Resonance, Germany), with an everolimus-eluting stent (EES) (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, California) in patients with de novo lesions.BackgroundSmall vessel coronary artery disease (SVD) represents one of the most attractive fields of application for DCB. To date, several devices have been compared with drug-eluting stents in this setting, with different outcomes.MethodsThe PICCOLETO II (Drug Eluting Balloon Efficacy for Small Coronary Vessel Disease Treatment) trial was an international, investigator-driven, multicenter, open-label, prospective randomized controlled trial where patients with de novo SVD lesions were randomized to DCB or EES. Primary study endpoint was in-lesion late lumen loss (LLL) at 6 months (independent core laboratory), with the noninferiority between the 2 arms hypothesized. Secondary endpoints were minimal lumen diameter, percent diameter stenosis at angiographic follow-up, and the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events at 12 months.ResultsBetween May 2015 and May 2018, a total of 232 patients were enrolled at 5 centers. After a median of 189 (interquartile range: 160 to 202) days, in-lesion LLL was significantly lower in the DCB group (0.04 vs. 0.17 mm; p = 0.001 for noninferiority; p = 0.03 for superiority). Percent diameter stenosis and minimal lumen diameter were not significantly different. At 12-month clinical follow-up, major adverse cardiac events occurred in 7.5% of the DES group and in 5.6% of the DCB group (p = 0.55). There was a numerically higher incidence of spontaneous myocardial infarction (4.7% vs. 1.9%; p = 0.23) and vessel thrombosis (1.8% vs. 0%; p = 0.15) in the DES arm.ConclusionsIn this multicenter randomized clinical trial in patients with de novo SVD lesions, a new-generation DCB was found superior to EES in terms of LLL as the angiographic pattern and comparable in terms of clinical outcome. (Drug Eluting Balloon Efficacy for Small Coronary Vessel Disease Treatment [PICCOLETO II]; NCT03899818)     

Randomized Comparison of Everolimus-Eluting Stents and Sirolimus-Eluting Stents in Patients With ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction: RACES-MI Trial

ObjectivesThe aim of the current study was to compare everolimus-eluting stents (EES) with sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) in patients undergoing primary angioplasty.BackgroundDrug-eluting stents may offer benefits in terms of repeat revascularization. However, as shown for first-generation drug-eluting stents, they may be counterbalanced by a potential higher risk of stent thrombosis, especially among patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). No data have been reported so far on the long-term benefits and safety of the new generation of drug-eluting stents in STEMI.MethodsConsecutive STEMI patients admitted within 12 h of symptom onset and undergoing primary angioplasty and stent implantation at a tertiary center with 24-h primary percutaneous coronary intervention capability were randomly assigned to SES or EES. The primary endpoint was a major adverse cardiac event at 3-year follow-up. The secondary endpoints were death, reinfarction, definite or probable stent thrombosis, and target vessel revascularization at 3-year follow-up. No patient was lost to follow-up.ResultsFrom April 2007 to May 2009, 500 patients with STEMI were randomized to EES (n = 250) or SES (n = 250). No difference was observed in terms of baseline demographic and clinical characteristics between the groups. No difference was observed between the groups in terms of number of implanted stents per patient or total stent length. However, a larger reference diameter was observed with SES (3.35 ± 0.51 mm vs. 3.25 ± 0.51 mm, p = 0.001), whereas patients randomized to EES more often received glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (54.4% vs. 42.4%, p = 0.006). Follow-up data were available in all patients (1,095 ± 159 days). No significant difference was observed between EES and SES in major adverse cardiac events (16% vs. 20.8%, adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 0.75 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.5 to 1.13], p = 0.17), cardiac death (4.4% vs. 5.6%, adjusted HR: 0.77 [95% CI: 0.35 to 1.71], p = 0.53), recurrent MI (6.4% vs. 10%, adjusted HR: 0.62 [95% CI: 0.33 to 1.16], p = 0.13), and target vessel revascularization (4.8% vs. 4.8%, adjusted HR: 1.00 [95% CI: 0.45 to 2.32], p = 0.99). However, EES was associated with a significant reduction in stent thrombosis (1.6% vs. 5.2%, adjusted HR: 0.3 [95% CI: 0.1 to 0.92], p = 0.035).ConclusionsThis study shows that among STEMI patients undergoing primary angioplasty, EES has similar efficacy as SES, but is associated with a significant reduction in stent thrombosis. (Randomized Comparison of Everolimus Eluting Stents and Sirolimus Eluting Stent in Patients With ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction [RACES-MI]; NCT01684982)     

Differential Effects of Newer-Generation Ultrathin-Strut Versus Thicker-Strut Drug-Eluting Stents in Chronic and Acute Coronary Syndromes

ObjectivesThe authors sought to compare the differential effects of ultrathin-strut and thicker-strut drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients with chronic (CCS) versus acute (ACS) coronary syndromes.BackgroundNewest-generation ultrathin-strut DES reduce target lesion failure (TLF) compared with thicker-strut second-generation DES in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.MethodsPubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for randomized controlled trials comparing newer-generation ultrathin-strut (<70 μm) versus thicker-strut (≥70 μm) DES. Patients were divided based on baseline clinical presentation (CCS versus ACS). The primary endpoint was TLF, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically indicated target lesion revascularization (TLR).ResultsA total of 22,766 patients from 16 randomized controlled trials were included, of which 9 trials reported TLF rates in ACS patients. At a mean follow-up of 12.2 months, the risk of TLF was lower among patients treated with ultrathin-strut compared with thicker-strut DES (risk ratio [RR]: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.75-0.95; P = 0.006). The difference was driven by a lower risk of clinically-indicated TLR (RR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.63-0.89; P < 0.001) among patients treated with ultrathin-strut DES. The treatment effect was consistent between patients presenting with CCS and ACS (relative RR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.73-1.31; P for interaction = 0.854). In patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, TLF risk was lower among those treated with ultrathin- compared with thicker-strut DES (RR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.54-0.99; P = 0.049).ConclusionsUltrathin-strut DES reduce the risk of TLF compared with thicker-strut second-generation DES in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, a difference caused by a lower risk of ischemia-driven TLR. The treatment effect was consistent among patients with CCS and ACS.     

3-Year Outcomes of the ULTIMATE Trial Comparing Intravascular Ultrasound Versus Angiography-Guided Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to explore the difference in target vessel failure (TVF) 3 years after intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guidance versus angiographic guidance among all comers undergoing second-generation drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation.BackgroundThe multicenter randomized ULTIMATE (Intravascular Ultrasound Guided Drug Eluting Stents Implantation in “All-Comers” Coronary Lesions) trial showed a lower incidence of 1-year TVF after IVUS-guided DES implantation among all comers compared with angiographic guidance. However, the 3-year clinical outcomes of the ULTIMATE trial remain unknown.MethodsA total of 1,448 all comers undergoing DES implantation who were randomly assigned to either IVUS guidance or angiographic guidance in the ULTIMATE trial were followed for 3 years. The primary endpoint was the risk for TVF at 3 years. The safety endpoint was definite or probable stent thrombosis (ST).ResultsAt 3 years, TVF occurred in 47 patients (6.6%) in the IVUS-guided group and in 76 patients (10.7%) in the angiography-guided group (p = 0.01), driven mainly by the decrease in clinically driven target vessel revascularization (4.5% vs. 6.9%; p = 0.05). The rate of definite or probable ST was 0.1% in the IVUS-guided group and 1.1% in the angiography-guided group (p = 0.02). Notably, the IVUS-defined optimal procedure was associated with a significant reduction in 3-year TVF relative to that with the suboptimal procedure.ConclusionsIVUS-guided DES implantation was associated with significantly lower rates of TVF and ST during 3-year follow-up among all comers, particularly those who underwent the IVUS-defined optimal procedure compared with those with angiographic guidance. (Intravascular Ultrasound Guided Drug Eluting Stents Implantation in “All-Comers” Coronary Lesions; NCT02215915)     

Biodegradable- Versus Durable-Polymer Drug-Eluting Stents for STEMI: Final 2-Year Outcomes of the BIOSTEMI Trial

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to investigate the safety and efficacy of biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (BP-SES) compared with durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP-EES) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).BackgroundPrimary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is an effective treatment for patients with STEMI, and long-term outcomes are determined by the safety and efficacy profile of the newest generation drug-eluting stents.MethodsBIOSTEMI (A Comparison of an Ultrathin Strut Biodegradable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stent With a Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stent for Patients With Acute ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) was an investigator-initiated, multicenter, assessor-blind, randomized superiority trial using Bayesian methods. Patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI within 24 h of symptom onset were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive BP-SES (n = 649) or DP-EES (n = 651). The primary endpoint was target lesion failure (TLF), a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial reinfarction, and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization (TLR) at 2 years.ResultsBetween April 2016 and March 2018, 1,300 patients were included. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the 2 treatment groups. Follow-up through 2 years was complete in 1,221 patients (94%). At 2 years, TLF occurred in 33 patients (5.1%) treated with BP-SES and in 53 patients (8.1%) treated with DP-EES (rate ratio: 0.58; 95% Bayesian credible interval: 0.40 to 0.84; posterior probability of superiority = 0.998). The difference was driven by a lower incidence of clinically indicated TLR in patients treated with BP-SES compared with DP-EES (2.5% vs. 5.1%; rate ratio: 0.52; 95% Bayesian credible interval: 0.30 to 0.87; posterior probability of superiority = 0.993). There were no significant differences in rates of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial reinfarction, and definite stent thrombosis between the 2 treatment arms.ConclusionsIn patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI, BP-SES were superior to DP-EES with respect to TLF at 2 years. The difference was driven by lower rates of ischemia-driven TLR. (A Comparison of an Ultrathin Strut Biodegradable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stent With a Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stent for Patients With Acute ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention [BIOSTEMI]; NCT02579031)     

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

ObjectivesThe 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.BackgroundThe long-term outcomes of the Firehawk stent have not been evaluated beyond 1 year in a randomized all-comers clinical trial.MethodsThe 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.ResultsAt 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).ConclusionsThe 2-year follow-up of the TARGET All Comers study confirms comparable safety and efficacy profiles of the Firehawk and XIENCE stents.     

A Polymer-Free Paclitaxel-Eluting Stent Versus a Bare-Metal Stent for De Novo Femoropopliteal Lesions: The BATTLE Trial

ObjectivesThe primary objective of the BATTLE (Bare Metal Stent vs. Paclitaxel Eluting Stent in the Setting of Primary Stenting of Intermediate-Length Femoropopliteal Lesions) trial is to demonstrate the clinical superiority of the Zilver PTX stent over the Misago stent in the treatment of femoropopliteal lesions.BackgroundNo randomized studies have compared self-expanding paclitaxel-eluting stents with bare-metal stents in the treatment of femoropopliteal lesions.MethodsBATTLE is a multicenter randomized controlled trial in patients with symptomatic (Rutherford category 2 to 5) de novo lesions of the superficial femoral or proximal popliteal artery. The primary endpoint is freedom from in-stent restenosis (ISR) at 1 year, with restenosis defined as a peak systolic velocity index >2.4 at the target lesion. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to evaluate time-to-event data for freedom from ISR over the 2-year follow-up period.ResultsBetween March 2014 and August 2016, 186 patients were enrolled; 91 were assigned to the Misago arm and 90 to the Zilver PTX arm. Kaplan-Meier 1-year estimates of freedom from ISR were 88.6% for Misago and 91% for Zilver PTX (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.2; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.6 to 2.4; p = 0.64). Comparing Misago with Zilver PTX, 2-year estimates were 6.4% and 1.2% (HR: 7.3; 95% CI: 0.9 to 59.3; p = 0.0632) for mortality, 74.6% and 78.8% (HR: 1.2; 95% CI: 0.6 to 2.1; p = 0.62) for patency, and 14.4% and 12.4% (HR: 1.2; 95% CI: 0.5 to 2.8; p = 0.69) for target lesion revascularization.ConclusionsIn the treatment of symptomatic femoropopliteal lesions, the Zilver PTX stent failed to show superiority over the Misago stent in freedom from ISR at 1 year.     

Proximal LAD Treated With Thin-Strut New-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents: A Patient-Level Pooled Analysis of TWENTE I-III

ObjectivesThis study sought to assess 2-year clinical outcome following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with thin-strut new-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients treated in proximal left anterior descending artery (P-LAD) versus non–P-LAD lesions.BackgroundIn current revascularization guidelines, P-LAD coronary artery stenosis is discussed separately, mainly because of a higher adverse event risk and benefits of bypass surgery.MethodsThe study included 6,037 patients without previous bypass surgery or left main stem involvement from the TWENTE I, II, and III randomized trials. A total of 1,607 (26.6%) patients had at least 1 DES implanted in P-LAD and were compared with 4,430 (73.4%) patients who were exclusively treated in other (non–P-LAD) segments.ResultsTwo-year follow-up was available in 5,995 (99.3%) patients. At baseline, P-LAD patients had more multivessel treatment and longer total stent length. The rate of the patient-oriented composite clinical endpoint (any death, any myocardial infarction, or any revascularization) was similar in P-LAD versus non–P-LAD patients (11.4% vs. 11.6%; p = 0.87). In P-LAD patients, the rate of the device-oriented composite clinical endpoint (cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization) was higher (7.6% vs. 6.0%; p = 0.020), driven by a higher rate of target vessel myocardial infarction (4.1% vs. 2.6%; p = 0.002). However, multivariate analysis showed no independent association between stenting P-LAD lesions and clinical endpoints.ConclusionsIn this patient-level pooled analysis of 3 large-scale contemporary DES trials, treatment of P-LAD lesions was not independently associated with higher 2-year adverse clinical event rates. These results imply that separate consideration in future revascularization guidelines may not be mandatory any longer.     

Coronary Calcification and Long-Term Outcomes According to Drug-Eluting Stent Generation

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term impact of coronary artery calcification (CAC) on outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention and the respective performance of first- and second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES).BackgroundWhether contemporary DES have improved the long-term prognosis after percutaneous coronary intervention in lesions with severe CAC is unknown.MethodsIndividual patient data were pooled from 18 randomized trials evaluating DES, categorized according to the presence of angiography core laboratory–confirmed moderate or severe CAC. Major endpoints were the patient-oriented composite endpoint (death, myocardial infarction [MI], or any revascularization) and the device-oriented composite endpoint of target lesion failure (cardiac death, target vessel MI, or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization). Multivariate Cox proportional regression with study as a random effect was used to assess 5-year outcomes.ResultsA total of 19,833 patients were included. Moderate or severe CAC was present in 1 or more target lesions in 6,211 patients (31.3%) and was associated with increased 5-year risk for the patient-oriented composite endpoint (adjusted hazard ratio [adjHR]: 1.12; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.05 to 1.20) and target lesion failure (adjHR: 1.21; 95% CI: 1.09 to 1.34), as well as death, MI, and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization. In patients with CAC, use of second-generation DES compared with first-generation DES was associated with reductions in the 5-year risk for the patient-oriented composite endpoint (adjHR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.78 to 1.00) and target lesion failure (adjHR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.61 to 0.87), as well as death or MI, ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization, and stent thrombosis. The relative treatment effects of second-generation compared with first-generation DES were consistent in patients with and without moderate or severe CAC, although outcomes were consistently better with contemporary devices.ConclusionsIn this large-scale study, percutaneous coronary intervention of target lesion moderate or severe CAC was associated with adverse patient-oriented and device-oriented adverse outcomes at 5 years. These detrimental effects were mitigated with second-generation DES.     

Impact of Coronary Artery Tortuosity on Outcomes Following Stenting: A Pooled Analysis From 6 Trials

ObjectivesThe authors sought to determine whether coronary artery tortuosity negatively affects clinical outcomes after stent implantation.BackgroundCoronary artery tortuosity is a common angiographic finding and has been associated with increased rates of early and late major adverse events after balloon angioplasty.MethodsIndividual patient data from 6 prospective, randomized stent trials were pooled. Outcomes at 30 days and 5 years following percutaneous coronary intervention of a single coronary lesion were analyzed according to the presence or absence of moderate/severe vessel tortuosity, as determined by an angiographic core laboratory. The primary endpoint was target vessel failure (TVF) (composite of cardiac death, target vessel–related myocardial infarction [TV-MI], or ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization [ID-TVR]).ResultsA total of 6,951 patients were included, 729 of whom (10.5%) underwent percutaneous coronary intervention in vessels with moderate/severe tortuosity. At 30 days, TVF was more frequent in patients with versus without moderate/severe tortuosity (3.8% vs. 2.4%; hazard ratio [HR]: 1.64; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.09 to 2.46; p = 0.02), a difference driven by a higher rate of TV-MI. At 5 years, TVF remained increased in patients with moderate/severe tortuosity (p = 0.003), driven by higher rates of TV-MI (p = 0.003) and ID-TVR (p = 0.01). Definite stent thrombosis was also greater in patients with versus without moderate/severe tortuosity (1.9% vs. 1.0%; HR: 1.86; 95% CI: 1.02 to 3.39; p = 0.04). After adjustment for baseline covariates, moderate/severe vessel tortuosity was independently associated with TV-MI and ID-TVR at 5 years (p = 0.04 for both).ConclusionsStent implantation in vessels with moderate/severe coronary artery tortuosity is associated with increased rates of TVF due to greater rates of TV-MI and ID-TVR.     

The IN.PACT DEEP Clinical Drug-Coated Balloon Trial: 5-Year Outcomes

ObjectivesThe goal of this study was to evaluate the 5-year follow-up data of the IN.PACT DEEP (Randomized IN.PACT Amphirion Drug-Coated Balloon [DCB] vs. Standard Percutaneous Transluminal Angioplasty [PTA] for the Treatment of Below-the-Knee Critical Limb Ischemia [CLI]) trial.BackgroundInitial studies from randomized controlled trials have shown comparable short-term outcomes of DCB angioplasty versus PTA in patients with CLI with infrapopliteal disease. However, the long-term safety and effectiveness of DCB angioplasty remain unknown in this patient population.MethodsIN.PACT DEEP was an independently adjudicated prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial that enrolled 358 subjects with CLI. Subjects were randomized 2:1 to DCB angioplasty or PTA. Assessments through 5 years included freedom from clinically driven target lesion revascularization, amputation, and all-cause death. Additional assessments were conducted to identify risk factors for death and major amputation, including paclitaxel dose tercile.ResultsFreedom from clinically driven target lesion revascularization through 5 years was 70.9% and 76.0% (log-rank p = 0.406), and the incidence of the safety composite endpoint was 59.8% and 57.5% (log-rank p = 0.309) in the DCB angioplasty and PTA groups, respectively. The rate of major amputation was 15.4% for DCB angioplasty compared with 10.6% for PTA (log-rank p = 0.108). Given the recent concern regarding a late mortality signal in patients treated with paclitaxel-coated devices, additional analyses from this study showed no increase in all-cause mortality with DCB angioplasty (39.4%) compared with PTA (44.9%) (log-rank p = 0.727). Predictors of mortality included age, Rutherford category >4, and previous revascularization but not paclitaxel by dose tercile.ConclusionsTibial artery revascularization in patients with CLI using DCB angioplasty resulted in comparable long-term safety and effectiveness as PTA. Paclitaxel exposure was not related to increased risk for amputation or all-cause mortality at 5-year follow-up. (Study of IN.PACT Amphirion™ Drug Eluting Balloon vs. Standard PTA for the Treatment of Below the Knee Critical Limb Ischemia [INPACT-DEEP]; NCT00941733)     

Clinical Implications of Poststent Optical Coherence Tomographic Findings: Severe Malapposition and Cardiac Events

ObjectivesThis study sought to evaluate the impact of poststent optical coherence tomography (OCT) findings, including severe malapposition, on long-term clinical outcomes.BackgroundSuboptimal OCT findings following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are highly prevalent; however, their clinical implications remain controversial.MethodsOf the patients registered in the Yonsei OCT registry, a total of 1,290 patients with 1,348 lesions, who underwent OCT immediately poststenting, were consecutively enrolled for this study. All patients underwent implantation of drug-eluting stents. Poststent OCT findings were assessed to identify predictors of device-oriented clinical endpoints (DoCE), including cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction (MI) or stent thrombosis, and target lesion revascularization (TLR). Significant malapposition criteria associated with major safety events (MSE) were also investigated, such as cardiac death, target vessel-related MI, or stent thrombosis.ResultsThe median follow-up period was 43.0 months (interquartile range [IQR] 21.4 to 56.0 months). The incidence rates of stent edge dissection, tissue prolapse, thrombus, and malapposition after intervention were not associated with occurrence of DoCE. However, patients with significant malapposition (total malapposition volume [TMV] ≥7.0 mm³] exhibited more frequent MSE. A smaller minimal stent area (MSA) was identified as an independent predictor for DoCE (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.20 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.00 to 1.43]; p = 0.045). Malapposition with TMV ≥7.0 mm³ was found to be an independent predictor of MSE (HR: 6.12 [95% CI: 1.88 to 19.95]; p = 0.003). Follow-up OCT at 3, 6, or 9 months after PCI showed that poststent TMV ≥7.0 mm³ was related to a greater occurrence of late malapposition and uncovered struts.ConclusionsAlthough most suboptimal OCT findings were not associated with clinical outcomes, a smaller MSA was associated with DoCE, driven mainly by TLR, and significant malapposition with TMV ≥7.0 mm³ was associated with more MSE after PCI. (Yonsei OCT [Optical Coherence Tomography] Registry for Evaluation of Efficacy and Safety of Coronary Stenting; Yonsei OCT registry; NCT02099162)     

Ultrathin,Biodegradable-Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stent vs Thin,Durable-Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stent

BackgroundPrevious trials suggested the superiority of ultrathin- over thin-strut drug-eluting stents (DES) concerning target lesion failure (TLF) at 1 year after index percutaneous coronary intervention.ObjectivesThe aim of this randomized comparison study of ultrathin-strut and thin-strut DES (CASTLE [Randomized Comparison All-Comer Study of Ultrathin Strut and Thin Strut Drug-Eluting Stent]; jRCTs032180084) was to examine the impact of differences in strut thickness of DES on clinical outcomes when implanted with angiography and intravascular ultrasound or optical coherence tomographic guidance.MethodsCASTLE was a multicenter, prospective, noninferiority study conducted at 65 institutions in Japan. Percutaneous coronary intervention patients were assigned (1:1) to an ultrathin, biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (BP-SES) or a thin, durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stent (DP-EES). The primary endpoint was TLF, defined as a composite of cardiac death, target vessel–related myocardial infarction, and clinically driven target lesion revascularization at 1-year follow-up.ResultsBetween May 2019 and March 2020, 1,440 patients were randomly assigned to BP-SES (n = 722) or DP-EES (n = 718). TLF occurred in 6.0% and 5.7% of patients, respectively. Noninferiority (P = 0.040) was met because the upper limit (2.67%) of the 1-sided 95% CI between the groups was lower than the prespecified noninferiority margin (3.3%). No significant interactions were observed in the relative rates of TLF between prespecified subgroups.ConclusionsThe BP-SES was noninferior to the DP-EES regarding 1-year TLF. This demonstrates that strut thickness differences among DES have little impact on clinical outcomes when implanted with intravascular imaging guidance.