Search

Background: Outcomes 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.Objectives: The 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.Methods: The 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.Results: Complete 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.Conclusions: At 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). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Outcome data after extended long-term follow-up of patients with coronary artery disease treated with drug-eluting stents (DES) in randomized clinical trials are scant.Objectives: Performance differences among devices may be expected to emerge over time depending on whether stenting is done with polymer-free or durable polymer DES. This study assessed the 10-year outcomes of patients enrolled in the ISAR-TEST-5 (Test Efficacy of Sirolimus- and Probucol-Eluting Versus Zotarolimus-Eluting Stents) trial.Methods: A total of 3,002 patients were randomized to treatment with either polymer-free sirolimus- and probucol-eluting stents (n = 2,002) or durable polymer zotarolimus-eluting stents (n = 1,000). The primary endpoint was the composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization (a device-oriented composite endpoint [DOCE]). Additional endpoints of interest were the patient-oriented composite endpoint (POCE), including all-cause death, any myocardial infarction, or any revascularization; individual components of the composite endpoints; and definite or probable stent thrombosis.Results: The median age of the patients at randomization was 67.8 years. At 10 years, 63.9% of patients were alive. The rates of DOCE and POCE were high in both groups with no difference in the incidence between polymer-free sirolimus- and probucol-eluting stents and durable polymer zotarolimus-eluting stents (DOCE: 43.8% vs. 43.0%, respectively; hazard ratio: 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.89 to 1.14; p = 0.90; POCE: 66.2% vs. 67.7%, respectively; hazard ratio: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.04; p = 0.22). The rates of the individual components of the composite endpoints were comparable in both groups. The incidence of definite/probable stent thrombosis over 10 years was low and comparable in both groups (1.6% vs. 1.9%; hazard ratio: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.46 to 1.54; p = 0.58).Conclusions: At 10 years, there were no measurable differences in outcomes between patients treated with polymer-free versus durable polymer DES. The incidence of stent thrombosis was low and comparable in both groups. High overall adverse clinical event rates were observed during extended follow-up. (Test Efficacy of Sirolimus- and Probucol-Eluting Versus Zotarolimus-Eluting Stents [ISAR-TEST-5]; NCT00598533). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Whether the rate of drug elution and polymer absorption affects clinical outcomes of biodegradable polymer-based drug-eluting stents (DES) is unknown. The widely used polylactide polymer-based Excel stent (JW Medical, Weihai, China) elutes sirolimus within 180 days, and the polylactide polymer is completely absorbed within 6 to 9 months. In contrast, the poly-lactide-co-glycolide polymer-based BuMA stent (Sino Medical, Tianjin, China) elutes sirolimus within 30 days, and the poly-lactide-co-glycolide polymer is completely absorbed within 3 months. Thus, both metallic DES elute sirolimus, isolating major differences to the polymer and elution kinetics.Objectives: The goal of this study was to compare the safety and effectiveness between the BuMA sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) and Excel SES in an "all-comers" population.Methods: PANDA III was a multicenter trial with few exclusion criteria, powered for sequential noninferiority and superiority testing. The primary endpoint was 1-year target lesion failure (TLF), a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization.Results: Between December 2013 and August 2014, 2,348 patients were randomly assigned to treatment with BuMA (n = 1,174) or Excel SES (n = 1,174). The 1-year primary endpoint of TLF occurred in 6.4% of patients in each group (difference: 0.06%; 95% confidence interval: 1.93% to 2.04%; pnoninferiority = 0.0003; psuperiority = 0.95). There were no significant between-group differences in any of the secondary endpoints other than the incidence of definite/probable stent thrombosis, which occurred less frequently with the BuMA stent (0.5% vs. 1.3%; log-rank p = 0.048).Conclusions: The BuMA SES was demonstrated to be noninferior to the Excel SES for 1-year TLF, with a lower incidence of stent thrombosis. (Comparison of BuMA eG Based BioDegradable Polymer Stent With EXCEL Biodegradable Polymer Sirolimus-eluting Stent in "Real-World" Practice [PANDA-III]; NCT02017275). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) is designed to achieve results comparable to metallic drug-eluting stents at 1 year, with improved long-term outcomes. Whether the 1-year clinical and angiographic results of BVS are noninferior to current-generation drug-eluting stents has not been established.Objectives: This study sought to evaluate the angiographic efficacy and clinical safety and effectiveness of BVS in a randomized trial designed to enable approval of the BVS in China.Methods: Eligible patients with 1 or 2 de novo native coronary artery lesions were randomized to BVS or cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents (CoCr-EES) in a 1:1 ratio stratified by diabetes and the number of lesions treated. Angiographic and clinical follow-up were planned at 1 year in all patients. The primary endpoint was angiographic in-segment late loss (LL), powered for noninferiority with a margin of 0.15 mm.Results: A total of 480 patients were randomized (241 BVS vs. 239 CoCr-EES) at 24 sites. Acute clinical device success (98.0% vs. 99.6%; p = 0.22) and procedural success (97.0% and 98.3%; p = 0.37) were comparable in BVS- and CoCr-EES-treated patients, respectively. The primary endpoint of in-segment LL at 1 year was 0.19 ± 0.38 mm for BVS versus 0.13 ± 0.38 mm for CoCr-EES; the 1-sided 97.5% upper confidence limit of the difference was 0.14 mm, achieving noninferiority of BVS compared with CoCr-EES (pnoninferiority = 0.01). BVS and CoCr-EES also had similar 1-year rates of target lesion failure (cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization; 3.4% vs. 4.2%, respectively; p = 0.62) and definite/probable scaffold/stent thrombosis (0.4% vs. 0.0%, respectively; p = 1.00).Conclusions: In the present multicenter randomized trial, BVS was noninferior to CoCr-EES for the primary endpoint of in-segment LL at 1 year. (A Clinical Evaluation of Absorb Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold [Absorb BVS] System in Chinese Population-ABSORB CHINA Randomized Controlled Trial [RCT]; NCT01923740). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: This study sought to demonstrate the noninferiority of polymer-free amphilimus-eluting stents (Cre8, CID, Saluggia, Italy) versus permanent-polymer paclitaxel-eluting stents (Taxus Liberté, Boston Scientific, Natick, Massachusetts) in de novo percutaneous coronary intervention. Background: Although the efficacy of the drug-eluting stent has been well established, the risk-benefit balance is still suboptimal, and the safety of polymers remains uncertain. Methods: Patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for de novo lesions were randomly assigned 1:1 to Cre8 or Taxus Liberté stents. Primary endpoint was 6-month angiographic in-stent late lumen loss (LLL) within a noninferiority scope. Six-month intravascular ultrasound was performed in 20% of the patients. All patients will be clinically followed up to 5 years. Results: Out of 323 patients enrolled, 162 received Cre8 and 161 Taxus Liberté stents. In-stent LLL was significantly lower in Cre8 group (0.14 ± 0.36 mm vs. 0.34 ± 0.40 mm, p noninferiority <0.0001, p superiority <0.0001). Clinical endpoints (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization, and stent thrombosis) up to 12 months did not differ significantly between the groups. Conclusions: The Cre8 stent in de novo lesions showed significantly lower in-stent LLL at 6 months than the Taxus Liberté stent did, with a trend toward better 12-month clinical safety and efficacy results. (International Randomized Comparison Between DES Limus Carbostent and Taxus Drug-Eluting Stents in the Treatment of De Novo Coronary Lesions [NEXT]; NCT01373502) [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZES) (Medtronic Cardiovascular, Santa Rosa, California) with Xience V everolimus-eluting stents (EES) (Abbott Vascular Devices, Santa Clara, California) at 1-year follow-up. Background: Only 1 randomized trial previously compared these stents. Methods: This investigator-initiated, patient-blinded, randomized noninferiority study had limited exclusion criteria (acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarctions not eligible). Patients (n = 1,391; 81.4% of eligible population) were randomly assigned to ZES (n = 697) or EES (n = 694). Liberal use of stent post-dilation was encouraged. Cardiac biomarkers were systematically assessed. The primary endpoint was target vessel failure (TVF), a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction not clearly attributable to non-target vessels, and clinically indicated target-vessel revascularization. An external independent research organization performed clinical event adjudication (100% follow-up data available). Analysis was by intention-to-treat. Results: Acute coronary syndromes were present in 52% and “off-label” feature in 77% of patients. Of the lesions, 70% were type B2/C; the post-dilation rate was very high (82%). In ZES and EES, TVF occurred in 8.2% and 8.1%, respectively (absolute risk-difference 0.1%; 95% confidence interval: −2.8% to 3.0%, pnoninferiority = 0.001). There was no significant between-group difference in TVF components. The definite-or-probable stent thrombosis rates were relatively low and similar for ZES and EES (0.9% and 1.2%, respectively, p = 0.59). Definite stent thrombosis rates were also low (0.58% and 0%, respectively, p = 0.12). In EES, probable stent thrombosis beyond day 8 was observed only in patients not adhering to dual antiplatelet therapy. Conclusions: Resolute ZES were noninferior to Xience V EES in treating “real-world” patients with a vast majority of complex lesions and “off-label” indications for drug-eluting stents, which were implanted with liberal use of post-dilation. (The Real-World Endeavor Resolute Versus XIENCE V Drug-Eluting SteNt Study: Head-to-head Comparison of Clinical Outcome After Implantation of Second Generation Drug-eluting Stents in a Real World Scenario; NCT01066650) [Copyright &y& Elsevier]