Ultrathin-strut biodegradable polymer versus durable polymer drug-eluting stents: a meta-analysis

Durable versus biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents in all-comers

BACKGROUND

Drug-eluting stents (DESs) have become the gold standard of coronary angioplasty since their inception in 2002. Biodegradable polymer DESs (BP-DESs) have been postulated to be superior to durable polymer DESs (DP-DESs) due to their more biocompatible polymer. To date, no study has shown the superiority of one type of polymer compared with the other. We aimed to compare outcomes between a broad range of second-generation DP-DES and BP-DES in an all-comer population.

METHODS

We analysed data from 2824 patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with BP-DES or DP-DES in the Cardio-FR database. Of these, 2079 (1286 DP-DES and 793 BP-DES) met the inclusion and exclusion criteria and completed a 2-year follow-up: The primary outcome was the device-oriented composite endpoint (DOCE) of cardiac death, non-fatal target vessel myocardial infarction and target lesion revascularisation.

RESULTS

Mean age was 67 years, with 75% male. Despite the DP-DES group exhibiting significantly higher rates of risk factors, such as arterial hypertension (63.1% vs 57.5%, p=0.010), a greater average number of stents implanted per patient (1.72±0.92 vs 1.63±0.84, p=0.040), more acute coronary syndrome (ACS) (55.1% vs 50.2%, p=0.031) and a higher rate of post-dilatation (42.2% vs 35.2%, p<0.001), the rate of acute stent thrombosis (ST) was significantly lower than in the BP-DES group (HR 0.240, 95% CI 0.075 to 0.766; p=0.016). This difference remained significant even after adjusting for covariates using a Cox proportional hazards model and performing a win ratio analysis (4.09, 95% CI 1.28 to 13.09; p=0.018). Despite this increased rate of acute ST, there was no difference in DOCE (12.1% vs 14.5%, OR 1.218, 95% CI 0.926 to 1.600; p=0.158) between the two groups up to 2 years.

CONCLUSION

Clinical follow-up up to 2 years shows similar outcomes between BP-DES and DP-DES. The rate of acute ST is higher in patients with BP-DES.

Comparison of Ultrathin- Versus Thin-Strut Stents in Patients With High Bleeding Risk PCI: Results From the COMPARE 60/80 HBR Trial: An Open-Label, Randomized, Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

No randomized data exist on ultrathin-strut stents in patients at high bleeding risk (HBR) undergoing an abbreviated dual antiplatelet therapy after coronary stenting. The aim of this study was to compare the safety and effectiveness of the ultrathin-strut biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting Supraflex Cruz stent with the thin-strut biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting Ultimaster Tansei stent in patients at HBR with abbreviated dual antiplatelet therapy after stenting.

METHODS

In the investigator-initiated, randomized, open-label COMPARE 60/80 HBR trial (Comparison of the Supraflex Cruz 60 Micron Stent Strut Versus the Ultimaster Tansei 80 Micron Stent Strut in HBR Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Population), 741 patients at HBR according to the Academic Research Consortium HBR criteria were randomized to receive either the ultrathin-strut biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting Supraflex Cruz stent or thin-strut biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting Ultimaster Tansei stent. Dual antiplatelet therapy was recommended according to the applicable guidelines and trial data for patients at HBR. The primary outcome was net adverse clinical events, the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, stroke, and major bleeding, and was powered for noninferiority with an absolute margin of 4.0% at 1-sided 2.5% alpha.

RESULTS

Between September 2020 and August 2022, 371 patients were randomized to the ultrathin-strut biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting Supraflex Cruz stent and 370 patients to the thin-strut biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting Ultimaster Tansei stent at 11 sites in the Netherlands. At 1 year, the primary outcome was observed in 56 (15.4%) patients in the ultrathin-strut biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting Supraflex Cruz stent group and 61 (17.1%) in the thin-strut biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting Ultimaster Tansei stent group (risk difference, -1.65%; upper boundary of the 1-sided 95% CI, 3.74; P=0.02 for noninferiority at a 0.025 significance level and P=0.55 for 2-sided superiority at a 0.05 significance level).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients at HBR with abbreviated dual antiplatelet therapy post-stenting, the use of an ultrathin-strut biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting Supraflex Cruz stent was noninferior compared with the use of a thin-strut biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting Ultimaster Tansei stent.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04500912.

Comparative effectiveness of ultrathin vs. standard strut drug-eluting stents: insights from a large-scale meta-analysis with extended follow-up

BACKGROUND

Newer generation ultrathin strut stents are associated with less incidence of target lesion failure (TLF) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the short term. However, its long-term effect on different cardiovascular outcomes remains unknown.

OBJECTIVES

We aim to identify the effects of newer-generation ultrathin-strut stents vs. standard thickness second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) on long-term outcomes of revascularization in coronary artery disease.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library databases, and Scopus for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and registries that compare newer-generation ultrathin-strut (< 70 mm) with thicker strut (> 70 mm) DES to evaluate cardioprotective effects over a period of up to 5 years. Primary outcome was TLF, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction (TVMI) or target lesion revascularization (TLR). Secondary outcomes included the components of TLF, stent thrombosis (ST), and all-cause death were pooled as the standardized mean difference between the two groups from baseline to endpoint.

RESULTS

We included 19 RCTs and two prospective registries (103,101 patients) in this analysis. The overall effect on the primary outcome was in favor of second-generation ultrathin struts stents in terms of TLF at ≥ 1 year, ≥ 2 years, and ≥ 3 years (P value = 0.01, 95% CI [0.75, 0.96]), P value = 0.003, 95% CI [0.77, 0.95]), P value = 0.007, 95% CI [0.76, 0.96]), respectively. However, there was no reported benefit in terms of TLF when we compared the two groups at ≥ 5 years (P value = 0.21), 95% CI [0.85, 1.04]). Some of the reported components of the primary and secondary outcomes, such as TLR, target vessel revascularization (TVR), and TVMI, showed the same pattern as the TLF outcome.

CONCLUSION

Ultrathin-strut DES showed a beneficial effect over thicker strut stents for up to 3 years. However, at the 5-year follow-up, the ultrathin strut did not differ in terms of TLF, TLR, TVR, and TVMI compared with standard-thickness DES, with similar risks of patient-oriented composite endpoint (POCE), MI, ST, cardiac death, and all-cause mortality.

Comparison of endothelial shear stress between ultrathin strut bioresorbable polymer drug-eluting stent vs durable-polymer drug-eluting stent post-stent implantation: An optical coherence tomography substudy from BIOFLOW II

BACKGROUND

Recent clinical data indicate a different performance of biodegradable polymer (BP)-drug eluting stent (DES) compared to durable polymer (DP)-DES. Whether this can be explained by a beneficial impact of BP-DES stent design on the local hemodynamic forces distribution remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To compare endothelial shear stress (ESS) distribution after implantation of ultrathin (us) BP-DES and DP-DES and examine the association between ESS and neointimal thickness (NIT) distribution in the two devices at 9 months follow up.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We retrospectively identified patients from the BIOFLOW II trial that had undergone OCT imaging. OCT data were utilized to reconstruct the surface of the stented segment at baseline and 9 months follow-up, simulate blood flow, and measure ESS and NIT in the stented segment. The patients were divided into 3 groups depending on whether DP-DES (N = 8, n = 56,160 sectors), BP-DES with a stent diameter of >3 mm (strut thickness of 80 μm, N = 6, n = 36,504 sectors), or BP-DES with a stent diameter of ≤3 mm (strut thickness of 60 μm, N = 8, n = 50,040 sectors) were used for treatment. The ESS, and NIT distribution and the association of these two variables were estimated and compared among the 3 groups.

RESULTS

In the DP-DES group mean NIT was 0.18 ± 0.17 mm and ESS 1.68 ± 1.66 Pa; for the BP-DES ≤3 mm group the NIT was 0.17 ± 0.11 mm and ESS 1.49 ± 1.24 Pa and for the BP-DES >3 mm group 0.20 ± 0.23 mm and 1.42 ± 1.24 Pa respectively (p < 0.001 for both NIT and ESS comparisons across groups). A negative correlation between NIT and baseline ESS was found, the correlation coefficient for all the stented segments was -0.33, p < 0.001.

CONCLUSION

In this OCT sub-study of the BIOFLOW II trial, the NIT was statistically different between groups of patients treated with BP-DES and DP-DES. In addition, regions of low ESS were associated with increased NIT in all studied devices.

Long-term safety of ultrathin bioabsorbable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stents versus thin durable-polymer drug-eluting stents in acute coronary syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Because of the advancement of bioabsorbable polymers and thinner struts, bioabsorbable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (BP-SES) with ultrathin struts may be related to superior performance when compared to durable-polymer drug-eluting stents (DP-DES) with thin struts. Nonetheless, the long-term safety of ultrathin BP-SES in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) remains unknown.

METHODS

We sought to assess the long-term safety of ultrathin BP-SES in ACS patients, conducting a thorough meta-analysis of all relevant trials drawing a comparison between ultrathin BP-SES and contemporary thin DP-DES. Target lesion failure (TLF), which includes cardiac death (CD), target-vessel myocardial infarction (TV-MI), and clinically driven target lesion revascularization (CD-TLR) was considered the primary endpoint. Multiple databases comprising Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Pubmed were all thoroughly searched.

RESULTS

There were seven randomized controlled trials included in our study with 7522 randomized patients with ACS (BP-SES = 3888, DP-DES = 3634). TLF occurred in 371 (9.5% in BP-SES) and 393 (10.8% in DP-DES) patients, respectively, across a 40.7-month weighted mean follow-up, with no statistically significant group differences (risk ratio [RR]: 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.73-1.04; p = .12). Furthermore, no significant differences in cardiac death (RR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.68-1.35; p = .81), TV-MI (RR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.36-1.10; p = .10) and CD-TLR (RR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.46-1.29; p = .32) were detected between two groups.

CONCLUSION

During a follow-up of 40.7 months, ultrathin BP-SES and thin DP-DES had a comparable risk of TLF and its individual components (CD, TV-MI, and CD-TLR), indicating that ultrathin BP-SES held at least the same safety and efficiency as thin DP-DES presented in patients with ACS.

Biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents versus durable polymer drug-eluting stents for percutaneous coronary intervention: a contemporary registry-based analysis

AIMS

We aimed to compare the long-term outcomes of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents (BP-DES) versus durable polymer drug-eluting stents (DP-DES).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Among 11 517 PCIs with second-generation DES performed in our institution between 2007 and 2019, we identified 8042 procedures performed using DP-DES and 3475 using BP-DES. The primary outcome was target lesion failure, the composite target lesion revascularization (TLR), target vessel myocardial infarction and death. Propensity score matching was used to create a well-balanced cohort. Mean follow-up was 4.8 years. Of the 3413 matched pairs, 21% were females, and the mean age was 66 years. At 1 year, the primary outcome occurred in 8.3% patients versus 7.1% (P = 0.07), and TLR rate was 3% versus 2% (P = 0.006) in patients with DP-DES and BP-DES respectively. Within 5 years, the primary outcome occurred in 23.1% versus 23.4% (P = 0.44), and the rate of TLR was 7.2% versus 6.5% (P = 0.07) in patients with DP-DES and BP-DES, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Similar rates of the composite outcome were observed throughout the entire follow-up. Target lesion revascularization rates were lower in the BP-DES group at 1-year but equalized within 5 years.

First Report of 3-Year Clinical Outcome After Treatment With Novel Resolute Onyx Stents in the Randomized BIONYX Trial

BACKGROUND

At 1 year, the international randomized BIONYX trial (ClinicalTrials.gov:NCT02508714) established non-inferiority regarding safety and efficacy of the novel Resolute Onyx zotarolimus-eluting stent (RO-ZES) vs. the Orsiro sirolimus-eluting stent (O-SES). Although the RO-ZES is used in daily practice, no clinical results have been published beyond 2 years.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We assessed 3-year clinical outcomes of 2,488 all-comers after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with RO-ZES vs. O-SES. The main endpoint was target vessel failure (TVF), a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction (MI), or target vessel revascularization. Time-to-endpoints was assessed by Kaplan-Meier methods and between-group comparisons by log-rank tests. Follow-up was available in 2,433/2,488 (97.8%) patients. There was no significant between-stent difference in TVF (RO-ZES 112/1,243 [9.2%] vs. O-SES 109/1,245 [8.9%], hazard ratio [HR]: 1.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79-1.34; Plog-rank=0.85) and its individual components. The all-cause mortality was significantly lower after PCI with RO-ZES (3.7% vs.5.4%, HR: 0.67, 95% CI 0.46-0.97; Plog-rank=0.034), but cardiac mortality did not differ significantly (1.1% vs.1.9%, HR: 0.56, 95% CI 0.28-1.11; Plog-rank=0.09). Definite-or-probable stent thrombosis rates were low for both groups (0.6% vs.1.2%, HR: 0.46, 95% CI 0.19-1.14; Plog-rank=0.09).

CONCLUSIONS

This first 3-year randomized assessment of the RO-ZES showed a favorable rate of TVF that matched the outcomes of patients treated with O-SES. We observed a lower rate of all-cause death in the RO-ZES group, but long-term clinical follow-up is of interest.

Clinical outcomes of an ultrathin-strut sirolimus-eluting stent in all-comers population: Thailand Orsiro registry

Background

Despite numerous studies supporting the outperformance of ultrathin-strut bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (Orsiro SES, Biotronik AG), the generalizability of the study results remains unclear in the Asian population. We sought to evaluate the clinical outcomes of the Orsiro SES in unselected Thai population.

Methods

The Thailand Orsiro registry was a prospective, open-label clinical study evaluating all patients with obstructive coronary artery disease implanted with Orsiro SES. The primary endpoint was target lesion failure (TLF) at 12 months. TLF is defined as a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction (TVMI), emergent coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), and clinically driven target lesion revascularization (CD-TLR). Patients with diabetes, small vessels (≤ 2.75 mm), chronic total occlusions (CTOs), and acute myocardial infarction (AMI) were pre-specified subgroups for statistical analysis.

Result

A total of 150 patients with 235 lesions were included in the analysis. Half of the patients (53.3%) presented with AMI, and 24% had diabetes. Among 235 lesions, 93(39.4%) were small vessels, and 24(10.2%) were chronic total occlusions. The primary endpoint, TLF at 12 months, occurred in eight patients (5.3%), predominately caused by cardiac death. By contrast, the incidences of TVMI and CD-TLR were null. The outcomes in pre-specified subgroup were not different from the overall population (all p > 0.05). One definite late stent thrombosis(0.7%) was incidentally observed during primary percutaneous coronary intervention to the non-target vessel.

Conclusion

The safety and efficacy of the ultrathin strut sirolimus-eluting stent in unselected cases are confirmed in the Thailand Orsiro registry. Despite the high proportion of pre-specified high-risk subgroups, the excellent stent performance was consistent with the overall population.

Trial Registration TCTR20190325001.

External Validation of the SYNTAX Score II 2020

BACKGROUND

The SYNTAX score II 2020 (SSII-2020) was derived from cross correlation and externally validated in randomized trials to predict death and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACE) following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with 3-vessel disease (3VD) and/or left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD).

OBJECTIVES

The authors aimed to investigate the SSII-2020's value in identifying the safest modality of revascularization in a non-randomized setting.

METHODS

Five-year mortality and MACE were assessed in 7,362 patients with 3VD and/or LMCAD enrolled in a Japanese PCI/CABG registry. The discriminative abilities of the SSII-2020 were assessed using Harrell's C statistic. Agreement between observed and predicted event rates following PCI or CABG and treatment benefit (absolute risk difference [ARD]) for these outcomes were assessed by calibration plots.

RESULTS

The SSII-2020 for 5-year mortality well predicted the prognosis after PCI and CABG (C-index = 0.72, intercept = -0.11, slope = 0.92). When patients were grouped according to the predicted 5-year mortality ARD, <4.5% (equipoise of PCI and CABG) and ≥4.5% (CABG better), the observed mortality rates after PCI and CABG were not significantly different in patients with lower predicted ARD (observed ARD: 2.1% [95% CI: -0.4% to 4.4%]), and the significant difference in survival in favor of CABG was observed in patients with higher predicted ARD (observed ARD: 9.7% [95% CI: 6.1%-13.3%]). For MACE, the SSII-2020 could not recommend a specific treatment with sufficient accuracy.

CONCLUSIONS

The SSII-2020 for predicting 5-year death has the potential to support decision making on revascularization in patients with 3VD and/or LMCAD.

Second generation drug-eluting stents: a focus on safety and efficacy of current devices

Introduction: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) represents the most frequent procedure performed in medicine. Second generation drug eluting stents (DES) have been developed to reduce the rates of late and very late complications of first generation DES.Areas covered: To improve long-term efficacy and safety of patients undergoing PCI, second generation DES have been developed with novel stent platforms, biocompatible durable and biodegradable polymers and newer antiproliferative agents. In this review we provide an overview of second generation DES and their clinical trials, discussing safety and effectiveness of these devices, and outlining clinical indication for use.Expert commentary: Numerous clinical trials have demonstrated the safety and efficacy of second generation DES over the last decade. These devices represent the gold standard treatment in stable and acute coronary syndromes.