Dataset Information

Open-labeled randomized controlled trial to evaluate the 1-year clinical outcomes of polymer-free sirolimus-eluting coronary stents as compared with biodegradable polymer-based sirolimus-eluting coronary stents.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Head to head trials of clinical outcomes of sirolimus eluting polymer free vs. biodegradable polymer stents are lacking.

Methods

Single centre prospective open labeled randomised controlled clinical trial. Basis for sample size calculation was the rate of MACE from the ISAR TEST 3 trial in which the absolute difference was 10.25% with a standard deviation of 0.24. Assuming null hypothesis, 80% power and 5% alpha error, to detect a 10% difference, adjusting for 10% loss of follow up, sample size was 204.

Inclusion criteria

Patients with stable coronary artery disease or recent acute coronary syndrome ( >1 week from the date of STEMI), being taken up for elective angioplasty.

End points

Primary end point was MACE at 1 year and secondary end points at the end of 1 year were cardiac death, urgent target lesion revascularization, acute coronary syndrome, stroke and in-stent re-stenosis.

Results

204 patients were enrolled between January 2013 to July 2014, 91 in the polymer-free group and 113 in the biodegradable polymer group. Baseline characteristics were comparable between both groups. 21 patients (10.29%), were lost to follow up. MACE at 1 year were comparable in both the groups 3 of 85(3.52%) in the polymer-free group and 3 of 98(3.06%) in the biodegradable polymer group, p = 0.859. The secondary end points were also comparable between the two groups- Death- 1 of 85(1.17%) vs. 2 of 98(2.04%), p = 0.646, Stroke 0 of 85 vs. 2 of 98(2.04%), p = 0.185 and acute coronary syndrome - 2 of 85(2.35%) vs. 1 of 98(1.02%), p = 0.204. There were no instances of urgent target lesion re-vascularisation or definite stent thrombosis in either groups. In stent re-stenosis was found in 7 of 85(8.2%) in the polymer-free group vs. 6 of 98(6.12%) in the biodegradable polymer group.

Conclusion

The 1 year MACE rates are comparable in patients who underwent elective coronary revascularization using sirolimus eluting polymer-free and biodegradable polymer stents.

SUBMITTER: Viswanathan S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6310072 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Open-labeled randomized controlled trial to evaluate the 1-year clinical outcomes of polymer-free sirolimus-eluting coronary stents as compared with biodegradable polymer-based sirolimus-eluting coronary stents.

Viswanathan Sunitha S Gopinath Kiran K Koshy George G Gupta Prabha Nini PN Velappan Praveen P

Indian heart journal 20180907

<h4>Background</h4>Head to head trials of clinical outcomes of sirolimus eluting polymer free vs. biodegradable polymer stents are lacking.<h4>Methods</h4>Single centre prospective open labeled randomised controlled clinical trial. Basis for sample size calculation was the rate of MACE from the ISAR TEST 3 trial in which the absolute difference was 10.25% with a standard deviation of 0.24. Assuming null hypothesis, 80% power and 5% alpha error, to detect a 10% difference, adjusting for 10% loss ...[more]

PMID: 30595284

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background The choice of optimal drug-eluting stent therapy for patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention remains uncertain. We aimed to assess the long-term clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention with biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (BP-SES) versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP-EES) in patients with DM. Methods and Results In a prespecified subgroup analysis of the BIOSCIENCE (Ultrathin Strut Biodegradable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stent for Percutaneous Coronary Revascularization) trial (NCT01443104), patients randomly assigned to ultrathin-strut BP-SES or thin-strut DP-EES were stratified according to diabetic status. The primary end point was target lesion failure, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization, at 5 years. Among 2119 patients, 486 (22.9%) presented with DM. Compared with individuals without DM, patients with DM were older and had a greater baseline cardiac risk profile. In patients with DM, target lesion failure at 5 years occurred in 74 patients (cumulative incidence, 31.0%) treated with BP-SES and 57 patients (25.8%) treated with DP-EES (risk ratio, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.87-1.73 [P=0.24]). In individuals without DM, target lesion failure at 5 years occurred in 124 patients (16.8%) treated with BP-SES and 132 patients (16.8%) treated with DP-EES (risk ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.77-1.26 [P=0.90; P for interaction=0.31]). Cumulative 5-year incidence rates of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, clinically indicated target lesion revascularization, and definite stent thrombosis were similar among patients with DM treated with BP-SES or DP-EES. There was no interaction between diabetic status and treatment effect of BP-SES versus DP-EES. Conclusions In a prespecified subgroup analysis of the BIOSCIENCE trial, we found no difference in clinical outcomes throughout 5 years between patients with DM treated with ultrathin-strut BP-SES or thin-strut DP-EES. Clinical Trial Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/. Unique identifier: NCT01443104.

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy and safety of biodegradable polymer drug eluting stents with those of bare metal stents and durable polymer drug eluting stents.DesignMixed treatment comparison meta-analysis of 258,544 patient years of follow-up from randomized trials.Data sources and study selectionPubMed, Embase, and Central were searched for randomized trials comparing any of the Food and Drug Administration approved durable polymer drug eluting stents (sirolimus eluting, paclitaxel eluting, cobalt chromium everolimus eluting, platinum chromium everolimus eluting, zotarolimus eluting-Endeavor, and zotarolimus eluting-Resolute) or biodegradable polymer drug eluting stents, with each other or against bare metal stents.OutcomesLong term efficacy (target vessel revascularization, target lesion revascularization) and safety (death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis). Landmark analysis at more than one year was evaluated to assess the potential late benefit of biodegradable polymer drug eluting stents.ResultsFrom 126 randomized trials and 258,544 patient years of follow-up, for long term efficacy (target vessel revascularization), biodegradable polymer drug eluting stents were superior to paclitaxel eluting stents (rate ratio 0.66, 95% credibility interval 0.57 to 0.78) and zotarolimus eluting stent-Endeavor (0.69, 0.56 to 0.84) but not to newer generation durable polymer drug eluting stents (for example: 1.03, 0.89 to 1.21 versus cobalt chromium everolimus eluting stents). Similarly, biodegradable polymer drug eluting stents were superior to paclitaxel eluting stents (rate ratio 0.61, 0.37 to 0.89) but inferior to cobalt chromium everolimus eluting stents (2.04, 1.27 to 3.35) for long term safety (definite stent thrombosis). In the landmark analysis after one year, biodegradable polymer drug eluting stents were superior to sirolimus eluting stents for definite stent thrombosis (rate ratio 0.29, 0.10 to 0.82) but were associated with increased mortality compared with cobalt chromium everolimus eluting stents (1.52, 1.02 to 2.22). Overall, among all stent types, the newer generation durable polymer drug eluting stents (zotarolimus eluting stent-Resolute, cobalt chromium everolimus eluting stents, and platinum chromium everolimus eluting stents) were the most efficacious (lowest target vessel revascularization rate) stents, and cobalt chromium everolimus eluting stents were the safest with significant reductions in definite stent thrombosis (rate ratio 0.35, 0.21 to 0.53), myocardial infarction (0.65, 0.55 to 0.75), and death (0.72, 0.58 to 0.90) compared with bare metal stents.ConclusionsBiodegradable polymer drug eluting stents are superior to first generation durable polymer drug eluting stents but not to newer generation durable polymer stents in reducing target vessel revascularization. Newer generation durable polymer stents, and especially cobalt chromium everolimus eluting stents, have the best combination of efficacy and safety. The utility of biodegradable polymer stents in the context of excellent clinical outcomes with newer generation durable polymer stents needs to be proven.

Project description:BackgroundWhile thinner struts are associated with improved clinical outcomes in bare-metal stents (BMS), reducing strut thickness may affect drug delivery from drug-eluting stents (DES) and there are limited data comparing otherwise similar thin and thick strut DES. We assessed 2-year outcomes of patients treated with a thin strut (84-88um) cobalt-chromium, biodegradable polymer, Biolimus A9-eluting stent (CoCr-BP-BES) and compared these to patients treated with a stainless steel, biodegradable polymer, Biolimus A9-eluting stent (SS-BP-BES).MethodsIn total, 1257 patients were studied: 400 patients from 12 centres receiving ≥1 CoCr-BP-BES in the prospective Biomatrix Alpha registry underwent prespecified comparison with 857 patients who received ≥1 Biomatrix Flex SS-BP-BES in the LEADERS study (historical control). The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACE)-cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), or clinically driven target vessel revascularization (cd-TVR). Propensity analysis was used to adjust for differences in baseline variables and a landmark analysis at day-3 to account for differences in periprocedural MI definitions.ResultsMACE at 2 years occurred in 6.65% CoCr-BP-BES versus 13.23% SS-BP-BES groups (unadjusted HR 0.48 [0.31-0.73]; P=0.0005). Following propensity analysis, 2-year adjusted MACE rates were 7.4% versus 13.3% (HR 0.53 [0.35-0.79]; P=0.004). Definite or probable stent thrombosis, adjudicated using identical criteria in both studies, occurred less frequently with CoCr-BP-BES (1.12% vs. 3.22%; adjusted HR 0.32 [0.11-0.9]; P=0.034). In day-3 landmark analysis, the difference in 2-year MACE was no longer significant but there was a lower patient-orientated composite endpoint (11.7% vs. 18.4%; HR 0.6 [0.43-0.83]; P=0.006) and a trend to lower target vessel failure (5.8% vs. 9.1%; HR 0.63 [0.4-1.00]; P=0.078).ConclusionAt 2-year follow-up, propensity-adjusted analysis showed the thin strut (84-88um) Biomatrix Alpha CoCr-BP-BES was associated with improved clinical outcomes compared with the thicker strut (114-120um) Biomatrix Flex SS-BP-BES.

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the safety and effectiveness between biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents (BP-DES) and durable polymer drug-eluting stents (DP-DES) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS).DesignMeta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs).Primary and secondary outcome measuresMajor adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) were considered the primary endpoint. Efficacy endpoints included target vessel revascularisation (TVR) and target lesion revascularisation (TLR). Safety endpoints included all-cause death, cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction and stent thrombosis (ST).MethodsWe searched PubMed, Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials for comparative studies of BP-DES and DP-DES in patients with ACS from January 2000 to July 2021. Statistical pooling was performed to estimate incidence using a random-effects model with generic inverse-variance weighting. Risk estimates were computed with 95% CIs.ResultsEight articles with seven RCTs that compared BP-DES and DP-DES in patients with ACS were identified and included in the qualitative and quantitative analyses. There was no difference in the baseline characteristics, except for the number of smoking patients (OR: 1.13, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.24; p=0.008, I2=29%), which was significantly lower in the BP-DES group. The meta-analysis demonstrated that MACEs, efficacy endpoints and safety endpoints were similar between the groups at 1 year. However, the incidence of total ST was signiﬁcantly different between the BP-DES and DP-DES groups in the follow-up period (p=0.0001). Further analysis showed a statistically significant difference in MACEs (OR: 0.71, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.88; p=0.002, I2=0 %), TLR (OR: 0.71, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.01; p=0.05, I2=0%), TVR (OR: 0.70, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.94; p=0.002, I2=15%), total ST incidence (OR: 0.59, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.77; p=0.0001, I2=48%) and ST incidence (OR: 0.63, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.85; p=0.002, I2=0%) over 2 years.ConclusionThis meta-analysis revealed that both stent types demonstrated excellent safety and efficacy profiles at 12 months. However, a slight increase in MACEs, TLR, TVR and ST incidence was observed in the DP-DES group over the 2-year follow-up period, suggesting that BP-DES may be more favourable when treating patients with ACS.Trial registration numberNCT00389220.

Dataset Information

Open-labeled randomized controlled trial to evaluate the 1-year clinical outcomes of polymer-free sirolimus-eluting coronary stents as compared with biodegradable polymer-based sirolimus-eluting coronary stents.

Background

Methods

Inclusion criteria

End points

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Open-labeled randomized controlled trial to evaluate the 1-year clinical outcomes of polymer-free sirolimus-eluting coronary stents as compared with biodegradable polymer-based sirolimus-eluting coronary stents.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets