Abluminal groove-filled biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent: three-year results of the TARGET All Comers trial.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Saito Y
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9724996 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jul
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Abluminal groove-filled biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent: three-year results of the TARGET All Comers trial.
Saito Yuichi Y Kelbæk Henning H Xu Bo B Hussain Yasin Y Anderson Richard R Schächinger Volker V Zheng Ming M Wijns William W Baumbach Andreas A Lansky Alexandra J AJ
EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology 20210720 4
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundDiabetes mellitus is a risk for increased incidence of adverse clinical events after percutaneous coronary intervention. However, the difference in the incidence of adverse clinical events according to stent type in patients with diabetes remains to be elucidated. In the present study, we aimed to compare the clinical outcomes between patients treated with the biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (BP-SES) and the durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP-EES) among patients with diabetes.MethodsAmong 631 lesions in 510 consecutive patients treated with either BP-SES or DP-EES, 165 lesions in 141 patients with diabetes mellitus and stable angina pectoris were identified and classified into the BP-SES group (48 lesions in 44 patients) and the DP-EES group (117 lesions in 100 patients). The incidence of adverse clinical events after stent implantation was compared between the 2 groups.ResultsThere was no significant difference in the prevalence of conventional risk factors, lesion characteristics, and procedural characteristics between the 2 groups. During median 386 [334-472] days follow-up, the incidence of target lesion revascularization (11.4 vs. 2.0%, p = 0.003) and device-oriented clinical endpoint (13.6 vs. 6.0%, p = 0.035) in the BP-SES group was significantly greater than that in the DP-EES group. A univariate model demonstrated that the BP-SES usage was significantly associated with the higher incidence of target lesion revascularization (odds ratio, 6.686; 95% confidence interval, 1.234-36.217; p = 0.028).ConclusionBP-SES was associated with the greater incidence of TLR than the DP-EES in patients with diabetes mellitus. Further studies with larger cohorts and longer follow-up are required to confirm the present results.
| S-EPMC7531093 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The Cordimax stent has proved non-inferior to the Cypher Select durable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent for the primary endpoint of angiographic in-stent late luminal loss and in-stent mean diameter stenosis at 9 months. The trial was designed to compare the efficacy and safety of the Cordimax stent with the Xience V stent in patients undergoing coronary revascularization. This randomized, multicenter trial enrolled 3697 patients treated with Cordimax stent (2460 patients) and Xience V stent (1237 patients). The primary efficacy endpoint was a target-lesion failure (TLF) at 1 year and the primary safety endpoint was a composite of death or myocardial infarction (MI) at 3 years. 3399 patients (91.9%) completed 3-year follow-up. At 1 year, the primary efficacy endpoint occurred in 86 (3.5%) patients in the Cordimax group versus 40 (3.2%) patients in the Xience V group (0.3% absolute risk difference, 95% CI -1.0-1.5%, Pnon-inferiority < 0.0001). At 3 years, the primary safety endpoint occurred in 39 (1.6%) patients in the Cordimax group versus 19 (1.5%) patients in the Xience V group (0.05% absolute risk difference, 95% CI -0.8-0.9%, Pnon-inferiority < 0.0001). The incidence of target lesion revascularization was low in Cordimax group compared with Xience V group (3.6% versus 5.1%, P = 0.03). There were no differences between Cordimax and Xience V in terms of Cardiac death (0.3% versus 0.4%, P = 0.70), myocardial infarction (1.2% versus 0.9%, P = 0.37), and the stent thrombosis (0.4% versus 0.6%, P = 0.61). In conclusion, safety and efficacy outcomes of Cordimax stent were non-inferior to the Xience V stent 3 years after stent implantation.
| S-EPMC6898363 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundNo data are available on the long-term performance of ultrathin strut biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (BP-SES). We reported 2-year clinical outcomes of the BIOSCIENCE (Ultrathin Strut Biodegradable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stent for Percutaneous Coronary Revascularisation) trial, which compared BP-SES with durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP-EES) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.Methods and resultsA total of 2119 patients with minimal exclusion criteria were assigned to treatment with BP-SES (n=1063) or DP-EES (n=1056). Follow-up at 2 years was available for 2048 patients (97%). The primary end point was target-lesion failure, a composite of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically indicated target-lesion revascularization. At 2 years, target-lesion failure occurred in 107 patients (10.5%) in the BP-SES arm and 107 patients (10.4%) in the DP-EES arm (risk ratio [RR] 1.00, 95% CI 0.77-1.31, P=0.979). There were no significant differences between BP-SES and DP-EES with respect to cardiac death (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.62-1.63, P=0.984), target-vessel myocardial infarction (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.60-1.39, P=0.669), target-lesion revascularization (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.81-1.71, P=0.403), and definite stent thrombosis (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.56-3.44, P=0.485). There were 2 cases (0.2%) of definite very late stent thrombosis in the BP-SES arm and 4 cases (0.4%) in the DP-EES arm (P=0.423). In the prespecified subgroup of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, BP-SES was associated with a lower risk of target-lesion failure compared with DP-EES (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.23-0.99, P=0.043, Pinteraction=0.026).ConclusionsComparable safety and efficacy profiles of BP-SES and DP-EES were maintained throughout 2 years of follow-up.Clinical trial registrationURL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01443104.
| S-EPMC4943287 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We compared the outcomes of a novel, thin-strut, cobalt-chromium, absorbable, polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (APSES; MiStent) to the durable polymer cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stent (EES; Xience). A propensity-matched analysis was performed comparing data from the DES With Sirolimus and a Bioabsorbable Polymer for the Treatment of Patients With De Novo Lesions in the Native Coronary Arteries (DESSOLVE) I and II studies, evaluating the APSES to the EES arm of the Intracoronary Stenting and Angiographic Results: Test Efficacy of 3 Limus-Eluting Stents-4 study. Target lesion failure (TLF) and its components were evaluated at 12 months and annually to 3 years; 805 patients (APSES = 153; EES = 652) were included with propensity matching in 204 patients (APSES = 102; EES = 102). APSES compared with EES had lower TLF at 1 year (3.0% vs 8.0%, p = 0.12) driven by a difference in target lesion revascularization (TLR; 1% vs 6%, p = 0.05), with no difference in target vessel myocardial infarction (p = 0.56) or stent thrombosis (p = 0.31). At 3 years, TLF (5.0% vs 12.5%, p = 0.07) and TLR (2.0% vs 8.4%, p = 0.04) remained lower with APSES. By landmark analysis, there was no significant difference in TLF between 1 and 3 years (p = 0.36). In conclusion, in a propensity-matched analysis, the APSES demonstrated reduced clinically indicated TLR rates at 1 and 3 years compared with the durable polymer EES, with minimal accrual of events between 1 and 3 years.
| S-EPMC5975354 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThis analysis of pooled individual patient data (IPD) aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a bioresorbable polymer sirolimus eluting stent system (BP-SES; Orsiro) compared to a durable polymer everolimus eluting stent system (DP-EES; Xience) in the pooled population as well as in subgroups.MethodsIPD with up to 12 months follow-up of the randomized controlled trials BIOFLOW-II (NCT01356888), -IV (NCT01939249), and -V (NCT02389946) as well as the all comers registry BIOFLOW-III (NCT01553526) were pooled. A total of 3,717 subjects (2,923 in BP-SES and 794 in DP-EES) with 5,328 lesions (4,225 lesions in BP-SES and 1,103 in DP-EES) were included in the IPD. The primary endpoint was target lesion failure (TLF) at 12 months follow-up. Subgroups analyzed included diabetes, age (≥65 years), gender, complex lesions (B2/C), small vessels (reference vessel diameter ≤2.75 mm), multivessel treatment, renal disease, and patients with acute coronary syndrome.ResultsOverall, TLF at 12 months was significantly lower with 5.2%in the BP-SES group versus 7.6% in the DP-EES group (p = .0098). Similarly, target vessel myocardial infarction (TV-MI) was 3.1 versus 5.7% (p = .0005). The rate of stent thrombosis was similar in both groups (0.004%). By regression analysis, an independent stent effect in favor of BP-SES was observed for TLF (p = .0043) and TV-MI (p = .0364) in small vessels.ConclusionResults of this IPD analysis suggest that the BP-SES with ultrathin struts is as safe as and more efficacious than DP-EES in the overall cohort and especially in small vessels.
| S-EPMC9292184 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES:Recently, Genoss drug-eluting stent (DES)™ stent comprising cobalt-chromium platform with an ultrathin strut thickness, sirolimus, and an abluminal biodegradable polymer was developed. Owing to the lack of substantial evidence for the safety and efficacy of this stent, we report 12-month results of the Genoss DES™ stent. METHODS:We analyzed subjects who were eligible for a 12-month follow-up from the ongoing Genoss DES™ registry, which is a prospective, single-arm, observational, multicenter trial to investigate the clinical outcomes after the successful Genoss DES™ stent implantation among all-comers. The primary endpoint was a device-oriented composite outcome, defined as cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization at 12-month follow-up. RESULTS:Among 622 subjects, the mean age of subjects was 66.5±10.4 years, 70.6% were males, 67.5% had hypertension, and 38.3% had diabetes. The implanted stent number, diameter, and length per patient were 1.5±0.8, 3.1±0.4 mm, and 36.0±23.3 mm, respectively. At 12-month clinical follow-up, the primary endpoint occurred only in 4 (0.6%) subjects. CONCLUSIONS:The novel Genoss DES™ stent exhibited excellent safety and efficacy in real-world practice.
| S-EPMC7067606 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC6915288 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:The objective of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of a polymer-free sirolimus coated, ultrathin strut drug-eluting stent (PF-SES) in an unselected patient population with a focus on acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Furthermore, stable coronary artery disease (CAD) with short (?6 months) versus long (>6 months) dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) were also studied. METHODS:Patients who received PF-SES were investigated in an unselected large-scale international, single-armed, multicenter, 'all comers' observational study. The primary endpoint was the 9-month target lesion revascularisation (TLR) rate, whereas secondary endpoints included the 9-month major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and procedural success rates. A priori defined subgroups such as patients with ACS, diabetes, lesion subsets and procedural characteristics relative to DAPT were investigated. RESULTS:A total of 2877 patients of whom 1084 had ACS were treated with PF-SES (1.31±0.75 stents per patient). At 9 months, the accumulated overall TLR rate was 2.3% (58/2513). There was no significant difference between ACS and stable CAD (2.6% vs 2.1%, p=0.389). However, the overall MACE rate was 4.3% (108/2513) with a higher rate in patients with ACS when compared with the stable CAD subgroup (6.1%, 58/947 vs 3.2%, 50/1566, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS:PF-SES angioplasty is safe and effective in the daily clinical routine with low rates of TLR and MACE in an unselected patient population. Our data are in agreement with prior clinical findings that extended DAPT duration beyond 6 months do not improve clinical outcomes in patients with stable CAD (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT02629575). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT02629575.
| S-EPMC5515132 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesWe evaluated the effect of the different carrier systems on early vascular response through histological analysis and scanning electron microscopy using a porcine model.BackgroundAlthough Synergy™ and Promus PREMIER™ share an identical stent material and drug elution (everolimus), they use different drug carrier systems: biodegradable abluminal coating polymer or durable conformal coating polymer, respectively. However, data regarding the impact of the different coating systems on vessel healing are currently limited.MethodsTwelve Synergy™ and Promus PREMIER™ were implanted in 12 swine. Histopathological analysis of the stented segments was performed on the 2nd and 14th days after implantation. Morphometric analysis of the inflammation and intimal fibrin content was also performed.ResultsOn the 2nd day, neointimal thickness, percentage of neointimal area, and inflammatory and intimal fibrin content scores were not significantly different between the two groups. On the 14th day, the inflammatory and intimal fibrin content scores were significantly lower in Synergy™ versus those observed in Promus PREMIER™. In Synergy™, smooth muscle cells were found and the neointimal layers were smooth. In contrast, inflammatory cells were observed surrounding the struts of Promus PREMIER™.ConclusionsThese results demonstrate that termination of reactive inflammation is accelerated after abluminal coating stent versus implantation of conformal coating stent.
| S-EPMC7201493 | biostudies-literature
Project description:There are limited data about clinical outcomes of biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting BioMatrix stents (BP-BES) and durable polymer everolimus-eluting Xience stents (DP-EES) in real world practice. We sought to compare the clinical outcomes of BP-BES and DP-EES in real world cohorts of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. A prospective multicenter registry enrolled 999 patients treated with BP-BES and 1,000 patients treated with DP-EES. The primary outcome was target lesion failure, defined as a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization. Definite or probable stent thrombosis was also compared in total and propensity score-matched cohorts. The median follow-up duration was 24 months, and mean age was 65 years (interquartile range, 56-72 years). Patients receiving BP-BES had a lower prevalence of acute coronary syndrome, prior myocardial infarction, multi-vessel disease, bifurcation lesions, and left anterior descending artery lesions than those receiving DP-EES. After propensity score matching (692 pairs), target lesion failure occurred in 22 patients receiving BP-BES and in 25 patients receiving DP-EES (3.2% versus 3.6%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53 to 1.60; p = 0.77). The risk of definite or probable stent thrombosis did not differ between the 2 groups (0.4% versus 0.4%; adjusted HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.21 to 4.98; p = 0.97). The results were consistent across various subgroups. In the propensity score-matched analysis of real world cohorts, BP-BES showed similar clinical outcomes compared to DP-EES. We need to investigate about whether differences in clinical outcome emerge during long-term follow-up.
| S-EPMC5552220 | biostudies-literature