Polymer-free dual drug-eluting stents evaluated in a porcine model.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Zhang B
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5558731 | biostudies-other | 2017 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundPolymer-free drug-eluting stents (PF-DES) have been demonstrated comparable to permanent polymer drug-eluting stents (PP-DES) during long-term follow-up. As a critical component of drug-eluting stents, antiproliferative drugs may be a confounding factor for the results. Thus, we sought to compare the outcomes of these stents during long-term follow-up, especially in consideration of different stent platforms with the same drugs.MethodsA systemic search was performed to identify the related randomized controlled trials comparing PF-DES with PP-DES. Primary outcomes included short (≤1 year) and long-term (>1 year) target lesion revascularization (TLR), short-term in-stent late luminal loss (LLL) and diameter stenosis (DS). Subgroup analyses stratified by the different platforms with the same proliferative drugs were conducted in TLR, LLL, and DS. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) and risk ratios (RRs) were estimated using fixed /random effects models RESULTS:: A total of 6927 patients extracted from 12 RCTs were enrolled in the meta-analysis. No differences were observed in clinical outcomes of short-term and long-term overall mortality, myocardial infarction and stent thrombosis and angiographic outcomes of short-term in-stent LLL and DS between PF-DES and PP-DES for patients with coronary artery lesions. Nevertheless, compared with PP-DES coated with the same proliferative drugs, PF-DES had significantly increased risks of in-stent LLL (SMD, 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25-0.72) and DS (SMD, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.27-1.07), and long-term TLR (RR, 1.64; 95% CI 1.13-2.39). There were no significant differences in other outcomes.ConclusionsUnder the condition of using same antiproliferative drugs (paclitaxel or sirolimus) in different stent systems, PF-DES are associated with the increased risk of restenosis compared to PP-DES.
| S-EPMC6485796 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC3898413 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundsDrug-eluting stents (DES) with biodegradable polymers have been developed to address the risk of thrombosis associated with first-generation DES. We aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stents (BES) versus durable polymer DES.MethodsSystematic database searches of MEDLINE (1950 to June 2013), EMBASE (1966 to June 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 6 of 12, June 2013), and a review of related literature were conducted. All randomized controlled trials comparing biodegradable polymer BES versus durable polymer DES were included.ResultsEight randomized controlled trials investigating 11,015 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions were included in the meta-analysis. The risk of major adverse cardiac events did not differ significantly between the patients treated with the biodegradable polymer BES and the durable polymer DES (Relative risk [RR], 0.970; 95% CI, 0.848-1.111; p = 0.662). However, biodegradable polymer BES was associated with reduced risk of very late ST compared with the durable polymer DES, while the risk of early or late ST was similar (RR for early or late ST, 1.167; 95% CI 0.755-1.802; p = 0.487; RR 0.273; 95% CI 0.115-0.652; p = 0.003; p for interaction = 0.003).ConclusionsIn this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, treatments with biodegradable polymer BES did not significantly reduce the risk of major adverse cardiac events, but demonstrated a significantly lower risk of very late ST when compared to durable polymer DES. This conclusion requires confirmation by further studies with long-term follow-up.Prospero register numberhttp://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42013004364#.UnM2lfmsj6J.
| S-EPMC3823917 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPolymer-free drug-eluting stents (PF-DES) were introduced with the aim of reducing the risk of stent thrombosis associated with durable polymer drug-eluting stents (DP-DES). The comparison of safety and efficacy profiles between these two stent platforms remains unclear.Materials and methodsWe conducted electronic database searches for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing patients treated with either PF-DES or DP-DES. Outcomes included definite or probable stent thrombosis (ST), myocardial infarction (MI), cardiac death, all-cause death, target lesion revascularization (TLR), and target vessel revascularization (TVR). A random-effects model was used to derive risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Subgroup analyses based on different variables were also performed. After screening a total of 1026 articles, the present meta-analysis included 13 RCTs comprising 8021 patients.ResultsNo significant differences were found for the risks of definite or probable ST (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.62-1.43; P?=?0.77), MI (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.85-1.33; P?=?0.61), cardiac death (RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.80-1.21; P?=?0.88), all-cause death (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.76-1.00; P?=?0.06), TLR (RR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.94-1.33; P?=?0.22), and TVR (RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.87-1.61; P?=?0.29). Similarly, no significant differences were found for all outcomes regardless of anti-proliferative drug, except for an increased risk of TLR for polymer-free paclitaxel-eluting stents compared with DP-DES (RR, 2.32, 95% CI, 1.30-4.14; P?=?0.005).ConclusionsOur findings showed that PF-DES and DP-DES confer equivalent safety and efficacy profiles, with similar rates of stent thrombosis.
| S-EPMC6302254 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Drug-eluting stents (DES) have been shown to significantly reduce clinical and angiographic restenosis compared to bare metal stents (BMS). The polymer coatings on DES elute antiproliferative drugs to inhibit intimal proliferation and prevent restenosis after stent implantation. Permanent polymers which do not degrade in vivo may increase the likelihood of stent-related delayed arterial healing or polymer hypersensitivity. In turn, these limitations may contribute to an increased risk of late clinical events. Intuitively, a polymer which degrades after completion of drug release, leaving an inert metal scaffold in place, may improve arterial healing by removing a chronic source of inflammation, neoatherosclerosis, and/or late thrombosis. In this way, a biodegradable polymer may reduce late ischemic events. Additionally, improved healing after stent implantation could reduce the requirement for long-term dual antiplatelet therapy and the associated risk of bleeding and cost. This review will focus on bioabsorbable polymer-coated DES currently being evaluated in clinical trials.
| S-EPMC5452149 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES:Determine whether an ultrathin biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent ('Orsiro'-BP-SES) has clinical benefits over second-generation durable polymer drug-eluting stents (DP-DES). METHODS:We conducted a prospective systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials comparing Orsiro BP-SES against DP-DES (PROSPERO Registration: CRD42019147136). The primary outcome was target lesion failure (TLF): composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction (TVMI) and clinically indicated target lesion revascularisation (TLR)) evaluated at the longest available follow-up. RESULTS:Nine trials randomised 11?302 patients to either Orsiro BP-SES or DP-DES. At mean weighted follow-up of 2.8 years, the primary outcome (TLF) occurred in 501 of 6089 (8.2%) participants with BP-SES compared with 495 of 5213 (9.5%) participants with DP-DES. This equates to an absolute risk reduction of 1.3% in TLF in favour of Orsiro BP-SES (OR 0.82; 95%?CI 0.69 to 0.98; p=0.03). This was driven by a reduction in TVMI (OR 0.80; 95%?CI 0.65 to 0.98; p=0.03). There were no significant differences in other clinical endpoints: cardiac death, TLR and stent thrombosis. CONCLUSION:The Orsiro BP-SES shows promising clinical outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention compared with contemporary second-generation DES at a short to medium term follow-up. More research is warranted to evaluate performance over a longer follow-up period and in different clinical and lesion subsets.
| S-EPMC7552849 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTo improve outcomes in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention remain an unmet clinical need. The study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of G2-DESs and BP-DESs in patients with and without DM in a single center in China.MethodsA total of 7666 consecutive patients who exclusively had G2-DES or BP-DES implantation throughout 2013 in our center were studied. The primary efficacy endpoint was any target lesion revascularization (TLR), whereas the primary safety endpoint was a composite of death or myocardial infarction (MI) at 2-year follow-up.ResultsG2-DESs had a similar occurrence of death, non-fatal MI, TLR, stroke, and stent thrombosis compared with BP-DESs in patients with DM (all P?>?0.05). The incidence of TVR and TLR was lower for G2-DESs than for BP-DESs in patients without DM (3.2% vs. 5.1%, P?=?0.002; 2.2% vs. 4.5%, P?<?0.001, respectively). Kaplan-Meier analysis also showed better TVR- and TLR-free survival rates for G2-DESs than for BP-DESs in patients without DM. Multivariate analysis showed that a BP-DES was an independent risk factor for TLR (hazard ratio 1.963, 95% confidence interval 1.390-2.772, P?<?0.001) in patients without DM, which was not predictive of other components of major adverse cardiac events (P?>?0.05).ConclusionsG2-DESs have better efficacy, represented by a reduced risk of TLR, and similar safety compared with BP-DESs in patients without DM. G2-DESs have similar efficacy and safety compared with BP-DESs in patients with DM at 2-year follow-up.
| S-EPMC6090623 | 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
Project description:Stent designs with ultrathin struts may further increase the procedural success of challenging lesion subsets. The objective of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of ultrathin strut, polymer-free sirolimus eluting stent (PF-SES) implantations in a large scale, unselected patient population.Adult patients underwent percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) with a thin-strut PF-SES. Data from two all-comers observational studies having the same protocol (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT02629575 and NCT02905214) were pooled. The accumulated target lesion revascularization (TLR) rate at 9-12 months was the primary endpoint. All dual antiplatelet therapy strategies according to the applicable guidelines were permissible.In total, 7243 patients were prospectively enrolled for PCI with PF-SES in stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Major risk factors in the overall cohort were diabetes (37.3%), ST elevation myocardial infarction (18.1%) and non-ST myocardial infarction (24.6%). The follow-up rate was 88.6% in the overall population. The TLR rate in the overall cohort was 2.2% whereas definite/probable stent thrombosis (ST) occurred in 0.7%. In patients with in-stent restenosis lesions, the major adverse cardiac events rate was 6.4% whereas the corresponding rate for isolated left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease was highest with 6.7% followed by patients with culprit lesions in vein bypasses (VB, 7.1%). The mortality rate in patients treated in VB lesions was highest with 5.4%, followed by the isolated LMCA subgroup (3.4%) and ACS (2.6%).PCI with PF-SES in an unselected patient population, is associated with low clinical event and ST rates. Furthermore, PF-SES angioplasty in niche indications demonstrated favorable safety and efficacy outcomes with high procedural success rates.
| S-EPMC7034709 | 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