Impact of vessel size on angiographic and clinical outcomes of revascularization with biolimus-eluting stent with biodegradable polymer and sirolimus-eluting stent with durable polymer the LEADERS trial substudy

OBJECTIVES: We assessed the impact of vessel size on outcomes of stenting with biolimus-eluting degradable polymer stent (BES) and sirolimus-eluting permanent polymer stent (SES) within a randomized multicenter trial (LEADERS). BACKGROUND: Stenting of small vessels might be associated with higher rates of adverse events. METHODS: "All-comer" patients (n = 1,707) were randomized to BES and SES. Post-hoc-stratified analysis of angiographic and clinical outcomes at 9 months and 1 year, respectively, was performed for vessels with reference diameter 2.75 mm. RESULTS: Of 1,707 patients, 429 patients in the BES group with 576 lesions and 434 patients in the SES group with 557 lesions had only small vessels treated (50.6% of the patient cohort). In patients with small vessels there was no significant difference in overall major adverse cardiac events (MACE) rate (12.1% vs. 11.8%; p = 0.89) or target lesion revascularization (TLR) rate (9.6% vs. 7.4%; p = 0.26) between BES and SES. The MACE and TLR rates in the small-vessel patient population were higher than in the large-vessel population. The TLR rate was 9.6% versus 2.6%, and MACE rate was 12.1% versus 7.1% for small versus large vessels in the BES arm (TLR: hazard ratio [HR] = 3.724, p = 0.0013; MACE: HR = 1.720, p = 0.0412). In the SES arm, TLR was 7.4% versus 5.1%, and MACE was 11.8% versus 10.3% in small versus large vessels (TLR: HR = 1.435, p = 0.2594; MACE: HR = 1.149, p = 0.5546). CONCLUSIONS: Prevalence of small vessel disease is high in an "all-comer" population with higher TLR and MACE rates. The BES and SES seem equivalent in treatment outcomes of small vessels in this "all-comer" patient population.

Biolimus-eluting biodegradable polymer versus sirolimus-eluting permanent polymer stent performance in long lesions: results from the LEADERS multicentre trial substudy

AIMS: Lesion length remains a predictor of target lesion revascularisation and results of long lesion stenting remain poor. Sirolimus-eluting stents have been shown to perform better than paclitaxel eluting stents in long lesions. In this substudy of the LEADERS trial, we compared the performance of biolimus biodegradable polymer (BES) and sirolimus permanent polymer stents (SES) in long lesions. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 1,707 'all-comer' patients were randomly allocated to treatment with BES and SES. A stratified analysis of angiographic and clinical outcomes at nine months and one year, respectively was performed for vessels with lesion length <20 mm versus >20 mm (as measured by quantitative angiography).Of 1,707 patients, 592 BES patients with 831 lesions and 619 SES patients with 876 lesions had only short lesions treated. One hundred and fifty-three BES patients with 166 lesions and 151 SES patients with 162 lesions had long lesions. There were no significant differences in baseline clinical characteristics, except for higher number of patients with long lesions presenting with acute myocardial infarction in both stent groups. Long lesions tended to have lower MLD and greater percent diameter stenosis at baseline than short lesions. Late loss was greater for long lesions than short lesions. There was no statistically significant difference in late loss between BES and SES stents (0.32+/-0.69 vs 0.24+/-0.57, p=0.59). Binary in-segment restenosis was present in 23.2% versus 13.1% of long lesions treated with BES and SES, respectively (p=0.042). In patients with long lesions, the overall MACE rate was similar for BES and SES (17% vs 14.6%; p=0.62). There was a trend towards higher overall TLR rate with BES (12.4 % vs 6.0%; HR=2.06; p=0.07) and clinically driven TLR (10.5% vs 5.3%: HR 1.94; p=0.13). Rates of definite stent thrombosis were 3.3% in the long lesion group and 1.3-1.7 % in the short lesion group. CONCLUSIONS: BES and SES appear similar with respect to MACE in long lesions in this "all-comer" patient population. However, long lesions tended to have a higher rate of binary in-segment restenosis and TLR following BES than SES treatment.

Improved safety and reduction in stent thrombosis associated with biodegradable polymer-based biolimus-eluting stents versus durable polymer-based sirolimus-eluting stents in patients with coronary artery disease: final 5-year report of the LEADERS (Limus Eluted From A Durable Versus ERodable Stent Coating) randomized, noninferiority trial

OBJECTIVES This study sought to report the final 5 years follow-up of the landmark LEADERS (Limus Eluted From A Durable Versus ERodable Stent Coating) trial. BACKGROUND The LEADERS trial is the first randomized study to evaluate biodegradable polymer-based drug-eluting stents (DES) against durable polymer DES. METHODS The LEADERS trial was a 10-center, assessor-blind, noninferiority, "all-comers" trial (N = 1,707). All patients were centrally randomized to treatment with either biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stents (BES) (n = 857) or durable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) (n = 850). The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), or clinically indicated target vessel revascularization within 9 months. Secondary endpoints included extending the primary endpoint to 5 years and stent thrombosis (ST) (Academic Research Consortium definition). Analysis was by intention to treat. RESULTS At 5 years, the BES was noninferior to SES for the primary endpoint (186 [22.3%] vs. 216 [26.1%], rate ratio [RR]: 0.83 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.68 to 1.02], p for noninferiority <0.0001, p for superiority = 0.069). The BES was associated with a significant reduction in the more comprehensive patient-orientated composite endpoint of all-cause death, any MI, and all-cause revascularization (297 [35.1%] vs. 339 [40.4%], RR: 0.84 [95% CI: 0.71 to 0.98], p for superiority = 0.023). A significant reduction in very late definite ST from 1 to 5 years was evident with the BES (n = 5 [0.7%] vs. n = 19 [2.5%], RR: 0.26 [95% CI: 0.10 to 0.68], p = 0.003), corresponding to a significant reduction in ST-associated clinical events (primary endpoint) over the same time period (n = 3 of 749 vs. n = 14 of 738, RR: 0.20 [95% CI: 0.06 to 0.71], p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS The safety benefit of the biodegradable polymer BES, compared with the durable polymer SES, was related to a significant reduction in very late ST (>1 year) and associated composite clinical outcomes. (Limus Eluted From A Durable Versus ERodable Stent Coating [LEADERS] trial; NCT00389220).

Ultrathin strut biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent for percutaneous coronary revascularisation (BIOSCIENCE): a randomised, single-blind, non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND Refinements in stent design affecting strut thickness, surface polymer, and drug release have improved clinical outcomes of drug-eluting stents. We aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of a novel, ultrathin strut cobalt-chromium stent releasing sirolimus from a biodegradable polymer with a thin strut durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent. METHODS We did a randomised, single-blind, non-inferiority trial with minimum exclusion criteria at nine hospitals in Switzerland. We randomly assigned (1:1) patients aged 18 years or older with chronic stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention to treatment with biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents or durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents. Randomisation was via a central web-based system and stratified by centre and presence of ST segment elevation myocardial infarction. Patients and outcome assessors were masked to treatment allocation, but treating physicians were not. The primary endpoint, target lesion failure, was a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically-indicated target lesion revascularisation at 12 months. A margin of 3·5% was defined for non-inferiority of the biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent compared with the durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent. Analysis was by intention to treat. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01443104. FINDINGS Between Feb 24, 2012, and May 22, 2013, we randomly assigned 2119 patients with 3139 lesions to treatment with sirolimus-eluting stents (1063 patients, 1594 lesions) or everolimus-eluting stents (1056 patients, 1545 lesions). 407 (19%) patients presented with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Target lesion failure with biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (69 cases; 6·5%) was non-inferior to durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (70 cases; 6·6%) at 12 months (absolute risk difference -0·14%, upper limit of one-sided 95% CI 1·97%, p for non-inferiority <0·0004). No significant differences were noted in rates of definite stent thrombosis (9 [0·9%] vs 4 [0·4%], rate ratio [RR] 2·26, 95% CI 0·70-7·33, p=0·16). In pre-specified stratified analyses of the primary endpoint, biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents were associated with improved outcome compared with durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents in the subgroup of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (7 [3·3%] vs 17 [8·7%], RR 0·38, 95% CI 0·16-0·91, p=0·024, p for interaction=0·014). INTERPRETATION In a patient population with minimum exclusion criteria and high adherence to dual antiplatelet therapy, biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents were non-inferior to durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents for the combined safety and efficacy outcome target lesion failure at 12 months. The noted benefit in the subgroup of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction needs further study. FUNDING Clinical Trials Unit, University of Bern, and Biotronik, Bülach, Switzerland.

Biolimus-eluting stent with biodegradable polymer improves clinical outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction

OBJECTIVE To investigate clinical outcomes of coronary intervention using a biolimus-eluting stent (BES) compared with a sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in the Limus Eluted from A Durable versus ERodable Stent (LEADERS) coating trial at the final 5-year follow-up. METHODS The LEADERS trial is a multicentre all-comer study, where patients (n=1707) were randomised to percutaneous intervention with either BES containing biodegradable polymer or SES containing durable polymer. Out of 1707 patients enrolled in this trial, 573 patients had percutaneous coronary intervention for AMI (BES=280, SES=293) and were included in the current analysis. Patient-oriented composite endpoint (POCE, including all death, all myocardial infarction (MI) and all revascularisations), major adverse cardiac events (MACE, including cardiac death, MI and clinically indicated target vessel revascularisation) and stent thrombosis were assessed at 5-year follow-up. RESULTS The baseline clinical, angiographic and procedural characteristics were well matched between BES and SES groups. In all patients with AMI, coronary intervention with a BES, compared with SES, significantly reduced POCE (28.9% vs 42.3%; relative risk (RR) 0.61, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.82, p=0.001) at 5-year follow-up. There was also a reduction in MACE rate in the BES group (18.2% vs 25.9%; RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.95, p=0.025); however, there was no difference in cardiac death and stent thrombosis. In patients with ST-elevation MI (STEMI), coronary intervention with BES significantly reduced POCE (24.4% vs 39.3%; RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.85, p=0.006), MACE (12.6% vs 25.0%; RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.83, p=0.008) and cardiac death (3.0% vs 11.4%; RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.75, p=0.007), along with a trend towards reduction in definite stent thrombosis (3.7% vs 8.6%; RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.18, p=0.088), compared with SES. CONCLUSIONS BES, compared with SES, significantly improved safety and efficacy outcomes in patients with AMI, especially those with STEMI, at 5-year follow-up. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER NCT 00389220.

Drug-eluting stents compared to bare-metal stents improve short-term survival in patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention: a nationwide prospective analysis of the AMIS Plus registry

BACKGROUND Recently, it has been suggested that the type of stent used in primary percutaneous coronary interventions (pPCI) might impact upon the outcomes of patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Indeed, drug-eluting stents (DES) reduce neointimal hyperplasia compared to bare-metal stents (BMS). Moreover, the later generation DES, due to its biocompatible polymer coatings and stent design, allows for greater deliverability, improved endothelial healing and therefore less restenosis and thrombus generation. However, data on the safety and performance of DES in large cohorts of AMI is still limited. AIM To compare the early outcome of DES vs. BMS in AMI patients. METHODS This was a prospective, multicentre analysis containing patients from 64 hospitals in Switzerland with AMI undergoing pPCI between 2005 and 2013. The primary endpoint was in-hospital all-cause death, whereas the secondary endpoint included a composite measure of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) of death, reinfarction, and cerebrovascular event. RESULTS Of 20,464 patients with a primary diagnosis of AMI and enrolled to the AMIS Plus registry, 15,026 were referred for pPCI and 13,442 received stent implantation. 10,094 patients were implanted with DES and 2,260 with BMS. The overall in-hospital mortality was significantly lower in patients with DES compared to those with BMS implantation (2.6% vs. 7.1%,p < 0.001). The overall in-hospital MACCE after DES was similarly lower compared to BMS (3.5% vs. 7.6%, p < 0.001). After adjusting for all confounding covariables, DES remained an independent predictor for lower in-hospital mortality (OR 0.51,95% CI 0.40-0.67, p < 0.001). Since groups differed as regards to baseline characteristics and pharmacological treatment, we performed a propensity score matching (PSM) to limit potential biases. Even after the PSM, DES implantation remained independently associated with a reduced risk of in-hospital mortality (adjusted OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.39-0.76, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS In unselected patients from a nationwide, real-world cohort, we found DES, compared to BMS, was associated with lower in-hospital mortality and MACCE. The identification of optimal treatment strategies of patients with AMI needs further randomised evaluation; however, our findings suggest a potential benefit with DES.

A computer-assisted microscopic analysis of bone tissue developed inside a polyactive plymer implanted into an equine articular surface

One of the most promising applications for the restoration of small or moderately sized focal articular lesions is mosaicplasty (MP). Although recurrent hemarthrosis is a rare complication after MP, recently, various strategies have been designed to find an effective filling material to prevent postoperative bleeding from the donor site. The porous biodegradable polymer Polyactive (PA; a polyethylene glycol terephthalate - polybutylene terephthalate copolymer) represents a promising solution in this respect. A histological evaluation of the longterm PA-filled donor sites obtained from 10 experimental horses was performed. In this study, attention was primarily focused on the bone tissue developed in the plug. A computer-assisted image analysis and quantitative polarized light microscopic measurements of decalcified, longitudinally sectioned, dimethylmethylene blue (DMMB)- and picrosirius red (PS) stained sections revealed that the coverage area of the bone trabecules in the PA-filled donor tunnels was substantially (25%) enlarged compared to the neighboring cancellous bone. For this quantification, identical ROIs (regions of interest) were used and compared. The birefringence retardation values were also measured with a polarized light microscope using monochromatic light. Identical retardation values could be recorded from the bone trabeculae developed in the PA and in the neighboring bone, which indicates that the collagen orientation pattern does not differ significantly among these bone trabecules. Based on our new data, we speculate that PA promotes bone formation, and some of the currently identified degradation products of PA may enhance osteo-conduction and osteoinduction inside the donor canal.

Biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents for primary percutaneous coronary revascularisation of acute myocardial infarction.

AIMS Our aim was to compare the safety and efficacy of a novel, ultrathin strut, biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (BP-SES) with a thin strut, durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent (DP-EES) in a pre-specified subgroup of patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) enrolled in the BIOSCIENCE trial. METHODS AND RESULTS The BIOSCIENCE trial is an investigator-initiated, single-blind, multicentre, randomised non-inferiority trial (NCT01443104). Randomisation was stratified according to the presence or absence of STEMI. The primary endpoint, target lesion failure (TLF), is a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically indicated target lesion revascularisation within 12 months. Between February 2012 and May 2013, 407 STEMI patients were randomly assigned to treatment with BP-SES or DP-EES. At one year, TLF occurred in seven (3.4%) patients treated with BP-SES and 17 (8.8%) patients treated with DP-EES (RR 0.38, 95% CI: 0.16-0.91, p=0.024). Rates of cardiac death were 1.5% in the BP-SES group and 4.7% in the DP-EES group (RR 0.31, 95% CI: 0.08-1.14, p=0.062); rates of target vessel myocardial infarction were 0.5% and 2.6% (RR 0.18, 95% CI: 0.02-1.57, p=0.082), respectively, and rates of clinically indicated target lesion revascularisation were 1.5% in the BP-SES group versus 2.1% in the DP-EES group (RR 0.69, 95% CI: 0.16-3.10, p=0.631). There was no difference in the risk of definite stent thrombosis. CONCLUSIONS In this pre-specified subgroup analysis, BP-SES was associated with a lower rate of target lesion failure at one year compared to DP-EES in STEMI patients. These findings require confirmation in a dedicated STEMI trial.

Efficacy and safety of a novel bioabsorbable polymer-coated, everolimus-eluting coronary stent: the EVOLVE II Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND Drug eluting stents with durable polymers may be associated with hypersensitivity, delayed healing, and incomplete endothelialization, which may contribute to late/very late stent thrombosis and the need for prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy. Bioabsorbable polymers may facilitate stent healing, thus enhancing clinical safety. The SYNERGY stent is a thin-strut, platinum chromium metal alloy platform with an ultrathin bioabsorbable Poly(D,L-lactide-co-glycolide) abluminal everolimus-eluting polymer. We performed a multicenter, randomized controlled trial for regulatory approval to determine noninferiority of the SYNERGY stent to the durable polymer PROMUS Element Plus everolimus-eluting stent. METHODS AND RESULTS Patients (n=1684) scheduled to undergo percutaneous coronary intervention for non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndrome or stable coronary artery disease were randomized to receive either the SYNERGY stent or the PROMUS Element Plus stent. The primary end point of 12-month target lesion failure was observed in 6.7% of SYNERGY and 6.5% PROMUS Element Plus treated subjects by intention-to-treat (P=0.83 for difference; P=0.0005 for noninferiority), and 6.4% in both the groups by per-protocol analysis (P=0.0003 for noninferiority). Clinically indicated revascularization of the target lesion or definite/probable stent thrombosis were observed in 2.6% versus 1.7% (P=0.21) and 0.4% versus 0.6% (P=0.50) of SYNERGY versus PROMUS Element Plus-treated subjects, respectively. CONCLUSIONS In this randomized trial, the SYNERGY bioabsorbable polymer everolimus-eluting stent was noninferior to the PROMUS Element Plus everolimus-eluting stent with respect to 1-year target lesion failure. These data support the relative safety and efficacy of SYNERGY in a broad range of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01665053.