An optical coherence tomography study of a biodegradable vs. durable polymer-coated limus-eluting stent: a LEADERS trial sub-study

Incomplete endothelialization has been found to be associated with late stent thrombosis, a rare but devastating phenomenon, more frequent after drug-eluting stent implantation. Optical coherence tomography (OCT) has 10 times greater resolution than intravascular ultrasound and thus appears to be a valuable modality for the assessment of stent strut coverage. The LEADERS trial was a multi-centre, randomized comparison of a biolimus-eluting stent (BES) with biodegradable polymer with a sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) using a durable polymer. This study sought to evaluate tissue coverage and apposition of stents using OCT in a group of patients from the randomized LEADERS trial.

Coronary optical frequency domain imaging (OFDI) for in vivo evaluation of stent healing: comparison with light and electron microscopy

Coronary late stent thrombosis, a rare but devastating complication, remains an important concern in particular with the increasing use of drug-eluting stents. Notably, pathological studies have indicated that the proportion of uncovered coronary stent struts represents the best morphometric predictor of late stent thrombosis. Intracoronary optical frequency domain imaging (OFDI), a novel second-generation optical coherence tomography (OCT)-derived imaging method, may allow rapid imaging for the detection of coronary stent strut coverage with a markedly higher precision when compared with intravascular ultrasound, due to a microscopic resolution (axial approximately 10-20 microm), and at a substantially increased speed of image acquisition when compared with first-generation time-domain OCT. However, a histological validation of coronary OFDI for the evaluation of stent strut coverage in vivo is urgently needed. Hence, the present study was designed to evaluate the capacity of coronary OFDI by electron (SEM) and light microscopy (LM) analysis to detect and evaluate stent strut coverage in a porcine model.

The three year follow-up of the randomised "all-comers" trial of a biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stent versus permanent polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (LEADERS)

Aims: The current study reports clinical outcomes at three year follow-up of the LEADERS clinical trial which was the first all-comers trial comparing a new generation biodegradable polymer biolimus drug-eluting stent (BES) with the first generation permanent polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (SES). Methods and results: One thousand seven hundred and seven patients were randomised to unrestricted use of BES (n=857) or SES (n=850) in an all-comers population. Three year follow-up was available in 95% of the patients, 812 treated with BES and 809 treated with SES. At three years, BES remains non-inferior to SES for the primary endpoint of major adverse cardiac events (composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), or clinically-indicated target vessel revascularisation (CI-TVR) (BES 15.7% versus SES 19%; HR 0.82 CI 0.65-1.03; p=0.09). The MACE Kaplan Meier event curves increasingly diverge with the difference in events increasing from 1.4% to 2.4% and 3.3% at 1, 2 and 3 years, respectively in favour of BES. The rate of cardiac death was non-significantly lower 4.2% versus 5.2% (HR=0.81 CI 0.52-1.26; p=0.34) and the rate of myocardial infarction was equivalent 7.2% versus 7.1% (HR 1.01 CI 0.70-1.44; p=0.97) for BES versus SES, respectively. Thus BES was non-inferior to SES in all the safety endpoints. Clinically-indicated TVR occurred in 9.4% of BES treated patients versus 11.1% of SES treated patients (HR 0.84 CI 0.62-1.13; p=0.25). Rates of definite stent thrombosis were 2.2% for BES and 2.9% for SES (HR 0.78 CI 0.43-1.43; p=0.43), with the event rate increase of 0.2% from one to three years for BES and 0.9% for SES. For patients presenting with ST-elevation myocardial infarction BES was superior to SES in reducing MACE. Conclusions: The findings of the three year follow-up support the claim that the biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stent has equivalent safety and efficacy to permanent polymer sirolimus-eluting stent in an all-comers patient population. Its performance is superior in some subpopulations such as in ST-elevation MI patients and event rates for BES are overall lower than for SES with a trend toward increasing divergence of outcomes over three years. - See more at: http://www.pcronline.com/eurointervention/42nd_issue/125/#sthash.E5HhMQ4a.dpuf

Comparison of biolimus eluted from an erodible stent coating with bare metal stents in acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (COMFORTABLE AMI trial): rationale and design

Compared with bare metal stents (BMS), early generation drug-eluting stents (DES) reduce the risk of revascularisation in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) at the expense of an increased risk of very late stent thrombosis (ST). Durable polymer coatings for controlled drug release have been identified as a potential trigger for these late adverse events and this has led to the development of newer generation DES with durable and biodegradable polymer surface coatings with improved biocompatibility. In a recent all-comers trial, biolimus-eluting stents with a biodegradable polymer surface coating were found to reduce the risk of very late ST by 80% compared with sirolimus-eluting stents with durable polymer, which also translated into a lower risk of cardiac death and myocardial infarction (MI) beyond one year.

Impact of incomplete stent apposition on long-term clinical outcome after drug-eluting stent implantation

Late acquired incomplete stent apposition (ISA) is more common after drug-eluting stent (DES) than bare metal stent (BMS) implantation and has been associated with vascular hypersensitivity and stent thrombosis (ST). We investigated the impact of incidentally discovered ISA as assessed by intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) 8 months after DES implantation on the long-term clinical outcome.

Coronary stent choice in patients with acute myocardial infarction

A prompt reperfusion with primary percutaneous coronary intervention represents the current gold standard treatment for patients with acute myocardial infarction. In this setting, coronary stents have been shown to improve outcomes compared to plain angioplasty and are routinely used. However, the stent selection among patients with acute myocardial infarction is still a matter of some debate. An increased risk of very late (>1-year) stent thrombosis has been associated with the use of early-generation drug-eluting stents (DES), leading to concerns regarding the long-term safety of these devices. Newer-generation DES were developed with the aim of addressing this safety issue, and were recently investigated in a few randomized studies in patients with acute myocardial infarction. The objective of the present review is to summarize the accumulated evidence, to guide the stent selection in patients with acute myocardial infarction.

[Treatment after drug-eluting stent placement]

The use of drug-eluting stents (DES) in percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) decreased the rate of restenosis and hence the need for repeat revascularization by 50-71%. DES have changed PCI. DES allow successful revascularization of anatomically challenging lesions, such as long, thin vessels, bifurcation lesions, and chronic total occlusions. A rare, but severe complication of coronary stenting is stent thrombosis, a partial or total thrombotic occlusion of the stent. The use of DES for increasingly more complex lesions, the prothrombotic effect of the antiproliferative substances, and a delayed endothelialization of DES all potentially prolong and increase the risk of stent thrombosis. Dual antiplatelet therapy for 1 year is therefore recommended after DES placement. There is currently no evidence for the efficacy and safety of routine dual antiplatelet therapy beyond 1 year. It is also recommended postponing elective surgery for 1 year and, if surgery cannot be deferred, considering continuation of acetylsalicylic acid during the perioperative period in high-risk patients with DES.

Thrombosis and drug-eluting stents: an objective appraisal

Stent thrombosis (ST) after percutaneous coronary intervention has been the focus of intense interest because of its attendant morbidity and mortality. There is controversy about several facets of the problem. These include the frequency of ST with drug-eluting stents (DES) versus bare-metal stents (BMS), the timing of the event, clinical consequences, risk factors, adjunctive therapy, and new preventive approaches. Information has accrued rapidly from several sources, including randomized controlled clinical trials of DES versus BMS in carefully selected subsets of patients and registry experiences in larger patient groups, which provide a more universal real-world picture. The results from these different data sets are not completely concordant. However, several general conclusions can be made: 1) ST is an infrequent but very severe complication of both BMS and DES; 2) at the present time, during 4 years of follow-up from randomized controlled trials that compared DES and BMS, there is no apparent difference in overall ST frequency, although the time course for occurrence appears to differ, with a relative numeric excess of ST late after DES implant; 3) despite this relative imbalance, no differences in the end points of death or death and infarction between DES and BMS are observed; 4) longer-term follow-up of these patients as well as larger angiographic and clinical subsets of patients who receive this technology outside of randomized trials are required to fully study this issue; and 5) advances in stent platforms for drug elution as well as adjunctive pharmacologic therapy are being evaluated to enhance long-term safety.

Clinical end points in coronary stent trials: a case for standardized definitions

BACKGROUND: Although most clinical trials of coronary stents have measured nominally identical safety and effectiveness end points, differences in definitions and timing of assessment have created confusion in interpretation. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Academic Research Consortium is an informal collaboration between academic research organizations in the United States and Europe. Two meetings, in Washington, DC, in January 2006 and in Dublin, Ireland, in June 2006, sponsored by the Academic Research Consortium and including representatives of the US Food and Drug Administration and all device manufacturers who were working with the Food and Drug Administration on drug-eluting stent clinical trial programs, were focused on consensus end point definitions for drug-eluting stent evaluations. The effort was pursued with the objective to establish consistency among end point definitions and provide consensus recommendations. On the basis of considerations from historical legacy to key pathophysiological mechanisms and relevance to clinical interpretability, criteria for assessment of death, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization, and stent thrombosis were developed. The broadly based consensus end point definitions in this document may be usefully applied or recognized for regulatory and clinical trial purposes. CONCLUSION: Although consensus criteria will inevitably include certain arbitrary features, consensus criteria for clinical end points provide consistency across studies that can facilitate the evaluation of safety and effectiveness of these devices.

Coronary aneurysm formation in a patient early after everolimus-eluting stent implantation

Coronary aneurysm formation after drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation is a rare complication with late stent thrombosis as a potentially fatal sequela. One possible mechanism involved in aneurysm formation is thought to be late-acquired stent malapposition due to a local inflammatory response to the polymer and/or the drug. Coronary aneurysm formation has been documented with sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents. We report a case of coronary aneurysm formation in a patient with an everolimus-eluting stent (EES; Xience(R) Abbott Vascular, Redwood City, California) relatively early (3 months) after stent implantation. This case illustrates that even with second-generation DES like the EES, which is thought to be highly biocompatible, there can be adverse reactions to the polymer and/or to the drug.

Impact of drug-eluting stent selection on long-term clinical outcomes in patients treated for unprotected left main coronary artery disease: the sirolimus vs paclitaxel drug-eluting stent for left main registry (SP-DELFT)

AIM: To compare the long-term relative efficacy and safety of SES and PES in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) disease and to evaluate the role of lesion location and stenting technique in determining outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: From April 2002 to April 2004, 288 consecutive patients who underwent elective PCI with DES implantation for de novo lesions on ULMCA have been retrospectively selected and analyzed in seven European and US tertiary care centers. All patients had a minimum follow-up of 3 years. SES was used in 152 patients while 136 received PES. Isolated ostial-shaft disease was present in 27% of patients. Distal LM disease (73%) was treated with single and double stent approach in 29.5% and 43.4% of patients respectively. After 3 years, rates of survival free from any of the events investigated, were independent from lesion location and stenting approach and did not differ significantly between SES and PES groups. Freedom from MACE (SES vs. PES) was 76.3% vs. 83.1% in the ostial/shaft group, 80.3% vs. 72.8% in the distal-single stent group and 67.1% vs. 66.2% in the distal-double stent group. Definite stent thrombosis occurred only in 1(0.3%) patient at 439 days. CONCLUSIONS: In elective patients who underwent PCI for de novo lesions in the ostium, shaft or distal ULMCA, long-term clinical outcomes with SES and PES use were similar independently of lesion location and stenting technique.

Longest available clinical outcomes after drug-eluting stent implantation for unprotected left main coronary artery disease: the DELFT (Drug Eluting stent for LeFT main) Registry

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to investigate the long-term safety and efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation for unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) disease. BACKGROUND: Long-term clinical outcomes after DES implantation for ULMCA disease have not yet been ascertained. METHODS: From April 2002 to April 2004, 358 consecutive patients who underwent PCI with DES implantation for de novo lesions on ULMCA were retrospectively selected and analyzed in 7 European and U.S. tertiary care centers. No patients were excluded from the analysis, and all patients had a minimum follow-up of 3 years. RESULTS: Technical success rate was 100%. Procedural success rate was 89.6%. After 3 years, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE)-free survival in the whole population was 73.5%. According to the Academic Research Consortium definitions, cardiac death occurred in 9.2% of patients, and reinfarction, target lesion revascularization (TLR), and target vessel revascularization (TVR) occurred in 8.6%, 5.8%, and 14.2% of patients, respectively. Definite stent thrombosis occurred in 2 patients (specifically at 0 and 439 days). In elective patients, the 3-year MACE-free survival was 74.2%, with mortality, reinfarction, TLR, and TVR rates of 6.2%, 8.3%, 6.6%, and 16%, respectively. In the emergent group the 3-year MACE-free survival was 68.2%, with mortality, reinfarction, TLR, and TVR rates of 21.4%, 10%, 2.8%, and 7.1%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Routine DES implantation in ULMCA disease seems encouraging, with favorable long-term clinical results.

Rotational atherectomy followed by drug-eluting stent implantation (Rota-DES): a rational approach for complex calcified coronary lesions

Rotational atherectomy has been regaining interest over the last couple of years after it almost has disappeared from most interventional catheterization laboratories for several years due to failure to prove its original concept of improving long term results of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) as was repeatedly shown in studies in the 1990s. Its revival coupled the introduction of drug-eluting stents (DES); these devices have led to treating much more complex lesions and high-risk patients by PCI. However, real-world experience suggested that off-label use of DES is associated with a higher rate of early and late stent thrombosis. Therefore, more attention is now being paid to the initial implantation technique of DES including aggressive lesion preparation to facilitate stent delivery and expansion. The limited studies with rot-ablation and DES showed promising results with no long term safety concerns. In these studies, a subtle observation was made suggesting that rot-ablation prior to DES implantation in such lesions may have an add-on effect on long term outcome compared to DES alone. An ongoing multicenter study is investigating such effect among complex calcified coronary lesions. Even if this additive benefit does not prove true, rot-ablation remains an efficient tool for preparing certain lesions to facilitate effective and safe DES implantation. Therefore, interventional training programs should focus on this difficult technique to bridge the gap of experience which resulted from neglecting it for several years. In this regard, dedicated courses at experienced sites as well as medical simulation may be appropriate.

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.

Comparison of Newer-Generation Drug-Eluting With Bare-Metal Stents in Patients With Acute ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Pooled Analysis of the EXAMINATION (clinical Evaluation of the Xience-V stent in Acute Myocardial INfArcTION) and COMFORTABLE-AMI (Comparison of Biolimus Eluted From an Erodible Stent Coating With Bare Metal Stents in Acute ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction) Trials

OBJECTIVES This study sought to study the efficacy and safety of newer-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) compared with bare-metal stents (BMS) in an appropriately powered population of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). BACKGROUND Among patients with STEMI, early generation DES improved efficacy but not safety compared with BMS. Newer-generation DES, everolimus-eluting stents, and biolimus A9-eluting stents, have been shown to improve clinical outcomes compared with early generation DES. METHODS Individual patient data for 2,665 STEMI patients enrolled in 2 large-scale randomized clinical trials comparing newer-generation DES with BMS were pooled: 1,326 patients received a newer-generation DES (everolimus-eluting stent or biolimus A9-eluting stent), whereas the remaining 1,329 patients received a BMS. Random-effects models were used to assess differences between the 2 groups for the device-oriented composite endpoint of cardiac death, target-vessel reinfarction, and target-lesion revascularization and the patient-oriented composite endpoint of all-cause death, any infarction, and any revascularization at 1 year. RESULTS Newer-generation DES substantially reduce the risk of the device-oriented composite endpoint compared with BMS at 1 year (relative risk [RR]: 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.43 to 0.79; p = 0.0004). Similarly, the risk of the patient-oriented composite endpoint was lower with newer-generation DES than BMS (RR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.63 to 0.96; p = 0.02). Differences in favor of newer-generation DES were driven by both a lower risk of repeat revascularization of the target lesion (RR: 0.33; 95% CI: 0.20 to 0.52; p < 0.0001) and a lower risk of target-vessel infarction (RR: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.14 to 0.92; p = 0.03). Newer-generation DES also reduced the risk of definite stent thrombosis (RR: 0.35; 95% CI: 0.16 to 0.75; p = 0.006) compared with BMS. CONCLUSIONS Among patients with STEMI, newer-generation DES improve safety and efficacy compared with BMS throughout 1 year. It remains to be determined whether the differences in favor of newer-generation DES are sustained during long-term follow-up.