Everolimus-eluting bioresorbable stent vs. durable polymer everolimus-eluting metallic stent in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: results of the randomized ABSORB ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction-TROFI II trial.

AIMS Patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) feature thrombus-rich lesions with large necrotic core, which are usually associated with delayed arterial healing and impaired stent-related outcomes. The use of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (Absorb) has the potential to overcome these limitations owing to restoration of native vessel lumen and physiology at long term. The purpose of this randomized trial was to compare the arterial healing response at short term, as a surrogate for safety and efficacy, between the Absorb and the metallic everolimus-eluting stent (EES) in patients with STEMI. METHODS AND RESULTS ABSORB-STEMI TROFI II was a multicentre, single-blind, non-inferiority, randomized controlled trial. Patients with STEMI who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention were randomly allocated 1:1 to treatment with the Absorb or EES. The primary endpoint was the 6-month optical frequency domain imaging healing score (HS) based on the presence of uncovered and/or malapposed stent struts and intraluminal filling defects. Main secondary endpoint included the device-oriented composite endpoint (DOCE) according to the Academic Research Consortium definition. Between 06 January 2014 and 21 September 2014, 191 patients (Absorb [n = 95] or EES [n = 96]; mean age 58.6 years old; 17.8% females) were enrolled at eight centres. At 6 months, HS was lower in the Absorb arm when compared with EES arm [1.74 (2.39) vs. 2.80 (4.44); difference (90% CI) -1.06 (-1.96, -0.16); Pnon-inferiority <0.001]. Device-oriented composite endpoint was also comparably low between groups (1.1% Absorb vs. 0% EES). One case of definite subacute stent thrombosis occurred in the Absorb arm (1.1% vs. 0% EES; P = ns). CONCLUSION Stenting of culprit lesions with Absorb in the setting of STEMI resulted in a nearly complete arterial healing which was comparable with that of metallic EES at 6 months. These findings provide the basis for further exploration in clinically oriented outcome trials.

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.

Impact of body mass index on long-term clinical outcomes after second-generation drug eluting stent implantation: Insights from the international global RESOLUTE program

BACKGROUND An increased body mass index (BMI) is associated with a high risk of cardiovascular disease and reduction in life expectancy. However, several studies reported improved clinical outcomes in obese patients treated for cardiovascular diseases. The aim of the present study is to investigate the impact of BMI on long-term clinical outcomes after implantation of zotarolimus eluting stents. METHODS Individual patient data were pooled from the RESOLUTE Clinical Program comprising five trials worldwide. The study population was sorted according to BMI tertiles and clinical outcomes were evaluated at 2-year follow-up. RESULTS Data from a total of 5,127 patients receiving the R-ZES were included in the present study. BMI tertiles were as follow: I tertile (≤ 25.95 kg/m(2) -Low or normal weight) 1,727 patients; II tertile (>25.95 ≤ 29.74 kg/m(2) -overweight) 1,695 patients, and III tertile (>29.74 kg/m(2) -obese) 1,705 patients. At 2-years follow-up no difference was found for patients with high BMI (III tertile) compared with patients with normal or low BMI (I tertile) in terms of target lesion failure (I-III tertile, HR [95% CI] = 0.89 [0.69, 1.14], P = 0.341; major adverse cardiac events (I-III tertile, HR [95% CI] = 0.90 [0.72, 1.14], P = 0.389; cardiac death (I-III tertile, HR [95% CI] = 1.20 [0.73, 1.99], P = 0.476); myocardial infarction (I-III tertile, HR [95% CI] = 0.86 [0.55, 1.35], P = 0.509; clinically-driven target lesion revascularization (I-III tertile, HR [95% CI] = 0.75 [0.53, 1.08], P = 0.123; definite or probable stent thrombosis (I-III tertile, HR [95% CI] = 0.98 [0.49, 1.99], P = 0.964. CONCLUSIONS In the present study, the patients' body mass index was found to have no impact on long-term clinical outcomes after coronary artery interventions.

Ultrathin Strut Biodegradable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Durable-Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stent for Percutaneous Coronary Revascularization: 2-Year Results of the BIOSCIENCE Trial.

BACKGROUND No 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 RESULTS A 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). CONCLUSIONS Comparable safety and efficacy profiles of BP-SES and DP-EES were maintained throughout 2 years of follow-up. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01443104.

The impact of body mass index on the one year outcomes of patients treated by percutaneous coronary intervention with Biolimus- and Sirolimus-eluting stents (from the LEADERS Trial)

The aim of this analysis was to assess the effect of body mass index (BMI) on 1-year outcomes in patients enrolled in a contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention trial comparing a sirolimus-eluting stent with a durable polymer to a biolimus-eluting stent with a biodegradable polymer. A total of 1,707 patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention were randomized to treatment with either biolimus-eluting stents (n = 857) or sirolimus-eluting stents (n = 850). Patients were assigned to 1 of 3 groups according to BMI: normal (<25 kg/m(2)), overweight (25 to 30 kg/m(2)), or obese (>30 kg/m(2)). At 1 year, the incidence of the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and clinically justified target vessel revascularization was assessed. In addition, rates of clinically justified target lesion revascularization and stent thrombosis were assessed. Cox proportional-hazards analysis, adjusted for clinical differences, was used to develop models for 1-year mortality. Forty-five percent of the patients (n = 770) were overweight, 26% (n = 434) were obese, and 29% (n = 497) had normal BMIs. At 1-year follow-up, the cumulative rate of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and clinically justified target vessel revascularization was significantly higher in the obese group (8.7% in normal-weight, 11.3% in overweight, and 14.5% in obese patients, p = 0.01). BMI (hazard ratio 1.47, 95% confidence interval 1.02 to 2.14, p = 0.04) was an independent predictor of stent thrombosis. Stent type had no impact on the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and clinically justified target vessel revascularization at 1 year in the 3 BMI groups (hazard ratio 1.08, 95% confidence interval 0.63 to 1.83, p = 0.73). In conclusion, BMI was an independent predictor of major adverse cardiac events at 1-year clinical follow-up. The higher incidence of stent thrombosis in the obese group may suggest the need for a weight-adjusted dose of clopidogrel.

Pooled analysis of trials comparing titanium-nitride-oxide-coated stents with paclitaxel-eluting stents in patients undergoing coronary stenting

We performed a pooled analysis of three trials comparing titanium-nitride-oxide-coated bioactive stents (BAS) with paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) in 1,774 patients. All patients were followed for 12 months. The primary outcomes of interest were recurrent myocardial infarction (MI), death and target lesion revascularization (TLR). Secondary endpoints were stent thrombosis (ST) and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) including MI, death and TLR. There were 922 patients in the BAS group and 852 in the PES group. BAS significantly reduced the risk of recurrent MI (2.7% vs. 5.6%; risk ratio 0.50, 95% CI 0.31-0.81; p = 0.004) and MACE (8.9% vs. 12.6%; risk ratio 0.71, 95% CI 0.54-0.94; p = 0.02) during the 12 months of follow up. In contrast, the differences between BAS and PES were not statistically significant with respect to TLR (risk ratio 0.98, 95% CI 0.68-1.41), death (risk ratio 0.96, 95% CI 0.61-1.51) and definite ST (risk ratio 0.28, 95% CI 0.05-1.47). In conclusion, the results of this analysis suggest that BAS is effective in reducing TLR and improves clinical outcomes by reducing MI and MACE compared with PES.

Current status of drug-eluting stents

First-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) with controlled release of sirolimus or paclitaxel from durable polymers compared with bare-metal stents have been consistently shown to reduce the risk of repeat revascularization procedures due to restenosis. The superior efficacy was found across a wide range of patients and lesion subsets and persisted up to 5 years whereas similar outcomes have been observed in terms of death and myocardial infarction. Newer generation DES have been developed with the goal to further improve upon the safety profile of first-generation DES while maintaining efficacy. These platforms include DES with improved and more biocompatible durable polymers, DES using bioabsorbable polymers for drug release, DES with polymer-free drug release, and fully bioabsorbable DES. Newer generation DES with durable polymers such as zotarolimus-eluting or everolimus-eluting XIENCE V stents have been directly compared with first-generation DES. Most recent results of large scale clinical trials are encouraging in terms of similar or increased efficacy while improving safety by reducing the rates of myocardial infarctions and stent thrombosis. DES using biodegradable polymers for drug release represent the next technological modification and preliminary results are favorable and demonstrate similar angiographic and clinical efficacy as first-generation DES, but only longer term follow-up and investigation in larger patient cohorts will determine whether their use is associated with improved long-term safety. Fully bioabsorbable stents represent another innovative approach. Whether this innovative concept will enter into clinical routine remains yet to be determined.

Five-Year Clinical and Angiographic Outcomes of a Randomized Comparison of Sirolimus-Eluting and Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents: Results of the Sirolimus-Eluting Versus Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents for Coronary Revascularization LATE Trial

Background—Long-term comparative data of first-generation drug-eluting stents are scarce. We investigated clinical and angiographic outcomes of sirolimus-eluting (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) at 5 years as part of the Sirolimus-Eluting Versus Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents for Coronary Revascularization (SIRTAX) LATE study. Methods and Results—A total of 1012 patients were randomly assigned to SES or PES. Repeat angiography was completed in 444 of 1012 patients (43.8%) at 5 years. Major adverse cardiac events occurred in 19.7% of SES- and 21.4% of PES-treated patients (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.68 to 1.17; P=0.39) at 5 years. There were no differences between SES and PES in terms of cardiac death (5.8% versus 5.7%; P=0.35), myocardial infarction (6.6% versus 6.9%; P=0.51), and target lesion revascularization (13.1% versus 15.1%; P=0.29). Between 1 and 5 years, the annual rate of target lesion revascularization was 2.0% (95% confidence interval, 1.4% to 2.6%) for SES and 1.4% (95% confidence interval, 0.9% to 2.0%) for PES. Among patients undergoing paired angiography at 8 months and 5 years, delayed lumen loss amounted to 0.37±0.73 mm for SES and 0.29±0.59 mm for PES (P=0.32). The overall rate of definite stent thrombosis was 4.6% for SES and 4.1% for PES (P=0.74), and very late definite stent thrombosis occurred at an annual rate of 0.65% (95% confidence interval, 0.40% to 0.90%). Conclusions—Long-term follow-up of first-generation drug-eluting stents shows no significant differences in clinical and angiographic outcomes between SES and PES. The continuous increase in late lumen loss in conjunction with the ongoing risk of very late stent thrombosis suggests that vascular healing remains incomplete up to 5 years after implantation of first-generation drug-eluting stents.

Long-term comparison of everolimus-eluting and sirolimus-eluting stents for coronary revascularization

Objectives This study sought to compare the unrestricted use of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) with sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Background It is unclear whether there are differences in safety and efficacy between EES and SES during long-term follow-up. Methods Using propensity score matching, clinical outcome was compared among 1,342 propensity score–matched pairs of patients treated with EES and SES. The primary outcome was a composite of death, MI, and target vessel revascularization. Results The median follow-up was 1.5 years with a maximum of 3 years. The primary outcome occurred in 14.9% of EES- and 18.0% of SES-treated patients up to 3 years (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.83, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.68 to 1.00, p = 0.056). All-cause mortality (6.0% vs. 6.5%, HR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.68 to 1.25, p = 0.59) was similar, risks of myocardial infarction (MI) (3.3% vs. 5.0%, HR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.42 to 0.92, p = 0.017), and target vessel revascularization (7.0% vs. 9.6%, HR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.57 to 0.99, p = 0.039) were lower with EES than SES. Definite stent thrombosis (ST) (HR: 0.30, 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.75, p = 0.01) was less frequent among patients treated with EES. The reduced rate of MI with EES was explained in part by the lower risk of definite ST and the corresponding decrease in events associated with ST (HR: 0.25, 95% CI: 0.08 to 0.75, p = 0.013). Conclusions The unrestricted use of EES appears to be associated with improved clinical long-term outcome compared with SES. Differences in favor of EES are driven in part by a lower risk of MI associated with ST.

Sirolimus versus paclitaxel coronary stents in clinical practice

Objectives: We aimed at comparing the long term clinical outcome of SES and PES in routine clinical practice. Background: Although sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) more effectively reduce neointimal hyperplasia than paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES), uncertainty prevails whether this difference translates into differences in clinical outcomes outside randomized controlled trials with selected patient populations and protocol-mandated angiographic follow-up. Methods: Nine hundred and four consecutive patients who underwent implantation of a drug-eluting stent between May 2004 and February 2005: 467 patients with 646 lesions received SES, 437 patients with 600 lesions received PES. Clinical follow-up was obtained at 2 years without intervening routine angiographic follow-up. The primary endpoint was a composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), or target vessel revascularization (TVR). Results: At 2 years, the primary endpoint was less frequent with SES (12.9%) than PES (17.6%, HR = 0.70, 95% CI 0.50–0.98, P = 0.04). The difference in favor of SES was largely driven by a lower rate of target lesion revascularisation (TLR; 4.1% vs. 6.9%, P = 0.05), whereas rates of death (6.4% vs. 7.6%, P = 0.49), MI (1.9% vs. 3.2%, P = 0.21), or definite stent thrombosis (0.6% vs. 1.4%, P = 0.27) were similar for both stent types. The benefit regarding reduced rates of TLR was significant in nondiabetic (3.6% vs. 7.1%, P = 0.04) but not in diabetic patients (5.6% vs. 6.1%, P = 0.80). Conclusions: SES more effectively reduced the need for repeat revascularization procedures than PES when used in routine clinical practice. The beneficial effect is maintained up to 2 years and may be less pronounced in diabetic patients.

Long-term clinical outcomes of biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stents versus durable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents in patients with coronary artery disease (LEADERS): 4 year follow-up of a randomised non-inferiority trial

Background The effectiveness of durable polymer drug-eluting stents comes at the expense of delayed arterial healing and subsequent late adverse events such as stent thrombosis (ST). We report the 4 year follow-up of an assessment of biodegradable polymer-based drug-eluting stents, which aim to improve safety by avoiding the persistent inflammatory stimulus of durable polymers. Methods We did a multicentre, assessor-masked, non-inferiority trial. Between Nov 27, 2006, and May 18, 2007, patients aged 18 years or older with coronary artery disease were randomly allocated with a computer-generated sequence to receive either biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stents (BES) or durable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (SES; 1:1 ratio). The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or clinically-indicated target vessel revascularisation (TVR); patients were followed-up for 4 years. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00389220. Findings 1707 patients with 2472 lesions were randomly allocated to receive either biodegradable polymer BES (857 patients, 1257 lesions) or durable polymer SES (850 patients, 1215 lesions). At 4 years, biodegradable polymer BES were non-inferior to durable polymer SES for the primary endpoint: 160 (18·7%) patients versus 192 (22·6%) patients (rate ratios [RR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·66–1·00, p for non-inferiority <0·0001, p for superiority=0·050). The RR of definite ST was 0·62 (0·35–1·08, p=0·09), which was largely attributable to a lower risk of very late definite ST between years 1 and 4 in the BES group than in the SES group (RR 0·20, 95% CI 0·06–0·67, p=0·004). Conversely, the RR of definite ST during the first year was 0·99 (0·51–1·95; p=0·98) and the test for interaction between RR of definite ST and time was positive (pinteraction=0·017). We recorded an interaction with time for events associated with ST but not for other events. For primary endpoint events associated with ST, the RR was 0·86 (0·41–1·80) during the first year and 0·17 (0·04–0·78) during subsequent years (pinteraction=0·049). Interpretation Biodegradable polymer BES are non-inferior to durable polymer SES and, by reducing the risk of cardiac events associated with very late ST, might improve long-term clinical outcomes for up to 4 years compared with durable polymer SES. Funding Biosensors Europe SA, Switzerland.

Comparison of titanium-nitride-oxide-coated stents with zotarolimus-eluting stents for coronary revascularization a randomized controlled trial

Objectives This study sought to compare the efficacy of passive stent coating with titanium-nitride-oxide (TiNO) with drug-eluting stents releasing zotarolimus (ZES) (Endeavor, Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minnesota). Background Stent coating with TiNO has been shown to reduce restenosis compared with bare-metal stents in experimental and clinical studies. Methods In an assessor-blind noninferiority study, 302 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention were randomized to treatment with TiNO or ZES. The primary endpoint was in-stent late loss at 6 to 8 months, and analysis was by intention to treat. Results Both groups were well balanced with respect to baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics. The TiNO group failed to reach the pre-specified noninferiority margin for the primary endpoint (in-stent late loss: 0.64 ± 0.61 mm vs. 0.47 ± 0.48 mm, difference: 0.16, upper 1-sided 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.26; pnoninferiority = 0.54), and subsequent superiority testing was in favor of ZES (psuperiority = 0.02). In-segment binary restenosis was lower with ZES (11.1%) than with TiNO (20.5%; psuperiority = 0.04). A stratified analysis of the primary endpoint found particularly pronounced differences between stents among diabetic versus nondiabetic patients (0.90 ± 0.69 mm vs. 0.39 ± 0.38 mm; pinteraction = 0.04). Clinical outcomes showed a similar rate of death (0.7% vs. 0.7%; p = 1.00), myocardial infarction (5.3% vs. 6.7%; p = 0.60), and major adverse cardiac events (21.1% vs. 18.0%, hazard ratio: 1.19, 95% CI: 0.71 to 2.00; p = 0.50) at 1 year. There were no differences in rates of definite or probable stent thrombosis (0.7% vs. 0%; p = 0.51) at 1 year. Conclusions Compared with TiNO, ZES was superior with regard to late loss and binary restenosis. The concept of passive stent coating with TiNO remains inferior to drug-eluting stent technology in reducing restenosis. ([TIDE] Randomized Trial Comparing Titan Stent With Zotarolimus-Eluting Stent: NCT00492908)

Two-year clinical follow-up from the randomized comparison of biolimus-eluting stents with biodegradable polymer and sirolimus-eluting stents with durable polymer in routine clinical practice

Objectives This study sought to investigate safety and efficacy of biolimus-eluting stents (BES) with biodegradable polymer as compared with sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) with durable polymer through 2 years of follow-up. Background BES with a biodegradable polymer provide similar efficacy and safety as SES with a durable polymer at 9 months. Clinical outcomes beyond the period of biodegradation of the polymer used for drug release and after discontinuation of dual antiplatelet therapy are of particular interest. Methods A total of 1,707 patients were randomized to unrestricted use of BES (n = 857) or SES (n = 850) in an all-comers patient population. Results At 2 years, BES remained noninferior compared with SES for the primary endpoint, which was a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or clinically indicated target vessel revascularization (BES 12.8% vs. SES 15.2%, hazard ratio [HR]: 0.84, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.65 to 1.08, pnoninferiority < 0.0001, psuperiority = 0.18). Rates of cardiac death (3.2% vs. 3.9%, HR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.49 to 1.35, p = 0.42), myocardial infarction (6.3% vs. 5.6%, HR: 1.12, 95% CI: 0.76 to 1.65, p = 0.56), and clinically indicated target vessel revascularization (7.5% vs. 8.6%, HR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.62 to 1.20, p = 0.38) were similar for BES and SES. The rate of definite stent thrombosis through 2 years was 2.2% for BES and 2.5% for SES (p = 0.73). For the period between 1 and 2 years, event rates for definite stent thrombosis were 0.2% for BES and 0.5% for SES (p = 0.42). After discontinuation of dual antiplatelet therapy, no very late definite stent thrombosis occurred in the BES group. Conclusions At 2 years of follow-up, the unrestricted use of BES with a biodegradable polymer maintained a similar safety and efficacy profile as SES with a durable polymer. (Limus Eluted From a Durable Versus Erodable Stent Coating [LEADERS]; NCT00389220)

Delayed coverage in malapposed and side-branch struts with respect to well-apposed struts in drug-eluting stents: in vivo assessment with optical coherence tomography

Background—Pathology studies on fatal cases of very late stent thrombosis have described incomplete neointimal coverage as common substrate, in some cases appearing at side-branch struts. Intravascular ultrasound studies have described the association between incomplete stent apposition (ISA) and stent thrombosis, but the mechanism explaining this association remains unclear. Whether the neointimal coverage of nonapposed side-branch and ISA struts is delayed with respect to well-apposed struts is unknown. Methods and Results—Optical coherence tomography studies from 178 stents implanted in 99 patients from 2 randomized trials were analyzed at 9 to 13 months of follow-up. The sample included 38 sirolimus-eluting, 33 biolimus-eluting, 57 everolimus-eluting, and 50 zotarolimus-eluting stents. Optical coherence tomography coverage of nonapposed side-branch and ISA struts was compared with well-apposed struts of the same stent by statistical pooled analysis with a random-effects model. A total of 34 120 struts were analyzed. The risk ratio of delayed coverage was 9.00 (95% confidence interval, 6.58 to 12.32) for nonapposed side-branch versus well-apposed struts, 9.10 (95% confidence interval, 7.34 to 11.28) for ISA versus well-apposed struts, and 1.73 (95% confidence interval, 1.34 to 2.23) for ISA versus nonapposed side-branch struts. Heterogeneity of the effect was observed in the comparison of ISA versus well-apposed struts (H=1.27; I2=38.40) but not in the other comparisons. Conclusions—Coverage of ISA and nonapposed side-branch struts is delayed with respect to well-apposed struts in drug-eluting stents, as assessed by optical coherence tomography.

Impact of body mass index on the five-year outcome of patients having percutaneous coronary interventions with drug-eluting stents

The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of body mass index (BMI) on clinical outcome of patients treated by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using drug-eluting stents. Patients were stratified according to BMI as normal (<25 kg/m(2)), overweight (25 to 30 kg/m(2)), or obese (>30 kg/m(2)). At 5-year follow-up all-cause death, myocardial infarction, clinically justified target vessel revascularization (TVR), and definite stent thrombosis were assessed. A complete dataset was available in 7,427 patients, of which 45%, 22%, and 33% were classified according to BMI as overweight, obese, and normal, respectively. Mean age of patients was significantly older in those with a normal BMI (p <0.05). Incidence of diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and dyslipidemia increased as BMI increased (p <0.05). Significantly higher rates of TVR (15.3% vs 12.8%, p = 0.02) and early stent thrombosis (1.5% vs 0.9%, p = 0.04) were observed in the obese compared to the normal BMI group. No significant difference among the 3 BMI groups was observed for the composite of death/myocardial infarction/TVR or for definite stent thrombosis at 5 years, whereas the normal BMI group was at higher risk for all-cause death at 5 years (obese vs normal BMI, hazard ratio 0.74, confidence interval 0.53 to 0.99, p = 0.05; overweight vs normal BMI, hazard ratio 0.73, confidence interval 0.59 to 0.94, p = 0.01) in the multivariate Cox proportional hazard model. Age resulted in a linearly dependent covariate with BMI in the all-cause 5-year mortality multivariate model (p = 0.001). In conclusion, the "obesity paradox" observed in 5-year all-cause mortality could be explained by the higher rate of elderly patients in the normal BMI group and the existence of colinearity between BMI and age. However, obese patients had a higher rate of TVR and early stent thrombosis and a higher rate of other risk factors such as diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and hypercholesterolemia.