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.

A feasibility study evaluating an in situ formed synthetic biodegradable membrane for guided bone regeneration in dogs

PURPOSE: The aim was (1) to evaluate the soft-tissue reaction of a synthetic polyethylene glycol (PEG) hydrogel used as a barrier membrane for guided bone regeneration (GBR) compared with a collagen membrane and (2) to test whether or not the application of this in situ formed membrane will result in a similar amount of bone regeneration as the use of a collagen membrane. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Tooth extraction and preparation of osseous defects were performed in the mandibles of 11 beagle dogs. After 3 months, 44 cylindrical implants were placed within healed dehiscence-type bone defects resulting in approximately 6 mm exposed implant surface. The following four treatment modalities were randomly allocated: PEG+autogenous bone chips, PEG+hydroxyapatite (HA)/tricalcium phosphate (TCP) granules, bioresorbable collagen membrane+autogenous bone chips and autogenous bone chips without a membrane. After 2 and 6 months, six and five dogs were sacrificed, respectively. A semi-quantitative evaluation of the local tolerance and a histomorphometric analysis were performed. For statistical analysis, repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) and subsequent pairwise Student's t-test were applied (P<0.05). RESULTS: No local adverse effects in association with the PEG compared with the collagen membrane was observed clinically and histologically at any time-point. Healing was uneventful and all implants were histologically integrated. Four out of 22 PEG membrane sites revealed a soft-tissue dehiscence after 1-2 weeks that subsequently healed uneventful. Histomorphometric measurement of the vertical bone gain showed after 2 months values between 31% and 45% and after 6 months between 31% and 38%. Bone-to-implant contact (BIC) within the former defect area was similarly high in all groups ranging from 71% to 82% after 2 months and 49% to 91% after 6 months. However, with regard to all evaluated parameters, the PEG and the collagen membranes did not show any statistically significant difference compared with sites treated with autogenous bone without a membrane. CONCLUSION: The in situ forming synthetic membrane made of PEG was safely used in the present study, revealing no biologically significant abnormal soft-tissue reaction and demonstrated similar amounts of newly formed bone for defects treated with the PEG membrane compared with defects treated with a standard collagen membrane.

Long-term outcomes of biodegradable polymer versus durable polymer drug-eluting stents in patients with diabetes a pooled analysis of individual patient data from 3 randomized trials

BACKGROUND There is ongoing debate on the optimal drug-eluting stent (DES) in diabetic patients with coronary artery disease. Biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents (BP-DES) may potentially improve clinical outcomes in these high-risk patients. We sought to compare long-term outcomes in patients with diabetes treated with biodegradable polymer DES vs. durable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (SES). METHODS We pooled individual patient-level data from 3 randomized clinical trials (ISAR-TEST 3, ISAR-TEST 4 and LEADERS) comparing biodegradable polymer DES with durable polymer SES. Clinical outcomes out to 4years were assessed. The primary end point was the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction and target-lesion revascularization. Secondary end points were target lesion revascularization and definite or probable stent thrombosis. RESULTS Of 1094 patients with diabetes included in the present analysis, 657 received biodegradable polymer DES and 437 durable polymer SES. At 4years, the incidence of the primary end point was similar with BP-DES versus SES (hazard ratio=0.95, 95% CI=0.74-1.21, P=0.67). Target lesion revascularization was also comparable between the groups (hazard ratio=0.89, 95% CI=0.65-1.22, P=0.47). Definite or probable stent thrombosis was significantly reduced among patients treated with BP-DES (hazard ratio=0.52, 95% CI=0.28-0.96, P=0.04), a difference driven by significantly lower stent thrombosis rates with BP-DES between 1 and 4years (hazard ratio=0.15, 95% CI=0.03-0.70, P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS In patients with diabetes, biodegradable polymer DES, compared to durable polymer SES, were associated with comparable overall clinical outcomes during follow-up to 4years. Rates of stent thrombosis were significantly lower with BP-DES.

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).

Long-term outcomes of biodegradable versus durable polymer drug-eluting stents in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a pooled analysis of individual patient data from three randomised trials

Aims: Arterial plaque rupture and thrombus characterise ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and may aggravate delayed arterial healing following durable polymer drug-eluting stent (DP-DES) implantation. Biodegradable polymer (BP) may improve biocompatibility. We compared long-term outcomes in STEMI patients receiving BP-DES vs. durable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (DP-SES). Methods and results: We pooled individual patient-level data from three randomised clinical trials (ISAR-TEST-3, ISAR-TEST-4 and LEADERS) comparing outcomes from BP-DES with DP-SES at four years. The primary endpoint (MACE) comprised cardiac death, MI, or target lesion revascularisation (TLR). Secondary endpoints were TLR, cardiac death or MI, and definite or probable stent thrombosis. Of 497 patients with STEMI, 291 received BP-DES and 206 DP-SES. At four years, MACE was significantly reduced following treatment with BP-DES (hazard ratio [HR] 0.59, 95% CI: 0.39-0.90; p=0.01) driven by reduced TLR (HR 0.54, 95% CI: 0.30-0.98; p=0.04). Trends towards reduction were seen for cardiac death or MI (HR 0.63, 95% CI: 0.37-1.05; p=0.07) and definite or probable stent thrombosis (3.6% vs. 7.1%; HR 0.49, 95% CI: 0.22-1.11; p=0.09). Conclusions: In STEMI, BP-DES demonstrated superior clinical outcomes to DP-SES at four years. Trends towards reduced cardiac death or myocardial infarction and reduced stent thrombosis require corroboration in specifically powered trials.