Does the use of polymer-free drug eluting stents improve clinical outcomes of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions?
Journal
Coronary artery disease
ISSN: 1473-5830
Titre abrégé: Coron Artery Dis
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9011445
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 08 2022
01 08 2022
Historique:
entrez:
26
7
2022
pubmed:
27
7
2022
medline:
28
7
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Implantation of drug eluting stents (DES) is the mainstay treatment for patients requiring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The polymer coating of DES has been associated with inflammatory response, increased arterial injury and long-term in-stent restenosis and thrombosis. Polymer-free stents (PFS) were designed to overcome limitations of polymer-coated stents (PCS). Our aim was to compare clinical outcomes of patients undergoing PCI with PFS versus contemporary PCS. This is a prospective, open-label registry study enrolling consecutive all-comers patients admitted to a single center and undergoing PCI using contemporary DES. Clinical outcomes were compared between patients treated with PFS and PCS. The primary endpoint was target lesion revascularization (TLR) at 12 months. Subgroup analyses were conducted for diabetic and nondiabetic patients. Overall, 1664 patients were included: 928 (55.8%) of which were treated with PFS and 736 (44.2%) with PCS for 2046 and 1462 lesions, respectively. At 12 months, TLR rates were not significantly different between the groups (1.7% vs. 2.3% for PFS and PCS, respectively, P = 0.48). The use of PFS did not improve clinical outcomes among diabetic patients in comparison with PCS. Target vessel revascularization and major adverse cardiac events rates were also similar between groups, regardless of diabetes status. Newer generation DES offer excellent results in diabetic and nondiabetic patients without significant differences in outcomes between PCS and PFS.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Implantation of drug eluting stents (DES) is the mainstay treatment for patients requiring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The polymer coating of DES has been associated with inflammatory response, increased arterial injury and long-term in-stent restenosis and thrombosis. Polymer-free stents (PFS) were designed to overcome limitations of polymer-coated stents (PCS). Our aim was to compare clinical outcomes of patients undergoing PCI with PFS versus contemporary PCS.
METHODS
This is a prospective, open-label registry study enrolling consecutive all-comers patients admitted to a single center and undergoing PCI using contemporary DES. Clinical outcomes were compared between patients treated with PFS and PCS. The primary endpoint was target lesion revascularization (TLR) at 12 months. Subgroup analyses were conducted for diabetic and nondiabetic patients.
RESULTS
Overall, 1664 patients were included: 928 (55.8%) of which were treated with PFS and 736 (44.2%) with PCS for 2046 and 1462 lesions, respectively. At 12 months, TLR rates were not significantly different between the groups (1.7% vs. 2.3% for PFS and PCS, respectively, P = 0.48). The use of PFS did not improve clinical outcomes among diabetic patients in comparison with PCS. Target vessel revascularization and major adverse cardiac events rates were also similar between groups, regardless of diabetes status.
CONCLUSION
Newer generation DES offer excellent results in diabetic and nondiabetic patients without significant differences in outcomes between PCS and PFS.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35880559
doi: 10.1097/MCA.0000000000001143
pii: 00019501-202208000-00003
doi:
Substances chimiques
Polymers
0
Sirolimus
W36ZG6FT64
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
354-361Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Références
Marroquin OC, Selzer F, Mulukutla SR, Williams DO, Vlachos HA, Wilensky RL, et al. A comparison of bare-metal and drug-eluting stents for off-label indications. N Engl J Med. 2008; 358:342–352.
Sarno G, Lagerqvist B, Fröbert O, Nilsson J, Olivecrona G, Omerovic E, et al. Lower risk of stent thrombosis and restenosis with unrestricted use of ‘new-generation’ drug-eluting stents: a report from the nationwide Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry (SCAAR). Eur Heart J. 2012; 33:606–613.
Piccolo R, Bonaa KH, Efthimiou O, Varenne O, Baldo A, Urban P, et al.; Coronary Stent Trialists’ Collaboration. Drug-eluting or bare-metal stents for percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials. Lancet. 2019; 393:2503–2510.
Finn AV, Nakazawa G, Joner M, Kolodgie FD, Mont EK, Gold HK, Virmani R. Vascular responses to drug eluting stents: importance of delayed healing. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2007; 27:1500–1510.
Virmani R, Guagliumi G, Farb A, Musumeci G, Grieco N, Motta T, et al. Localized hypersensitivity and late coronary thrombosis secondary to a sirolimus-eluting stent. Circulation. 2004; 109:701–705.
Carrié D, Berland J, Verheye S, Hauptmann KE, Vrolix M, Violini R, et al. A multicenter randomized trial comparing amphilimus- with paclitaxel-eluting stents in de novo native coronary artery lesions. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012; 59:1371–1376.
Urban P, Meredith IT, Abizaid A, Pocock SJ, Carrié D, Naber C, et al.; LEADERS FREE Investigators. Polymer-free drug-coated coronary stents in patients at high bleeding risk. N Engl J Med. 2015; 373:2038–2047.
Kufner S, Ernst M, Cassese S, Joner M, Mayer K, Colleran R, et al.; ISAR-TEST-5 Investigators. 10-year outcomes from a randomized trial of polymer-free versus durable polymer drug-eluting coronary stents. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020; 76:146–158.
Romaguera R, Gómez-Hospital JA, Gomez-Lara J, Brugaletta S, Pinar E, Jiménez-Quevedo P, et al. A randomized comparison of reservoir-based polymer-free amphilimus-eluting stents versus everolimus-eluting stents with durable polymer in patients with diabetes mellitus: the RESERVOIR clinical trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016; 9:42–50.
Rozemeijer R, Stein M, Voskuil M, van den Bor R, Frambach P, Pereira B, et al. Randomized all-comers evaluation of a permanent polymer zotarolimus-eluting stent versus a polymer-free amphilimus-eluting stent. Circulation. 2019; 139:67–77.
Schumi J, Wittes JT. Through the looking glass: understanding non-inferiority. Trials. 2011; 12:106.
Verdoia M, Kedhi E, Suryapranata H, Galasso G, Dudek D, De Luca G. Polymer-free vs. polymer-coated drug-eluting stents for the treatment of coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis of 16 randomized trials. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2020; 21:745–753.
Chen Y, Fan J, Chen G, Cao L, Lu L, Xu Y, et al. Polymer-free drug-eluting stents versus permanent polymer drug-eluting stents. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019; 98:e15217
Nogic J, Thein P, Mirzaee S, Comella A, Soon K, Cameron JD, et al. Biodegradable-polymer versus polymer-free drug-eluting stents for the treatment of coronary artery disease. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2019; 20:865–870.
Thygesen K, Alpert JS, Jaffe AS, Chaitman BR, Bax JJ, Morrow DA, et al. Fourth universal definition of myocardial infarction (2018). Circulation. 2018; 138:e618–e651.
Cutlip DE, Windecker S, Mehran R, Boam A, Cohen DJ, van Es GA, et al. Clinical end points in coronary stent trials. Circulation. 2007; 115:2344–2351.
Kastrati A, Schömig A, Elezi S, Dirschinger J, Mehilli J, Schühlen H, et al. Prognostic value of the modified American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Stenosis Morphology Classification for long-term angiographic and clinical outcome after coronary stent placement. Circulation. 1999; 100:1285–1290.
Rizas KD, Mehilli J. Stent polymers. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2016; 9:e002943.
Virmani R, Liistro F, Stankovic G, Di Mario C, Montorfano M, Farb A, et al. Mechanism of late in-stent restenosis after implantation of a paclitaxel derivate–eluting polymer stent system in humans. Circulation. 2002; 106:2649–2651.
Kazi DS, Leong TK, Chang TI, Solomon MD, Hlatky MA, Go AS. Association of spontaneous bleeding and myocardial infarction with long-term mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015; 65:1411–1420.
Chen W, Habraken TC, Hennink WE, Kok RJ. Polymer-free drug-eluting stents: an overview of coating strategies and comparison with polymer-coated drug-eluting stents. Bioconjug Chem. 2015; 26:1277–1288.
Chiarito M, Sardella G, Colombo A, Briguori C, Testa L, Bedogni F, et al. Safety and efficacy of polymer-free drug-eluting stents. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2019; 12:e007311.
Godino C, Pivato CA, Chiarito M, Donahue M, Testa L, Colantonio R, et al.; Italian Nobori Stent ProspectIve REgistry-1 (INSPIRE-1) and AmphilimuS iTalian mUlticenTre rEgistry (ASTUTE) Investigators. Polymer-free amphilimus-eluting stent versus biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stent in patients with and without diabetes mellitus. Int J Cardiol. 2017; 245:69–76.
Costa RA, Abizaid A, Mehran R, Schofer J, Schuler GC, Hauptmann KE, et al.; BioFreedom FIM Clinical Trial Investigators. Polymer-free biolimus A9-coated stents in the treatment of De Novo coronary lesions: 4- and 12-month angiographic follow-up and final 5-year clinical outcomes of the prospective, multicenter BioFreedom FIM clinical trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016; 9:51–64.
Hong SJ, Kim MH, Ahn TH, Ahn YK, Bae JH, Shim WJ, et al. Multiple predictors of coronary restenosis after drug-eluting stent implantation in patients with diabetes. Heart. 2006; 92:1119–1124.
Konigstein M, Ben-Yehuda O, Smits PC, Love MP, Banai S, Perlman GY, et al. Outcomes among diabetic patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with contemporary drug-eluting stents: analysis from the BIONICS randomized trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2018; 11:2467–2476.
Naber CK, Urban P, Ong PJ, Valdes-Chavarri M, Abizaid AA, Pocock SJ, et al.; LEADERS FREE Investigators. Biolimus-A9 polymer-free coated stent in high bleeding risk patients with acute coronary syndrome: a Leaders Free ACS sub-study. Eur Heart J. 2017; 38:961–969.
Abizaid A, Costa JR. New drug-eluting stents. Circ Cardiovas Interv. 2010; 3:384–393.