open access

Ahead of print
Research paper
Published online: 2019-12-09
Get Citation

Biodegradable polymer-coated thin strut sirolimus-eluting stent vs. durable polymer-coated everolimus-eluting stent in the diabetic population

Paweł Gasior, Marek Gierlotka, Krzysztof Szczurek-Katanski, Marcin Osuch, Magda Roleder, Michał Hawranek, Wojciech Wojakowski, Lech Polonski
DOI: 10.5603/CJ.a2019.0111
·
Pubmed: 31909473

open access

Ahead of print
Original articles
Published online: 2019-12-09

Abstract

Background: The number of patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) presenting with coronary artery disease is increasing and accounts for more than 30% of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). The biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents were developed to improve vascular healing. It was sought herein, to determine 1-year clinical follow-up in patients with DM treated with the thin strut biodegradable polymer-coated sirolimus-eluting (BP-SES) stent versus durable coating everolimus-eluting stent (DP-EES). Methods: Patients were retrospectively analyzed with DM were treated with either a BP-SES (ALEX™, Balton, Poland, n = 670) or a DP-EES (XIENCE™, Abbott, USA, n = 884) with available 1 year clinical follow-up using propensity score matching. Outcomes included target vessel revascularization (TVR) as efficacy outcome and all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and definite/probable stent thrombosis as safety outcomes. Results: After propensity score matching 527 patients treated with BP-SES and 527 patients treated with DP-EES were selected. Procedural and clinical characteristics were similar between both groups. In-hospital mortality was 3.23% in BP-SES vs. 2.09% in DP-EES group (p = 0.25). One-year follow-up demonstrated comparable efficacy outcome TVR (BP-SES 6.64% vs. DP-EES 5.88%; p = 0.611), as well as similar safety outcomes of all-cause death (BP-SES 10.06% vs. DP-EES 7.59%; p = 0.158), myocardial infarction (BP-SES 7.959% vs. 6.83%; p = 0.813), and definite/probable stent thrombosis (BP-SES 1.14% vs. DP-EES 0.76%; p = 0.525). Conclusions: The thin-strut biodegradable polymer coated, sirolimus-eluting stent demonstrated comparable clinical outcomes at 1-year after implantation to DP-EES. These data support the relative safety and efficacy of BP-SES in diabetic patients undergoing PCI.

Abstract

Background: The number of patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) presenting with coronary artery disease is increasing and accounts for more than 30% of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). The biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents were developed to improve vascular healing. It was sought herein, to determine 1-year clinical follow-up in patients with DM treated with the thin strut biodegradable polymer-coated sirolimus-eluting (BP-SES) stent versus durable coating everolimus-eluting stent (DP-EES). Methods: Patients were retrospectively analyzed with DM were treated with either a BP-SES (ALEX™, Balton, Poland, n = 670) or a DP-EES (XIENCE™, Abbott, USA, n = 884) with available 1 year clinical follow-up using propensity score matching. Outcomes included target vessel revascularization (TVR) as efficacy outcome and all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and definite/probable stent thrombosis as safety outcomes. Results: After propensity score matching 527 patients treated with BP-SES and 527 patients treated with DP-EES were selected. Procedural and clinical characteristics were similar between both groups. In-hospital mortality was 3.23% in BP-SES vs. 2.09% in DP-EES group (p = 0.25). One-year follow-up demonstrated comparable efficacy outcome TVR (BP-SES 6.64% vs. DP-EES 5.88%; p = 0.611), as well as similar safety outcomes of all-cause death (BP-SES 10.06% vs. DP-EES 7.59%; p = 0.158), myocardial infarction (BP-SES 7.959% vs. 6.83%; p = 0.813), and definite/probable stent thrombosis (BP-SES 1.14% vs. DP-EES 0.76%; p = 0.525). Conclusions: The thin-strut biodegradable polymer coated, sirolimus-eluting stent demonstrated comparable clinical outcomes at 1-year after implantation to DP-EES. These data support the relative safety and efficacy of BP-SES in diabetic patients undergoing PCI.

Get Citation

Keywords

drug-eluting stents, percutaneous coronary intervention, diabetes mellitus

About this article
Title

Biodegradable polymer-coated thin strut sirolimus-eluting stent vs. durable polymer-coated everolimus-eluting stent in the diabetic population

Journal

Cardiology Journal

Issue

Ahead of print

Article type

Research paper

Published online

2019-12-09

DOI

10.5603/CJ.a2019.0111

Pubmed

31909473

Keywords

drug-eluting stents
percutaneous coronary intervention
diabetes mellitus

Authors

Paweł Gasior
Marek Gierlotka
Krzysztof Szczurek-Katanski
Marcin Osuch
Magda Roleder
Michał Hawranek
Wojciech Wojakowski
Lech Polonski

References (33)
  1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Diabetes Statistics Report: Estimates of Diabetes and Its Burden in the United States, 2014. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2014.
  2. Orasanu G, Plutzky J. The pathologic continuum of diabetic vascular disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009; 53(5 Suppl): S35–S42.
  3. Rask-Madsen C, King GL. Mechanisms of Disease: endothelial dysfunction in insulin resistance and diabetes. Nat Clin Pract Endocrinol Metab. 2007; 3(1): 46–56.
  4. Farkouh M, Domanski M, Sleeper L, et al. Strategies for Multivessel Revascularization in Patients with Diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2012; 367(25): 2375–2384.
  5. Räber L, Magro M, Stefanini GG, et al. Very late coronary stent thrombosis of a newer-generation everolimus-eluting stent compared with early-generation drug-eluting stents: a prospective cohort study. Circulation. 2012; 125(9): 1110–1121.
  6. Stefanini GG, Windecker S. Stent thrombosis: no longer an issue with newer-generation drug-eluting stents? Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2012; 5(3): 332–335.
  7. Dores H, Raposo L, Campante Teles R, et al. Stent thrombosis with second- versus first-generation drug-eluting stents in real-world percutaneous coronary intervention: analysis of 3806 consecutive procedures from a large-volume single-center prospective registry. J Invasive Cardiol. 2013; 25(7): 330–336.
  8. Naidu SS, Krucoff MW, Rutledge DR, et al. Contemporary incidence and predictors of stent thrombosis and other major adverse cardiac events in the year after XIENCE V implantation: results from the 8,061-patient XIENCE V United States study. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2012; 5(6): 626–635.
  9. Nakazawa G, Otsuka F, Nakano M, et al. The pathology of neoatherosclerosis in human coronary implants bare-metal and drug-eluting stents. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011; 57(11): 1314–1322.
  10. Park SJ, Kang SJ, Virmani R, et al. In-stent neoatherosclerosis: a final common pathway of late stent failure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012; 59(23): 2051–2057.
  11. Räber L, Kelbæk H, Ostojic M, et al. Effect of biolimus-eluting stents with biodegradable polymer vs bare-metal stents on cardiovascular events among patients with acute myocardial infarction: the COMFORTABLE AMI randomized trial. JAMA. 2012; 308(8): 777–787.
  12. Stefanini GG, Byrne RA, Serruys PW, et al. Biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents reduce the risk of stent thrombosis at 4 years in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a pooled analysis of individual patient data from the ISAR-TEST 3, ISAR-TEST 4, and LEADERS randomized trials. Eur Heart J. 2012; 33(10): 1214–1222.
  13. Palmerini T, Biondi-Zoccai G, Della Riva D, et al. Clinical outcomes with bioabsorbable polymer- versus durable polymer-based drug-eluting and bare-metal stents: evidence from a comprehensive network meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014; 63(4): 299–307.
  14. Kip KE, Faxon DP, Detre KM, et al. Coronary angioplasty in diabetic patients. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty Registry. Circulation. 1996; 94(8): 1818–1825.
  15. Gasior P, Gierlotka M, Szczurek-Katanski K, et al. Bioresorbable polymer-coated thin strut sirolimus-eluting stent vs durable polymer-coated everolimus-eluting stent in daily clinical practice: Propensity matched one-year results from interventional cardiology network registry. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2019; 93(7): E362–E368.
  16. Gąsior P, Gierlotka M, Szczurek-Katanski K, et al. Safety and efficacy of biodegradable polymer-coated thin strut sirolimus-eluting stent vs. durable polymer-coated everolimus-eluting stent in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Postepy Kardiol Interwencyjnej. 2018; 14(4): 347–355.
  17. Thygesen K, Alpert JS, Jaffe AS, et al. Third universal definition of myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J. 2012; 33(20): 2551–2567.
  18. Cutlip DE, Windecker S, Mehran R, et al. Academic Research Consortium. Clinical end points in coronary stent trials: a case for standardized definitions. Circulation. 2007; 115(17): 2344–2351.
  19. Preis SR, Hwang SJ, Coady S, et al. Trends in all-cause and cardiovascular disease mortality among women and men with and without diabetes mellitus in the Framingham Heart Study, 1950 to 2005. Circulation. 2009; 119(13): 1728–1735.
  20. Fang J, Alderman MH. Impact of the increasing burden of diabetes on acute myocardial infarction in New York City: 1990-2000. Diabetes. 2006; 55(3): 768–773.
  21. Flaherty JD, Davidson CJ. Diabetes and coronary revascularization. JAMA. 2005; 293(12): 1501–1508.
  22. Sabaté M, Jiménez-Quevedo P, Angiolillo DJ, et al. Randomized comparison of sirolimus-eluting stent versus standard stent for percutaneous coronary revascularization in diabetic patients: the diabetes and sirolimus-eluting stent (DIABETES) trial. Circulation. 2005; 112(14): 2175–2183.
  23. Woods TC. Dysregulation of the mammalian target of rapamycin and p27Kip1 promotes intimal hyperplasia in diabetes mellitus. Pharmaceuticals (Basel). 2013; 6(6): 716–727.
  24. Dangas GD, Claessen BE, Caixeta A, et al. In-stent restenosis in the drug-eluting stent era. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010; 56(23): 1897–1907.
  25. Nakazawa G, Nakano M, Otsuka F, et al. Evaluation of polymer-based comparator drug-eluting stents using a rabbit model of iliac artery atherosclerosis. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2011; 4(1): 38–46.
  26. Kang SJ, Lee CW, Song H, et al. OCT analysis in patients with very late stent thrombosis. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013; 6(6): 695–703.
  27. Lupi A, Gabrio Secco G, Rognoni A, et al. Meta-analysis of bioabsorbable versus durable polymer drug-eluting stents in 20,005 patients with coronary artery disease: an update. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2014; 83(6): E193–E206.
  28. Endothelial dysfunction in diabetes mellitus. Vasc Health Risk Manag. 2007; 3(6): 853–876.
  29. Kaul U, Bhagwat A, Pinto B, et al. Paclitaxel-eluting stents versus everolimus-eluting coronary stents in a diabetic population: two-year follow-up of the TUXEDO-India trial. EuroIntervention. 2017; 13(10): 1194–1201.
  30. Christiansen EH, Jensen LO, Thayssen P, et al. Biolimus-eluting biodegradable polymer-coated stent versus durable polymer-coated sirolimus-eluting stent in unselected patients receiving percutaneous coronary intervention (SORT OUT V): a randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2013; 381(9867): 661–669.
  31. Stefanini GG, Byrne RA, Serruys PW, et al. Biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents reduce the risk of stent thrombosis at 4 years in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a pooled analysis of individual patient data from the ISAR-TEST 3, ISAR-TEST 4, and LEADERS randomized trials. Eur Heart J. 2012; 33(10): 1214–1222.
  32. Serruys PW, Farooq V, Kalesan B, et al. 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. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2013; 6(8): 777–789.
  33. Concato J, Shah N, Horwitz RI. Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs. N Engl J Med. 2000; 342(25): 1887–1892.

Important: This website uses cookies. More >>

The cookies allow us to identify your computer and find out details about your last visit. They remembering whether you've visited the site before, so that you remain logged in - or to help us work out how many new website visitors we get each month. Most internet browsers accept cookies automatically, but you can change the settings of your browser to erase cookies or prevent automatic acceptance if you prefer.

By "Via Medica sp. z o.o." sp.k., ul. Świętokrzyska 73, 80–180 Gdańsk, Poland
tel.:+48 58 320 94 94, fax:+48 58 320 94 60, e-mail: viamedica@viamedica.pl