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

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 stent (BP-SES) 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 followup 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. DP-EES 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

Two-year longitudinal evaluation of a second-generation thin-strut sirolimus-eluting bioresorbable coronary scaffold with hybrid cell design in porcine coronary arteries

Background: The first commercially available bioresorbable scaffold (BRS) had a strut thickness of 156 microns. As such, it had the potential for delivery challenges and higher thrombogenicity. The aim herein, is to evaluate biomechanical performance, pharmacokinetics and vascular healing of a novel thin strut (100 μm) sirolimus eluting BRS (MeRes-100, Meril Life Sciences, Gujarat, India) against the once clinically used BRS (Absorb BVS, Abbott, Santa Clara, CA) in porcine coronary arteries. Methods: Following device implantation, angiographic and optical coherence tomography (OCT) evaluation were performed at 45, 90, 180 days, 1 year and 2 years. Histological evaluation was per­formed at 30, 90 and 180 days. Results: At 2 years, both lumen (MeRes-100 7.07 ± 1.82 mm2 vs. Absorb BVS 7.57 ± 1.39 mm2, p = NS) and scaffold areas (MeRes-100 9.73 ± 1.80 mm2 vs. Absorb BVS 9.67 ± 1.25 mm2, p = NS) were comparable between tested and control scaffolds. Also, the late lumen area gain at 2 years was similar in both groups tested (MeRes-100 1.03 ± 1.98 mm2 vs. Absorb BVS 0.85 ± 1.56 mm2, p = NS). Histologic examination up to 6 months showed comparable healing and inflammation profiles for both devices. Conclusions: The novel sirolimus-eluting BRS with thinner struts and hybrid cell design showed similar biomechanical durability and equivalent inhibition of neointimal proliferation when compared to the first-ever Absorb BVS up to 2 years in normal porcine coronary arteries

Role of Lipid-Lowering and Anti-Inflammatory Therapies on Plaque Stabilization

Atherosclerosis is the predominant underlying etiopathology of coronary artery disease. Changes in plaque phenotype from stable to high risk may spur future major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Different pharmacological therapies have been implemented to mitigate this risk. Over the last two decades, intravascular imaging modalities have emerged in clinical studies to clarify how these therapies may affect the composition and burden of coronary plaques. Lipid-lowering agents, such as statins, ezetimibe, and proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors, were shown not only to reduce low-density lipoprotein levels and MACE but also to directly affect features of coronary plaque vulnerability. Studies have demonstrated that lipid-lowering therapy reduces the percentage of atheroma volume and number of macrophages and increases fibrous cap thickness. Future studies should answer the question of whether pharmacological plaque stabilization may be sufficient to mitigate the risk of MACE for selected groups of patients with atherosclerotic coronary disease.</p