Twelve-month comparative analysis of clinical outcomes using biodegradable polymer-coated everolimus-eluting stents versus durable polymer-coated everolimus-eluting stents in all-comer patients.

AIM: The purpose of the present study was to examine whether clinical differences exist between the biodegradable polymer (BDP)-coated Tetrilimus everolimus-eluting stent (EES) and the durable polymer (DP)-coated Xience EES by comparing the major adverse cardiac event (MACE) rate at 12 months in all-comer patients. METHODS: This study was designed as a multicentre, observational, retrospective, investigator-initiated study between January 2016 and October 2016. Two hundred thirteen patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with the BDP-EES were compared with 204 patients who underwent PCI with the DP-EES, irrespective of lesion complexity, comorbidities and acute presentation. The primary end point was MACE defined as a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction and target lesion revascularization. RESULTS: Baseline clinical and lesion characteristics of both the groups were similar, although the BDP-EES group had a significantly higher number of patients with diabetes mellitus (39.9% vs. 30.4%; p = 0.042) and type C lesion (67.4% vs. 48.1%; p < 0.001) than the DP-EES group. The 12-month MACE rate was 4.2% for the BDP-EES group versus 4.9% for the DP-EES group (p = 0.740). Mortality was lower in the BDP-EES group than in the DP-EES group (0.9% vs. 2.0%; p = 0.441). CONCLUSION: The present comparative analysis shows that the BDP-coated Tetrilimus EES was as safe and effective as the DP-coated Xience EES during the 12-month follow-up period despite complex lesion characteristics.

Clinical outcomes in 995 unselected real-world patients treated with an ultrathin biodegradable polymer-coated sirolimus-eluting stent: 12-month results from the FLEX Registry.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate, in the FLEX Registry, clinical outcomes of an ultrathin (60 µm) biodegradable polymer-coated Supraflex sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) for the treatment of coronary artery disease. Additionally, to determine the vascular response to the Supraflex SES through optical coherence tomography (OCT) analysis. SETTING: Multicentre, single-arm, all-comers, observational registry of patients who were treated with the Supraflex SES, between July 2013 and May 2014, at nine different centres in India. PARTICIPANTS: 995 patients (1242 lesions) who were treated with the Supraflex SES, between July 2013 and May 2014, at nine different centres in India. A total of 47 participants underwent OCT analysis at 6 months' follow-up. INTERVENTIONS: Percutaneous coronary intervention with Supraflex SES, PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary endpoint-the rate of major adverse cardiac events (defined as a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularisation (TLR))-was analysed during 12 months. RESULTS: At 12 months, the primary endpoint occurred in 36 (3.7%) of 980 patients, consisting of 18 (1.8%) cardiac deaths, 16 (1.6%) MI, 7 (0.7%) TLR and 2 (0.2%) cases of non-target lesion target vessel revascularization. In a subset of 47 patients, 1227 cross-sections (9309 struts) were analysed at 6 months by OCT. Overall, a high percentage of struts was covered (98.1%), with a mean neointimal thickness of 0.13 ± 0.06 µm. CONCLUSIONS: The FLEX Registry evaluated clinical outcomes in real-world and more complex cohorts and thus provides evidence that the Supraflex SEX can be used safely and routinely in a broader percutaneous coronary intervention population. Also, the Supraflex SES showed high percentage of stent strut coverage and good stent apposition during OCT follow-up.