Thin Composite-Wire-Strut Zotarolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Ultrathin-Strut Sirolimus-Eluting Stents in BIONYX at 2 Years.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess 2-year safety and efficacy of the current-generation thin composite-wire-strut durable-polymer Resolute Onyx zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES), compared with the ultrathin-strut biodegradable-polymer Orsiro sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) in all-comers and a pre-specified small-vessel subgroup analysis. BACKGROUND: The Resolute Onyx ZES is widely used in clinical practice, but no follow-up data beyond 1 year have been published. The randomized BIONYX (Bioresorbable Polymer-Coated Orsiro Versus Durable Polymer-Coated Resolute Onyx Stents) trial (NCT02508714) established the noninferiority of ZES versus SES regarding target vessel failure (TVF) rates. METHODS: A total of 2,488 all-comer patients were treated at 7 coronary intervention centers in Belgium, Israel, and the Netherlands. The main endpoint, TVF, was a composite of safety (cardiac death or target vessel-related myocardial infarction) and efficacy (clinically indicated target vessel revascularization). Two-year follow-up data were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier methods. RESULTS: Two-year follow-up data were available for 2,460 of 2,488 patients (98.9%). TVF occurred in 93 of 1,243 patients (7.6%) assigned to ZES versus 87 of 1,245 patients (7.1%) assigned to SES (log-rank p = 0.66). There was no significant between-stent difference in individual components of this endpoint. The incidence of definite-or-probable stent thrombosis was low for both treatment arms (0.4% vs. 1.1%; log-rank p = 0.057). In patients stented in small vessels, there was no between-stent difference (TVF 8.2% vs. 8.7% [log-rank p = 0.75], target lesion revascularization 4.0% vs. 4.4% [log-rank p = 0.77]). CONCLUSIONS: At 2-year follow-up, the novel thin composite-wire-strut durable-polymer Resolute Onyx ZES showed in all-comers similar safety and efficacy compared with the ultrathin cobalt-chromium-strut biodegradable-polymer Orsiro SES. The analysis of patients who were treated in small vessels also suggested no advantage for either stent.

5-Year Outcome Following Randomized Treatment of All-Comers With Zotarolimus-Eluting Resolute Integrity and Everolimus-Eluting PROMUS Element Coronary Stents: Final Report of the DUTCH PEERS (TWENTE II) Trial.

OBJECTIVES: The study sought to evaluate for the first time the 5-year outcomes after treating an all-comers population with newer-generation cobalt chromium-based Resolute Integrity zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZES) (Medtronic, Santa Rosa, California) versus platinum chromium-based PROMUS Element everolimus eluting stents (EES) (Boston Scientific, Natick, Massachusetts). BACKGROUND: The DUTCH PEERS (TWENTE II) (DUrable polymer-based sTent CHallenge of Promus ElemEnt versus ReSolute integrity: TWENTE II) trial is a randomized, multicenter, single-blinded, investigator-initiated all-comers trial that found at its main analysis similar 1-year safety and efficacy for both drug-eluting stents. It is the first randomized trial ever to investigate the Resolute Integrity ZES and the first trial to compare both devices. METHODS: In total, 1,811 patients were 1:1 randomized to ZES versus EES. We performed a pre-specified assessment of the 5-year clinical outcomes in terms of safety and efficacy. The main endpoint target vessel failure (TVF) is a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization. Secondary endpoints included the individual components of TVF, and stent thrombosis. The study was independently monitored, and adverse clinical events were independently adjudicated. RESULTS: Five-year clinical follow-up data was available in 1,798 (99.3%) patients. The ZES and EES groups showed favorable outcomes, with similar 5-year incidence of TVF (13.2% vs. 14.2%; plog-rank = 0.62) and its individual components: cardiac death (4.5% vs. 4.9%; plog-rank = 0.69), target vessel-related myocardial infarction (3.1% vs. 2.6%; plog-rank = 0.47), and target vessel revascularization (7.6% vs. 8.6%; plog-rank = 0.46). The 5-year incidence of definite or probable stent thrombosis was similar (1.5% vs. 1.3%; plog-rank = 0.83). CONCLUSIONS: At 5-year follow-up, the Resolute Integrity ZES and PROMUS Element EES showed similar and sustained results in terms of safety and efficacy for treating a broad population of all-comers.

Small-vessel treatment with contemporary newer-generation drug-eluting coronary stents in all-comers: Insights from 2-year DUTCH PEERS (TWENTE II) randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of lesions in small vessels was associated with worse clinical outcome, and various definitions of "small vessels" have been used. Data with novel drug-eluting stents are scarce. METHODS: To compare the outcome of patients with vs without small-vessel treatment, we assessed 2-year follow-up data of the DUTCH PEERS randomized trial (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01331707), in which 1,811 all-comers were treated with contemporary zotarolimus-eluting (Resolute Integrity) or everolimus-eluting (Promus Element) stents. Primary end point was target lesion failure (TLF), a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization. RESULTS: The rates of TLF (9.5% vs 5.4%; P log rank = .001) and 2 individual components thereof-target vessel myocardial infarction (3.1% vs 1.3%; P log rank = .006) and target lesion revascularization (4.8% vs 2.8%; P log rank = .02)-were higher among 798 (44.1%) patients treated in at least one small vessel (<2.50 mm by quantitative coronary angiography). Multivariate analysis with propensity score adjustment demonstrated that treatment of small-vessel lesions independently predicted TLF at 2-year follow-up (hazard ratio 1.60, 95% CI 1.09-2.34). Patients with the smallest target vessel being <2.25 mm had TLF rates similar to patients with smallest target vessels of 2.25 to <2.50 mm; however, patients treated in vessels no smaller than 2.50 to <3.00 mm and patients treated in vessels ≥3.00 mm had lower TLF rates (9.3%, 9.8%, 5.0%, and 5.8%, respectively; P log rank = .009). CONCLUSION: Patients treated with novel drug-eluting stents in small-vessel lesions had higher adverse event rates than did patients who had no small-vessel treatment. Our data suggest that with current stents, a vessel diameter <2.50 mm is a suitable threshold to identify small target vessels.

Bifurcation treatment with novel, highly flexible drug-eluting coronary stents in all-comers: 2-year outcome in patients of the DUTCH PEERS trial.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in bifurcated lesions with second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) was associated with increased myocardial infarction (MI) rates. Flexible stent designs that accommodate well to vessel tapering may be of benefit in challenging anatomies such as bifurcated target lesions, but so far data are scarce. METHODS: We analyzed the 2-year follow-up data of the DUTCH PEERS (TWENTE II) trial, which randomized 1811 all-comer patients to PCI with newer generation resolute integrity zotarolimus-eluting (Medtronic) or promus element everolimus-eluting stents (Boston Scientific). In bifurcated lesions, provisional stenting was generally performed. Target vessel failure is a composite endpoint, consisting of cardiac death, target vessel MI, or target vessel revascularization. RESULTS: Patients with at least one bifurcated lesion (n = 465, 25.7 %) versus patients with non-bifurcated target lesions only (n = 1346, 74.3 %) showed similar rates of clinical endpoints including target vessel failure (9.2 versus 7.9 %, p = 0.36) and definite stent thrombosis (0.4 versus 1.0 %, p = 0.38). Target vessel MI was more common in patients with bifurcated lesions (3.4 versus 1.6 %, p = 0.02); but after multivariate analysis with propensity score adjustment, bifurcation treatment was found not to be an independent predictor of target vessel MI (HR 1.40, 95 % CI 0.71-2.76; p = 0.34). Among patients with bifurcated lesions, DES type and side-branch size did not affect outcome, but periprocedural MI occurred more often after two-stent approaches (9.0 versus 2.1 %; p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: All-comer patients treated for bifurcated and non-bifurcated target lesions showed similar and low rates of clinical endpoints, suggesting that the DES used are efficacious and safe for treating bifurcated target lesions.

Third-generation zotarolimus-eluting and everolimus-eluting stents in all-comer patients requiring a percutaneous coronary intervention (DUTCH PEERS): a randomised, single-blind, multicentre, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Third-generation, permanent-polymer-based drug-eluting stents with novel, flexible designs might be more easily delivered than previous generations of stents in complex coronary lesions, but might be less longitudinally stable. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy in all-comer patients of two third-generation stents that are often used clinically, but that have not yet been compared, and one of which has not previously been assessed in a randomised trial. METHODS: In this investigator-initiated, single-blind, multicentre, randomised, two-arm, non-inferiority trial, patients aged 18 years and older who required a percutaneous coronary intervention with implantation of a drug-eluting stent were recruited from four study sites in the Netherlands. We randomly assigned patients by independently managed computer-generated allocation sequences in a 1:1 ratio to receive either cobalt-chromium-based zotarolimus-eluting stents (Resolute Integrity, Medtronic, Santa Rosa, CA, USA) or platinum-chromium-based everolimus-eluting stents (Promus Element, Boston Scientific, Natick, MA, USA). Patients and analysts were masked to the allocated stent, but treating clinicians were not. The primary endpoint of target-vessel failure was a composite of safety (cardiac death or target-vessel-related myocardial infarction) and efficacy (target-vessel revascularisation) at 12 months, analysed by intention to treat (with a non-inferiority margin of 3·6%). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01331707. FINDINGS: Between Nov 25, 2010, and May 24, 2012, 1811 eligible all-comer patients, with 2371 target lesions, were enrolled in the study. 370 (20%) patients presented with ST-elevation myocardial infarction and 447 (25%) with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction. 906 patients were assigned to receive zotarolimus-eluting stents and 905 to receive everolimus-eluting stents. Ease of stent delivery was shown by very low numbers of patients requiring treatment other than their assigned study treatment (six [1%] in the zotarolimus-eluting stent group vs five [1%] in the everolimus-eluting stent group; p=0·22). 12-month follow-up results were available for 1810 patients (one patient in the zotarolimus-eluting stent group withdrew consent). The primary endpoint was met by 55 (6%) of 905 patients in the zotarolimus-eluting stent group and 47 (5%) of 905 in the everolimus-eluting stent group. The zotarolimus-eluting stent was non-inferior to the everolimus-eluting stent (absolute risk difference 0·88%, 95% CI -1·24% to 3·01%; upper limit of one-sided 95% CI 2·69%; non-inferiority p=0·006). We noted no significant between-group differences in individual components of the primary endpoint. Definite stent thrombosis occurred in three (0·3%) patients in the zotarolimus-eluting stent group and six (0·7%) patients in the everolimus-eluting stent group (p=0·34). Longitudinal stent deformation was seen only in the everolimus-eluting stent group (nine [1·0%] of 905 vs 0 of 906, p=0·002; nine of 1591 [0·6%] everolimus-eluting stents implanted became deformed), but was not associated with any adverse events. INTERPRETATION: Both stents were similarly efficacious and safe, and provided excellent clinical outcomes, especially in view of the large number of patients who presented with acute myocardial infarctions. FUNDING: Boston Scientific, Medtronic.